Pregnancy is a normal, healthy part of female human form. Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes. There is utterly no way to fairly resolve the question of the rights of the man in question without forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.
The alternative is to say the man has no rights over his fetus. That to me is much much worse than 9 months of a woman’s life devoted in large part to labor (and long-term pregnancy scars if any, but those are altogether normal, not an “ailment”).
And yes, you get it. You have to compel women to give birth to satisfy your desires. Pretty icky. I suggest talking to your sexual partners instead.
Look up maternal mortality rates before modern medicine before acting like pregnancy is no big deal. Modern pregnancies frequently encounter complications that would be life threatening without modern care. This risk earns women the bulk of fetal rights. It’s fairly straightforward logic.
Maternity mortality rates are very low in the US, and in case, the number doesn’t matter because maternity is part of normal female life.
What is clear to me is that you are closed to any moral or intellectual points of view other than your own, and your own moral or cost/benefit perceptions are “straightforward logic”. You have
- called the desire to claim paternal rights on the fetus’ life “icky” offering a non-starter solution when clearly the question of legal rights only matters in the event of a disagreement, however unlikely that may be.
- you prioritize labor pains over the life of an unborn child and the desire of the father to bring to life his fetus.
- you mock people who truly believe in the sanctity of life very strongly as simply being hoodwinked by crafty politicians.
No wonder you get shocked when a Trump comes to power or when scotus overturns a long standing presumedly settled law when it didn’t make common sense to half the country and even to some of the liberal justices and even to many women m, including liberal women, who are deeply conflicted about “choice”.
Pregnancy is a normal, healthy part of female human form. Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes. There is utterly no way to fairly resolve the question of the rights of the man in question without forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.
The alternative is to say the man has no rights over his fetus. That to me is much much worse than 9 months of a woman’s life devoted in large part to labor (and long-term pregnancy scars if any, but those are altogether normal, not an “ailment”).
You've said so many blatantly incorrect things that I think you must be doing it on purpose as a joke.
"Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes."
What are these many burdens? Are they socially constructed like work, war, etc., or biological like pregnancy, periods, etc.? You see where I'm going with this I would hope.
Nope, I’ve not said anything incorrect, mostly just expressed my subjective moral and intellectual perspective, and you haven’t pointed to anything “incorrect”.
Does the statement “men and women share every societal burden equally” truly sound reasonable to you? Yes, wars, suicides, heavy duty construction jobs, etc. So what if they are societally constructed?
In fact it doesn’t even matter if every other burden was equally shared: the simple fact of the matter is that nature created one sex to bear the pains of labor but for both sexes to bear the fruit and the pains of raising children. Denying any paternal rights over an unborn fetus but also forcing the man to pay child support is intellectually vacuous. Only a radical feminist who explicitly does NOT believe in equal rights for both sexes would find that reasonable.
Dave Chappelle believes that it is a woman's unequivocal right to choose, but he believes men should have rights, too. Watch Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones,...
Oh, hooray more unwanted, mistake, fatherless kids in our world. If someone thinks that human sexual behavior will be changed by making abortion not federally legal, you have your head far up your pastor's ass.
You've said so many blatantly incorrect things that I think you must be doing it on purpose as a joke.
"Many burdens in society are unequally shared between the sexes."
What are these many burdens? Are they socially constructed like work, war, etc., or biological like pregnancy, periods, etc.? You see where I'm going with this I would hope.
Nope, I’ve not said anything incorrect, mostly just expressed my subjective moral and intellectual perspective, and you haven’t pointed to anything “incorrect”.
Does the statement “men and women share every societal burden equally” truly sound reasonable to you? Yes, wars, suicides, heavy duty construction jobs, etc. So what if they are societally constructed?
In fact it doesn’t even matter if every other burden was equally shared: the simple fact of the matter is that nature created one sex to bear the pains of labor but for both sexes to bear the fruit and the pains of raising children. Denying any paternal rights over an unborn fetus but also forcing the man to pay child support is intellectually vacuous. Only a radical feminist who explicitly does NOT believe in equal rights for both sexes would find that reasonable.
