You can be right-wing or left-wing libertarian. Look up the political compass.
No you really can't be left wing Libertarian. Obviously almost no one fits perfectly in one political box so a lot of people on both sides on the aisle share views with Libertarians on specific issues. You see a lot of people from both the left and right claiming to be Libertarian now because they are so disgusted with the two main parties. But everything the left pushes for as far as bigger government, reduced freedoms, the bureaucratic state flies directly in the face of Libertarian ideology. A true Libertarian is highly in favor of individual freedoms and small government. You may see issues like abortion where most on the left and libertarians agree but overall Libertarians generally share a much closer world view with strong conservatives.
Left-libertarianism, also known as egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism, or social libertarianism, is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality...
A leaked draft with 5 republican votes means this is final. Republicans are going to get to own this political decision from now until November. Democrats will be running on expanding the court to rescind this political ruling.
If the Democrats try to make this a major campaign issue for them it will be a disaster, which probably means they'll do it because they are so out of touch. Except in heavily progressive area's and in the MSM most American's are not going to care strongly about abortion now being a state level policy, which is what it should be based on the constitution, rather than federal government policy. The people who are going to go bonkers over this would never vote Republican under any circumstance. The Americans who are up for grabs in elections care way more about the economy, inflation, and what latest nonsense is being inserted into the schools. A swing voter in Virginia will not be influenced by whether Texas can now make abortion illegal in Texas.
As I wrote earlier, there will be significant backlash from this, but I doubt it will be enough in the GOP controlled states to tip the scales in the short term. I’m not even sure women dying from botched abortions will move the needle enough today. After Sandy Hook, I think we showed that there’s enough apathy to stifle progress on issues like this.
Do you understand that your death is end result of this scenario? My kidney is the only one in the world that can save your life. If I don’t give it to you in this scenario, you will not live.
Thank god that situation is nothing like a mother carrying a child, otherwise we would be in real trouble.
If your body belongs to yourself, it’s yours to do with as you see fit.
You can be right-wing or left-wing libertarian. Look up the political compass.
No you really can't be left wing Libertarian. Obviously almost no one fits perfectly in one political box so a lot of people on both sides on the aisle share views with Libertarians on specific issues. You see a lot of people from both the left and right claiming to be Libertarian now because they are so disgusted with the two main parties. But everything the left pushes for as far as bigger government, reduced freedoms, the bureaucratic state flies directly in the face of Libertarian ideology. A true Libertarian is highly in favor of individual freedoms and small government. You may see issues like abortion where most on the left and libertarians agree but overall Libertarians generally share a much closer world view with strong conservatives.
You’ll find left wingers and libertarians line up on most social issues.
Thank god that situation is nothing like a mother carrying a child, otherwise we would be in real trouble.
It’s actually the exact same situation. The fetus requires the mothers body. If I required a kidney, under the reasoning that my mom is responsible for my life, then I could take my mothers kidney against her will. After all, she’s the one that had sex and is thus responsible for my growth, including access to her bodily functions to make this happen.
Except in the kidney donor example, the one giving the kidney didn't cause the kidney-receiver to require a kidney. There's also a difference between intentionally killing someone and not giving them medical treatment. Abortions involve intentionally killing healthy children, not depriving them of medical treatment. Children in the womb also aren't permanently taking their mother's organs. I know you thought this was going to be a huge slam dunk that was going to end the argument, but there's so many differences that make this a ridiculous analogy.
Thank god that situation is nothing like a mother carrying a child, otherwise we would be in real trouble.
If your body belongs to yourself, it’s yours to do with as you see fit.
I agree! That's why it shouldn't be anyone else's right to kill you and destroy your body, even if you're an inconvenience to the person doing the killing.
The cabal and their brainwashed 'liberal' followers will try to incite violence and create a violent false flag event in order to justify doing away with all protections offered by the courts and the constitution. They've been trying to do it for a while now. That's their game plan every time. Stay peaceful and be wary of fake news everywhere.
If the Democrats try to make this a major campaign issue for them it will be a disaster, which probably means they'll do it because they are so out of touch. Except in heavily progressive area's and in the MSM most American's are not going to care strongly about abortion now being a state level policy, which is what it should be based on the constitution, rather than federal government policy. The people who are going to go bonkers over this would never vote Republican under any circumstance. The Americans who are up for grabs in elections care way more about the economy, inflation, and what latest nonsense is being inserted into the schools. A swing voter in Virginia will not be influenced by whether Texas can now make abortion illegal in Texas.
As I wrote earlier, there will be significant backlash from this, but I doubt it will be enough in the GOP controlled states to tip the scales in the short term. I’m not even sure women dying from botched abortions will move the needle enough today. After Sandy Hook, I think we showed that there’s enough apathy to stifle progress on issues like this.
