Re: framing the abortion debate
Defend or criticize: "Torturing children and killing unborn babies are both bad things for people to do."
Mod Note: this was excised from the "higher education" thread.
Is this similar to caring about unborn fetuses but not caring about kindergartners being shot in school?
Today is the 51st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
In Tennessee, a woman excited to grow her family was denied
a lifesaving abortion because a trigger ban had gone into effect.
As a result, she had to undergo an emergency hysterectomy — preventing her from ever having another child.
In Oklahoma, a mother of three learned that her pregnancy was
nonviable and had resulted in a rare cancer. Still, her doctors’ hands were tied.
She was told to wait in the parking lot for her condition to
deteriorate before she could get the medical help she needed.
In Florida, a hopeful mom-to-be’s water broke 16 weeks into her pregnancy.
She rushed to the emergency room. But the doctors could only
offer antibiotics, send her home, and promise to pray for her.
She lost half the blood in her body before she could get treatment and escape death.
This is the dangerous, daily reality of Americans living in the 21 states where
abortion rights have been restricted or abolished since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Donald Trump and the MAGA Republican Party have made their views clear:
They are proud to have denied health care to pregnant women,
and they intend to enact a nationwide ban on abortion
Today is the 51st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
In Tennessee, a woman excited to grow her family was denied
a lifesaving abortion because a trigger ban had gone into effect.
As a result, she had to undergo an emergency hysterectomy — preventing her from ever having another child.
In Oklahoma, a mother of three learned that her pregnancy was
nonviable and had resulted in a rare cancer. Still, her doctors’ hands
Please show me were Trump wants a complete ban ?
It’s a losing issue for the GOP . The majority of Americans want something like Europe or Canada 14-20 weeks .
When it’s on the state ballot the GOP has lost every time . I’m sure many rep wished it was never overturned but elections have consequences .
If Trump wins you could see another Supreme Court justice selection for Trump
Please show me were Trump wants a complete ban ?
It’s a losing issue for the GOP . The majority of Americans want something like Europe or Canada 14-20 weeks .
When it’s on the state ballot the GOP has lost every time . I’m sure many rep wished it was never overturned but elections have consequences .
If Trump wins you could see another Supreme Court justice selection for Trump
20 weeks doing a lot of work in your "majority of Americans" statement to try and squeeze in 14 which is an LOL no. 20 was around what ROE already was and where only something like 1% of abortions happen after that anyway.
Who could possibly expect southern states to pass complete abortion bans when bragging about appointing the judges that overturned Roe v Wade and the federal protection of privacy rights? The syncophants are now trying to disguise a lack of foresight as an intermediate stance?
An absolute majority of american adults wants abortion to be illegal from the second trimester (that's the 13-14 weeks cutoff), while a supermajority wants it legal in the first trimester (and easy at that, with pills), which is the european normal, median opinion as well
This is Gallup may 2023, after roe v wade reversal
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/amer...
Roe was "viability" (ability to live outside the womb) which was usually translated as 24+ weeks, which is roughly late/end of second trimester.
Roe allowed no question asked abortion at will at 22 weeks which is something that no country in europe allows afaik, no major party asks for in any european country afaik, which basically puts the democratic party to the left of basically every major leftist party in europe (and possibly the world) on this topic, by a large margin.
Oregon abortion rules are considered horrifying by the vast majority of european adults, to the point most people on the left literally don't believe those rules when you tell them, they don't believe a reasonable center left party (what they consider democrats to be, given their positions on many other topics) could write and enforce those rules.
Meanwhile the anti-abortionist extremists (approx 1 adult american in 8) which want NO exception abortion bans have no counterpart in europe as well afaik, and the roughly 1/3 american adult which wants very little abortion access (only with rare exceptions) only has the most extremist european parties as counterpart (ie rightwing parties in France and Italy for ex are ok with at-will first trimester abortion).
The "problem" of abortion has been basically solved in most places around the 70s , treating the fetus differently depending on development, treating it as "almost nothing" while still microscopic and far from being a "fully human life", while allowing exceptions for mother health and severe development problems later on acknowledging the more it grows the closer to a full human life deserving legal consideration it gets.
America is still at the "all or nothing" stage for a significant portion of the population, but the trend is clear there as well, european-like solutions are favoured by majorities/super majorities as per data provided.
Please show me were Trump wants a complete ban ?
It’s a losing issue for the GOP . The majority of Americans want something like Europe or Canada 14-20 weeks .
