I believe that no state has the right to assert control over anyone's body. I believe that our sex and reproductive lives are not the business of the state. I believe in a personal right to privacy.
I wonder if Alito thinks the legitimacy of Thomas' marriage is determined by which state he lives in?
I agree that the state has no right to exert control over anyone's body. I also think it is possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. Your last question about Thomas is a good question. Miscegenation was illegal not that long ago. I remember an old guy telling me that blacks and whites could not marry because the Bible says, "Light cannot have fellowship with darkness." On the other hand, for those who believe abortion is murder, Thomas' marriage is irrelevant because no one died.
Appeals to the Bible fail on two grounds 1) Separation of church and state. Legislation cannot promote religious beliefs. If abortion is to be a crime, it must be based on a rationale that [people can accept outside of religion. For example, theft is illegal in every country, even those without the Bible. 2) The only two Biblical passages that touch on abortion both treat it as a property crime against the father. Even pro-lifers do not accept the idea that a fetus is the property of the father.
"The reversal of ROE wouldn't take the right to an abortion away from anyone." - oh, come now, don't play dumb. You and everyone else is well aware of the GOP goals here.
If you fancy yourself a traditional conservative, aren't you the least bit concerned about the fate of other unenumerated rights? Or are you confident that only the "bad" unenumerated rights will disappear and the ones you happen to like at the moment will stick around?
You're right. It should be understood as a right to privacy and a right to freedom over your own body. But for some reason other peoples' pregnancy is something a lot if people feel they have a right to control.
Your definition of what is a human being is not necessarily another's definition. And you don't have the right to govern someone else's body based on your personal beliefs.
Too bad. If I don't want to be pregnant for 9 months, go through the pain of birth, that's my business. Not yours. If you want to save that human you can have it removed from the woman, implant into your wife or daughter who will give birth. You can pay the expense of that as well. Otherwise, mind your own business. And just to be clear. I never had an abortion or miscarriage and did have 2 babies. I loved expecting and giving birth because it was my choice. I wouldn't wish the pain, expense and discomfort on someone unwilling to bear it.
It could be argued that anyone (including men) who is not prepared to take on the responsibility for the care and nurture of another human being should abstain from the activity that potentially produces human beings. But human nature being what it is, the only viable public policy is to make abortion safe, legal and rare. It is very naive of those opposed to abortion to think outlawing it will put an an to it. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition and the War on Drugs?
You are being disingenious and kind of ignoring the larger picture--which is exactly the response the people who want to take rights away are hoping for...
And as pointed out elsewhere, the basis for abortion and privacy rights exists in the 9th Amendment. The error in Roe V Wade was in not basing it in the 9th.
Lots of rights have been created over time (like corporate personhood rights) or have been changed (like 2nd amendment rights). The reality, if you want to be all constitutional about it is that the government ONLY has the powers enumerated to it with the other rights reserved either to the states or the people. In the case of something like having to give birth to a child and raise it, perhaps that right and decision should be left to the person most affected by it? Meaning NOT the government.
Heh, speaking of non-sequiturs, I see you are desperately trying to avoid the important points here. Pretending that ROE exists in a vacuum is just that: playing pretend. Overturning it is a step in a process. Nothing paranoid about it: it's been broadcast from Conservative Inc for decades. Where have you been?
Ignoring Alito's words is also playing pretend. It's not hard to see how his thinking applies to lots of unenumerated rights. I get that you don't see privacy covering abortion. Swell. Maybe you don't feel privacy should exist as an unenumerated right at all. But *you* aren't necessarily the problem here. It's what others on the authoritarian right don't find as "believable arguments" that should concern you.
I'm trying to be sympathetic to your perspective, but it seems you are operating in a context-free idealized world.
You don't think it's an "emotional argument" to try to equate slavery to a woman's right to choose regarding her own body and health? As to returning it to the States, do a little reading. The first item on their agenda if they retake power is to pass a federal law banning abortion throughout the entire US. The leaked SCOTUS opinion spells that out for them.
These sorts of personal attacks are unbecoming. It is bad enough that other comment sections are full of them. Let's not pollute the Bulwark's comment section.
I believe that no state has the right to assert control over anyone's body. I believe that our sex and reproductive lives are not the business of the state. I believe in a personal right to privacy.
I wonder if Alito thinks the legitimacy of Thomas' marriage is determined by which state he lives in?
