SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned

[Hades]

No sympathy for it. This is what you fuckers voted for! You gave Trump 3 supreme court picks, of course Roe would be overturned. You don't want crazy right-wing Christian zealots dictating national policy, maybe stop electing them to national government.

I can symphatize with that viewpoint but I don't think it entirely applies in the US. Because Trump was never voted into office. The electorate did its job and rejected him, and he had to be forced into office by the electoral college overruling the electorate.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

 

[Silvanus]

Median Home Price by State 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

You were meant to provide something to support the idea that minorities have greater opportunities in Republican states. This appears to be an unrelated link about median house prices.

Quote that part then. I don't see anything that can be interpreted as that.

K, Will do when I get home (on my phone at the moment).

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And if you think they aren't going after marriage equality next, you need remedial pattern recognition therapy

 

[Buyetyen]

Where in the text is any of that? I see nothing that says anything that relates to privacy is at jeopardy because the word privacy isn't in the constitution.

Finally, after all this, the Court turned to precedent. Citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy,” id., at 152, but it conflated two very different meanings of the term: the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference.

Since the answer to my question was not an unambiguous, "No," that means yes, you agree with Alito that there is no constitutional right to privacy. The rest is just so much sophistry, like I've come to expect from you.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

And if you think they aren't going after marriage equality next, you need remedial pattern recognition therapy

If that's what's going on then the courts are fucking cowards! They are part of a democratic system, during the hearing they listen to both sides of the debate, they are supposed to listen to people. They are not infallible gods, public and legal opinion should be taken into account.

If this locks them into their decision because of their pride then they do not give a shit about democracy. FUCK THESE ELECTED FOR LIFE ASSHOLES.

 

[tstorm823]

You cant even get enough parents to adopt as it is.

With over a hundred thousand children waiting to be adopted, you think that if we produce more, all those prospective adoptive parents will suddenly start storming the doors.

Most people who want to adopt never do because there aren't enough children. There is a waiting line, and people go overseas to get a chance to adopt. There are unadopted kids in the foster system, but they aren't infants given away at birth, they are majority children who lost their parents or who were taken away by CPS, who are old enough to have their own personality that most people trying to adopt aren't equipped to handle. That is a different problem not related to abortion at all.

The fuck moon logic is this?

The ability to make a responsible choice in one respect does not somehow mean that person is able to take far far greater, and very different responsibility.

Nearly every person who has a child thinks they aren't prepared or responsible enough to be a parent. They all manage. If the people who think they are lacking are more responsible by choosing abortion, why do you think they'd be less successful than those who have the child?

 

[tstorm823]

Since the answer to my question was not an unambiguous, "No," that means yes, you agree with Alito that there is no constitutional right to privacy. The rest is just so much sophistry, like I've come to expect from you.

May I suggest that there is no constitutional right to privacy, but there should be, but it still wouldn't protect abortion

 

[Buyetyen]

May I suggest that there is no constitutional right to privacy, but there should be, but it still wouldn't protect abortion

Oh, you're one of those originalists too huh? Take that shit elsewhere.

 

[Silvanus]

Nearly every person who has a child thinks they aren't prepared or responsible enough to be a parent. They all manage.

You think every person who has a child manages to parent well? What planet are you on?

If the people who think they are lacking are more responsible by choosing abortion, why do you think they'd be less successful than those who have the child?

They're not necessarily more responsible than the people who have children and responsibly can care for them.

They're more responsible than people who have children and are then unable or unwilling to care for them, creating an unnecessary and unavoidable trauma.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If this locks them into their decision because of their pride then they do not give a shit about democracy.

Well, no, it's been clear for ages that they do not, and this is unlikely to change any time soon.

 

[Silvanus]

Quote that part then. I don't see anything that can be interpreted as that.

[...] Our decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights. [...] The second category—which is the one in question here—comprises a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation's “scheme of ordered Liberty.”

[...]

"In Glucksberg, which held that the Due Process Clause does not confer a right to assisted suicide, the Court surveyed more than 700 years of “Anglo-American common law tradition,” and made clear that a fundamental right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition".

[...]

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. The Court in Roe could have said of abortion exactly what Glucksberg said of assisted suicide: “Attitudes toward [abortion] have changed since Bracton, but our laws have consistently condemned, and continue to prohibit, [that practice].” Respondents and their amici have no persuasive answer to this historical evidence."

