Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, I am not on the side of any extreme wing, left or right.
Lol I said nothing about being extreme. I asked why you are against social progressives on this issue in the culture war and you didn't respond, as usual.
I see you have no comments about the manifest destiny and prohibition culture wars. That's pretty telling.
LOL you ignore 99.5% of everything if I say, so if you think not responding to someone is indicative of them having a good point, then you must think I'm a friggin genius!
I don't understand the point you are making about Manifest Destiny and Prohibition. You said "people see a lot of the extreme progressivism and sudden change 50 years ago that went way too far. Many view manifest destiny as being backward and many view the prohibition era as being backward."
First of all Prohibition was 100 years ago and Manifest Destiny was 175 years ago. Secondly it was straight, cis, white, socially conservative Christian men that were responsible for both of those things at the expense of brown people and personal freedom... and yes many people saw those things as problematic later on. Are you trying to use them as further examples to prove my point that social conservatives will probs once again be looked at as being on the wrong side of history?
I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that gay people are acceptable but trans people aren't, because trans goes "too far" and liberals should just be happy that society now accepts gays and move on. Of course I've already responded to that. I explained that accepting gay people was once seen as "too far" (VERY RECENTLY). All of the civil rights we recognize today including women and black people having equal rights was considered too far until social progressive lobbyists changed society's perception. That will happen again with trans people, though you may not be alive to see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gay marriage is fine and moderate. (truthfully every society historically turned a blind eye to varying degrees among the elites and such)
It's interesting the way people (conservatives especially) try to rewrite history as if they were more inclusive and tolerant of the Others to alleviate themselves of their deplorable rhetoric + behavior. It was only within the last 20 years that Justice Scalia, considered "one of the greatest conservative intellects of our time" compared homosexuality to beastiality and murder while arguing that the state should be able to criminalize gay sex. It was only within the last ten years that a Democrat presidential candidate would openly endorse gay marriage. And when that happened, it was considered brave and courageous (politically unsavory) because only 50% of the country supported gay marriage while 83% of people live in liberal cities -- meaning even a lot of people in liberal cities were opposed to gay marriage which I can attest to for certain.
The fact is: it's only because of social progressives and activists that society was forced to accept gay marriage and that corporations and the media started to highlight inclusivity, diversity, Pride month, etc. That's how gay marriage became normalized; that's how the needle was moved. That's why you think gay marriage is "moderate" today when it was considered radical a decade ago. Make no mistake that social conservatives have donated time and money to fight against this progress tooth and nail every single step of the way and continue to do so. This suggests to me that the backlash against trans people will be revealed as equally asinine and immoral one day as society learns more, is exposed to more and becomes more tolerant which is usually the case. It's always been the social progressives pushing to secure civil rights. I'm more than comfortable being on their side of the culture war. The question is why aren't you?
Redefining a woman to anything with 2 legs and a dress is not.
Oh stop. Nobody would consider you a woman just for putting on a dress . But if you told us that you innately felt a physiological or even just social compulsion to present yourself to the world as female, I would call you by your preferred name and use she/her pronouns in reference to you because doing so would be no skin off my back.
Indeed there are some aspects of the gender discussion I still don't understand, but I simply don't feel the need to go out of my way to antagonize people who already seem to be going through enough. I don't get the compulsion to mock people you think are suffering from gender dysphoria. I don't understand the arguments against their transition surgeries when we don't care about all the other kinds of plastic surgeries that people get with their associated risks. It seems pretty obvious that being anti trans is more about attacking people than being concerned for their well-being. I mean I could potentially see a societal concern with kids taking hormone blockers, but we allow parents to chop off their baby's foreskin which a lot of men resent when they get older so who knows.
Also consider the fact that most social conservatives are religious. These people believe that a 1/3 man 1/3 god 1/3 spirit was BORN OF A VIRGIN, died and came back to life, then rose off into the sky like a helium balloon... and these are the same people screeching about how being trans defies the laws of biology lol. They should probably pipe the fuck down considering their most sacred beliefs are all premised on things that defy the laws of chemistry, physics , biology and humanity as we know it. Plus they reference God as He/Him and father despite the fact that God presumably has no penis and no XY chromosome... go figure.
My point being that we can tolerate or even respect people whose beliefs we find absurd, and not go out of our way to make their lives harder or more miserable unnecessarily. The gendered bathroom laws are dumb. Not allowing people to change their sex on their birth certificate is dumb. Not calling people by their preferred pronouns is dumb. Going out of your way to ridicule people for being "weird" is dumb. I believe that one day society will be more open minded and knowledgeable on things that seem foreign today regarding gender, but in the meantime I just don't find it that hard to leave people alone and be a decent person if you don't understand or accept how they identify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe next year people can sit down and have peace talks.
