Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[gorfias]

So your idea of liberty is your local state government telling you that you can't do something?

If I'm voting in that state for a thing. I don't think I am more free when an unaccountable, un elected, unrepresentative, elite body apparently violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and tells me based upon 200 year old text I suddenly don't have a right to vote on a thing. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

If I'm a "fundamentalist Christian" I can just shut up about the legality of a procedure that can have huge social impacts that effect me because it is none of my business?

I just don't see this position as pro-liberty.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If I'm voting in that state for a thing. I don't think I am more free when an unaccountable, un elected, unrepresentative, elite body apparently violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and tells me based upon 200 year old text I suddenly don't have a right to vote on a thing. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

If I'm a "fundamentalist Christian" I can just shut up about the legality of a procedure that can have huge social impacts that effect me because it is none of my business?

I just don't see this position as pro-liberty.

When the supreme court made a pro-abortion decision it gave more power to individual people to decide whether they wanted an abortion and removed power from legislators to create laws limiting abortion.

No one took any rights away from voters to decide whether they are allowed to have an abortion. You can decide for yourself whether you want to get an abortion. The right that was removed from voters was in deciding whether OTHER PEOPLE are allowed to have abortions. Whether your neighbor has an abortion does not have an effect on you, and therefore should be none of your business.

What you want to do is return the ability to decide whether or not you are allowed to have an abortion to state legislatures. This is a fundamental reduction in personal liberty as it means that a small ruling body gets to decide the rights of everyone else in the state, whether those people voted for those representatives or not, rather than each person making their own decision.

That's why I've said that you are conflating state's right's and people's rights, and your argument is in no way "pro-liberty" if you're taking away people's individual choice.

 

[gorfias]

When the supreme court made a pro-abortion decision it gave more power to individual people to decide whether they wanted an abortion and removed power from legislators to create laws limiting abortion.

No one took any rights away from voters to decide whether they are allowed to have an abortion. You can decide for yourself whether you want to get an abortion. The right that was removed from voters was in deciding whether OTHER PEOPLE are allowed to have abortions. Whether your neighbor has an abortion does not have an effect on you, and therefore should be none of your business.

What you want to do is return the ability to decide whether or not you are allowed to have an abortion to state legislatures. This is a fundamental reduction in personal liberty as it means that a small ruling body gets to decide the rights of everyone else in the state, whether those people voted for those representatives or not, rather than each person making their own decision.

That's why I've said that you are conflating state's right's and people's rights, and your argument is in no way "pro-liberty" if you're taking away people's individual choice.

States rights can be a person's rights. I vote a thing at the state level. They make it happen. The USSC says, violative of the 10th Amendment, that I no longer have that right? That's a problem.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

States rights can be a person's rights. I vote a thing at the state level. They make it happen. The USSC says, violative of the 10th Amendment, that I no longer have that right? That's a problem.

No, state's rights cannot be person's rights. Any right that the state has is a right that you explicitly do not have.

The state has the right to create laws. You do not have the right to create laws, you must follow any laws created by the state. You might be able to propose laws, or to vote for people who you think will makes laws you like, but you are not able to create laws.

The state has the right to tax you. You are not able to tax the state. You might vote for people who you think will tax you less, or create taxes that you like, or who you think will direct tax money where you want it, but you are not able to control tax money.

Conversely any rights that you have are rights that the state doesn't have. You have the right to freedom of religion, so the state cannot force you to attend church. You have a right to property, and while the state can take your property (eminent domain) they must compensate you for it at market value. The state is not able to just take your property on a whim.

When you vote for something you are not actually taking direct action. What you are doing is asking representatives to take action on your behalf, which even if you win may or may not happen, or may happen differently than how you actually want it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So your idea of liberty is your local state government telling you that you can't do something?

His local state government telling other people they can't do something. Not quite the same thing.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

States rights can be a person's rights. I vote a thing at the state level. They make it happen. The USSC says, violative of the 10th Amendment, that I no longer have that right? That's a problem.

And if I vote for a thing at the state level that curtails your rights, is that more freeing for you?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No. She (and I) don't want to ban abortion. I think she (and I) think Roe badly reasoned. And sorry to not have the exact quote. I'm not 100% certain it was from her. Just something I'd heard 35 years ago and I don't want to try to take credit for this analysis.

So, you're making shit up whole cloth and pretending a feminist said it so you can say "look at this feminist that agrees with me", brilliant

 

[Agema]

States rights can be a person's rights. I vote a thing at the state level. They make it happen. The USSC says, violative of the 10th Amendment, that I no longer have that right? That's a problem.

Pretty much every modern constitution limits the powers of the state in defence of personal rights.

