Jump to content

What pissed you off today? v.2


Mara
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Rhyta said:

I assume you're talking about the leaked opinion in Dobbs?  That's not exactly what's in front of the Supreme Court, or what that decision (if it indeed ends up as the majority opinion) would do.

 

They wouldn't be nullifying a law in the way I think you mean, because they're being asked whether a Mississippi law is constitutional or not. 

 

If they rule Roe was decided incorrectly (as the draft says in the first paragraph) then that does nullify it and renders it unconstitutional. That was the whole point of Dobbs to see if the Court will gut Roe.

 

Roe was enacted in at time when 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally.   So how will going backward be a good thing?  What if a woman lives in a state where they have trigger laws in place to outlaw abortion outright when Roe is thrown out?

 

I know this topic is close to SOCN material, so I will leave it here.  But if they can unilaterally overrule 49 years of precedent (after vowing they believed it settled law) then what other cases are on the chopping block? 

My point was that overturning a decision isn't, "nullifying a law," because Roe isn't, "a law."  It's an interpretation of constitutional text.  That's what has created the confusion.  There is no specific legal authority for the decision, it was what 7 (men, I might add) decided the phrase "due process of law," encompasses.

 

As I said, my state has already passed a law that abortions before 24 weeks can never be prohibited.  That was passed after Roe.   Other states are free to draw that same line.  Or a different one upon which its citizens decide.

 

Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the "separate but equal," regime, was decided in 1896.  It wasn't overturned until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.  That was 58 years of precedent.  I hope we can agree that the length of time a decision has stood has no relation to whether it was correct when handed down.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Withdrawing a right is a radical step, and even though you may live in a state that has protected a woman's right to choose that doesn't negate the harm to the other states this opinion would bring about. I live in a state with a trigger law in place to make sure it is illegal once Roe is overturned.

 

5 of these Justices said they accepted Roe as settled law, so now they don't?   I see no logical reason for this shift except that they have the votes and can do it.  

 

Brown v Board of Education redressed a wrong to a class of citizens, this opinion will take a right away with callous disregard for the damage such a ruling will create.  I remain angry at this travesty.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Dobbs decision is handed down materially consistent with the February draft, the result will be that abortion will no longer be an issue for the federal government to address.  The 9th Amendment provides that, "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The 10th Amendment provides, that, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  So the states are free to codify any other rights their citizens deem appropriate.  The people of MA undoubtedly have a different view of abortion than the people of MS.  I don't think it's radical to acknowledge that the cultures are different.

 

I agree that the confirmation process has been damaged by Roe.  Conservative nominees have been asked for almost 50 years to state unequivocally that they will not overturn Roe.  It was not until RBG's confirmation hearing that a nominee was permitted to say they would not comment on an issue that might come before the court.  Overturning Roe will do away with this theater, because no nominee to the federal bench is going to be asked to opine on an issue left to the states.  Nominees aren't asked their view on legalized gambling.

 

For the last few years we've heard a lot about the importance of democracy.  We also hear that a majority of Americans do not want abortion prohibited.  I find it a little odd that we're hearing both of these things at the same time we're hearing that the people of MA (24 weeks) can't vote to have a different line drawn than the people of MS (15 weeks).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rhyta said:

Withdrawing a right is a radical step, and even though you may live in a state that has protected a woman's right to choose that doesn't negate the harm to the other states this opinion would bring about. I live in a state with a trigger law in place to make sure it is illegal once Roe is overturned.

 

5 of these Justices said they accepted Roe as settled law, so now they don't?   I see no logical reason for this shift except that they have the votes and can do it.  

 

Brown v Board of Education redressed a wrong to a class of citizens, this opinion will take a right away with callous disregard for the damage such a ruling will create.  I remain angry at this travesty.

Dobbs will redress a wrong (or at least allow legislatures to address a wrong) to a class of humans (I can't say citizens because the legal system has defined them as not worthy of being citizens, which should give one pause to think about what exactly one is defending), and stop the callous disregard for the damage Roe has created.   I remain hopeful that millions of lives will be saved by this fortuitous development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2022 at 4:14 PM, laughedatbytime said:

Dobbs will redress a wrong (or at least allow legislatures to address a wrong) to a class of humans (I can't say citizens because the legal system has defined them as not worthy of being citizens, which should give one pause to think about what exactly one is defending), and stop the callous disregard for the damage Roe has created.   I remain hopeful that millions of lives will be saved by this fortuitous development.

