There is opposition everywhere to abolishing Roe v. Wade, yet the few are going to control the many. How does this happen in a democracy. We need a new word to describe our political system--DEMONOCRACY! Because that is what it is becoming.
This comment is extremely interesting. So your saying that leaving the abortion issue to the state governments, which are democratic institutions, is anti-democratic? State Legislators are elected by state-wide majority votes; supreme court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They never have been nor were they meant to be subject to the political process, so when the court sends the abortion issue back to the people through their democratically elected representatives, that is anti-democratic? Do you see the faulty logic here? Neither you nor the author here reach the true issue which is whether the right is constitutionally protected; it is not and never has been. Anyone who’s ever actually read Roe v. Wade understands this, but even when compared to other cases in the same realm, Griswold, Obergefell, etc. Roe is fundamentally different in that it has never received widespread acceptance throughout the country. The majority of Americans believe the abortion shouldn’t be illegal completely, but they’re split on where to draw the line (first, second, or third trimester). And as you move closer to birth, the support diminishes substantially. Thus, the states can enact laws to reflect the values of the electorate, as opposed to having the views of others shoved down their throat from D.C. Thus, the leaked decision would be more democratic, not less, than what we currently have.
Bullshit! Right now the Supreme Court IS NOT APOLTICAL! Due to political shenanigans SCOTUS is heavily weighted to the Republican side. This was never the intention of the founding fathers, especially considering THERE WERE NO FOUNDING MOTHERS! Abortions were not a concern those days, because white babies were needed to fill up the spaces stolen from the Original Human Inhabitants of Turtle Island! But do you know now many women died during or from childbirth in those days? No you do not, because no one cared enough to keep records! You think you are standing on high ground because abortions were never addressed constitutionally. You are standing in the graves of every woman who ever died from childbirth. You are standing in the shitpile of every baby who was born destined to live a life unloved by a mother who could not or would not be able to raise her child in a safe and loving home. Get with the times. Women get pregnant from having sex, not because some god created the fetus.Those women are the only ones who should have a say in whether that pregnancy is allowed to come to full term. Men debating about when a fetus becomes a person is more bullshit. Every person in this world is measured for age according to the date they are born, AND NO OTHER DATE! Until they are born THEY ARE NOT SELF-SUSTAINABLE PEOPLE!
As for democracy, what makes the states more powerful that the federal government to decide the fate of its citizens. When the South lost the Civil War they should have lost the right to have their own state governments! That was a huge mistake on the North's side, and everyone has been paying for it ever since! Especially people of colour. Racism is everywhere, but it is highest in the southern states. If the Supreme Court can take away Women's Rights, how long before they take away the rights of non-Whites? They are already trying to stop them from voting! Are you okay with that too?
Once again, you clearly don’t understand what your talking about. First, you’re pointing to historical events that are completely unconnected to the discussion of the present (I’ll assume that your statements are accurate for the purposes of the discussion) and it really does demonstrate that all you really care about is forcing your beliefs on other people. Not everyone believes what you do, and what you’re trying to do is the exact thing you accuse others of doing. You think that a woman should have the absolute right to decide to kill the child in her womb up to the point of birth. (your statement “Those women are the only ones who should have a say in whether that pregnancy is allowed to come to full term”) and you want to force that belief on people who feel differently. You are no different than the people you hate so much, those who believe that the child in a woman’s womb is a living being that shouldn’t be killed except in limited circumstances imposing their beliefs on you. And that is why these things should be addressed at the state level. If you feel that a woman has the unbridled right to choose, your state can pass laws to accomplish that, and states like New York, California, etc. will. And if you don’t live in those states, you have the right to move there. But in the states where people hold opposing views, their legislators can pass laws that reflect their values. Your argument about POCs drives the point home because there is not a single civil right regarding race that is connected to the due process clause, i.e. the right to privacy, which is where the right to choose was located according to past precedent. Civil rights regarding discrimination based on race, gender, etc. are based on the equal protection clause. So once again, you’re pointing to things that are unconnected legally; they’re not even in the same ball park. But the main point is, abortions will still occur in states where people vote legislators in who will allow them to occur and vise versa. Not everyone has to adopt your belief system, nor should they have to. The sooner people come to understand that, the better. We don’t need unelected judges making erroneous decisions based on what they “think the law should be.” Rather, they should make decisions based on what the law is, and Roe was a decision based on what judges at the time thought the law should be, not what it actually was. There was simply no constitutional basis for it, and even if there was, it has not met the test they use when determining whether a past decision should be upheld. It’s really just that simple.
