• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Wakeforest22890 said:
I’m saying that I don’t believe that is the heart of the argument from most pro-choice believers. I think plenty of them, myself included, argue that a woman has a right to control her own body until the fetus reaches a point (for me viability) where both entities then require consideration from the state.
Click to expand...


The more I think and read on this issue the more viability seems like a horrible standard. Birth is probably the only line I’m comfortable with. Maybe once science can accurately determine the moment a fetus has the neural structure capable of supporting consciousness I’d be fine moving the line back to that.

I just struggle to grasp what the state’s interest is before then.
 
RChildress107 said:
The more I think and read on this issue the more viability seems like a horrible standard. Birth is probably the only line I’m comfortable with. Maybe once science can accurately determine the moment a fetus has the neural structure capable of supporting consciousness I’d be fine moving the line back to that.

I just struggle to grasp what the state’s interest is before then.
Click to expand...

What's your position on a woman who is in her 38th week of pregnancy who decides to terminate?
 
Deacon923 said:
The judicial filibuster is gone. Democrats can't pull a Garland on this nominee. So unless somebody like Flake or Corker grows a set of actual balls instead of just talking, there is no way to block Trump's nominee.
Click to expand...

Democrats need to focus on rallying voters in response to this situation. Turn this shit-lemon into deep blue lemonade during the mid-term election. Because ultimately, resistance is futile.

73WZ.gif
 
The biggest problem, as highlighted by the twitter thread what happens when abortion is illegal, is that it’s just straight class warfare again. If certain states outlaw abortion and other states allow it then you still technically have the ability to get an abortion. For those well off it’s not too hard to take paid vacation (already not an option for people paycheck to paycheck), book a flight to Boston (money people don’t have) and have an abortion. This hurtle then increases more if outlawed completely, where for well off it’s more paid vacation and a more expensive flight out of the country while the rest it becomes online drugs that are unregulated and into the shadows you go.

The argument always is it’s a choice and while true it disregards human nature and pure joy in sex. Somewhere in the warped religious conservative mind sex became something to control where all efforts to control it have failed and will continue to fail. People like to fuck, if you are poor, have no other things to look forward to, no vacation, no parties, no shopping for fun, etc... then the greatest and most fun entertainment that is allotted to you in life is fucking.
 
HailToTheDeacons said:
Democrats need to focus on rallying voters in response to this situation. Turn this shit-lemon into deep blue lemonade during the mid-term election. Because ultimately, resistance is futile.

73WZ.gif
Click to expand...

As even many Democrats on the boards have pointed out, you had the opportunity to do that two years ago...knowing that future USSC nominations were at stake...and you failed to turn out your vote. And in so doing, you lost an election that should have been impossible to lose. Older white Republicans voted (as they always do). Evangelicals (of which I am not one, BTW, having not attended church services in more than 50 years now) turned out in droves. And, knowing what the stakes are, all those voters will turn out en masse again. Trump is fantastic at turning out his vote. You can be assured that there will be a record turnout of Republican voters. Whether you can get young people & minorities to actually get off their asses and vote when you don't have an Obama on the ticket remains to be seen. They talk a good game and I have no doubt that they will do a better job than they have in the past of getting out their vote....but they've got a terrible track record in this area.

ETA: Maxine Waters has super-charged Republican turnout this November as well. That's one of the (few) things that RJ has been right about. More & more voters who may be undecided are beginning to see Democrats as a bunch of unhinged radical screamers. (That has become the modus operandi of board libs lately as well. Seems to be a growing trend in the Democratic Party.)
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
why not? because, as I said, the heart of the argument is that a woman should control her own body against state interference
Click to expand...

I think you paint this as too absolutist for two reasons.

First, I agree that morality is objective and absolute. To pull on your example, slavery was wrong 300 years ago, is wrong today, and will be wrong 300 years from now. However, human attitudes and appreciations of those objective moral truths are subject to change and development. Thus, the prohibitions on and punishment for slavery are very different now than they were in the colonial era, and they gradually advanced as views converged. Most people, at least on this thread, seem to appreciate that this is an unsettled issue with valid concerns on each side, and we don't need to reach a final and irreversible decision tomorrow.

Second, I believe that the majority of people realize that abortion involves two conflicting sets of rights: the mother's and the child's. Numbers does a good job describing this in his posts. All but the most extreme hardliners believe that the mother has interests that are in some need of protection and that the state is imposing a significant burden on her by forcing her to undergo the pregnancy. Likewise, all but the most extreme proponents on the opposite side believe that the child has rights and interests and pays the ultimate price if the abortion is carried out. The issue is not just of protecting one or the other, but of weighing their respective rights and striking a proper balance.
 
Great post. Adding on to this and reiterating part of one of my earlier posts, I have some concerns that the SCOTUS moving forward may not do as good a job weighing the respective rights and striking a balance. This is obviously subjective, but even if you disagree with the holding in Roe I think most would agree that the Court did a good job in laying out what rights it considered, how it balanced those rights, and how the majority ultimately came to its decision.

Maybe my concern is unfounded but I imagine we will find out over the next few years.
 
If America is 70+% pro choice like maddow claims, why are they so concerned if the the abortion question is left to the individual states?
 
Ask that questions about pretty much any topic. The answer is because we are being governed by a minority that to remain in power has had to continuously court the extreme ends of that minority.
 
marquee moon said:
If America is 70+% pro choice like maddow claims, why are they so concerned if the the abortion question is left to the individual states?
Click to expand...

For me, it goes beyond the legal implications from state to state (although this is the preeminent concern from a practical vantage point - whether individuals in need of an abortion have meaningful access to necessary resources) and gets to the constitutional concern. The reason this was not simply left to the individual states was based in the Supreme Court's determination that certain abortion regulation implicated privacy concerns subsumed within the Fourteenth Amendment.

So if you simply ignore the constitutional element of the question, sure I guess there isn't a concern. If you're interested in both the practical and legal implications of the question then that's why you don't just leave it to the individual states.
 
70+% of people oppose partisan gerrymandering too, yet we see what happens when it's not outlawed. State legislatures are increasingly packed with relative extremists who don't represent the views of the majority of their state and are primarily interested in consolidating their power.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Ask that questions about pretty much any topic. The answer is because we are being governed by a minority that to remain in power has had to continuously court the extreme ends of that minority.
Click to expand...

You evidently have no understanding whatsoever regarding the concept of Federalism, upon which our Constitution is based.
 
Not to mention my comment applies universally to pretty much all layers from federal to state, hell now a days maybe even local. See state government breakdown by representation to votes cast.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
he understands the concept just fine. he's expressing the fact that it's a dumb concept in 2018
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. If he did, he would not have made the statement that I bolded in my response.

And you think that Federalism should not apply to the United States government in 2018? That's revolutionary stuff. You might want to bake that idea a little more before you take it out of the oven.
 
no i don't think it's sensible in an era where communication is instantaneous and global and physical travel between continents is counted in hours to have a mish-mash of legal standards and rights across a so-called unified nation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top