331–340 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, when do we start sending women to jail for a miscarriage?
Whenever we start sending people to jail for dying. Death happens... it's only a crime if someone intentionally caused it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc. It’s easier to find some rights implied than others. And the US Supreme Court is unusual in how aggressively it overrules legislatures in finding implied rights. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights contains an express right to marriage. Yet in 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no implied right to same sex marriage in the Co…
> Yet in 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no implied right to same sex marriage in the Convention. They've ruled EU states have to recognize other countries' same-sex unions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coman_and_Others_v_General_Ins... ) and required at least civil unions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliari_and_Others_v._Italy ), which puts them well ahead of the pre-Obergefell USA…
> Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
> 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
> 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
> Article 12- Right to marry
> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right
Even a dedicated textualist could find the above provisions ample justification for finding a right of same-sex couples to marry. Instead, the EU court adhered to a traditional definition of "marriage" and only found a right to civil unions and to mutual recognition across member states.
The U.S. Constitution, by contrast, contains no remotely similar provisions on which to premise a right for same-sex couples to marry. Yet, five justices, including a Reagan appointee, did just that. The U.S. Supreme Court is vastly less respectful of our democratic process than its counterparts in other developed countries.
This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.
Don't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.
I see two likely outcomes here:
1) The leaker is not publicly identified and their career goes along as well as it would have had they not leaked.
2) The leaker is identified. They lose their clerkship but the leak will end up pleasing about half the country and they get a really nice job with some ideologically aligned law firm/NGO, a book deal, and a lucrative speaking career as the one who bravely risked their job to save the right to abortion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't really about which is "more important" morally. Both sides agree that infants have some legal rights, the questions are whether one of those legal rights is having their mother to bear them to term against their mother's will and if so, when that right begins and how much risk the mother can be required to accept in doing so. Edit: One thing I don't see mentioned is how a ethically consistent Pro-Life stance…
On the other hand, the stance that one person cannot be forced to support another would seem to forbid universal healthcare. It's rare to see a 100% ethically consistent position in politics, where most decisions are based on self-interest.
Nobody is forced to support anyone with universal healthcare. We won't (and shouldn't) send people to jail for not working. Taxes are a part of participating in the economic activity of your country and the amount you pay back into the system is mostly proportional to the amount you get out of it. Disputing the fundamental role of taxes is morally inconsistent in a Kantian sense as the income that is taxed relies on the economy enabled by the government those taxes support. There is plenty to debate about how much to tax and what to spend it on, but I can't take anyone seriously who claims taxes and government shouldn't exist.
While there is room for a range of opinion on what government should be doing, d
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you aware of “judicial independence”? Are you aware of “separation of powers”? Are you aware that no such leak has ever occurred before it interferes with judicial independence? Are you aware that the courts job is to decide if laws are constitutional/valid and Congress’ job to actually create law? You hand wave away “process” when the entire function of the government is based on process. If you throw away proce…
This stuff has happened before. It will happen again. I assume that you must believe that the violation of the nine person sacred debate club is far worse than any of the substantive consequences from the actual decision, right? Specifically -- are you aware that before the Roe v. Wade decision was released in 1973, that news of the decision leaked to the Washington Post? The idea that this has "never occurred" is ab…
That's not the same you realize?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever we start sending people to jail for dying. Death happens... it's only a crime if someone intentionally caused it.
Right, and if the miscarriage was caused by drinking, drugs, falling down the stairs? Who is to blame?
To clarify my position further, I'm not entirely convinced a woman who intentionally aborts her own baby should be subject to legal review. Though I believe she's morally culpable for doing so, at least at present there are a lot of practical issues with enforcing such a law.
That being said, it's very different if someone else can be shown to have caused the miscarriage (or abortion) to occur -- whether directly or indirectly.
In the most extreme case, consider someone who pointed a loaded gun at a woman's pregnant belly, unprovoked, and fired it, causing the baby's death and injury to the woman. That person ought to be charged with 1 count of first-degree murder and 1 count of aggravated assault, at minimum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they'd just as likely uphold a Federal protection of abortion if an upcoming Democrat Congress and White House passed one. What's your point?
Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection? They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm I don't know. I could possibly see some room for a compromise between blue and red states where a constitutional addmenment would protect a right to abortion in the first trimester and ban it afterwords. It would be likey be opposed by many on both extremes but ALOT of people are in the fuzzy gray space between the two sides on this very complex issue.
Red states aren't going to compromise now that they know the Supreme Court is in their pocket. If they go for a constitutional amendment it will be for an explicit and unconditional ban on abortion, and probably an amendment banning gay marriage as well. They consider themselves fighting a holy war where these things are concerned, not mere politics, and doesn't compromise with the enemy when one can destroy them utt…
In fact, I would guess that at least part of the conservative rage on this issue comes not from gay marriage being legalized, but from liberals who attempt to stamp out and punish any remaining counter-opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. It doesn't matter if a person is a fully grown adult that can cure cancer and world hunger, or a 1 year child. That person does not have the right to use another person to sustain their own life under any circumstances. You are arguing a strawman. The question is not if the fetus is "huma…
> This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. Says who? By that logic, abortion should be legal until birth, and even the most liberal countries in Europe reject that position. Virtually everyone, including the Roe itself, recognizes that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy has a limit. The question everyone grapples with is wher…
I agree you have a right to bodily autonomy, but there has got to be a limit!