Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

you'll not get any disagreement from me here on that

 

There’s something called a molar pregnancy —benign tumor it’s not viable and increases your chance of cancer

 

what religion has abortion as part of its catechism?

 

Those are related to economic. Economic Rights have changed often in both directions.

 

It all depends on whether you agree with my assertion that abortion is about one set of beliefs over another. If you do, then the failure of the Supreme court to point out that a state can not impose restrictions based on a belief system is an issue. The Supreme Court KNOWS that states are awaiting their decision to ban abortions completely, and they should know that the reasons for banning abortions are based on a belief system vs any kind of public health policy based on scientific research.

The fact that the Court did not address this is highly concerning to me. While personally I suspect that the Justices religious beliefs are biasing, you are right I can't prove it. What I can show is that the Court has failed to address religious freedom and why the state should be allowed to impose a belief system upon individuals who believe differently.

Person A believe life begins at conception. Person B believes a Zygote is not a human life. Neither of them can empirically prove their are right. Person's B desire to destroy that zygote does not infringe upon Person's A freedom, but it is affront to their belief.

Now the state, in order to appease constituents made up of Person A, bans the destruction of Zygotes. That now becomes the establishment of a religion. This is exactly what the Supreme Court role is - to prevent these kinds of abuses of the law.

 

Atheism.

 

look, my sense is that we're shifting back and forth about arguments pertaining to TWO different things. There is the argument of the Dobbs opinion, which is largely about Constitutional interpretation and almost secondarily about abortion law.

The second thing is about the philosophy, ethics, and morality (not to mention the empirical aspects and sociology) of abortion itself. Some of what you discuss below falls into this second category. That's fine, but perhaps we need a different thread to open all those topics up. I have tried to limit my comments here and in the 'birth control' thread to yesterday's decision in Dobbs.

so to that extent, I am not really talking about the assertion "that abortion is about one set of beliefs over another." That is a clearly true but also a trivially true statement. People think differently about abortion and come to different conclusions about abortion.

I am not sure what you are arguing or suggesting here. What "failure" are you talking about? "that a state can no impose restrictions based on a belief system"? that makes no sense to me. States impose restrictions against ALL kinds of things based on belief systems. States restrict hate speech. States restrict the right to bear arms even in cases where the gun-owner's belief system tells him/her that he/she needs a gun for self-defense.

So maybe w'ere talking past each other, I simply do not understand the importance of the point that I think you're trying to make.

Yes: this is why Alito spends so very much time acknowledging that fact, and arguing that the Court should not base a decision on that fact, and also why Roberts wrote the concurrence that he did.

I don't understand how you can make this statement, in light of what I've said above.

 

Except, there is justifiable homicide. Taking a life in self defense, for instance, is allowed. Also it might be legal to kill an intruder in your home even if it isn't self defense.

But, like with abortion prior to this recent ruling people weren't allowed to kill whenever they feel. It was the same with abortion.

 

You're right, I'm talking not specifically about the arguments in Dobbs but rather the lack of what I think the arguments should be.

States should not be passing laws based on belief systems but rather empirical evidence and their constitutions. the reason to restrict guns isn't because you believe it's ridiculous for someone to have guns, but because the data shows that it leads to more homicides and thus the goal is a reduction in crime.

The case against abortion is purely based on religious beliefs. That's the point I am making.

 

It’s all over the Bible…so christianity.

 

What part of full ban vs regulation do you not understand? Fully banning guns in a state is under any circumstance going to be an infringement of your rights based on your ideology, but my right to privacy can be fully banned in my state…. because Republicans get to say so I guess.

And by the way before you go there, no Americans do not have freedom to move to another state across the country. Any court at any point has acknowledged that you are at that point being denied a right if you are denied it by your state.

You guys just need to be honest and admit what you believe which is that your fundamental religious beliefs should be forced on me and all women. All this hand ringing and straw man arguments are just you trying to deflect from the reality that you feel like your hard line religious beliefs should encroach on my beliefs. Just be a man and admit that this is the case. Stop it with the BS arguments about states rights blah blah. It’s illegal to get an abortion under all circumstances now in Texas and half the other states. People can’t just move on a whim because of some stupid law you nutcases might or might not pass some random Thursday.

So respectfully… be a truthful Christian (since it is a sin to lie remember…) and just say the F-ing truth.

 

while I understand that this is where you locate the "case against abortion," that statement entirely ignores the past 60 or 70 years' worth of secular philosophical argument over the abortion issue. Pro and con arguments. Non-religious arguments.

