Mediaevaltrackworld. Roe vs Wade content.

framed local government as uniformly liberal

I made no such claim.

or they are sovereign on the matter now

Stop trying to over simplify the laws and governance of a country you know so little about.

I shouldn’t have engaged you on this, it’ll never go anywhere interesting. Sorry.

Stop trying to over simplify the laws and governance of a country you know so little about.

I shouldn’t have engaged you on this, it’ll never go anywhere interesting. Sorry.

You're just obfuscating now because there's confusion about whether state or local government has particular powers when it comes to abortion.

I made no such claim.

You did implicitly. Roe vs Wade only 'protected' pro-choice local government, if it did at all. So how could it fundamentally protect local democracy?

because there’s confusion about whether state or local government has particular powers when it comes to abortion

Correct. It’s never been cut or dry, it’s been a constant political and legal battle, and this decision has moved things towards state governments, and away from local governments, as I said.

IMHO it’s one of those wicked problems; there is probably no right answer.

Except, there is, really. Because if you outlaw it then you're not banning abortions, you're banning safe abortions. Anyone sufficiently determined to have one is now going to be up a back street with a bottle of Jack and a wire coat-hanger. You might disagree with abortion on principle and that's fine, but the alternative is far far worse.

Now you can go into a family planning clinic and be advised to get an abortion right off the bat because not everything is perfect in your life, or it’s simply inconvenient to be pregnant, for example.

And this is, frankly, either mind-bendingly myopic or just plain ****ing offensive.

Abortion isn't a lazy form of contraception, it's a massively traumatic process. No woman in the history of ever thinks like this. "To do list: buy grapes; pop in for an abortion; meet Frank for brunch."

I've never been pregnant in a US clinic but I highly doubt that an abortion is something that anyone would "advise." Could be wrong.

The ‘pro-choice’ argument total erases that a fetus, a baby, a something is collateral in that choice to terminate.

This is the age-old argument (dressed up in emotive language), at what point is it "life" rather than "a bunch of cells"? The point of conception, sperm meets egg, is that a "baby"? As Graham said on the previous page, by that logic I'm a mass murderer every time I ejaculate without conceiving (and indeed, still a mass murderer -1 if I do). My partner has a collateral damage baby once a month, what do you propose there, mandatory insemination?

This is reductio ad absurdum of course, but my point is that this isn't as trivial to define as you seem to think.

@Cougar, as much as I enjoy the ‘every sperm is sacred’ argument, it’s not massively valid, as conception is the point at which the religious think life is created. I (along with the majority of people I like to think) tend to be a little more pragmatic about the subject and think that whether ‘life begins’ at conception or not is irrelevant, as it a) is not viable outwith it’s uterine enclosure, and b) it has no consciousness or awareness of its own existence, so far as we can tell. From this understanding I am totally comfortable with terminations happening in the first 20 weeks, and progressively less comfortable after that. I also recognise that the mothers right to life and good health should ALWAYS trump that of the unborn ‘potential human’. Again it just makes pragmatic sense as much as anything; the mother can easily survive without the foetus, the foetus cannot survive without the mother.

Finally, I am also of the opinion that whilst I have every right to hold my opinions, they are far less important than those of people who have uteruses, and absolutely of no importance compared to those who have uteruses that are currently in active use. It’s their call, not mine.

i_scoff_cake
Free Member

IMHO it’s one of those wicked problems; there is probably no right answer

IMO this is almost but in fact not at all the case. Intellectually, morally, there's no one right answer, there are many legitimate lines to take

But in reality, there is, because in practice banning abortion only bans safe abortion. And the people who are banning abortion also want to reduce healthcare access, access to contraception, and sex education, poverty, and state funding- all of the things that would actually reduce abortion. The nice intellectual argument of grey areas and perfect balances falls apart when introduced to the real world of interlinked agendas and bad faith arguing and religious fundamentalism.

I support womans' bodily autonomy, with minimal restriction. But I can respect and appreciate the position of people who want a greater restriction on abortion- as long as they do so with some logic and credibility. In reality the loud voices who make these things happen are not worthy of respect. They're supreme court judges who lie in selection, they're "pro lifers" who don't care if you get shot at school or die of sepsis, they're hypocrites in pretty much every way on this issue. The people who are making good arguments and who are worthy at least of respect, are pretty much never the people actually changing the law or leading the charge. Though they are often the people who vote for the hypocrites.

This is the age-old argument (dressed up in emotive language), at what point is it “life” rather than “a bunch of cells”?

Sure but framing a fetus or baby as a 'bunch of cells' is no less strategic in that the objective is to substitute an ethical conundrum with technical indifference.

Couldn't any living person also be framed as a 'bunch of cells'? Anyway, as said below the ethics of abortion are more pressing the longer the pregnancy goes on. The bunch of cells, fetus, baby, etc., becomes more worthy of protection the closer it gets to birth.

They’re supreme court judges who lie in selection, they’re “pro lifers” who don’t care if you get shot at school or die of sepsis, they’re hypocrites in pretty much every way on this issue.

I don't think that's fair at all. Their values are perfectly intelligible. There is no contradiction between a right to life vs a right to health care. A right to life is the prerequisite of liberty whereby one is free to get health insurance or not according to one's own preference. This is the individualism that's baked into the constitution.

I also recognise that the mothers right to life and good health should ALWAYS trump that of the unborn ‘potential human’. Again it just makes pragmatic sense as much as anything; the mother can easily survive without the foetus, the foetus cannot survive without the mother.

No parent ever had better health by having and raising kids. No baby can survive without a caregiver, indeed many teens wouldn't.