Redress a wrong?  By systematically ripping away a right and then saying too bad when so many lives are going to be disrupted.  Not only the women but their families who may not be able to afford another child or if there are health complications.  This is the equivalent of the dog licking your face and pissing on your leg at the same time.  The Court can spare me their phony compassion.

Edited by Rhyta
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rhyta said:

Redress a wrong?  By systematically ripping away a right and then saying too bad when so many lives are going to be disrupted.  Not only the women but their families who may not be able to afford another child or if there are health complications.  This is the equivalent of the dog licking your face and pissing on your leg at the same time.  The Court can spare me their phony compassion.

The right that's been ripped away is the right to life of the unborn child that was lost when the court in 1973 made up a competing right out of whole cloth.

 

And 60 million lives have been disrupted, by termination, in the last 50 years.

 

You bring up "not being able to afford another child".   First of all, the mother can put the baby up for adoption.  Secondly, who determines this and on what basis is the decision made?   I don't think the pro abortion side would be OK with a means test, they want abortion at any time for any reason, no restrictions (which at least has the advantage of being internally consistent).   Thirdly, for example, there's a shortage of baby formula right now, which leads to inflated prices.   Someone with a three month old might not be able to afford the extra cost.  Should she have the choice to kill the child, after all, she can't afford it?   And from the perspective of the one whose life's at risk, they're just in a different stage of development, why does a woman's "right to choose" end there?   The unaffordability argument goes right out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

The right that's been ripped away is the right to life of the unborn child that was lost when the court in 1973 made up a competing right out of whole cloth.

 

And 60 million lives have been disrupted, by termination, in the last 50 years.

 

You bring up "not being able to afford another child".   First of all, the mother can put the baby up for adoption.  Secondly, who determines this and on what basis is the decision made?   I don't think the pro abortion side would be OK with a means test, they want abortion at any time for any reason, no restrictions (which at least has the advantage of being internally consistent).   Thirdly, for example, there's a shortage of baby formula right now, which leads to inflated prices.   Someone with a three month old might not be able to afford the extra cost.  Should she have the choice to kill the child, after all, she can't afford it?   And from the perspective of the one whose life's at risk, they're just in a different stage of development, why does a woman's "right to choose" end there?   The unaffordability argument goes right out the window.

 

What about if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant because of that? A completely random attack that she had no control over. Should she still go through with an unwanted pregnancy because of the horrible actions of some piece of shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J2112YYZ said:

 

What about if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant because of that? A completely random attack that she had no control over. Should she still go through with an unwanted pregnancy because of the horrible actions of some piece of shit?

That's a tougher call.  In the end, my view is that you don't compound one tragedy with another by killing the unborn child due to the circumstances of its conception.  The child then should be have first claim on every asset the shit bag rapist has for the rest of his pathetic life.

 

I had another comment but will ask you this first...what percentage of abortions do you think were performed on pregnancies resulting from rape or incest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

That's a tougher call.  In the end, my view is that you don't compound one tragedy with another by killing the unborn child due to the circumstances of its conception.  The child then should be have first claim on every asset the shit bag rapist has for the rest of his pathetic life.

 

I had another comment but will ask you this first...what percentage of abortions do you think were performed on pregnancies resulting from rape or incest?

 

That's not a bad idea IF they find out who the rapist is. Which would be very tough if the woman didn't know her attacker. I don't even have a guess as to what percentage was performed because of rape or incest. I'm not sure how anyone could know for sure since those numbers probably aren't reported accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J2112YYZ said:

 

That's not a bad idea IF they find out who the rapist is. Which would be very tough if the woman didn't know her attacker. I don't even have a guess as to what percentage was performed because of rape or incest. I'm not sure how anyone could know for sure since those numbers probably aren't reported accurately.

