[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed reading her story and this perspective.

 

@MojoMan @SuraGotMadHops have any of the males involved in these pregnancies been brought to court?

 

The difference here is that MLK didn't shift the blame to the protestors, saying shame on them, how could they, etc etch. His quote there clearly absolves blame for the protestors and instead places it at the feet of the powerful, not those being beat up by the powerful. That anger is real. That is the point that people are missing in that quote. In the end he's clearly saying basically "Of course there are violent protests, there's no justice here and it's not coming anytime soon.

Also, people keep glossing over all the things the founders said about civil disobedience because at some point you can't respect a government that doesn't respect its people. That's just the reality that history has taught over and over again. MLK quote was never meant to be an endorsement for violent protests, but it is a clear warning that they should be expected as sure as one should expect a bear to attack you if you anger it. This is not a bad thing, this is the final check against government.

 

People were more willing to listen to mlk cause they were scared of people following Malcolm x

 

Good grief you ramble on and on. Could you not detect sarcasm? I know they can't or won't do that, but I have no doubt those types would if they could.

 

pathetic statement from Youngkin, allowing one of his constituent's family to be surrounded in their home

 

Brown v. Board of Education was not about a right hidden in the penumbras of the bill of rights, it was a direct application of equal protection. In that way, it is different. It was wrongly decided because the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment clearly did not view segregation as unconstitutional (letting it proceed beyond their lifetimes). An outright finding for the plaintiffs would also have been incorrect, because the laws that were written to implement the 14th Amendment and to include segregation were that there would be "separate but equal" opportunities. Had there actually been widespread equality in education, then the courts would have been wrong to desegregate. There was not. Therefor, the court's ruling should have been that either the schools desegregate or that the lesser black schools be brought of to the quality of the better white schools. Segregation is of course not mandated by the Constitution, so legislation in the states to desegregate the schools (and all other public institutions) would have been perfectly acceptable.

 

That's so disturbing.

 

Wow!!!

 

What the hell are contraceptives with abortifacient effect? Contraception by definition prevents pregnancies. Abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. Do you consider certain prevention of pregnancies as abortion? Morning after pill? Birth control pill? Why?

 

Is that because you believe it is a life/baby at the very moment the sperm enters the egg?

The push (late-term abortion is common) has been from the anti-abortion group because most people are perfectly fine with 1st trimester abortions.

 

He might not be blaming protesters and he was stating the reasons behind protests but he wasn't justifying or recommending riots as a course of action.
In that same speech he said:
"Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way."

A lot of people kept on quoting "Riot is the language of the unheard" in regard to when people pointed out the damaged wrought following the killing of George Floyd to rationalize what happened yet many of those same people didn't acknowledge the other part of that speech. Given the political fallout and how much of the political debate has shifted from police accountability to addressing increasing crime showed how self-defeating the riots were.

For that matter the "riot is the language of the unheard" ignores that much of the violence perpetrated had nothing to do with social justice. Much of it was done by opportunists using the riots for cover. Much of it was also done by people like Proud Boys who were deliberately using it to advance their own positions.

This was very obvious from someone who witnessed it up close and first hand.

Yes the Founders did rebel and if they had lost they most likely would've been executed as traitors to the Crown and even more repressive measures would've been imposed on the Colonists. MLK understood that violent revolution likely wouldn't succeed and would leave his cause for racial justice worsse off. He says that clearly in that same speech. His argument for a different way of enacting social change not based on violence.

It is always easy also to talk about things like "riot is the language of the unheard" when you're watching the riot on CNN. It's a different matter when you see businesses run by the very people who are most often unheard (black, Latino and immigrant owned) looted and burned. What happened in Minneapolis following George Floyd being killed wasn't the Battle of York, it wasn't even the Boston Tea Party. It would be more akin to if Colonists, many from other Colonies far from Massachusetts came to Boston and burned and looted Boston businesses over the Stamp Act.

 

"Segregation" isn't mandated by the Constitution but the court did understand that practical application of segregation was incompatible with equal protection. The USSC isn't a philosophical society debating things in an idealized world but do understand and take into account actual applications of law.

 

There was that too but as in the quote I posted in my previous post MLK also understood that violence was self-defeating and likely would've lead to a worse outcome for his movement.

 

She sounds paranoid and radical.