I hope you are right, but I really don't see it. I'm not challenging you on this so "I can be right and you can be wrong." I just really think without Dems winning the midterms there is no viable path to securing abortion rights until viability like Roe was supposed to protect. Politically there is just no reason for Republicans to agree to that at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you can tune into late night comedian shows they show the same clips :D
Nah, why would I waste even one minute of my time watching people squabble over gender? I don't find those comedians funny and the existence of trans people doesn't affect my life negatively in any way whatsoever. How does it impact yours?
Or you can surrender the culture war :)
The culture war isn't going anywhere. Being anti-woke is the GOP's #1 campaign strategy these days, more so than talking about gas and inflation. Personally I can't think of a time in history where America's "radical progressives" were wrong in their positions on the day's culture war. Social conservatives have historically been wrong or seen as immoral in their opposition to accepting blacks, women, gays, etc. and they've essentially fought every single every civil rights advancement that led to a more fair society for families like mine. Why would anyone surrender the culture war to those dipshits? The appeals to fear are ridicule are the same as they always have been in their crusade to keep down people that are different, and 50 years from now most of society will consider them to be backwards bigots. I guess not everyone is bright enough to see it today in real time.
You know, people can support something like testosterone limits for competing in gendered sports while still recognizing and respecting the existence of trans people in society. It's really not that hard. Like it really isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It sure is. Many people want the delusional narcissist MORE than before the hearings if it means cheap gas. Trumplestilskin is more popular today after the J6 hearings. People don't care about personalities nearly as much anymore. That was a dated 2016 1st world problem.
Wrong. Half the GOP doesn't even want him to be the Republican nominee in 2024. Are you saying that half the GOP didn't want him to be the nominee in 2020, or can you concede that his popularity and approval rating continues to decline?
De Santis isn't popular because of his good looks either.
Ron DeSantis looks like his face was permanently flattened by getting smacked in the head with a frying pan. But I agree he is a very strong candidate. My wife and I actually have a bet about him running for POTUS. I think he will not only be the Republican nominee, but that he will win the presidency. She thinks the GOP is going to nominate Trump. I refuse to believe that. So I get $100 if DeSantis wins the nom and another $100 if he wins the presidency. She keeps going by poll numbers now but a lot can change between now and then, and there's something about having money on the line that makes the I told you so sweeter lol. I just can't believe that Republicans would run Trump again when he still loses vs. Biden in the polls today. Why risk it when DeSantis (same policies, less baggage) would be a sure thing? We'll see.
Laffles no!. They are insane for denying a woman exists.
Please tell me you aren't regurgitating the dumb ass Fox News highlight reels of asking liberals to define a woman. Acknowledging that transgender women exist is not denying that non-transgender women exist. This is such a stupid talking point. If conservatives were truly confident in their ability to fix the economy or gas prices, they wouldn't rely on irrelevant wedge issues like this which do not improve American's lives in any way. You'd have to pay me to care about how someone else chooses to identify.
Please don't tell me you are another one of those wealthy white women exasperated at having to explain to the peons about what a great shape the country is in today....
Of course! It's shameful and unpatriotic to criticize American culture or policy. If you have something negative to say you can always move to Venezuela...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's fine. I can live in a world that can never go back to the days of Roe just because some fringe people don't want to collaborate on legislation everyone can agree on.
Lol here we go again... I explained to you five times now that "the days of Roe" allow 6 week abortion bans with this radical court. You have no answer. Just like you have no answer on to how to overcome the filibuster, and you have no answer on which Republicans will agree to codify abortion until viability.
I assure you "hrr drr drr fringe Democrats" sounds stupid as fuck as a comeback to a point about how no other Republicans have signed on to the Republican abortion bill. I get that you have nothing to say in response to these points, but there's no need to make yourself sound like a bumbling idiot either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Probably because the J6 findings only proved that [Trump was a narcissistic psychopath] instead of criminal conduct.
That's fine. It's not a criminal trial. Trump was never going to be prosecuted even though there is evidence of his crimes (he definitely violated Georgia election law which criminalizes the solicitation of election fraud, at the very least).
The purpose of the J6 trial is to showcase just how delusional, narcissistic and unfit for office Trump is. I think it's working. More Republicans are leaning toward DeSantis over Trump by the day. I think that's a terrible strategy for Democrats unless somehow Trump winds up being the Republican nominee, in which case I think he would lose again, even to Biden. There's no way a moderate or independent looks at January 6 and thinks "now there's a guy who should have the nuclear codes." I mean what's worse: someone who babbles incoherently while reading off a teleprompter, or an ego maniac who flat out refuses to accept reality and accepts domestic violence to achieve their desired political ends? I think most people believe the latter. It's hard to see how a president will help resolve things like inflation if they're totally divorced from reality.
