5 ms·

Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution, i.e. people voted to protect those rights. No one voted

by cm2187 4y ago

Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution, i.e. people voted to protect those rights. No one voted on abortion at the federal level. And abortion is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the baby. Now I find the religious view that a baby exists as soon the sperm touches the egg ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of a viable baby's life implied by calling it just a "medial procedure". The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe.

mattnewton 4y ago
Sure, and we need a federal law clarifying this to protect us against selective court interpretations of the 14th amendment, on that much we are in agreement. But that’s not what this decision is about, it is no coincidence that there are trigger laws across the country in anticipation of this, that even attempt to ban abortions in other states (the Texas law). States rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate and now Supreme Court. By any measure the functioning of the government is divorced from the will of the majority and this is a symptom of that. To celebrate it as returning powers to a democratic process is a crazy distraction to me in light of that.
entropicdrifter 4y ago
>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe Yeah, that's true, but there's also been a broad consensus in the US for federally legalizing (or even just decriminalizing) cannabis for well over a decade, and we haven't even managed to get that done due to the minority party overwhelmingly blocking even the most popular legislation if it goes even remotely against their moneyed interests. Just because there's broad support doesn't mean that it will happen. At this point the Rs are going to have to be thoroughly crushed in congressional elections for a while, like what happened in the 30s through 60s, if any popular legislation is going to be passed.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  We’re going to need a new-deal level mandate unfortunately and my understanding is that will has only been built off catastrophic events as large as two world wars and the Great Depression.
  - entropicdrifter 4y ago
    And keep in mind that was before Fox News/other right wing propaganda networks highjacked a third of the nation's critical thinking abilities with scare tactics and conspiracy nonsense.
    - soco 4y ago
      Basically they built already exactly those extraordinary events in the minds of their followers...
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    As long as D's continue to push unpopular initiatives like "racial equity" (reverse discrimination), banning gas cars, and increasing taxes to pay for social programs, they're never going to get a mandate. The reality is, whether you like it or not, even California rejected ultra left-wing "racial equity" initiatives at the ballot (Prop 16), people like their big gas cars that pollute the environment (or they can't afford a $50k EV/$30k hybrid and think D's are out of touch), and there is a widespread notion that the government is notoriously inefficient and incompetent. Agencies like the DMV and SSA don't exactly work to dispel that notion either. Where's the common sense stuff? Where's the stuff most people would vote for?
    - beckingz 4y ago
      I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got. There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment. Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.
kaba0 4y ago
I recently learned that being a kidney donor has lower fatality rates than birthing. With that in mind I absolutely can’t see any reason to override someone’s bodily autonomy on any reason whatsoever. The not hyperbolic analog would be to force someone to be a kidney donor in order to save a live (one who actually lived on the Earth for decades) - on which I’m fairly sure noone sane would agree.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Would you be willing to have an unwanted fetus transplanted into your body to carry it to term, and have all associated parental ties transferred to you
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Was that comment meant for me?
    - nomel 4y ago
      If you read around, you'll see that tribalism mode has fully engaged in many here. People aren't reading/thinking, all over in this comment section. Or, as the top level comment does, criticize those that are thinking about/being critical about certain aspects.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      It was, though I initially read your comment as suggesting that since kidney transplants were lower risk, that pregnancies should always be carried; missing the significant cost of carrying it out. On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. Though it’s not what I thought.
      - ABCLAW 4y ago
        >On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. The point was that since carrying a pregnancy to term has a higher risk profile than having an organ removed, a pregnancy should be voluntary in the same way we wouldn't coerce someone into giving up their kidney for someone else.
IX-103 4y ago
Tumorectomy is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the cancer. Now I find the religious view that a cancer exists as soon the cell starts replicating uncontrollably ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of the cancer's life implied by calling it just a "medical procedure". I think it's fine. The cancer is not able to survive in it's own and has a significant negative impact on the person carrying it. To make medical removal illegal even in cases where continuing to carry the cancer threatens the life of the one carrying it displays reckless disregard for their safety.
- Banana699 4y ago
  You would have a point if cancer had a heart and a brain and was observed to develop into a sentient being after 9 months. Or if cancer was the result of a deliberate and voluntary action that the vast crushing majority of people older than 15 years understand its inevitable consequences. Alas, none of that is true, and your remark can only win you a comfortable position in the mental gymnastics Olympics. And a 1st place in the moral bankruptcy competition, for comparing infants to a disease.
  - sanp 4y ago
    So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? There is a 3rd party to consider here and they are already living and breathing. So, blood or organ donations should be made mandatory. And if the argument is that the woman is responsible for getting pregnant then apply the above logic to a person you accidentally injured in a car accident. Now, anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.
    - Banana699 4y ago
      >anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved. Yes. >So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? If that someone being in risk was the inevitable biological result of your actions, then yes. You should be forced to save him/her. Because you put him/her there.
autoexec 4y ago
> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution until just now, the courts have repeatedly confirmed for several decades that abortion was protected at a federal level through the constitution.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level In many cases, like abortion until today, under the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, and in some cases building at least in part on Roe which was just overturned.