On the weekend of Roe v Wade being overturned, you think it's a good time to make the point that men have it hard too. You're only able to spot the injustice done to men? I mean I agree with you in some instances, but if you're so good at spotting the injustices men experience in the legal system, then surely you must be aware of the injustice of what just happened to women's rights to make reproductive choices, right?
They are not babies. Are all the frozen zygote ( fertilized eggs) babies to you?
Didn't think you could answer that.
Yes. A zygote is a human. Just because a person looks different at their zygote stage of development than other developmental stages doesn't make them any less human.
So those thousands of frozen zygotes are all people with the same rights as people. So in your eyes, if someone takes them out of the freezer they are murderers and should be arrested??
Really, that's what you think?? I want to see you actually state your agreement with that (exactly as I said) in a post.
I am betting my reputation that you cannot state that. Should those frozen zygotes be counted in the census and assigned guardians??
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
If you're younger than 40, we will likely legislate legal abortions in your lifetime. Long term, this will be good for abortion rights, just like Donald Trump is good for the left. Crystalizing our worse ideas so we recognize them as such.
I agree it will get legislated at the federal level. If they are smart, it will be done as some kind of privacy thing between a patient and doctor, and that no one, especially the government, can inquire, discover or investigate what was said or done between patient and doctor unless the patient consents. Basically make the doctor-patient privilege similar to the attorney-client privilege.
That will be much more palatable across the political spectrum. Who can argue against keeping the prying eyes of the government out of your personal medical affairs?
To these types of "arguments," all I can say is: Cry harder.
These kind of reactionary “victories” backfire 90% of the time in Western democracies. Low information types such as yourself seem content being pawns in the oligarchic political apparatus. I applaud you for accepting your station in life.
Roe v. Wade backfired and created the 49 year conservative legal movement.
Nope, I’ve not said anything incorrect, mostly just expressed my subjective moral and intellectual perspective, and you haven’t pointed to anything “incorrect”.
Does the statement “men and women share every societal burden equally” truly sound reasonable to you? Yes, wars, suicides, heavy duty construction jobs, etc. So what if they are societally constructed?
In fact it doesn’t even matter if every other burden was equally shared: the simple fact of the matter is that nature created one sex to bear the pains of labor but for both sexes to bear the fruit and the pains of raising children. Denying any paternal rights over an unborn fetus but also forcing the man to pay child support is intellectually vacuous. Only a radical feminist who explicitly does NOT believe in equal rights for both sexes would find that reasonable.
On the weekend of Roe v Wade being overturned, you think it's a good time to make the point that men have it hard too. You're only able to spot the injustice done to men? I mean I agree with you in some instances, but if you're so good at spotting the injustices men experience in the legal system, then surely you must be aware of the injustice of what just happened to women's rights to make reproductive choices, right?
Yes, I do think it’s a good time because it’s an important reason I personally stopped caring for Roe much. Some people think differently from you, you know?
And sure, I see the injustice to women too, but I don’t think the scotus ruling changes that much in practice. You are mostly talking about a scenario where a woman chooses to have unprotected sex and gets pregnant and happens to live in a state prohibiting abortions and she and her man can not afford to travel to a different state to get the abortion so badly wanted. Plus Congress can still protect that right federally if it really has the mandate and if it doesn’t, then people just don’t want it that badly.
I do support a woman’s right to an abortion if the sex wasn’t with her consent.
In any case, I don’t see an intellectually honest reading of the constitution’s 14th amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy and, more importantly, privacy having anything to do with the right to get an abortion. That never made sense. You can’t claim the right to privacy to purchase illegal drugs in order to inject it into “my body”. Bodily autonomy has always had limits.
What irritates me almost more than the ruling itself is that the recently confirmed justices literally said it was precedent. They straight up lied through their teeth, and bobblehead Susan Collins said she believed them, as well as Lisa M.
