The bastards actually did it

Homepage Forums Politics The bastards actually did it

This topic contains 39 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  _Robert_ 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #43414

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    First thing I see when I pull up the news this morning: “Roe overturned.”

    I’m not at all surprised, but it almost doesn’t seem real at the same time.

    #43415

    It is getting full news coverage here. It was also made clear that contraception, marriage equality and IVF are also going to be challenged. I think it is a disgraceful decision. It has already further diminished America in the eyes of the world.  We knew it was coming but it is still a shock now that it is a reality.  Evangelicals must be seen as a political monster and not as a Christian party. If the Democrats don’t win in November then things will get worse.

    #43416

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Belle Rose

    For the time being in Norh Carolina, legal abortion is still in place. Perhaps my State will become a refuge for this purpose. For how long, I don’t know.

    Once driving to work, I saw what seemed like a mile-long procession of so-called “March For Lifers.” Peaceful, but as events have shown over the past two years, that can always go different.

    Be safe in these “interesting times.”

    #43417

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    @Reg

    It was also made clear that contraception, marriage equality and IVF are also going to be challenged

    did they say that when it was being overturned? What does gay marriage and abortion have anything to do with each other? Lol… Except for maybe gay marriages are more likely to adopt? So what are they going to do about all the gay people that are already married?

    #43418

    @jakelafort (and everyone) – While the time honored stare decisis might have been given weight in the gun law ruling in NY, it has been ignored today. Were the SCOTUS judges wrong in 1973 and in all subsequent rulings on Roe ever since and now the 6 judges happen to be correct because they have formed a different opinion? How is stare decisis being honored here?

    #43421

    This is a story about a US couple in Malta and it will very probably be repeated in their homeland soon. Women have died in Ireland too before we voted to change the misogynistic Catholic laws.

    #43422

    @Belle Rose – did they say that when it was being overturned? What does gay marriage and abortion have anything to do with each other?

    Yes, they said as much. It is not that contraception, abortion of gay marriage are similar but the legal basis that grants them as rights that is similar.

    It is just a continuation of Project Blitz and going back to Ralph Reed in Atlanta  (Fulton County where I often stay) and similar white Christian Evangelicals movements.

    Justice Thomas made this clear in his opinion today. Justice Kavanaugh tended to disagree but I think if he studies the wording he will see that he is wrong.

     

    #43424

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Yesterday Unseen breaks news to me. This is even more disturbing. Religion is fucking evil.

    Stare decisis is great when it suits the political leanings of the justices. Majesty of the law?
    What a joke.

    #43425

    Unseen
    Participant

    It is getting full news coverage here. It was also made clear that contraception, marriage equality and IVF are also going to be challenged.

    It’s already clear from what the GOP-dominated state legislatures are discussing that they sense a green light to drag the country back to the 1950’s.

     

    #43444

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    I live in a state where nothing will likely be changed. But I got to thinking – what if I lived in the most strict state on abortion and I got pregnant? For me it would impact me because I don’t want another baby. I had complications with my first one and it wouldn’t likely be safe for me. Plus I’m 40 years old. I wouldn’t want to carry through with it for my own sake and my son’s sake. I would adopt kids all day long if I could, but it seems to me if they are going to force women to have children they don’t want, they should force all citizens to become foster parents. Themselves included. And you should be forced to take in as many children as your income would allow. Supreme Court judges could probably afford at least 20 kids. What do you think?

    #43445

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Belle i get your sentiments but it is not a great idea imo.

    It is involuntary servitude. It is unfair to kids whose development will be hindered in a home where they are not wanted. It is unfair to foster parents who do not want kids. It is unfair to adults who are all for women having Roe-like abortion rights.

    #43451

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    I know Jake I was being extremely sarcastic lol

    #43458

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Belle, ya got me good!

    #43544

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    It’s already clear from what the GOP-dominated state legislatures are discussing that they sense a green light to drag the country back to the 1950’s.

    I’m the guy with the odd opinion, here.

    For years I’ve believed the US Constitution was never clear on these “rights” whether pro-life or pro-choice.

    Right to lifers seem to actually believe that a fetus has rights, or as often termed in some discussions, “right to personhood”. Personally I believe it’s nonsense, and have always felt decisions of abortion should be left totally up to the mother. Recently I moved my arbitrary line of when any right of “personhood” accrues all the way to the point of “birth”, and abortion is acceptable as long as the fetus would not feel the pain of any procedure. I admit, that’s an arbitrary point, while also, a common religious belief is at the oppositely extreme, arbitrary point, conception. I even know of atheists who believe in the latter.

    State laws define end-of-life decisions when the patient is not capable of deciding. Decisions about what is meant by beginning of life, aka beginning of “personhood”, could be treated somewhat similarly to end-of-life definitions, e.g. including types of brain activity thresholds. And (say) functioning, air breathing lungs.

    Back to the constitution, USA founders could not have predicted the medical options that would become available, so application of  true “originalism” in any SCOTUS decision is (imo) fallacious. Not to mention, there’s nothing explicit in the Bible to support right to life beliefs, so any Bible thumper claiming to know what “God wants…” is also fallacious.

    So really, the ONLY way to make rights of personhood explicit is by explicit legislation. I think we’re just stuck with state laws for as long as SCOTUS has a pro-life judge majority, unless by some miracle (no pun intended), US Congress or Constitutional Convention can produce a law or amendment favoring woman’s choice again. It has to come about in codified law. Invented, and written by fallible human beings willing to accept that any finely drawn line of “moment of rights to personhood” is necessarily arbitrary.

    (But damnit, I want the mother to be given generous, arbitrary choice over it.)

    #43549

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Pope, i love that you analyze shit instead of taking an ideological and cookie cutter stance.

    Where i differ is in the conception of the US constitution. First off we are in agreement that the future was in many ways unforeseeable. If we accept that premise what are the implications? Originalism or the idea we treat the constitution as a timeless and inerrant document is silly. Flexibility is absolutely required. Principles that are logical and inure to the masses and required for a semblance of freedom and justice are of great value but even those ought to be examined from time to time. It is also quite relevant that the framers were fine with women and Blacks being shit on. How fucking wise were they?

    The function of the constitution ought to include a minimal level of protection to citizens whether one is in enlightened Massachusetts or bassackwards Mississippi. States ought to be and are able to afford citizens greater protections and rights than the constitution. Locus ought not be hocus pocus you are utterly fucked cuz you are in a fuckheaded state.

    I really thought Roe took a tough issue and realized a logical solution. But i don’t think the right needs to be spelled out in the constitution. Right to terminate a pregnancy within reason is an obvious liberty issue already contemplated by 14th and 5th amendment et al. Autonomy over one’s body is a front and center liberty issue. it is res ipsa.

    So now that we have members of SCOTUS who bring their ideology and impose it what are we to do? How about a constitutional amendment to hold plebiscites on issues of national importance? It is crazy to let Trump and the evangelical Republicans impose their will.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.