I agree that the state has no right to exert control over anyone's body. I also think it is possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. Your last question about Thomas is a good question. Miscegenation was illegal not that long ago. I remember an old guy telling me that blacks and whites could not marry because the Bible says, "Light cannot have fellowship with darkness." On the other hand, for those who believe abortion is murder, Thomas' marriage is irrelevant because no one died.
Appeals to the Bible fail on two grounds 1) Separation of church and state. Legislation cannot promote religious beliefs. If abortion is to be a crime, it must be based on a rationale that [people can accept outside of religion. For example, theft is illegal in every country, even those without the Bible. 2) The only two Biblical passages that touch on abortion both treat it as a property crime against the father. Even pro-lifers do not accept the idea that a fetus is the property of the father.
"The reversal of ROE wouldn't take the right to an abortion away from anyone." - oh, come now, don't play dumb. You and everyone else is well aware of the GOP goals here.
If you fancy yourself a traditional conservative, aren't you the least bit concerned about the fate of other unenumerated rights? Or are you confident that only the "bad" unenumerated rights will disappear and the ones you happen to like at the moment will stick around?
You're right. It should be understood as a right to privacy and a right to freedom over your own body. But for some reason other peoples' pregnancy is something a lot if people feel they have a right to control.
Except you completely overlook the fact that abortion involves another human being. Simply ignoring the fact of prenatal life is a bit disingenuous.
Your definition of what is a human being is not necessarily another's definition. And you don't have the right to govern someone else's body based on your personal beliefs.
Too bad. If I don't want to be pregnant for 9 months, go through the pain of birth, that's my business. Not yours. If you want to save that human you can have it removed from the woman, implant into your wife or daughter who will give birth. You can pay the expense of that as well. Otherwise, mind your own business. And just to be clear. I never had an abortion or miscarriage and did have 2 babies. I loved expecting and giving birth because it was my choice. I wouldn't wish the pain, expense and discomfort on someone unwilling to bear it.
It could be argued that anyone (including men) who is not prepared to take on the responsibility for the care and nurture of another human being should abstain from the activity that potentially produces human beings. But human nature being what it is, the only viable public policy is to make abortion safe, legal and rare. It is very naive of those opposed to abortion to think outlawing it will put an an to it. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition and the War on Drugs?
You are being disingenious and kind of ignoring the larger picture--which is exactly the response the people who want to take rights away are hoping for...
And as pointed out elsewhere, the basis for abortion and privacy rights exists in the 9th Amendment. The error in Roe V Wade was in not basing it in the 9th.
Lots of rights have been created over time (like corporate personhood rights) or have been changed (like 2nd amendment rights). The reality, if you want to be all constitutional about it is that the government ONLY has the powers enumerated to it with the other rights reserved either to the states or the people. In the case of something like having to give birth to a child and raise it, perhaps that right and decision should be left to the person most affected by it? Meaning NOT the government.
Heh, speaking of non-sequiturs, I see you are desperately trying to avoid the important points here. Pretending that ROE exists in a vacuum is just that: playing pretend. Overturning it is a step in a process. Nothing paranoid about it: it's been broadcast from Conservative Inc for decades. Where have you been?
Ignoring Alito's words is also playing pretend. It's not hard to see how his thinking applies to lots of unenumerated rights. I get that you don't see privacy covering abortion. Swell. Maybe you don't feel privacy should exist as an unenumerated right at all. But *you* aren't necessarily the problem here. It's what others on the authoritarian right don't find as "believable arguments" that should concern you.
I'm trying to be sympathetic to your perspective, but it seems you are operating in a context-free idealized world.
You don't think it's an "emotional argument" to try to equate slavery to a woman's right to choose regarding her own body and health? As to returning it to the States, do a little reading. The first item on their agenda if they retake power is to pass a federal law banning abortion throughout the entire US. The leaked SCOTUS opinion spells that out for them.
Or Congress dominated by one party. A federal law banning abortion is the next step.
These sorts of personal attacks are unbecoming. It is bad enough that other comment sections are full of them. Let's not pollute the Bulwark's comment section.
Hear, hear!
We kind of have a nice thing going here at the Bulwark. Can we please not Breitbart it?
Yep. Don't see him swearing at people and calling them morons. My comment about Breitbart was intended to channel tone, not content.
Your point?
Did Robert personally attack anyone?
Then refute his claims. But do not equivocate on the meaning of "personally attack."
If you need help untangling yourself, let us know. :-)