61–70 of 211 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...? After all, none of those are guaranteed by the constitution either. What "rights" do you enjoy that aren't expressly guaranteed in the constitution that others might want to let states legislate away from you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the those hurdles have been being shot down as unconstitutional until now. The loss of roe v wade could cause us to lose a lot of other rights too. Gay marriage may be next on the chopping block.
I don't have strong opinions about roe or gay marriage. I do have strong opinions against kritarchy. Right or wrong, I don't like the idea of the Yale law school sharia council overriding the will of the electorate. It may have worked for you in recent history, but as they say, " past performance is not indicative of future results ."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't most people hold that "two wrongs don't make a right"? In Hindu view abortion no matter the reason, except to save the mother's life, incurs strong negative karma.
Everyone agrees that rape is wrong, whereas ~80% of the US believes that abortion is okay under some circumstances (~30% under ANY circumstance). The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions, so now we are going to have rape victims attempting to end their daily reminder of their rape, end up with a crooked back-alley doc butchering them. Many would consider that a wrong as well.
I think that's probably incorrect. People respond to incentives.
The evidence that I know of for that assertion comes from studies which are poorly done and biased. The methodology is to compare the rate of the abortion in places with different legal frameworks for it. The main problem is that it is hard to estimate the prevalence of an illegal activity.
Additionally, some of the places they put in the "not legal" category tend to be poor places in which rule of law is much less important than the US. (So you can't expect similar laws to have similar effects)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is all I can imagine we'll end up with. Some states are going to force religious laws on their population and others will not. People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states under religious law will continue to decline. The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suf…
> People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states will continue to decline. People with resources will be able to evade the bans relatively easily or flee if they can't Those with fewer resources will be less able to leave. > those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc. And they'll continue to be ove…
Maybe this is something that will have to change. It all does risk bringing us closer to going back to when we were "these untied states" instead of "the untied states" though.
If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body. To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicro…
If SCOTUS indeed overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a great day for human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US.
If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body. To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicro…
That's an egregious argument. It's like saying if you are not a Ukrainian (or Russian), you don't get to have an opinion about the conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. If someone believes that abortion is killing an innocent human being, and thus immoral worthy of being illegal, this line of argument won't do anything. It would be like saying, "if we ban murder for hire that will push all of the hitmen under ground!". I understand you don't beli…
What you say makes sense, and I believe it’s a fundamental gap that can’t be closed. I simply cannot put myself in the shoes and mental model of someone who is pro life (and I’ve tried; otherwise how can I have a reasonable debate with the opposition), and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Therefore, both sides are to remain in tension until a point comes where democracy overrides through cohort turnover [1] (but at a…
For you, maybe, but not for all. Many/most people believe that there should be _at least_ /some/ restrictions on abortion (abortion/infanticide at 9 months is not supported by the average voter, for example). The gap might not be closeable /in principle/, but for many people who don't think everything through with a first-principles approach there are things they are willing to change on.