The US Bill of Rights, for instance, exists to protect individuals from the power of the state. You are effectively demanding that everything defended in the Bill of Rights can be stripped by a state government with a democratic mandate.

 

[Trunkage]

And if I vote for a thing at the state level that curtails your rights, is that more freeing for you?

I don't understand why the state banning things is better than the federal government banning things. There all politicians so they aren't there to listen to thier constituents

 

[Trunkage]

States rights can be a person's rights. I vote a thing at the state level. They make it happen. The USSC says, violative of the 10th Amendment, that I no longer have that right? That's a problem.

I would say that it's the opposite. Looking at US history, states are very good at taking away personal rights

 

[Trunkage]

No. She (and I) don't want to ban abortion. I think she (and I) think Roe badly reasoned. And sorry to not have the exact quote. I'm not 100% certain it was from her. Just something I'd heard 35 years ago and I don't want to try to take credit for this analysis.

Let's say that you are correct.

What reasoning is so much better in this discussion? Because all I can see is a governor picking a random number just above 12 but below 22

 

[gorfias]

When you vote for something you are not actually taking direct action.

Correct. This is what it is to be in a representative republic, which is a curb on the potential of a dictatorship of a majority (51% voting to enslave the other 49%).

And if I vote for a thing at the state level that curtails your rights, is that more freeing for you?

I have to accept I am not a dictator who always gets his way. I also don't steal other people's stuff and attribute it as my own, no matter how much you may want me to do so.

Pretty much every modern constitution limits the powers of the state in defence of personal rights.

The US Bill of Rights, for instance, exists to protect individuals from the power of the state. You are effectively demanding that everything defended in the Bill of Rights can be stripped by a state government with a democratic mandate.

Not if such individual protections are reasonably well enumerated (gun rights, free speech, right to a lawyer, etc.). Roe took 200 year old law and in an "emanation of a penumbra" they discovered restrictions against a person's right to representation on a matter many find to have huge social import.

Let's say that you are correct.

What reasoning is so much better in this discussion? Because all I can see is a governor picking a random number just above 12 but below 22

I think that is something similar to what they are doing in Europe, (picking a gestation duration during which a woman has an ufettered right to abortion, after that, less so), that arrived at reproductive rights through representative government, rather than having decisions handed down from on high from the least representative branch of government.

 

[Worgen]

Given pro-vax imperatives and mandates, do you think there is any such thing as medical privacy anymore?

There is a difference between a virus and a fetus. An abortion really just impacts the woman with the fetus. But a virus, that's transmissible and you can inadvertently kill other people by having it and transmitting it.

 

[Worgen]

States rights can be a person's rights. I vote a thing at the state level. They make it happen. The USSC says, violative of the 10th Amendment, that I no longer have that right? That's a problem.

What if a state voted to segregate certain skin colors from each other, but the fed didn't allow it?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Correct. This is what it is to be in a representative republic, which is a curb on the potential of a dictatorship of a majority (51% voting to enslave the other 49%).

You know what else is a curb on a dictatorship? People having intrinsic rights that the government is not able to easily take away on the whim of the legislators. Why are you arguing that a state having the ability to limit your rights based on the whim of legislators somehow allow you to have more rights?

It boggles my mind how you don't seem to grasp that other people voting on what rights you're allowed to have is a greater limitation on your freedom and liberty than just having those rights and being able to personally decide how you want to utilize them.

 

[Avnger]

You know what else is a curb on a dictatorship? People having intrinsic rights that the government is not able to easily take away on the whim of the legislators. Why are you arguing that a state having the ability to limit your rights based on the whim of legislators somehow allow you to have more rights?

It boggles my mind how you don't seem to grasp that other people voting on what rights you're allowed to have is a greater limitation on your freedom and liberty than just having those rights and being able to personally decide how you want to utilize them.

Because he wants to have the ability to limit others' rights. He just doesn't want to have his rights limited. As his demographic has long made up the legislative majority of most statehouses, why wouldn't he want as much power vested there as possible?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I have to accept I am not a dictator who always gets his way. I also don't steal other people's stuff and attribute it as my own, no matter how much you may want me to do so.

Man, you argued that somebody said a thing and then couldn't back it up, deal.

Not if such individual protections are reasonably well enumerated (gun rights, free speech, right to a lawyer, etc.). Roe took 200 year old law and in an "emanation of a penumbra" they discovered restrictions against a person's right to representation on a matter many find to have huge social import.

I think that is something similar to what they are doing in Europe, (picking a gestation duration during which a woman has an ufettered right to abortion, after that, less so), that arrived at reproductive rights through representative government, rather than having decisions handed down from on high from the least representative branch of government.