Red states will not suddenly turn blue or purple but many close Congressional district races may tip blue as women, moderates, and young voters react to this. I also would not be surprised to see a few Senate seats that looked like GOP pickups stay blue. This changes the national electoral calculus. It also energizes young Democrats that are done with Biden and were going to stay home. They still don't like Biden but, this is a vote against Republicans just like they used Biden as a vote against Trump. I think that this now puts the expected Democrats loss of the House back into toss-up territory.
State politics will remain the same and more stringent anti-abortion laws will be passed.
The loyalty to politicians and parties is sickening. On all sides. None of these politicians care about you- they need your vote so they can rot away in congressional office for decades while they blow your tax money on more campaign rhetoric.
Politics (as they stand currently in the US) are nothing more than an autocatalytic cycle that proliferates division, hatred, and injustice among the people that give it power.
The left- needs to wake up
The right- needs to wake up
Neither party cares about your babies, your guns, your immigration status- they care about your vote
They are not children. They do not have developed "brains", and are not viable for life. Heart muscles can beat on their own in a petri-dish, is that "alive"? What about ectopic pregnancies? Ever hear about "ancephaly"? There are fetuses that develop a heart beat but never have their neural tubes close. You'd force a woman to bring that thing to term, risking her own life and going through the pains of labor for it? There a many many conditions that produce inviable fetuses, or medical conditions that put a woman's life at risk if they continue pregnancy. Some rare ones are not found until the later stages of pregnancy. Are we going to start prosecuting women for miscarriages (has already happened in Texas)? It's no one's goddam business, and if you don't have a medical degree, you should not be telling women what they should or should not do with their pregnancy. It's a health decision. You want the government to start poking their noses into these private discussions between a woman and her Doctor? You would force an 11 year old child to give birth? Are we going to start prosecuting people who use heroine and meth during pregnancy and force them to carry babies to term that they don't want? News flash, they won't stop using drugs when they are pregnant. Banning abortion doesn't save "babies", it kills women. Are we going to start to be able to sign our fetuses up for life-insurance (since they are people now)? Can we give fetuses social security cards? Can we claim them as dependents on our taxes? Do we celebrate conception days like birthdays? If a woman punches her own stomach, or smokes a cigarrete, or eats raw fish when she is pegnant, or has a miscarriage for any reason, can she be prosecuted for "child abuse"? The answer is no because the law does not recognize them as being "alive". If it's in your religious belief that life begins at conception, great for you, I will protect your right to have religious freedom and believe what you want to believe. You cannot force others to share that belief in this country and our government must be separate from those religious beliefs, that is one of our inaliable rights/freedoms. Some people claim this is a "christian" nation, no it is a nation of religious freedom which includes freedom from religion I.E. I have the right to live my life without following someone else's religious doctrine or rules. If we do not as a nation recognize the fetus as being "alive", then it is the woman's choice to end the pregnancy without Government interference and with private conversations with her Doctor, no one else gets to be involved, period.
It’s actually the exact same situation. The fetus requires the mothers body. If I required a kidney, under the reasoning that my mom is responsible for my life, then I could take my mothers kidney against her will. After all, she’s the one that had sex and is thus responsible for my growth, including access to her bodily functions to make this happen.
Except in the kidney donor example, the one giving the kidney didn't cause the kidney-receiver to require a kidney. There's also a difference between intentionally killing someone and not giving them medical treatment. Abortions involve intentionally killing healthy children, not depriving them of medical treatment. Children in the womb also aren't permanently taking their mother's organs. I know you thought this was going to be a huge slam dunk that was going to end the argument, but there's so many differences that make this a ridiculous analogy.
Why would cause/fault come into play at all? According to you, we’re talking about two human lives that depend on someone else’s body to live. This doubles down on the point that the main opposition to abortion isn’t about protecting life, but punishing women who choose to have sex but don’t want to have a child.
If you only needed to borrow my kidney for nine months, would I be obligated to loan it to you?
It’s worth noting that Evangelical leadership had no problem with abortion until around 1976 when they saw it as a new political tool. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention, following Roe v. Wade, stated that the question of abortion was one between the woman and her doctor.
1) Just reminding everybody this is a draft decision (if true). These change, even dramatically, in the end.
2) If Roe is overturned the practical implications will be more modest than people realize. Roe has effectively been overturned for years in parts of the country. The decision has proved weak in protecting abortion rights. For example there is only one center that performs abortions in the Dakotas. A study from my institution indicates that if Roe is overturned the number of abortions performed will decrease by about 10-15% nationwide at most.
3) On whatever side of this debate you sit, it should trouble you that the law is so unequally applied across the country on a matter of such great importance. The privileged will still have access to safe and legal abortion and those without privilege will not. Just like with the death penalty, it’s not the morality of the act, but it’s the grossly unequal application of the laws across the country that is so troubling.
4) As a doctor, I care about harm prevention and not as much about morals. Humans are humans. They are going to have sex and have unwanted pregnancies. Many are going to seek abortion. You can’t legislate this away. If it’s going to happen regardless, you should reduce the harm by providing safe access, but do everything possible to reduce the demand.