You obviously missed the point about pregnancies being the result of male/female intercourse, and not some invisible Creator. You can believe it all you like, but that does not make it fact. And I am not taking away your right to believe, but I am trying to say your beliefs only extend as far as your skin. You have no right to tell anyone else how to live their lives, or what to do with their bodies.
You are trying to say I am the one telling others how to live, but you are wrong. I am ADVOCATING SELF-AUTONOMY! You don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But you have no idea what is going on in someone else's life that might make them choose to get one. If you were in their shoes you mignt choose the very same thing for the very same reason. But you don't know how to put yourself in someone else's shoes, unless that person believes exactly as you do.
I am not talking legalities, and I am not even American, by the way. I am talking humanity! It seems you care only about people who believe as you do. That does not make you humane. As soon as you exceed your own being you are trying to limit others who do not have the same beliefs as you. Even in your Red states (it sounds like you live in a red state) not everyone believes as you do. That time disappeared decades, if not centuries, ago. You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone. Have them for yourself, I don't care. But other people are not you! And if you do not think taking away one kind of right from one kind of group will not lead to taking away other groups' rights, you are blinded by your own beliefs. You are not in the majority in this world, and if you can take away other people's rights, then they might someday try to take away your rights. That day you will understand what I am talking about.
Yeah, every country in the world makes morality decisions about what they deem appropriate and inappropriate behavior and what the penalties for inappropriate behavior are. Murder, theft, fraud, euthanasia, all of these things are illegal in most countries because the people who live there make moral decisions about how they structure their laws and society. You get bodily autonomy to the extent that you are not interfering with someone else’s autonomy at which point there are a set of laws that settle the conflict. As I said, not everyone believes what you do; many of the people who oppose abortion do so because they believe that the child in the womb is a person in which case that person has rights and the mother’s autonomy and decision to get an abortion is in conflict with the most basic right a human being has, the right to survive. As such, it is the laws that we make as a society that resolve the conflict. So to answer your fundamental argument, that we have no right to dictate how people live their lives, yes we do; as a nation we have the absolute right to tell citizens what they can and cannot do when their actions have an effect on or interfere with other citizens. And it’s not like this is anything knew or unique to the US. There are only a handful of situations that a human being in a civilized society can choose to kill another human being without consequences, such during wars, if you are under the threat of deadly force and acting in self defense, etc, so to try and insinuate that a woman has an absolute right to kill her child and no one else has any say in the matter is absurd. Also, let’s be clear about what you “support.” At 22 weeks, a baby is a little bit bigger than the length of a human hand; abortions at that stage are blind so they use a set of clamps to tear the child out of the womb one-piece-at-a-time. First they might pull out a leg, then an arm, then the spine and intestines; after that, they need to get the skull which is about the size of a plum. They know they’re doing it correctly when they squeeze and white brain fluid starts dripping out of the cervix, and they know their done when they complete an inventory of body parts that are laid out on a table. At that stage the child could survive outside of the womb; the child could grab your hand if it wanted to. Instead, the child is going to be taken apart one-piece-at-a-time. So, your advocacy that this should be a common, freely acceptable practice without legal regulations or the ability for anyone to draw a line or prohibit the practice at certain points is barbaric. Similarly, even if the pregnancy is brought to term “against someone’s will,” the parent can give up the child; they don’t have to be a parent if they don’t want to. As far as the state issue, we’re a republic and states set policy based on the majority; we don’t structure laws based on every subgroup. So if someone disagrees with the laws in their state, they can move which is precisely why people have been fleeing the most liberal states in the nation, that also happen to have the most liberal abortion laws, by the millions because the majority in those states, just like the majority liberal governments in Europe, run their states like complete garbage. So you don’t have the ability to force your beliefs on us, the child in a woman’s womb is a human being, period. And as a human they’re an American, and we have an interest as a society to protect that life and place limits on when such a child can be killed at the request of the mother. This is no different than protecting a child from child abuse or neglect at the hands of a parent; society has a say in that regardless of whether the parent thinks their conduct was proper or not.
Keep living in your dreamworld. Nations everywhere are becoming more humane as more people stop letting themselves be controlled by ancient laws written in even more ancient books. Humans thinking has evolved beyond the White Christian Male-dominated society. "Millions of people are moving out of Democratic States"? Only in your dreams.
