Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[Worgen]

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.

There's more historic precedent for that costing presidents the election. Not to mention you need a super majority to even have a chance of that. Its a loser idea.

 

[SilentPony]

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.

Well Doctors can and do refuse to preform medical procedures all the time. Doctors have a duty of care, sure, but you can't like schedule a surgeon to remove your legs just 'cause.
The distinction is the legality of it. Of governments passing laws forbidding medical procedures, especially when the termination of a pregnancy would save the mother's life, or the fetus is no longer viable/wont survive birth/childhood.
In terms of vaccine mandates, I'm actually against mandates per se. The government shouldn't be able to force you to get the vaccine. However it has every right to impose mandatory vaccines for certain sociality actions. No vaccine? Sure. You can't go to public school, or go to public events, use public transportation, travel on public roads or internationally travel. Hell I would go one step further and say you can't use government emergency first responders. No vaccine? That is your right, and you may put yourself at risk of a disease. But you don't have the right to put firefighters at risk.
And I hold the same for churches. Don't pay taxes, don't get ambulances.
There is a social contract and you either agree to it, or don't. Both are acceptable, both have consequences.

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?

There are actually ways to get out of child support, and there are cases of women like raping men, getting pregnant and being denied child support. And if I recall correctly, a father can "abandon" the child, not sure what the legal term is, and say not his, he wants no part in anything to do with it, and doesn't have to pay child support.
Also women are increasingly being forced to pay child support when they're not the primary parent, so yeah gender equality.

 

[Agema]

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?

Well, the thing about dependents is that they depend on other people. Therefore, there is an expectation that both the people who created that certain form of dependent should contribute to its welfare.

Despite the fact that welfare of the child is the primary aim, it's amazing how people conveniently miss this out despite all the times it is pointed out to them.

 

[Kwak]

So are there any proabortion rightwing conservatives, or is it a package deal?

 

[Worgen]

So are there any proabortion rightwing conservatives, or is it a package deal?

Of the people there are, but none really politically since the republican party is so tied with the voter block of evengelicals. They are a solid block that votes almost entirely republican since they are single issue abortion voters.

 

[tstorm823]

So are there any proabortion rightwing conservatives, or is it a package deal?

In my weird and wacky way, I'd argue that "proabortion" is the conservative position, as that's what society has done for centuries.

But to answer your actual question, yes, there are pro-choice rightwing conservatives.

 

[gorfias]

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
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?

1) As far as I can tell, she did. It is something I recall. And you have no reason to doubt it. Regardless, does the analysis fits. If we assume the 9 elite men are self serving and Roe is nonsense, why did they do it? I have other ideas. Hers is a good one.
2) How is the Federal government telling you you no longer have a right to a say in how your state functions because they discovered something heretofore unnoticed in 200 year old law, liberty? I don't think it is.

 

[Trunkage]

So are there any proabortion rightwing conservatives, or is it a package deal?

While there has always been a lot of identity politics necessary to be a conservative, that doesn't mean they HAVE to follow suit. I would say it way harder to break free in the US as the conservatives there are far more willing to bludgeon you if you step outside what's acceptable.

Let's remember Goldwater, who did the Segregation Now speech was also pro-Marijuana and pro-abortion

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

1) As far as I can tell, she did. It is something I recall. And you have no reason to doubt it. Regardless, does the analysis fits. If we assume the 9 elite men are self serving and Roe is nonsense, why did they do it? I have other ideas. Hers is a good one.

You hallucinated it my dude!

2) How is the Federal government telling you you no longer have a right to a say in how your state functions because they discovered something heretofore unnoticed in 200 year old law, liberty? I don't think it is.

So, somehow, directly oppressing people at the state level by actively denying them rights is more free than the feds saying that your state can't actively oppress people

Amazing

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

1) As far as I can tell, she did. It is something I recall. And you have no reason to doubt it. Regardless, does the analysis fits. If we assume the 9 elite men are self serving and Roe is nonsense, why did they do it? I have other ideas. Hers is a good one.

Can you explain to me how the supreme court justices who voted in favor of abortion in Roe v Wade were self-serving?

I pointed this out earlier but the average age of the Supreme court justices in the Roe V Wade case was 53, and for those who ruled in favor of the right to an abortion it was 63 (the 2 youngest members of the court disagreed with the decision) so I rather doubt the idea that the justices voted in favor of abortion because it would make it easier for them to have sex with "nice girls."

This was 1970, and viagra wasn't released until 1998. They couldn't get their dicks hard enough to have sex with anything at that point in their lives. I fail to see how the decision in Roe v Wade was self-serving to them given that none of them really had the potential to knock anyone up at their age.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So are there any proabortion rightwing conservatives, or is it a package deal?

I dunno, have I got the right to self define my political position back or am I still a conservative because I've been deemed to be one by others here?

If I've got my right to self determination back then I dunno ask some-one else.