 

Wow, that argument has the opposite-to-intended effect on me. We should never have needed amendments to specify that blacks and women were entitled to the same rights as everyone else in the original constitution. We ended up having to put them in because of the grave injustices being perpetrated against them and that would continue to be perpetrated unless we took more forceful action. Simply interpreting the original text to reasonably infer that everyone should have the same rights as everyone else should have been sufficient. If what you're selling is that every bullshit exception some white supremacist misogynist might dream up needs to be predicted and countered with explicit language, then I'm definitely not buying.

Don't want to speak for stupidmoniker, but part of the effect of the pill is to prevent an impregnated egg from implanting in the uterine lining, or to be schluffed off soon thereafter. Some particularly purist prolifers see that as technically an abortive effect and not preventative.

 

The only prevention approved by the Catholic church is Natural Family Planning (a modified rhythm method). Condoms, IUDs, morning after pill, etc. are taboo. Birth control pills are only "allowed" for non preventative reasons.

 

Sure, but I believe the motivation there is the 'spilling your seed' passage that makes even preventative measures unacceptable to the rigorous Catholic approach. I doubt that's where stupidmoniker is coming from when he says he has a preference for birth control measures without abortifacient effect.

 

Yeah but that's what I'm saying, he never encouraged the violence but he fully understood it. That's what is being missed here, understanding the anger that is real. Tsking at a peaceful protest because it was inconvenient for someone in power. His quote there was a threat that if something isn't done soon, things will not get better.

Most protests aren't convenient, that's sort of the point too, to be loud and seen, not find some dark corner whispering into a wall for no one to hear. But now we have people hand slapping protestors for a peaceful protest because what, Kavanaugh might have lost sleep if he happened to be at home at the time. This is the same tsking done towards civil rights protests that you can't do it here, no you can't do it now, no actually, just be quiet because as MLK Jr also said, the moderate prefers a negative peace which is absent of tension, and so all protests are dangerous in the end because they all have the potential to be.

A large part of the early amendments, especially the first and second, are there as a final check on government. The founders made this pretty clear. We should be very cautious about weakening them or the ideas behind them, because sometimes government needs to be humbled and if Kavanuagh was uncomfortable or even a little scared because of people chanting in front of his house, good, but that's not even 1/10 of the feat that I'm sure many women feel.

Well, I'll just say this, it's always also easier for people to tell others to be patient and quiet basically when these issues have no way of affecting them. I think any black person in america has horror stories about police interaction either personally or in their family, I know I sure do.

The love of peaceful protests sure needs more support since the country and narrative certainly ignored all of the peaceful protests that BLM held throughout that year. Many of them not even getting a blip of a mention on the national news even though most of them were peaceful. So one way to support peaceful protests would be engaging with the people that led the peaceful protests, listening to them, and at the very least giving them more attention than the riot. Instead that's all we ever heard about and the reality is, it did portray the anger behind them as well.

To me, condemning this very peaceful protest in any way is not something I can agree with I guess. This was the tamest of demonstrations and Kavanaugh is not the only political figure to have people show up to his house. Schumer dealt with that and really a few others. When you hold a position of power you do have to be prepared for anger to be directed your way. People can call it intimidation but I hope they know that there are risks when you plan to trample all over the rights of others.

 

Some contraceptives are designed to prevent fertilization (either through preventing release of an egg, or through blocking the sperm like a condom, or through killing the sperm, like spermicide). Other contraceptives are designed to prevent implantation after the fertilization has occurred. This second category would be abortifacient. The pill and the shot are both ovulation suppressors, at least per pubmed.

I believe that is what the science shows. That is when you have a new human life (unique human DNA, undergoing biological growth toward the process of becoming an adult).

That push has been from the pro-life group. The other push (what about rape and incest) has been from the pro-choice group. Both are focused on edge cases instead of the vast majority of cases, which are elective first or early second trimester abortions.

We would both prefer that the Constitution when ratified allowed equal rights for women and black people, but it is obvious that it did not. Women were not allowed to vote. Many black people were held as slaves (and although there were some free black people and some white slaves, those were the exceptions). We know that when it was ratified, the Constitution did not mean that black people and women had equal rights, for the reasons just stated. The country found those positions untenable, so they amended the Constitution to fix those issues. It is not about a white supremacist misogynist inventing some new interpretation and implementing it, it is about the way things already were. Abortion was already illegal in many places when Roe v. Wade was decided. Segregation was already the law of the land when Brown v. Board was decided. Those decisions didn't return the country to a place it had been before some recent legislation imagined by a racist or sexist, they invented new law on the fly. That is not the purpose or purview of the court.

This, though I believe there are various formulations that are non-abortifacient and work by suppressing ovulation.