SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Ivanstone]

Fetal personhood does not matter.

I wonder what would happen if a fetus did have personhood. Would its parents be allowed to claim a Child Tax Credit? Would a mother be allowed to sue for child support? Would a mother be allowed to use CHIP for her fetus? US society confers certain advantages to children and very few of those things are supported by right wingers.

[Fugus]

I wonder what would happen if a fetus did have personhood. Would its parents be allowed to claim a Child Tax Credit? Would a mother be allowed to sue for child support? Would a mother be allowed to use CHIP for her fetus? US society confers certain advantages to children and very few of those things are supported by right wingers.

They will be Schrodinger's Kid

[Kaleredar]

I wonder what would happen if a fetus did have personhood. Would its parents be allowed to claim a Child Tax Credit? Would a mother be allowed to sue for child support? Would a mother be allowed to use CHIP for her fetus? US society confers certain advantages to children and very few of those things are supported by right wingers.

Of course not. This isn’t about helping women, or children, and it has nothing to do with “consistency“

If someone tried to argue that in court, and it made its way to the Supreme Court, they’d toss it out.

[Endus]

I wonder what would happen if a fetus did have personhood. Would its parents be allowed to claim a Child Tax Credit? Would a mother be allowed to sue for child support? Would a mother be allowed to use CHIP for her fetus? US society confers certain advantages to children and very few of those things are supported by right wingers.

I mean, there's a lot of weirdo shit, yeah.

But it doesn't affect the abortion discussion in even the littlest, tiniest iota. It's a straw man used by religious extremists to avoid the actual discussion; women's basic recognition as human beings.

[Ivanstone]

Of course not. This isn’t about helping women, or children, and it has nothing to do with “consistency“

I don't think they're consistent but its always fun to throw some cognitive dissonance in their faces from time to time.

I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to defend their stance.

[Kathandira]

To be fair, neither party actually cares about the poor.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes because we are a republic and not a democracy.

You REALLY don't want mob rule, it always leads to horrible things.

Mod rule basically is democracy.

[Endus]

Mod rule basically is democracy.

You can tell, because it's never "a bunch of people with pitchforks and torches are gonna literally haul people bodily out of their homes/workplaces and kill them in the street!", which'd be actual "mob rule".

It's just "a lot of people are gonna make their expectations and views known publicly and those in charge might take the people's outcry into account because those in charge are fundamentally chosen by and represent those people."

Which, as you said, is just representative democracy.

[Canpinter]

Mod rule basically is democracy.

It's really not tho, mob rule doesn't actually reflect the majorities wishes just the most vocal/ most willing to threaten violence.

[cubby]

I would be curious as to how. What Roe v. Wade said is that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion. Overturning it would indicate that it doesn't, but there's no justification I've seen for prohibiting Congress from passing a law guaranteeing access. States' rights have always ended when they run up against federal law.

It's more than just "no existing federal law" though - the issue is whether the Constitution specifically addresses it as a national issue or not. If it doesn't, then it's left to the states to decide. So if SCOTUS decides that abortion isn't an issue covered by the Constitution (known as a penumbra - like privacy, etc)), then a federal law can't address it.

And of course the above is a ridiculously simple summary of an extremely complicated issue - I don't even know the full breadth of it, nor can I adequately explain what I do understand of it. I'm just trying to put up the basic idea for people to consider and know about.

[Darththeo]

It's more than just "no existing federal law" though - the issue is whether the Constitution specifically addresses it as a national issue or not. If it doesn't, then it's left to the states to decide. So if SCOTUS decides that abortion isn't an issue covered by the Constitution (known as a penumbra - like privacy, etc)), then a federal law can't address it.

And of course the above is a ridiculously simple summary of an extremely complicated issue - I don't even know the full breadth of it, nor can I adequately explain what I do understand of it. I'm just trying to put up the basic idea for people to consider and know about.

Honestly, if Roe was phrased as it actually was (a medical privacy case) rather than the "case that legalize abortion" ... less people would be for overturning it than already are.