These sections are found in pages 11 - 25.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Nearly every person who has a child thinks they aren't prepared or responsible enough to be a parent. They all manage.

This must be why child abuse does not exist at all. Or why there's no history of mothers dumping their own babies in the trash.

 

[Cheetodust]

These sections are found in pages 11 - 25.

You realise that anything short of them saying "fuck the homos" isn't going to be accepted, right?

 

[McElroy]

Emphasizing responsibility too much will lead to 'responsible' people having fewer children (like, 1) while women that 'irresponsibly' want lots of kids are in turn responsible for the future. Hell, baby time is temporary and comparatively easy except on the parents' sleep schedules, but once the kid of a for example drug abusing, "neurodiverse" schizophrenic reaches our educational institutions it will be everyone's problem.

But yeah, only tangentially related to the topic.

 

[Schadrach]

The gay marriage application of law is extremely solid cuz, you know, it's actually in the constitution.

You mean the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Because that's clearly something invented whole cloth by the courts by arguing that several other vaguely related things imply that it exists and therefore it must. Not spelled out in black and white constitutional text like the right to privacy.

and gave us "stand your ground" laws?

As opposed to "you could have hypothetically ran away, therefore the only legal action is to be assaulted or killed" laws? Though the thing I find most amusing about "stand your ground" laws is that the cases people will tend to point to as examples of the problems with them are nearly always cases where "stand your ground" wasn't invoked, but rather old fashioned self defense.

C'mon, everybody starts with two kidneys, what's the problem?

Counter to that, it's *your* kidney - just because you volunteered to donate it doesn't make it any less your kidney, and therefore you should be allowed to demand it back at any time.

Yeah, abortion is the responsible choice if you don't have the means or the will to take care of a child.

If you didn't want to be responsible for a child, you shouldn't have had sex. That's literally what we tell boys/men who don't want to be responsible for a child, including the ones where the child exists because the father was sexually assaulted, or was a minor victim of statutory rape, or didn't engage in a sex act that could normally cause pregnancy, etc, etc.

I can symphatize with that viewpoint but I don't think it entirely applies in the US. Because Trump was never voted into office. The electorate did its job and rejected him, and he had to be forced into office by the electoral college overruling the electorate.

I'm very sorry that the margin you take CA by has no impact on the results of the US Presidential election.

 

[Bedinsis]

Hell, baby time is temporary and comparatively easy except on the parents' sleep schedules, but once the kid of a for example drug abusing, "neurodiverse" schizophrenic reaches our educational institutions it will be everyone's problem.

Let's not be ableist. A neurodiverse or a schizophrenic has a right to procreate just like everyone else.

 

[McElroy]

Let's not be ableist. A neurodiverse or a schizophrenic has a right to procreate just like everyone else.

Sure they can procreate, though there are people who absolutely shouldn't (like my example). Maybe my comment would require elaboration, but this thread is about US abortion law and not Finnish demographics and social and health services, and who is a 'responsible' parent.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Counter to that, it's *your* kidney - just because you volunteered to donate it doesn't make it any less your kidney, and therefore you should be allowed to demand it back at any time.

Shockingly, that is not how giving people things works. I learned that when I was 5.

If you didn't want to be responsible for a child, you shouldn't have had sex. That's literally what we tell boys/men who don't want to be responsible for a child, including the ones where the child exists because the father was sexually assaulted, or was a minor victim of statutory rape, or didn't engage in a sex act that could normally cause pregnancy, etc, etc.

Shockingly, this doesn't generally end up with that dude being pregnant and permanently changing his body by hosting somebody else against their will. Though off-topically yes: men who've been raped shouldn't be forced to be responsible for the resulting fetus either. I have a hunch that this idea isn't as controversial as you think it is

I'm very sorry that the margin you take CA by has no impact on the results of the US Presidential election.

Shockingly, the idea that maybe we should have one electable part of the federal government that's *not* skewed in favor of empty land is a radical one.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you didn't want to be responsible for a child, you shouldn't have had sex. That's literally what we tell boys/men who don't want to be responsible for a child, including the ones where the child exists because the father was sexually assaulted, or was a minor victim of statutory rape, or didn't engage in a sex act that could normally cause pregnancy, etc, etc.

Historically, how well has telling people not to have sex for fun worked out?