I do agree that the percentage of rape or incest numbers are not reported accurately and it could be understated significantly but the Guttmacher Institute which is aligned with Planned Parenthood has published a number I've seen quoted a few times.   Care to guess?  I'll be glad to share if you'd prefer not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

I do agree that the percentage of rape or incest numbers are not reported accurately and it could be understated significantly but the Guttmacher Institute which is aligned with Planned Parenthood has published a number I've seen quoted a few times.   Care to guess?  I'll be glad to share if you'd prefer not to.

 

You can just tell me. I really have no idea what the number could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J2112YYZ said:

 

You can just tell me. I really have no idea what the number could be.

About 1.5%

 

a28e0b20-fe3a-447a-a45f-98d798613719-052

I've read, though I haven't been able to find a citation for it, that the average respondent to surveys erroneously believe believe that the number is closer to 30%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

About 1.5%

 

a28e0b20-fe3a-447a-a45f-98d798613719-052

I've read, though I haven't been able to find a citation for it, that the average respondent to surveys erroneously believe believe that the number is closer to 30%.

 

Some women don't even report being raped due to how traumatic it is. So, the real percentage will never be known. I don't think people thinking it's 30 percent is crazy though. I think there's a lot of people out there who have never gone through the situation and really believe most abortions are because the person got pregnant during a sexual assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J2112YYZ said:

 

Some women don't even report being raped due to how traumatic it is. So, the real percentage will never be known. I don't think people thinking it's 30 percent is crazy though. I think there's a lot of people out there who have never gone through the situation and really believe most abortions are because the person got pregnant during a sexual assault.

I'll give you understated.  Understated by a factor of 20 strains credulity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

About 1.5%

 

a28e0b20-fe3a-447a-a45f-98d798613719-052

I've read, though I haven't been able to find a citation for it, that the average respondent to surveys erroneously believe believe that the number is closer to 30%.

 

4 minutes ago, J2112YYZ said:

 

Some women don't even report being raped due to how traumatic it is. So, the real percentage will never be known. I don't think people thinking it's 30 percent is crazy though. I think there's a lot of people out there who have never gone through the situation and really believe most abortions are because the person got pregnant during a sexual assault.

Look at you guys discussing this as rational people, with no foaming at the mouth.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnRogers said:

 

Look at you guys discussing this as rational people, with no foaming at the mouth.

Yes, I appreciate the civil nature of the debate.  It's always better when disingenuous people aren't inserting disingenuous points into the discussion.

 

Kudos, J2112YYZ!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2022 at 1:20 AM, Rhyta said:

Like I said, quoting texts about witchcraft doesn't sound like reasonable legal grounds to remove 49 years of precedent.  And as of today one Mitch McConnell has stated he would be willing to push for a FEDERAL ban on abortion if Roe is overturned.  That's a great way to calm hysterical feelings isn't it?

On top of that, they claim they're pro life but won't get the shot since dear leader says, "SCIENCE man BAD because HE don't KISS my RING" and because of that the virus has infected and killed pregnant women.  You can't be pro life and anti vax as well as pro Orange Bin Laden, simple as forking that.  And dear leader killed babies Sicknick and Heyer the way Manson killed Tate and others through his followers.  Who's the baby killers now?

 

muWR5Yz.gif

Edited by invisible airwave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, invisible airwave said:

On top of that, they claim they're pro life but won't get the shot since dear leader says, "SCIENCE man BAD because HE don't KISS my RING" and because of that the virus has infected and killed pregnant women.  And dear leader killed babies Sicknick and Heyer the way Manson killed Tate and others through his followers.  Who's the baby killers now?

 

muWR5Yz.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rhyta said:

Redress a wrong?  By systematically ripping away a right and then saying too bad when so many lives are going to be disrupted.  Not only the women but their families who may not be able to afford another child or if there are health complications.  This is the equivalent of the dog licking your face and pissing on your leg at the same time.  The Court can spare me their phony compassion.

Carlin was right.  They don't give a shit about you after they're born.  This just proves ever accusation, whether it be groomer or baby killer, is a confession.  Projection at it's most digusting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, invisible airwave said:

Carlin was right.  They don't give a shit about you after they're born.  This just proves ever accusation, whether it be groomer or baby killer, is a confession.  Projection at it's most digusting.