by cm2187 4y ago

mattnewton 4y ago

Sure, and we need a federal law clarifying this to protect us against selective court interpretations of the 14th amendment, on that much we are in agreement. But that’s not what this decision is about, it is no coincidence that there are trigger laws across the country in anticipation of this, that even attempt to ban abortions in other states (the Texas law). States rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate and now Supreme Court. By any measure the functioning of the government is divorced from the will of the majority and this is a symptom of that. To celebrate it as returning powers to a democratic process is a crazy distraction to me in light of that.

entropicdrifter 4y ago

>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe Yeah, that's true, but there's also been a broad consensus in the US for federally legalizing (or even just decriminalizing) cannabis for well over a decade, and we haven't even managed to get that done due to the minority party overwhelmingly blocking even the most popular legislation if it goes even remotely against their moneyed interests. Just because there's broad support doesn't mean that it will happen. At this point the Rs are going to have to be thoroughly crushed in congressional elections for a while, like what happened in the 30s through 60s, if any popular legislation is going to be passed.

mattnewton 4y ago
We’re going to need a new-deal level mandate unfortunately and my understanding is that will has only been built off catastrophic events as large as two world wars and the Great Depression.
- entropicdrifter 4y ago
  And keep in mind that was before Fox News/other right wing propaganda networks highjacked a third of the nation's critical thinking abilities with scare tactics and conspiracy nonsense.
  - soco 4y ago
    Basically they built already exactly those extraordinary events in the minds of their followers...
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  As long as D's continue to push unpopular initiatives like "racial equity" (reverse discrimination), banning gas cars, and increasing taxes to pay for social programs, they're never going to get a mandate. The reality is, whether you like it or not, even California rejected ultra left-wing "racial equity" initiatives at the ballot (Prop 16), people like their big gas cars that pollute the environment (or they can't afford a $50k EV/$30k hybrid and think D's are out of touch), and there is a widespread notion that the government is notoriously inefficient and incompetent. Agencies like the DMV and SSA don't exactly work to dispel that notion either. Where's the common sense stuff? Where's the stuff most people would vote for?
  - beckingz 4y ago
    I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.
hellojesus 4y ago
Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got. There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment. Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.

kaba0 4y ago

I recently learned that being a kidney donor has lower fatality rates than birthing. With that in mind I absolutely can’t see any reason to override someone’s bodily autonomy on any reason whatsoever. The not hyperbolic analog would be to force someone to be a kidney donor in order to save a live (one who actually lived on the Earth for decades) - on which I’m fairly sure noone sane would agree.

oneoff786 4y ago
Would you be willing to have an unwanted fetus transplanted into your body to carry it to term, and have all associated parental ties transferred to you
- kaba0 4y ago
  Was that comment meant for me?
  - nomel 4y ago
    If you read around, you'll see that tribalism mode has fully engaged in many here. People aren't reading/thinking, all over in this comment section. Or, as the top level comment does, criticize those that are thinking about/being critical about certain aspects.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    It was, though I initially read your comment as suggesting that since kidney transplants were lower risk, that pregnancies should always be carried; missing the significant cost of carrying it out. On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. Though it’s not what I thought.
    - ABCLAW 4y ago
      >On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. The point was that since carrying a pregnancy to term has a higher risk profile than having an organ removed, a pregnancy should be voluntary in the same way we wouldn't coerce someone into giving up their kidney for someone else.

IX-103 4y ago

Tumorectomy is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the cancer. Now I find the religious view that a cancer exists as soon the cell starts replicating uncontrollably ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of the cancer's life implied by calling it just a "medical procedure". I think it's fine. The cancer is not able to survive in it's own and has a significant negative impact on the person carrying it. To make medical removal illegal even in cases where continuing to carry the cancer threatens the life of the one carrying it displays reckless disregard for their safety.

Banana699 4y ago
You would have a point if cancer had a heart and a brain and was observed to develop into a sentient being after 9 months. Or if cancer was the result of a deliberate and voluntary action that the vast crushing majority of people older than 15 years understand its inevitable consequences. Alas, none of that is true, and your remark can only win you a comfortable position in the mental gymnastics Olympics. And a 1st place in the moral bankruptcy competition, for comparing infants to a disease.
- sanp 4y ago
  So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? There is a 3rd party to consider here and they are already living and breathing. So, blood or organ donations should be made mandatory. And if the argument is that the woman is responsible for getting pregnant then apply the above logic to a person you accidentally injured in a car accident. Now, anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    >anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved. Yes. >So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? If that someone being in risk was the inevitable biological result of your actions, then yes. You should be forced to save him/her. Because you put him/her there.

autoexec 4y ago

> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution until just now, the courts have repeatedly confirmed for several decades that abortion was protected at a federal level through the constitution.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level In many cases, like abortion until today, under the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, and in some cases building at least in part on Roe which was just overturned.