131–140 of 388 posts
> There’s a certain phenomenon I often wonder about, one that only seems to occur with culture war topics. I mean, the term "culture war" itself is part of the "conservative" vocabulary in that issue. So I can see why the whole thing is not easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about. You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.
Could you help me understand how the purported strawman diverges from the actual legal argumentation? It sounds like the article is making the case that this equivocation is eerily close to the actual jurisprudential reason.
Here are some that are at odds with what you are saying:
"The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past."
"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in the U.S. (other than in the military, where different structures apply) has anyone been compelled to be vaccinated?
You are aware that lots of people lost their jobs for refusing all forms of the COVID vaccination, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was l…
> one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. People don't talk about it a lot, but the miscarraige rate is something like 10-20%. You probably know at least a handful of women who've experienced one. It's fallacious to conclude somebody had an abortion because they're no longer pregnant but don't have a baby.
As far as I can tell, nothing. They never said, "anyone who's visibly pregnant and then later on visibly not-pregnant had an abortion."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This suggests there is a simple solution for the abortion debate that will satisfy the (claimed) intentions of both side: Abortion should remain legal until there are zero unadopted children in the foster care system (for more than a year), and the outcomes for children who have been adopted are at least as good as those raised by their natural parents.
Clever idea, but a bad idea. What you propose would create an incentive for pro-choice activists to create red-tape in the adoption system, to ensure an adequate number of orphans remain unadopted. Furthermore, it would incentivize pro-life activists to adopt as many children as they can for all the wrong reasons.
First, I've yet to meet a pro-choice person who didn't actually, you know, want the best outcomes for kids. They don't actually hate children, and there are other reasons to champion choice than "well, if they're born no one will adopt them" (despite what op says, pro-choice people don't ever list "no one will adopt them" as a reason to get an abortion. That whole line of reasoning is only a strawman presented by anti-abortion proponents. As you'll note even with this thread). Not to mention that if we got to "kid zero" with abortion at its current levels, it doesn't mean we'd stay at "kid zero" if you banned it.
Second, op -did- say with the same quality of outcomes for adopted kids as raised by natural parents. If pro-life activists can adopt as many children as they can, for all the wrong reasons, and still lead to equivalent outcomes...I really don't see the problem.
The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…
Are you saying the author lacks credibility because they themselves do not show evidence of it happening to them? I'm confused, because the first and second sentences in your reply appears to acknowledge/agree with the author's conclusion. If you believe the author's complaint is legitimate, why claim they're making a strawman?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The timing is notable, coming on the heels of an emphatic conservative critique of compelled vaccination . For the first time in memory the right side of the aisle has been arguing for bodily autonomy and the left for the state's right to compel people to accept medical treatment over objection (or even an extended form of home-confinement). It's the first time in memory I have some hope the different sides of the de…
Where in the U.S. (other than in the military, where different structures apply) has anyone been compelled to be vaccinated?
Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. It's purely a logical argument, and it doesn't follow very well from the Constitution. We have a very simple mechanism to rectify this: amend the Constitution. But that ship has long sailed, and the problem now is stare decisis †, which complicates things further. So there's a very real justification for keeping Roe i…
Its very shittiness is why we can't realistically fix it. We've been relying on courts really stretching reasoning on the constitution to its breaking point, just to be able to have a mostly-modern state & economy, in terms of function and outcomes, and it's been like that for most of a century. Maybe it would've been better if the courts hadn't done that and had instead forced us to a crisis point much sooner, so we'd have to actually fix our governmental system, but who knows what suffering that might have caused.
Concerted attempts to change the course of the courts might finally bring us that crisis, though. We'll see. If they're maximally successful, I think it'll have to, because the US is gonna go downhill fast if kinda-shaky 20th century rulings supporting broadened federal power are wiped out en masse.
It is frustrating. I am on one side of the abortion debate, but I understand the other side, yet I have no success in even explaining it to my side.
Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. It's purely a logical argument, and it doesn't follow very well from the Constitution. We have a very simple mechanism to rectify this: amend the Constitution. But that ship has long sailed, and the problem now is stare decisis †, which complicates things further. So there's a very real justification for keeping Roe i…