 

 

Let's say for arguments sake (ignoring the idiocy expressed in the link for a second) that prolifers agreed to cradle to grave  government support for all citizens.   Would those who support abortion drop their demand for unlimited abortion from conception to birth?   Not a chance in hell.

 

This is the type of argument one gets from someone who runs around hysterically whining about those who don't want to wear the Holy Facecloth and think that they're entitled to a government check to maintain their sustenance (which involves purchasing a big screen TV, and every obscure streaming service known to man.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 3:45 AM, Rhyta said:

That we have so called Justices use references from 16th and 17th Century kooks who ordered women to be executed as witches and says there is no such thing as Marital rape to justify nullifying a law? :banghead: :no:  This is the best they can do?? :facepalm:

 

WTH???  Am I in an episode of the Outer Limits???

 

The person who first posited this criticism (not you, I assume) is either extremely ignorant of the law or misrepresenting the argument for maximum frothing effect. Roe and Casey found that abortion was a fundamental unenumerated right by virtue of the 14th and 5th A’s due process clauses (i.e., substantive due process). This argument itself is of dubious legal quality, but even it is obviously not applicable for abortions. This is, partially, because in order to be a “fundamental right” the right has to be deeply rooted in American history and traditions, including in common law. The majority in Roe argued that it was, similarly doing a deep dive that went back not only to English common law, but to Hippocrates, Aristotle, and St. Augustine.  To overrule the law, Alito must confront this reasoning from Roe.  Alito’s opinion points out the obvious: the right to an abortion is not only not deeply rooted in American history or traditions, laws to outlaw abortion were. He brought up that example as one of many, many examples of how his argument is obviously right.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LedRush said:

 

The person who first posited this criticism (not you, I assume) is either extremely ignorant of the law or misrepresenting the argument for maximum frothing effect. Roe and Casey found that abortion was a fundamental unenumerated right by virtue of the 14th and 5th A’s due process clauses (i.e., substantive due process). This argument itself is of dubious legal quality, but even it is obviously not applicable for abortions. This is, partially, because in order to be a “fundamental right” the right has to be deeply rooted in American history and traditions, including in common law. The majority in Roe argued that it was, similarly doing a deep dive that went back not only to English common law, but to Hippocrates, Aristotle, and St. Augustine.  To overrule the law, Alito must confront this reasoning from Roe.  Alito’s opinion points out the obvious: the right to an abortion is not only not deeply rooted in American history or traditions, laws to outlaw abortion were. He brought up that example as one of many, many examples of how his argument is obviously right.  

A little more than 30 years ago I did a research paper on the historical analysis in Roe.  As it turns out, around 1850 or so, the states started becoming more and more restrictive on abortion.  The line that was originally used was "quickening," when a mother could feel fetal movement.  "Quickening," of course, has no real scientific connection to fetal development.  And the group that was at the center of advocating for more restrictions on abortion in the 1800s was not the Catholic Church, or evangelical Protestant churches.  It was the AMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rick N. Backer said:

A little more than 30 years ago I did a research paper on the historical analysis in Roe.  As it turns out, around 1850 or so, the states started becoming more and more restrictive on abortion.  The line that was originally used was "quickening," when a mother could feel fetal movement.  "Quickening," of course, has no real scientific connection to fetal development.  And the group that was at the center of advocating for more restrictions on abortion in the 1800s was not the Catholic Church, or evangelical Protestant churches.  It was the AMA.


 

The American Medical Association, which was founded in 1847.  All male doctors.  

 

In order to assume near-full authority over women’s health care in the USA, the AMA worked to eliminate all midwives from the profession.  Midwives were THE experts in women’s reproductive health.  They just had to go.  They had no business having so much power.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Principled Man said:


 

The American Medical Association, which was founded in 1847.  All male doctors.  

 

In order to assume near-full authority over women’s health care in the USA, the AMA worked to eliminate all midwives from the profession.  Midwives were THE experts in women’s reproductive health.  They just had to go.  They had no business having so much power.  

Look up Horatio R. Storer.

 

I don't doubt that doctors, like any other group, has tried to protect it's "turf."  But the bottom line for me is, given my choice between a doctor and a midwife at a delivery, I'm taking a doctor all day every day.  They're not infallible, but they're the best we've got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...