There is opposition everywhere to abolishing Roe v. Wade, yet the few are going to control the many. How does this happen in a democracy. We need a new word to describe our political system--DEMONOCRACY! Because that is what it is becoming.
This comment is extremely interesting. So your saying that leaving the abortion issue to the state governments, which are democratic institutions, is anti-democratic? State Legislators are elected by state-wide majority votes; supreme court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They never have been nor were they meant to be subject to the political process, so when the court sends the abortion issue back to the people through their democratically elected representatives, that is anti-democratic? Do you see the faulty logic here? Neither you nor the author here reach the true issue which is whether the right is constitutionally protected; it is not and never has been. Anyone who’s ever actually read Roe v. Wade understands this, but even when compared to other cases in the same realm, Griswold, Obergefell, etc. Roe is fundamentally different in that it has never received widespread acceptance throughout the country. The majority of Americans believe the abortion shouldn’t be illegal completely, but they’re split on where to draw the line (first, second, or third trimester). And as you move closer to birth, the support diminishes substantially. Thus, the states can enact laws to reflect the values of the electorate, as opposed to having the views of others shoved down their throat from D.C. Thus, the leaked decision would be more democratic, not less, than what we currently have.
Bullshit! Right now the Supreme Court IS NOT APOLTICAL! Due to political shenanigans SCOTUS is heavily weighted to the Republican side. This was never the intention of the founding fathers, especially considering THERE WERE NO FOUNDING MOTHERS! Abortions were not a concern those days, because white babies were needed to fill up the spaces stolen from the Original Human Inhabitants of Turtle Island! But do you know now many women died during or from childbirth in those days? No you do not, because no one cared enough to keep records! You think you are standing on high ground because abortions were never addressed constitutionally. You are standing in the graves of every woman who ever died from childbirth. You are standing in the shitpile of every baby who was born destined to live a life unloved by a mother who could not or would not be able to raise her child in a safe and loving home. Get with the times. Women get pregnant from having sex, not because some god created the fetus.Those women are the only ones who should have a say in whether that pregnancy is allowed to come to full term. Men debating about when a fetus becomes a person is more bullshit. Every person in this world is measured for age according to the date they are born, AND NO OTHER DATE! Until they are born THEY ARE NOT SELF-SUSTAINABLE PEOPLE!
As for democracy, what makes the states more powerful that the federal government to decide the fate of its citizens. When the South lost the Civil War they should have lost the right to have their own state governments! That was a huge mistake on the North's side, and everyone has been paying for it ever since! Especially people of colour. Racism is everywhere, but it is highest in the southern states. If the Supreme Court can take away Women's Rights, how long before they take away the rights of non-Whites? They are already trying to stop them from voting! Are you okay with that too?
Once again, you clearly don’t understand what your talking about. First, you’re pointing to historical events that are completely unconnected to the discussion of the present (I’ll assume that your statements are accurate for the purposes of the discussion) and it really does demonstrate that all you really care about is forcing your beliefs on other people. Not everyone believes what you do, and what you’re trying to do is the exact thing you accuse others of doing. You think that a woman should have the absolute right to decide to kill the child in her womb up to the point of birth. (your statement “Those women are the only ones who should have a say in whether that pregnancy is allowed to come to full term”) and you want to force that belief on people who feel differently. You are no different than the people you hate so much, those who believe that the child in a woman’s womb is a living being that shouldn’t be killed except in limited circumstances imposing their beliefs on you. And that is why these things should be addressed at the state level. If you feel that a woman has the unbridled right to choose, your state can pass laws to accomplish that, and states like New York, California, etc. will. And if you don’t live in those states, you have the right to move there. But in the states where people hold opposing views, their legislators can pass laws that reflect their values. Your argument about POCs drives the point home because there is not a single civil right regarding race that is connected to the due process clause, i.e. the right to privacy, which is where the right to choose was located according to past precedent. Civil rights regarding discrimination based on race, gender, etc. are based on the equal protection clause. So once again, you’re pointing to things that are unconnected legally; they’re not even in the same ball park. But the main point is, abortions will still occur in states where people vote legislators in who will allow them to occur and vise versa. Not everyone has to adopt your belief system, nor should they have to. The sooner people come to understand that, the better. We don’t need unelected judges making erroneous decisions based on what they “think the law should be.” Rather, they should make decisions based on what the law is, and Roe was a decision based on what judges at the time thought the law should be, not what it actually was. There was simply no constitutional basis for it, and even if there was, it has not met the test they use when determining whether a past decision should be upheld. It’s really just that simple.