If I haven't then I'm guessing I must count lol

 

[gorfias]

Can you explain to me how the supreme court justices who voted in favor of abortion in Roe v Wade were self-serving?

I pointed this out earlier but the average age of the Supreme court justices in the Roe V Wade case was 53, and for those who ruled in favor of the right to an abortion it was 63 (the 2 youngest members of the court disagreed with the decision) so I rather doubt the idea that the justices voted in favor of abortion because it would make it easier for them to have sex with "nice girls."

This was 1970, and viagra wasn't released until 1998. They couldn't get their dicks hard enough to have sex with anything at that point in their lives. I fail to see how the decision in Roe v Wade was self-serving to them given that none of them really had the potential to knock anyone up at their age.

Because they are not women, they are men. In the mind of someone like Dworkin, men don't do things for the benefit of women. So, for the sake of argument, they were being self serving, what was their angle? How does this decision help them?

So, somehow, directly oppressing people at the state level by actively denying them rights is more free than the feds saying that your state can't actively oppress people
Amazing

Where do you have more of a say in how you live? Locally through your local representative, or from a foreign, un-elected body? This comes back to the idea that those looking to the court to hallucinate their preferences into law do not trust their fellow citizen in a self governing society. That isn't liberty.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Because they are not women, they are men. In the mind of someone like Dworkin, men don't do things for the benefit of women. So, for the sake of argument, they were being self serving, what was their angle? How does this decision help them?

Perhaps you have Dworkin's opinions wrong, seeing how she was very much against Forced Birth, as evidenced by her being against it in her own words in that quote I already gave you from that book she wrote, as opposed to what you think she must have thought

Where do you have more of a say in how you live? Locally through your local representative, or from a foreign, un-elected body? This comes back to the idea that those looking to the court to hallucinate their preferences into law do not trust their fellow citizen in a self governing society. That isn't liberty.

Fascinating. The State directly opressing me is Liberty while the Feds telling the State that they CANNOT oppress me is not liberty.

This is some 1984 "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery" shit my dude

 

[Seanchaidh]

Where do you have more of a say in how you live? Locally through your local representative, or from a foreign, un-elected body?

Where do you have more of a say in how you live? Through a choice made by your local representative or one made by you, yourself?

 

[Cheetodust]

Perhaps you have Dworkin's opinions wrong, seeing how she was very much against Forced Birth, as evidenced by her being against it in her own words in that quote I already gave you from that book she wrote, as opposed to what you think she must have thought

Fascinating. The State directly opressing me is Liberty while the Feds telling the State that they CANNOT oppress me is not liberty.

This is some 1984 "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery" shit my dude

Wild. In the 90's it was only through the EU that being gay stopped being a crime in ireland. I never really how much they were oppressing us by telling Ireland that they couldn't oppress us.

 

[gorfias]

snip

Not an answer to my question. If the 9 elite men were being selfish, for the sake of argument, when they passed Roe, what would their angle be?

Where do you have more of a say in how you live? Through a choice made by your local representative or one made by you, yourself?

My self of course. In context, I don't understand your question.

Wild. In the 90's it was only through the EU that being gay stopped being a crime in ireland. I never really how much they were oppressing us by telling Ireland that they couldn't oppress us.

So in this instance, things went your way. I don't think, long term, you are defending your liberty preferring distant, foreign, un-elected powers telling you what you can and can't do. Today it is gays aren't criminal. Tomorrow, there's death camps. I'd prefer not giving them that kind of power to begin with.

 

[Kwak]

Today it is gays aren't criminal. Tomorrow, there's death camps.

And that is just today's borderline schizophrenic paranoia slippery slope fallacies of the terminally rightwing.

 

[Cheetodust]

So in this instance, things went your way. I don't think, long term, you are defending your liberty preferring distant, foreign, un-elected powers telling you what you can and can't do. Today it is gays aren't criminal. Tomorrow, there's death camps. I'd prefer not giving them that kind of power to begin with.

Yeah but you would also be afraid of a "tyranny of the majority" situation. So it's clear you also don't want democracy either. So you're okay with a concentration of power allowing people to be oppressed as long as it's going your way.


Edit:

Not an answer to my question. If the 9 elite men were being selfish, for the sake of argument, when they passed Roe, what would their angle be?

There was actually so much insanity in this post most of it passed me by.

Just to clarify you're saying the only acceptable answer to your question is to justify the position that the supreme Court acted selfishly. A rejection of that notion itself isn't an answer. We have to accept that that position is in fact true and argue against it. This is balls out fucking lunacy.

 

[Cheetodust]

And that is just today's borderline schizophrenic paranoia slippery slope fallacies of the terminally rightwing.

I figured that wasn't even worth addressing in its sheer lunacy. Somebody trying to parody Conservative thinking would consider that too on the nose.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Not an answer to my question. If the 9 elite men were being selfish, for the sake of argument, when they passed Roe, what would their angle be?

Irrelevant. That's *your* argument, not mine or Dworkin's, *you* get to make it.