So, if a state bans interracial marriage, that would be pro-liberty because it's a state level decision, not specifically enumerated in the constitution, and had active bans in certain states from when they were colonies? That's freedom and liberty to you?

 

[gorfias]

Man, you argued that somebody said a thing and then couldn't back it up, deal.

So, if a state bans interracial marriage...

1) You only get to complain about a lack of a link if you truly doubt what I'm writing. Andrea Dworkin hates men, sees them as self serving and 9 elite men dreamed up Roe. You know this. What on Earth would make you think what I wrote could not possibly be a rational she posited?
2) I wrote above that there are enumerated restrictions on powers over individuals in the US. Law against mixed marriage arguably run afoul of equal protections.

What if a state voted to segregate certain skin colors from each other, but the fed didn't allow it?

As noted above, I'd buy that a lot faster than the Roe argument.

Again, I'm in a crappy position. I am pro-choice. I think the "rat on your neighbor" part of Texas law..., um.. evil. But I think Roe a radical over-reach. Over-reach in the other direction I think will be punished at the polls. My hope is that we get something moderate and acceptable to the people in ways Roe has never been.

Because he wants to have the ability to limit others' rights. He just doesn't want to have his rights limited. As his demographic has long made up the legislative majority of most statehouses, why wouldn't he want as much power vested there as possible?

Do you really want people you do not know, are unlikely to ever meet, are from a far off place isolated from the life you live in your own community, having a radical amount of power over how you live? I would not. And we're very close.
Imagine RBG had her way. Roe was decided not upon privacy grounds but equal protection. Now the USSC gets to decide some of the most intricate and personal matters arising from the differences between men and women. And you think that would be a good thing? I don't.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

1) You only get to complain about a lack of a link if you truly doubt what I'm writing. Andrea Dworkin hates men, sees them as self serving and 9 elite men dreamed up Roe. You know this. What on Earth would make you think what I wrote could not possibly be a rational she posited?

Because she didn't, far as you or I can tell. I can't make up an anecdote and pretend somebody said it to support my argument, especially when my argument runs directly counter to what they actually argued

2) I wrote above that there are enumerated restrictions on powers over individuals in the US. Law against mixed marriage arguably run afoul of equal protections. Happily, the 50 states are like 50 labs. If something like this (or laws requiring you to rat out your neighbor) did somehow pass Constitutional muster? You get to move. With a totalitarian 1 world government? Not so much.

Arguably, except that marriage isn't an explicitly constitutional right, and they never said certain people couldn't marry, just that they couldn't marry across certain lines, and it goes both ways. That's "equal protection", right?
"But they can just move": dude, your whole argument over Roe helping "elites" is that cutting it off might constrain their behavior. But they can just move, and are in a much better place to do that than somebody with $50 in their pocket.

And then you framed that as liberty. If the "court overreach" on interracial marriage or same sex marriage gets overturned (after all, "gay dudes have the same right to marry women that straight dudes have so it's equal protection", actual argument), gay marriage and civil unions would be constitutionally illegal in Montana, as approved by a general vote. How is the majority of the people in my state voting to discriminate against a smaller group of people in my state an example of greater liberty?

 

[Schadrach]

since if the court rules against it, then the only way to get protections for it again are a federal law or wait till the conservatives on the court die or retire and replace them.

Or expand the court, which just requires passing a bill. And there's historical precedent for upping it to 12, as for much of US history there was one SCOTUS justice for each federal circuit.

Pure and simple its the woman's body, her right to choose. Legally no other factors need be considered.

So you are arguing that one absolutely cannot force or deny a medical procedure or medication (including both because abortion by drug is the most common) on another person because to do so is a violation of their bodily autonomy? There are a lot of anti-science and anti-vax idiots that agree with you, they just want that reasoning to apply to things that aren't abortion. Nobody is consistent about the bodily autonomy argument, and a belief in medical bodily autonomy that hinges on what specific procedure we're talking about is fundamentally hypocritical.

Women are not slaves to a fetus, and legally speaking no man has the right to force a woman to do something she doesn't want to.
Any other discussions is just trying to hide slavery by another name.

I could apply exactly the same logic to child support. But if I were to say that "Men are not slaves to women, and no woman has the right to force a man to do something he doesn't want to. Any other discussion is just trying to hide slavery by another name." in that sort of context (where it's literally about (typically) men's labor being exploited for (typically) women's benefit based on something he has no control of whatsoever beyond "don't have sex") it definitely wouldn't fly, though. Apparently it only counts as slavery when the labor is biological in nature?

in a world where your medical records and treatment are entirely private between you and your doctor and not privy to the government.

...except vaccinations, right?