What irritates me almost more than the ruling itself is that the recently confirmed justices literally said it was precedent. They straight up lied through their teeth, and bobblehead Susan Collins said she believed them, as well as Lisa M.
They didn’t lie. They were impressively conscientious about not saying anything that would turn out to be a lie. Go listen to the videos or actually read the transcript. SC justices are incredibly articulate and smart people with an intellectual conscience. Their conscience may not agree with yours, but they are way way more conscientious — like academics and scientists — than politicians.
Agree Collins was a dumbo for not recognizing standard issue scotus nominee lingo.
1) All of the recently appointed conservative justices flat-out lied in their confirmation testimonies.
2) A cluster of cells is not a person.
3) The majority of Americans, by a good measure, oppose this decision and conservatives will pay a political price for overplaying their hand -- even DJT admits this.
They didn’t make abortion illegal. Rather, they put the onus on the governed to determine for themselves the restrictions to put on abortion access at the state level. If you want to live in a state (like you already likely do) that believes that humans are not people, you are free to do so, and the federal government has no say in the matter. As far as the next election is concerned, time will tell, as voters will likely be more concerned with $6 gas, war in Ukraine, inflation, the stock market in the tank, rising crime, etc. Quite honestly, this decision won’t change things much at all.
The argument “I want to punish all women because some progressives push for more lenient abortion laws than I want” is weak and makes you look dumb.
framing this as “a large majority of the country supports reasonable abortion laws - such as 1st trimester - and this ruling will allow those to remain” is already falsified. There are states that have already banned abortion despite large majorities supporting early-term legalization. Your talking points are already obsolete. Turn to your conservative oligarch masters for an updated set, ASAP.
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
Once more I'm obliged to point out that Judges can't legislate from the bench, only legislatures can legislate. Judges apply precedents to new concrete disputes between individuals in order to generate solutions, and their reasoning can be a guide to the public (and a restraint on the discretion of lower court judges, as well as on the discretion of their own replacements. Stating the reasoning for one's decision in a case is not legislating.
Regarding whether abortion should go back to the states, why is it a good thing that some states will ban abortion and some will allow it? Shouldn't the right to (or prohibition against) abortion be uniform? It's either right or it's wrong, so shouldn't it be right or wrong for everyone everywhere?
Oh, hooray more unwanted, mistake, fatherless kids in our world. If someone thinks that human sexual behavior will be changed by making abortion not federally legal, you have your head far up your pastor's ass.
There were far fewer fatherless kids pre-Roe than post-Roe. All Roe did (along with increased access to birth control) was increase the risk tolerance for sexual promiscuity. Any benefit from abortion in terms of illegitimacy was more than offset by the increase in risky behavior brought about by the misperception of “safe” sex and the birth control benefits of abortion.
Regarding whether abortion should go back to the states, why is it a good thing that some states will ban abortion and some will allow it? Shouldn't the right to (or prohibition against) abortion be uniform? It's either right or it's wrong, so shouldn't it be right or wrong for everyone everywhere?
That’s really a question? Is the age of consent the same in every state? Does that mean some states are officially more pedophilic than others? There are many things that are not black and white but more nuanced: you don’t have a right to murder, you do have a right to self defense, but not all states have the same stand your ground laws. Should it either be a universal right to kill an unwelcome person in your house or be considered uniformly wrong? Why??
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
Once more I'm obliged to point out that Judges can't legislate from the bench, only legislatures can legislate. Judges apply precedents to new concrete disputes between individuals in order to generate solutions, and their reasoning can be a guide to the public (and a restraint on the discretion of lower court judges, as well as on the discretion of their own replacements. Stating the reasoning for one's decision in a case is not legislating.
Regarding whether abortion should go back to the states, why is it a good thing that some states will ban abortion and some will allow it? Shouldn't the right to (or prohibition against) abortion be uniform? It's either right or it's wrong, so shouldn't it be right or wrong for everyone everywhere?