What's wild is that despite Republicans calling Democrats "insane" for things like acknowledging transgender people exist, Donald Trump still leads the GOP in terms of whom they want to see run for president. That's insane lol. It's truly a cult of personality and an absolutely wild phenomenon to observe. I'm thankful every day that I am not that brainwashed. It seems lot easier to be that thick than I would like to believe. I mean just take a look around...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So reverting to the exact state of law right before Roe was overturned is unacceptable. Gotcha babe.
Yes, it is unacceptable and I don't think you got me at all considering I've had to repeat myself three times now. The reason "the exact state of law right before Roe was overturned" is unacceptable is that prior to Roe's overturning, the SCOTUS was allowing deplorable state laws like Texas' heartbeat bill despite Roe's standing, which effectively allows for 6 week abortion bans. What part of this explanation don't you understand? Dear lord.
And here I was thinking you guys would do anything to go back to the days of Roe.
Well, don't be too surprised that you're wrong... you often are.
I've explained why passing the Women's Health Act > codifying Roe. Once again: it prevents states from enacting laws that force women to endure waiting periods, laws that force women to hear about their "sinful" choice, laws that force women to hear inaccurate medical information meant to deter their choice, laws that force women to have to go to the doctor or clinic multiple times for the procedure unnecessarily, etc.
But even if you want to completely disregard my questions about why women should have to endure hardships to receive an abortion if we have a constitutional (or even legislative) right to one, the fact is that on 6/23/22, the day before Roe was overturned so "back to the days of Roe" that you call for, states were allowed to have 5 or 6 week abortion bans in place. Why the fuck should anyone want that? That's not a standard to long for, babe.
And all your cheeky comments about Dems' unwillingness to compromise fall totally flat since Republicans have refused to codify Roe, plain and simple.
I've explained to you why your bipartisan bill is a fantasy multiple times. You keep ignoring the fact that the filibuster exists so there's no pathway to passing it. You also haven't suggested which Republican senators would sign on to a bipartisan bill permitting abortion until fetal viability, and that's because you don't have an answer. How do we know that you don't have an answer? Because Collins and Murkowski introduced a bill in February that allegedly just codifies Roe (instead of protecting women's rights further without forced undue hardship, god forbid) and ZERO other Republicans nor Manchin have signed on to it. Womp womp.
All the snarky comments in the world won't convince anyone with 15% of a functioning brain that Democrats are the ones standing in the way of abortion rights.
It's okay to accept that Republicans are being dipshits on this issue. I promise. Your world won't come crumbling down. You can say it. Be brave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is partisan about the Democrat bill? What is wrong with it? Have you read it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Codifying Roe as-is without rolling back current state laws and restrictions would mean the heartbeat law stays in place. That is unacceptable. Democrats should not be compromising on that at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do what, author a bipartisan bill instead of a partisan bill?Why do you think Schumer felt the need to say he wouldn't compromise on the bill even though that ensured it would not pass?What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this? Author a bi-partisan bill instead of the usual far-extreme wing BULLSHIT.
First let's acknowledge how easily you're dismissing our constitutional right to bodily autonomy -- which you have never once denied exists -- and suggesting that Democrats be more malleable on this subject despite the fact that abortion restrictions infringe on citizen's bodily freedom from government tyranny. At least you acknowledge that Democrats are the ones trying to prevent this kind of tyranny, but I'm not impressed. This kind of overreach should really bother you.
The pipe dream of a bipartisan bill is not happening. Manchin and the (two!) so-called pro-choice Republican senators had the opportunity to codify abortion rights, but voted against the Women's Health Act. Codifying Roe as-is without rolling back current state laws and restrictions would mean the heartbeat law stays in place. That is unacceptable. Democrats should not be compromising on that at all.
Further what the Women's Health Act does is prevent states from keeping laws that try and deter women from getting an abortion - laws that force women to go to the doctor or clinic for multiple visits before being allowed to have the procedure; laws that have medical providers advise women that abortion is a sin; laws that force medical providers to give women inaccurate and unsound medical information about how the fetus feels pain, etc. Talk about far extreme-wing bullshit! Why should states be allowed to keep these laws that try and shame/deter women from the procedure if we have a right to abortion?
Manchin, Murkowski and Collins not voting for the Democrat bill is straight up political theater. They want to give their voters the impression they are pro-choice (Manchin is anti-choice, but the others come from more libertarian states) while at the same time kissing the party ring. They know damn well even if all three of them signed on to the Republican bill instead, it would still fall well short of the threshold to pass it. And their bill is trash.