Also, I want an answer on why people think the 10th Amendment grants the states rights to determine what medical treatment is legal. The 10th Amendment alongside the 9th exist to protect people from all government overreach.

[Endus]

It's really not tho, mob rule doesn't actually reflect the majorities wishes just the most vocal/ most willing to threaten violence.

Which is why calling anything regarding public outcry on overturning Roe v. Wade "mob rule" is complete horseshit; there is no threatened violence.

It's particularly damning coming from right-wingers, because they do regularly threaten violence, and act on those threats. See the bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of abortion doctors, if you want a really specific example on this particular subject.

Which isn't some ancient history, either; the most recent mass-shooting aimed at abortion providers in the USA was in 2015. The last arson attack against an abortion clinic was on December 31, 2021, just months ago.

- - - Updated - - -

It's more than just "no existing federal law" though - the issue is whether the Constitution specifically addresses it as a national issue or not. If it doesn't, then it's left to the states to decide. So if SCOTUS decides that abortion isn't an issue covered by the Constitution (known as a penumbra - like privacy, etc)), then a federal law can't address it.

And of course the above is a ridiculously simple summary of an extremely complicated issue - I don't even know the full breadth of it, nor can I adequately explain what I do understand of it. I'm just trying to put up the basic idea for people to consider and know about.

I mean, the problem with these kinds of arguments is that the 9th Amendment exists. Specifically to state that the lack of enumeration of a particular right in the Constitution directly does not mean that right is not Constitutionally recognized as being held by the people. Literally the entire purpose of that particular Amendment.

And the question fundamentally isn't "is abortion a right". It's "is access to healthcare a right" and "is bodily autonomy a right".

Once you recognize that bodily autonomy is a right, and that access to healthcare is a right, the right to abortion is already established by those two principles. The same way the government shouldn't have any right to deny someone the right to, say, a blood transfusion, because Jehovah's Witnesses have decided to push their religious views on everyone (they don't, I'm making up a hypothetical and I've gotta get weird to make an equivalence because of how fuckin' weird the evangelical extremism already is).

[D3thray]

Which is why calling anything regarding public outcry on overturning Roe v. Wade "mob rule" is complete horseshit; there is no threatened violence.

It's particularly damning coming from right-wingers, because they do regularly threaten violence, and act on those threats. See the bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of abortion doctors, if you want a really specific example on this particular subject.

Which isn't some ancient history, either; the most recent mass-shooting aimed at abortion providers in the USA was in 2015. The last arson attack against an abortion clinic was on December 31, 2021, just months ago.

If you think there aren’t threats you’re not looking. At work, no time to find links for you, but I assure you calls for revolution aren’t peaceful. I’m making no excuses for any threats by the way but you’ve got a pretty big blind spot here in my estimation.

[Elegiac]

If you think there aren’t threats you’re not looking. At work, no time to find links for you, but I assure you calls for revolution aren’t peaceful. I’m making no excuses for any threats by the way but you’ve got a pretty big blind spot here in my estimation.

I'm certain the evidence is going to be absolutely compelling considering you're the same person who thinks the BLM protests were a "cover for antifa to carry out violence".

[Endus]

If you think there aren’t threats you’re not looking. At work, no time to find links for you, but I assure you calls for revolution aren’t peaceful. I’m making no excuses for any threats by the way but you’ve got a pretty big blind spot here in my estimation.

"There's left-wing calls for violence all over! I can't show you any, just trust me!"

Yeah, no. Violence is almost uniquely a right-wing expression, statistically. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-507.pdf

"Violent extremist attacks resulting in deaths generally originated from two broad groups: far-right extremists and radical Islamist extremists"

[Canpinter]

Which is why calling anything regarding public outcry on overturning Roe v. Wade "mob rule" is complete horseshit; there is no threatened violence.

It's particularly damning coming from right-wingers, because they do regularly threaten violence, and act on those threats. See the bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of abortion doctors, if you want a really specific example on this particular subject.