My saying they legislated is mostly to poke back at the folks so fervent in their belief that what happed yesterday was legislating from the bench. If this SCOTUS is guilty of legislating yesterday, then certainly the 1973 SCOTUS is guilty of it as well. In truth, neither are but it is what it is.
The Roe ruling was based on a flimsy "substantive due process" ruling. The current SCOTUS saying the Court should be neutral on abortion is the correct interpretation of the constitution. That in itself is a good thing. The outcome of each state deciding about how to manage abortion is the by product and is an example of federalism.
If that's the case, then surely they will get voted out of office since abortion is so popular. That's the way this should have been handled in the first place. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court back in 1973 decided to legislate from the bench and now we have this mess to deal with. You can try to sound clever, it doesn't change the fact that the initial ruling along with hyper progressive agendas have culminated in the repeal of Roe. Call them talking points if you like, but I guess that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg a conservative oligarch since she said it too.
Once more I'm obliged to point out that Judges can't legislate from the bench, only legislatures can legislate. Judges apply precedents to new concrete disputes between individuals in order to generate solutions, and their reasoning can be a guide to the public (and a restraint on the discretion of lower court judges, as well as on the discretion of their own replacements. Stating the reasoning for one's decision in a case is not legislating.
That's pretty obtuse of you. You are aware that when it is said that a judge is legislating from the bench, that the judge is being accused of issuing a ruling beyond that necessary to resolve the case, and usually involving rule making much more appropriate for legislative bodies.
Judges are trained not to legislate from the bench, and most are hesitant to do so. Some do, however, and some do it a lot more than others. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. It's a practice, however, that should not be encouraged for many reasons.
Parts of the ruling in Roe are the greatest examples I know of a judge legislating from the bench, and many legal commentators have said as much. The entire trimester scheme and the seemingly arbitrary, subjective deadlines in Roe are all rules one would expect from a legislative body, and should be astounded to see in a judicial opinion expounding on Constitutional law. Justice Blackmun developed what is essentially a statutory scheme for determining the gestational milestones and cycles of a pregnancy and when and how those milestones should be considered in an abortion procedure. I'm sure he did a lot of research and made somewhat of a scientifically informed decision, but it was an absurd overreach on his part.
1) All of the recently appointed conservative justices flat-out lied in their confirmation testimonies.
2) A cluster of cells is not a person.
3) The majority of Americans, by a good measure, oppose this decision and conservatives will pay a political price for overplaying their hand -- even DJT admits this.
They didn’t make abortion illegal. Rather, they put the onus on the governed to determine for themselves the restrictions to put on abortion access at the state level. If you want to live in a state (like you already likely do) that believes that humans are not people, you are free to do so, and the federal government has no say in the matter. As far as the next election is concerned, time will tell, as voters will likely be more concerned with $6 gas, war in Ukraine, inflation, the stock market in the tank, rising crime, etc. Quite honestly, this decision won’t change things much at all.
The Supreme Court said that government has the right to make that decision for you. You have NO right to make that personal decision for yourself.
So you are the furthest thing from free on this subject.
They didn’t make abortion illegal. Rather, they put the onus on the governed to determine for themselves the restrictions to put on abortion access at the state level. If you want to live in a state (like you already likely do) that believes that humans are not people, you are free to do so, and the federal government has no say in the matter. As far as the next election is concerned, time will tell, as voters will likely be more concerned with $6 gas, war in Ukraine, inflation, the stock market in the tank, rising crime, etc. Quite honestly, this decision won’t change things much at all.
The Supreme Court said that government has the right to make that decision for you. You have NO right to make that personal decision for yourself.
So you are the furthest thing from free on this subject.
SCOTUS said they are sending it back to the states where the citizens can vote for or against their current representatives to affect the change they see fit in regards to abortion. That hasn't been possible for the past 50 years.
Nearly 80% of Americans are in favor of regulating abortion after the first trimester. That wasn't necessarily possible with Roe in place. Seems like most people should be happy with the ruling.