When it’s on the state ballot the GOP has lost every time . I’m sure many rep wished it was never overturned but elections have consequences .
If Trump wins you could see another Supreme Court justice selection for Trump
Trump flip flopped on the topic so many times in his public life , taking what he says as anything other than "what he thinks he gains by saying" would be a mistake.
That said, he recently insisted to be in favour of abortion only for rare exceptions, he said "mother life risk, rape, incest". So his most recent comment on the topic would make Trump against at-will abortion in the first trimester, for example.
An absolute majority of american adults wants abortion to be illegal from the second trimester (that's the 13-14 weeks cutoff), while a supermajority wants it legal in the first trimester (and easy at that, with pills), which is the european normal, median opinion as well
This is Gallup may 2023, after roe v wade reversal
.
we can argue polling if you want. 51% in AP-NORC supported abortion at 15 weeks in their polling in 2022, so an absolute majority of American adults wants abortion to be legal into the second trimester.
ohio had an actual election(not just polling) this past year to enshrine the protection to abortion up until "fetal viability" in their constitution which is akin to the Roe standard and it won with 57% of the vote. even after the republicans pulled multiple tricks to try and prevent it from happening and to move the election to a random off time.
even in states like oregon late term abortions are a boogeyman that the right uses in propaganda but rarely ever happens. in Oregon 89% of abortions happened in the first 12 weeks, while less than 1% occurred in the third trimester which is about the same nationally.
as a progressive i want the dems to push abortion to the forefront of every election they can in every state they can. if ohio can pass a state wide Roe than most other places probably can as well.
a total ban was always the plan
It was never about returning abortion decisions to
the states, as Kavanaugh wrote in his Dobbs opinion.
observers knew that Kavanaugh’s statement wasn’t true then
The next chapter, as we saw play out Friday, involves
using whatever legal tools are available to stop abortions.
The Trump judge’s opinion is full of anti-abortion rhetoric that’s in
lockstep with the fetal personhood movement — which promotes the
idea that a fetus has the same rights as a person, thus making abortion murder.
Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos
are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them.
At issue in this case was whether someone who mistakenly dropped
frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit.
The fact that the court’s decision included specific references to the Christian Bible
— in a country in which the government is supposed to be neutral on matters of faith
— made it that much more controversial.
I suppose alabama is anti woke , anti neutral gender etc too ?
So they probably enforce the notion that human is necessarily solely a man or woman and yet they define embryo with no sex development a human .
I suppose alabama is anti woke , anti neutral gender etc too ?
So they probably enforce the notion that human is necessarily solely a man or woman and yet they define embryo with no sex development a human .
The sex of a human being is determined by his 23th chromosome. That is already in place in an embryo
The sex of a human being is determined by his 23th chromosome. That is already in place in an embryo
missing the entire point as usual.
but to be technical it doesnt help u and the subject i cited because :
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4470128/
Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the fetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal estrogens and maleness develops.
so the concept of choosing identity through only the sex u are given is wrong since we all were a woman to begin with if we think your definition from the embryo stand .....
So choosing between a male of female is just a function of time and its up to the individual to choose what time frame he wishes to be identify with right ?
We are one step away from outlawing masturbation.
Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos
are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them.
At issue in this case was whether someone who mistakenly dropped
frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit.
The fact that the court’s decision included specific references to the Christian Bible
— in a country in which the government is supposed to be neutral on matters of faith
— made it that much more c
Finally, at least one positive thing has come out of the Dobbs decision.
Maybe all these people who thought their genes really need to be propagated will become better people and actually adopt a child in need of parents; there should be plenty of them available in Alabama by the end of the year, all those babies who would have been aborted.
Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos
are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them.
At issue in this case was whether someone who mistakenly dropped
frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit.
The fact that the court’s decision included specific references to the Christian Bible
— in a country in which the government is supposed to be neutral on matters of faith
— made i
It is really scary when judges reference religious text or invoke "gods will". Here is a quote from the Virginia trial judge who ruled that VAs law against interracial marriage was legal:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.'
The US supreme court ruled it, and thereby all other states laws against interracial marriages unconstitutional in 1967. Yet Alabama was the last state to remove the ban from their state constitution in 2000 by a 60-40 vote statewide vote on a constitutional amendment. So in 2000 40% of Alabama voters voted to leave this wording in the state constitution:
Article IV, Section 102 states, "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a negro, or descendant of a negro"
It is really scary when judges reference religious text or invoke "gods will". Here is a quote from the Virginia trial judge who ruled that VAs law against interracial marriage was legal:
The US supreme court ruled it, and thereby all other states laws against interracial marriages unconstitutional in 1967. Yet Alabama was the last state to remove the ban from their state constitution in 2000 by a 60-40 vote statewide vote on a constitutiona
It's awfully funny how that is the only expansion of marriage / reproductive rights ruling that Clarence Thomas agrees with, huh?