I don’t think that’s fair at all.

Two of the judges actually said in their conformation hearings that they'd not be looking to overturn a settled opinion, and when offered that chance, they both changed their minds in line with their registered parties position on the matter. That would appear to be on the face of it;  (or implied, as you argued earlier) that they are hypocrites or lairs.

@nickc

They may have misled but I'm not sure they outright lied.

Besides, stare decisis seems like a terrible legal doctrine when used as an absolute. It would mean the law is forever locked into bad decisions, which just compound. It can't self-correct.

No parent ever had better health by having and raising kids.

That’s just bollocks quite frankly. Before kids I drank like a fish, ate crap and stayed up until all hours. Not the case since having them. I now look after myself more so that I’m capable of looking after my kids. Carrying an eight year old around on your shoulders is also a great workout.

They may have misled but I’m not sure they outright lied.

Implied...wasn't that the argument you made up the page? Judge Roberts calls overturning a settled matter "A jolt to the system that requires in part, openness and even-handedness".

It would mean the law is forever locked into bad decisions

That argument presupposes that the availability of safe abortion to all women who require it is a bad decision. The SC have no opinion on that, only that it shouldn't be federal law.

as much as I enjoy the ‘every sperm is sacred’ argument, it’s not massively valid

Yes, of course it's not. But if we take religion out of the equation - which we should - then the point is that if we are to have any hope of legislating for or against then then we have to define terms. Which is inherently difficult.

Finally, I am also of the opinion that whilst I have every right to hold my opinions, they are far less important than those of people who have uteruses, and absolutely of no importance compared to those who have uteruses that are currently in active use. It’s their call, not mine.

100%.

Also, everything Northwind said.

framing a fetus or baby as a ‘bunch of cells’ is no less strategic

That works both ways.

@funkmasterp What works for you will not work for everyone else and it is simplistic to assume so.

I see scotus have now also outlawed federal environmental protection.

Given the logic of both these two decisions appears to be that if it isn't mandated in the constitution then the federal government is overreaching in applying law nationwide, it is hard to see much federal law actually surviving.

Literally laying the groundwork for a dissolution of the Union. Wow.

Literally laying the groundwork for a dissolution of the Union. Wow.

Seems the only "logical" outcome - race to Fort Knox?

I think a few people on the trump thread suggested that the US is in danger of splitting in half via policy.
Nevermind the gun toting supermarket shoppers

Seems the only “logical” outcome

The other logical outcome is that laws can be at the federal level only if Republican judges support them. So plenty of federal law, but not if it’s from the Democrats. So the USA can hold together, but there’s little point electing Democrats at the national level. That is where this is going. “Republicans make things happen at the national level, Democrats are weak and ineffective.”

@funkmasterp What works for you will not work for everyone else and it is simplistic to assume so.

I was simply countering the previous assumption made by cake. Highlighting the stupidity of his statement by making an equally stupid one myself. See, two can talk absolute shite!

Also this

I have every right to hold my opinions, they are far less important than those of people who have uteruses, and absolutely of no importance compared to those who have uteruses that are currently in active use. It’s their call, not mine.

I don’t think that’s fair at all. Their values are perfectly intelligible. There is no contradiction between a right to life vs a right to health care. A right to life is the prerequisite of liberty whereby one is free to get health insurance or not according to one’s own preference. This is the individualism that’s baked into the constitution.

But what about people who cannot get insurance? Because clearly there are exploited workers who simply cannot afford it. This is not their preference - and arguably they're most likely in that situation because of the actions of a government that aims to hoard wealth among the elite few.

Speaking of 'baked into' the constitution, it says nothing on abortion. And loads on individual liberty. Except there are loads of things you're not free to do. Like walk across a road without being arrested. I digress.

Speaking of ‘baked into’ the constitution, it says nothing on abortion. And loads on individual liberty. Except there are loads of things you’re not free to do

Funnily enough I was reading some FB shite today about Americans who have moved to Europe, and so many of them are shocked how much more freedom they have having left the land of the free....

They just keep coming- Moore v Harper is, in a nutshell, whether or not state legislators are bound by their own state courts and constitutions or not when it comes to making federal election rules. If it comes down no- and there's 4 judges on record as believing that's how it should be- then it means the currently elected legislators become the only people with any say over how the next election is run.

The trigger case Moore v Harper is entirely about extreme gerrymandering and Rucho already states that the federal system also has no jurisdiction over such matters. It also hits mail-in voting, deadlines, voting station availability, ID requirements, fraud oversight, the mechanisms for striking down votes cast

So hands up everyone that thinks the currently elected state legislatures are the best people to be making all of the decisions on how future elections are to be run?

Well, this is encouraging:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1554658316105797639

Looks like the Republicans may have significantly overestimated the support for anti-choice even in solid red states. And if this is an indicator, it's not exactly going to help them in the midterms.

'The dog who caught the car'.

It's a great result (still only projected of course) but shows how out of touch the Supreme Court was with public opinion.

The Democrats need to be banging this drum in the midterms

Kansas was +15 points for trump in election; 62% in favour of retaining right to abortion.

Yes, to repeat what many people have said about the Republican Party, they are the dog that caught the car. Their base voters are rabid nutters and their politicians are too scared of losing a primary to tell them that their policies are just plain idiotic.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1554793321922527232

From that Twitter thread:

The way to do that is to make a firm pledge that if Democrats hold the House and add two Senate seats they will make Roe into federal law in January 2023.

It's the obvious thing for Democrats to do as soon as the primaries are over, which means they'll probably bollox it up.