5) My biggest problem with many in the pro life camp is not the opposition to abortion, it’s the hypocrisy as it applies to globally reducing unwanted pregnancies. Certainly a world with no abortions would be best. Everybody agrees on this, right? The most effective way to achieve this goal is not to ban abortion, but to double down on education and easy access to birth control.
They are not children. They do not have developed "brains", and are not viable for life. Heart muscles can beat on their own in a petri-dish, is that "alive"? What about ectopic pregnancies? Ever hear about "ancephaly"? There are fetuses that develop a heart beat but never have their neural tubes close. You'd force a woman to bring that thing to term, risking her own life and going through the pains of labor for it? There a many many conditions that produce inviable fetuses, or medical conditions that put a woman's life at risk if they continue pregnancy. Some rare ones are not found until the later stages of pregnancy. Are we going to start prosecuting women for miscarriages (has already happened in Texas)? It's no one's goddam business, and if you don't have a medical degree, you should not be telling women what they should or should not do with their pregnancy. It's a health decision. You want the government to start poking their noses into these private discussions between a woman and her Doctor? You would force an 11 year old child to give birth? Are we going to start prosecuting people who use heroine and meth during pregnancy and force them to carry babies to term that they don't want? News flash, they won't stop using drugs when they are pregnant. Banning abortion doesn't save "babies", it kills women. Are we going to start to be able to sign our fetuses up for life-insurance (since they are people now)? Can we give fetuses social security cards? Can we claim them as dependents on our taxes? Do we celebrate conception days like birthdays? If a woman punches her own stomach, or smokes a cigarrete, or eats raw fish when she is pegnant, or has a miscarriage for any reason, can she be prosecuted for "child abuse"? The answer is no because the law does not recognize them as being "alive". If it's in your religious belief that life begins at conception, great for you, I will protect your right to have religious freedom and believe what you want to believe. You cannot force others to share that belief in this country and our government must be separate from those religious beliefs, that is one of our inaliable rights/freedoms. Some people claim this is a "christian" nation, no it is a nation of religious freedom which includes freedom from religion I.E. I have the right to live my life without following someone else's religious doctrine or rules. If we do not as a nation recognize the fetus as being "alive", then it is the woman's choice to end the pregnancy without Government interference and with private conversations with her Doctor, no one else gets to be involved, period.
I agree with virtually everything you say, except to point out that the citizens of any country should know what the law is with regards to important issues like this at any given time.
As I wrote earlier, there will be significant backlash from this, but I doubt it will be enough in the GOP controlled states to tip the scales in the short term.
The Alito pre-decided decision says the a government cannot allow abortion unless it is a constitutional amendment. He claims states can decide whether to allow abortion or not. Those states are passing forced-birth laws the same way Roe V Wade was passed by Congress. They are passing them as simple majority votes without state constitutional amendments.
Five religious fools on the SCOTUS are about to raise the bar on what Congress can do while lowering the bar for states. What's to stop a state from passing any law the party in control wants to do? Nothing. And as soon as the three state branches switch to another party the pendulum can swing another 180-degrees. Forced-birth required. Then abortion allowed. Then forced-birth required. Then Abortion allowed. And onward. The main difference being "required" versus "allowed".
I agree with virtually everything you say, except to point out that the citizens of any country should know what the law is with regards to important issues like this at any given time.
At any given time means whichever party has a bare majority control at that given time.
The way I read this, it will allow states to set their own rules. It's very clear how this will fall. This will make two different countries, however, even more pronounced than today. This may or may not be a good thing, depending.
Will the court overturn Roe? Surely, yes. But the title of this thread is factually incorrect and spreading misinformation. Roe remains the law of the land today, and encouraging people to assume otherwise may prevent women who need abortions from accessing them.
This board is such a cesspool of morons. It's the online equivalent of the most obnoxious crowd of skinny white boys on every high school cross country team.
It’s actually the exact same situation. The fetus requires the mothers body. If I required a kidney, under the reasoning that my mom is responsible for my life, then I could take my mothers kidney against her will. After all, she’s the one that had sex and is thus responsible for my growth, including access to her bodily functions to make this happen.
Except in the kidney donor example, the one giving the kidney didn't cause the kidney-receiver to require a kidney. There's also a difference between intentionally killing someone and not giving them medical treatment. Abortions involve intentionally killing healthy children, not depriving them of medical treatment. Children in the womb also aren't permanently taking their mother's organs. I know you thought this was going to be a huge slam dunk that was going to end the argument, but there's so many differences that make this a ridiculous analogy.
In my example, the kidney donor is definitely responsible for the kidney receiver needing a kidney. I wouldn’t need a kidney if my mother did not birth me in the first place. By having sex and getting pregnant, the mother forfeits her right to body autonomy (according to pro-life arguments), so I’m allowed to take my mothers kidney. Really, she owes it to me by choosing to have me. She is required to provide, with her body if necessary, what her child needs to survive.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.