Again, this is not to deny or downplay the extent or seriousness of religiously-motivated anti-abortion activism in the Bible Belt. When I drive across country, I too see the "Jesus Saves" and "Abortion is Murder" billboards along the interstates in the hinterlands. But I don't think that religious fervor alone explains the disagreement over the morality of abortion.

 

Dred Scott was overturned. In overturning it, they took away the Constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process and just compensation.

I can trivially prove that a zygote is a human life. It is clearly alive by definition, it is undergoing biological processes (energy consumption, cell division, progress toward adulthood and ability to procreate). It is clearly human, it has a unique human genetic code. It is not a baboon or a field mouse or a subsection of the mother like a toe. It is point A on an A to Z continuum of the human life cycle, beginning at conception and ending in death.

Person B's desire to destroy the zygote infringes upon the right to life of the zygote. Person A is not the victim, they are protecting the rights of the zygote (Person C). You can stop me from stabbing a coma patient. You are not at all affected by my stabbing a coma patient, it doesn't infringe upon your freedom, but you are within your rights to prevent me from stabbing that coma patient because I am infringing on their right to life and you are empowered to stop me on their behalf.

 

Atheism is not a religion

 

Just skimming the last couple of pages of this thread but there absolutely was a religious reason behind this case. This is from an interview with former Mississippi governor Phil Bryant who was governor who signed the bill that led to this case.

"
KELLY: What do you say to Mississippians, like some of the ones we heard in that tape from outside the clinic today, who believe it is the right of women to decide what happens inside their own bodies and who are devastated...

BRYANT: I...

KELLY: ...At today's decision?

BRYANT: I would say first you need to kneel and pray to God, who is the God of everyone, that in your heart, you can understand that that is a living human being. And so try as you might to find God in this. Try to pray and have him open your eyes and come into your heart and realize this is your child. This is a human being who has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And you're about to take all that away for your convenience. Pray. That's what I would tell them. Pray hard.

KELLY: When you say women are choosing an abortion because it is for their convenience, I just want to push you on that, because there are a lot of women who would say, this is not about my convenience. This is not a choice anyone wants to make. This is about my right to control my body.

BRYANT: And I would tell men and women that you have a responsibility. We all did, and all of us are - fall short of the grace of God. But please consider your responsibilities. And, men, take the responsibility of being the father. So we don't want to wish - we're not hardhearted. We understand these difficult situations. It's why we work so hard here to make adoption easier for families who can't have children and families who want desperately to have a child. So look. I'm not mad at anyone. I'm not judging anyone. I am just saying that the Supreme Court upheld a law today that said that the states have the right to regulate abortions and that we will continue to do that within the confines of the Constitution of the United States laws.

KELLY: Phil Bryant. He was the governor of Mississippi from 2012 to 2020. Governor Bryant, thank you.

 

I wonder why Thomas left out the Loving portion of Roe v Wade? Hmmm...

 

I'm chewing on our exchange. I'm wondering if what you were trying to argue is what Wenz argues in this book. I know him from his work on environmental justice, he's not the easiest philosopher to read but straightforward enough. I've got a request in to get this book, I'll let you know how it goes if it's of interest

 

Definitely can't think of a reason why

 

"You guys just need to be honest..."

So much summed up in part of a sentence. A bunch of guys being dishonest. A bunch of guys getting together to tell the women of this country, slightly more than half of our entire population, what their rights are and **** the constitution. A bunch of guys on the Supreme Court tossing out 50 years of settled law after getting those seats to begin with by wiggling, worming their way onto the court by being dishonest.

"You guys just need to be honest..."

A bunch of guys in the Senate, led by the dishonest Worm in Chief, McConnell, who gleefully prevented our current US Attorney General from being on that court, while happily placing a grossly unqualified woman on the same body so this kind of ruling could be made.

"You guys just need to be honest..."

This ruling and so many others coming down the pike. Add to that Justice Roberts with the shackles off. The fellow some have assumed is the moderating influence on the extreme right wing of this court. A grievous mistake. Just look at how he's voting now that he feels he can, conscious be damned. Meanwhile, we have some other guys, some here, worming their way through the "cut and paste" world in an effort to defend the indefensible.

"You guys just need to be honest..."

You are asking of them what they consider to be impossible. To allow slightly more than half the country, our women, to have the same rights these same men have. Men who want to bend our women to their will in order to fulfill their narrow extremist views, views not shared by a large majority of this country, a majority made up of women and men.

Good luck with that, @dobro1229. I'm not the least bit optimistic that the dishonest men will change their views. You are more apt to see cartoons, images, and "cut and paste" material dug up from the nether regions of the right wing internet world, accompanied by their laughter at what they see as naivety, because this is all simply "entertainment" for them, relief from their boredom. "Women's rights?" They have to laugh.