You obviously missed the point about pregnancies being the result of male/female intercourse, and not some invisible Creator. You can believe it all you like, but that does not make it fact. And I am not taking away your right to believe, but I am trying to say your beliefs only extend as far as your skin. You have no right to tell anyone else how to live their lives, or what to do with their bodies.
You are trying to say I am the one telling others how to live, but you are wrong. I am ADVOCATING SELF-AUTONOMY! You don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But you have no idea what is going on in someone else's life that might make them choose to get one. If you were in their shoes you mignt choose the very same thing for the very same reason. But you don't know how to put yourself in someone else's shoes, unless that person believes exactly as you do.
I am not talking legalities, and I am not even American, by the way. I am talking humanity! It seems you care only about people who believe as you do. That does not make you humane. As soon as you exceed your own being you are trying to limit others who do not have the same beliefs as you. Even in your Red states (it sounds like you live in a red state) not everyone believes as you do. That time disappeared decades, if not centuries, ago. You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone. Have them for yourself, I don't care. But other people are not you! And if you do not think taking away one kind of right from one kind of group will not lead to taking away other groups' rights, you are blinded by your own beliefs. You are not in the majority in this world, and if you can take away other people's rights, then they might someday try to take away your rights. That day you will understand what I am talking about.
Yeah, every country in the world makes morality decisions about what they deem appropriate and inappropriate behavior and what the penalties for inappropriate behavior are. Murder, theft, fraud, euthanasia, all of these things are illegal in most countries because the people who live there make moral decisions about how they structure their laws and society. You get bodily autonomy to the extent that you are not interfering with someone else’s autonomy at which point there are a set of laws that settle the conflict. As I said, not everyone believes what you do; many of the people who oppose abortion do so because they believe that the child in the womb is a person in which case that person has rights and the mother’s autonomy and decision to get an abortion is in conflict with the most basic right a human being has, the right to survive. As such, it is the laws that we make as a society that resolve the conflict. So to answer your fundamental argument, that we have no right to dictate how people live their lives, yes we do; as a nation we have the absolute right to tell citizens what they can and cannot do when their actions have an effect on or interfere with other citizens. And it’s not like this is anything knew or unique to the US. There are only a handful of situations that a human being in a civilized society can choose to kill another human being without consequences, such during wars, if you are under the threat of deadly force and acting in self defense, etc, so to try and insinuate that a woman has an absolute right to kill her child and no one else has any say in the matter is absurd. Also, let’s be clear about what you “support.” At 22 weeks, a baby is a little bit bigger than the length of a human hand; abortions at that stage are blind so they use a set of clamps to tear the child out of the womb one-piece-at-a-time. First they might pull out a leg, then an arm, then the spine and intestines; after that, they need to get the skull which is about the size of a plum. They know they’re doing it correctly when they squeeze and white brain fluid starts dripping out of the cervix, and they know their done when they complete an inventory of body parts that are laid out on a table. At that stage the child could survive outside of the womb; the child could grab your hand if it wanted to. Instead, the child is going to be taken apart one-piece-at-a-time. So, your advocacy that this should be a common, freely acceptable practice without legal regulations or the ability for anyone to draw a line or prohibit the practice at certain points is barbaric. Similarly, even if the pregnancy is brought to term “against someone’s will,” the parent can give up the child; they don’t have to be a parent if they don’t want to. As far as the state issue, we’re a republic and states set policy based on the majority; we don’t structure laws based on every subgroup. So if someone disagrees with the laws in their state, they can move which is precisely why people have been fleeing the most liberal states in the nation, that also happen to have the most liberal abortion laws, by the millions because the majority in those states, just like the majority liberal governments in Europe, run their states like complete garbage. So you don’t have the ability to force your beliefs on us, the child in a woman’s womb is a human being, period. And as a human they’re an American, and we have an interest as a society to protect that life and place limits on when such a child can be killed at the request of the mother. This is no different than protecting a child from child abuse or neglect at the hands of a parent; society has a say in that regardless of whether the parent thinks their conduct was proper or not.
Keep living in your dreamworld. Nations everywhere are becoming more humane as more people stop letting themselves be controlled by ancient laws written in even more ancient books. Humans thinking has evolved beyond the White Christian Male-dominated society. "Millions of people are moving out of Democratic States"? Only in your dreams.