It's awfully funny how that is the only expansion of marriage / reproductive rights ruling that Clarence Thomas agrees with, huh?
Because Griswold (contraceptive bans for married couples are unconstitutional) and Lawrence (sodomy laws are unconstitutional) are predicated upon the invented "right to privacy" that the constitution doesn't have in a way that applies to what behaviors can be banned or enforced.
If such right actually existed vaccine mandates would be all unconstitutional, as well as drug consumption criminal laws.
The constitution only has a limited right to privacy for search and seizure.
While Loving (interracial marriage bans are unconstitutional) stems directly from the equal protection clause. And that's an enumerated right.
I thought you considered vaccine mandates unconstitutional anyway.
He also doesn't think the equal protection clause covers same-sex marriage.
Interracial marriage isn't protected by the constitution any more than same-sex marriage. Blacks always had the right to marry other blacks, just like gay men always had the right to marry a woman.
Because Griswold (contraceptive bans for married couples are unconstitutional) and Lawrence (sodomy laws are unconstitutional) are predicated upon the invented "right to privacy" that the constitution doesn't have in a way that applies to what behaviors can be banned or enforced.
If such right actually existed vaccine mandates would be all unconstitutional, as well as drug consumption criminal laws.
The constitution only has a limited right t
Not quite correct. The Loving court found the Virginia ban of interracial marriage unconstitutional under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th amendment, where the penumbra of privacy rights found in the bill of rights can be applied to the states.
PRIMARY HOLDING
A unanimous Court struck down state laws banning marriage between individuals of different races, holding that these anti-miscegenation statutes violated both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
...
II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
The penumbra of privacy rights comes from the 1,4,5 amendments. The first amendment is normally used for the concept of privacy if thought and to be left alone by the govt. The search and seizure clause of the 4th is used to imply a person has a right to privacy in his home.
Not that Thomas is the finest legal scholar, but I doubt he holds the opinion that this distinction between Loving and Griswold is meaningful given his concurrence in Dobbs.
Not quite correct. The Loving court found the Virginia ban of interracial marriage unconstitutional under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th amendment, where the penumbra of privacy rights found in the bill of rights can be applied to the states.
PRIMARY HOLDING
A unanimous Court struck down state laws banning marriage between individuals of different races, holding that these anti-miscegenation statutes vio
Thomas thinks the due process is misapplied and Kagan agress btw that IF Dobbs is properly decided, then Griswold and Lawrence have to go as well (which is why the 3 dissenters in Dobbs were scared about future prospects).
Fact is Loving can stay as it is even under equal protection alone, unlike the other 2 which rely entirely on due process.
In the USA? no they are clearly constitutional, at the state level (jacob v massachusetts)
And they would be at the federal level if congress passed an explicit law to that purpose.
The federal vaccine mandates passed during covid have the problem of delegation which is a different problem.
They were passed by the executive using very generic and open-ended acts from decades prior which vaguely delegated a lot of power to various agencies, that's the problem not the idea that, unfortunately, you don't own your body under the federal constitution and the federal and state governments (barring state constitutions saying the opposite) can decide what you can or can't do , or what you have to do, with your body.
He also doesn't think the equal protection clause covers same-sex marriage.
Interracial marriage isn't protected by the constitution any more than same-sex marriage. Blacks always had the right to marry other blacks, just like gay men always had the right to marry a woman.
It can be (depending on , you know, opinions). Remember that applying equal protection under Loving was predicated on race being a "suspect case" requiring strict scrutiny.
So Obergefell was about "is sexual preference a protected class like race is?". 5 judges said yes, 4 said no, basically.
Thomas thinks the due process is misapplied and Kagan agress btw that IF Dobbs is properly decided, then Griswold and Lawrence have to go as well (which is why the 3 dissenters in Dobbs were scared about future prospects).
Fact is Loving can stay as it is even under equal protection alone, unlike the other 2 which rely entirely on due process.
Fact is the dissenters also expressed concerns about Loving and marriage issues because fact - marriage is not an enumerated right. Only Thomas left the case off his list.