Which isn't some ancient history, either; the most recent mass-shooting aimed at abortion providers in the USA was in 2015. The last arson attack against an abortion clinic was on December 31, 2021, just months ago.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean, the problem with these kinds of arguments is that the 9th Amendment exists. Specifically to state that the lack of enumeration of a particular right in the Constitution directly does not mean that right is not Constitutionally recognized as being held by the people. Literally the entire purpose of that particular Amendment.

And the question fundamentally isn't "is abortion a right". It's "is access to healthcare a right" and "is bodily autonomy a right".

Once you recognize that bodily autonomy is a right, and that access to healthcare is a right, the right to abortion is already established by those two principles. The same way the government shouldn't have any right to deny someone the right to, say, a blood transfusion, because Jehovah's Witnesses have decided to push their religious views on everyone (they don't, I'm making up a hypothetical and I've gotta get weird to make an equivalence because of how fuckin' weird the evangelical extremism already is).

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying current protest rise to the level of mob rule just that mob rule isn't the same as democracy.

[Skulltaker]

If you think there aren’t threats you’re not looking. At work, no time to find links for you, but I assure you calls for revolution aren’t peaceful. I’m making no excuses for any threats by the way but you’ve got a pretty big blind spot here in my estimation.

What he's saying is that the retards calling for a ban on abortion don't leave it at threats, they actually commit violent acts.

[cubby]

I mean, the problem with these kinds of arguments is that the 9th Amendment exists. Specifically to state that the lack of enumeration of a particular right in the Constitution directly does not mean that right is not Constitutionally recognized as being held by the people. Literally the entire purpose of that particular Amendment.

And the question fundamentally isn't "is abortion a right". It's "is access to healthcare a right" and "is bodily autonomy a right".

Once you recognize that bodily autonomy is a right, and that access to healthcare is a right, the right to abortion is already established by those two principles. The same way the government shouldn't have any right to deny someone the right to, say, a blood transfusion, because Jehovah's Witnesses have decided to push their religious views on everyone (they don't, I'm making up a hypothetical and I've gotta get weird to make an equivalence because of how fuckin' weird the evangelical extremism already is).

But the 9th amendment doesn't address what I was pointing out, nor that the court will apparently in striking down roe. The 9th gives us rights that aren't enumerated in the Constitution, but the 10th tells us that those rights not spelled out in the Constitution are left to the states to decide.

And the question isn't fundamentally about access to healthcare, it's about the right to privacy. At least how Roe addressed it, and how SCOTUS is about to strike it down.

[Jotaux]

I've seen a lot of people say that Roe v. Wade is based on shaky legal foundation. Is that correct?

Before people jump on me for asking, I am pro choice, I just see that argument a lot and want to know what merit that has.

[Darththeo]

I've seen a lot of people say that Roe v. Wade is based on shaky legal foundation. Is that correct?

Before people jump on me for asking, I am pro choice, I just see that argument a lot and want to know what merit that has.

The only people I have seen claim that have in general been pro-life conservatives.

It isn't a strong decision for certain, but whether or not there was actually anything I would see as shaky I can't say.

[cubby]

I've seen a lot of people say that Roe v. Wade is based on shaky legal foundation. Is that correct?

Before people jump on me for asking, I am pro choice, I just see that argument a lot and want to know what merit that has.

It is, and it was poorly written, and while giving women the rights they deserve, it was also mildly chickenshit ruling that punted on being strong and covering what it *should* have covered.

- - - Updated - - -

The only people I have seen claim that have in general been pro-life conservatives.

It isn't a strong decision for certain, but whether or not there was actually anything I would see as shaky I can't say.

It was shaky because the Court at the time didn't build the foundation up as much as they could have. The Court left it to "the right to privacy" when they should have done that, and then also build up a separate foundation of a right to healthcare, AND then build up a third pillar of a right to determine your own bodies decisions.

But they didn't.

What are the words to O' Canada again?