Here is the only way to codify abortion rights in the near future:
1) Dems have to win the presidency in 2024
2) Kyrsten Sinema has to be replaced by another Democrat in the Senate
3) Democrats need to gain at least one seat in the Senate
The filibuster has to be repealed and the VP would have to override the 50-50 vote assuming Manchin continues to vote no.
There isn't going to be a "bipartisan bill." Republicans will not vote for abortion protections until viability. I have no idea why you think they would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And if Manchin votes with Democrats on abortion, congratulations they have 50 votes. They need 60.
What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this?
Again, no Republicans will do it.
Created:
Posted in:
So now every witness who testifies, every video produced, every revelation can now be dismissed as a product of pure partisanship.
The same thing could be said in reverse though. Only the cognitively impaired and brainwashed partisans could say the J6 committee's findings are insignificant. Just because Trump won't be prosecuted doesn't mean he is innocent or fit for office.
The most incredible thing to me is that literally Trump's entire defense rests on him being a narcissistic psychopath. It's been clarified that every person with any insight into the election results, including every state secretary, election official, attorney general, etc. that were Team Trump and on his side told him over and over that he lost the election and that there was no credible proof of election fraud at all whatsoever... and yet because Trump refuses to accept reality his cult followers are like, "See there was no intent so that means there was no crime! He really believes he won!"
These people justify Trump's behavior and the security + political threats he created based on the fact that he is delusional and willfully rejects all the facts presented to him by everyone around him. How crazy is that lol. There's no logic with these Trumptards and anti-leftists; they would bitch and moan about the committee no matter what and regardless of who was on it.
Right wing networks do not even cover it, using this as an excuse.
Yet they melt down like two year old cry babies whenever they feel other networks aren't covering certain topics sufficiently enough. "Why aren't there more news stories about people successfully defending their homes with guns?! Waaah. Why were there only 200 and not 2,000 articles about the threats to Supreme Court justice's safety? Waaah." >> Insert very concerned 7 minute Tucker Carlson monologue here <<
Created:
Posted in:
What's interesting is that the Senate will likely fail to pass a bill that prohibits states from interfering with a woman's right to travel to obtain an abortion. Now that's (psychotic) a constitutional issue... but again the Senators do not care.
And quite frankly I have no faith at all whatsoever that the conservative justices would uphold our right to travel across state lines. They would probably say some bullshit like “they aren’t prohibited from leaving the state in violation of the Commerce Clause; they’re just being prevented from being able to do illegal things in their state” or some other ridiculous shit that they will ignore in other cases. Ugh. The SCOTUS has too many religious nut jobs who think they’re going God’s will with these mental gymnastics to criminalize abortion.
The ONLY hope of a secure right to abortion via amendment or bill is Dems winning the presidency, House and Senate in 2024 (with them potentially overturning the filibuster a few years down the line) which I don’t see happening at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh really? When was the 1st time the left drafted an abortion bill?
I believe the first one was passed in 1967. Not sure when the first one was drafted.
What makes you think they won't do it when they lose the majority and can't leverage it as a wedge issue anymore?
They have tried and will continue to try to pass bills. What makes you think they will be able to pass one successfully as a minority when they can't even pass one now with the majority?
I agree only the left will be able to present this legislation. What would you do to convince them to do it?Who do you think is strong enough on the left to form a bi-partisan coalition?
Bruh the House already passed a bill. Every single Republican voted against it and one Democrat voted against it. The bill failed in the Senate, once again with every single Republican and one Democrat voting against it. It will fail again. You need 60 votes to pass and they can't even get 50. What part of Republican politicians do not care what voters think on abortion don't you understand? Good grief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in.
Just because you feel you ought to do something does not mean that person has a RIGHT to be in someone else's home against their will.
As far as your thought experiment, it's really not a good point at all. I'll explain why later if he doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just explained to you why a constitutional amendment to abortion is not happening anytime soon and it has nothing to do with liberals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because nearly half of the right support it and nearly all on the left support it.
And yet HERE WE ARE lol. It's cute you think Republicans give a shit about what the majority of voters want. Their whole election strategy at this point is circumventing the electorate. They've had 50 years to get with the times re: abortion, but they haven't because it's way more politically useful to pander to a small group of religious conservatives instead.
Plus all they have to do is keep promoting right-wing wedge issues and convince people that Joe Biden is responsible for gas prices, and voters will vote for Republicans regardless of their stance on abortion. Politicians know that. I completely disagree with you that it would be possible to make this kind of amendment today. In fact I think it's more likely there would be a national ban on abortion if a Republican wins the presidency in 2024.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's enough bi-partisan support for a right to abort up to viability.
What makes you think that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Viability isn't nearly as vague as "assault". Every gun is capable of assaulting a person.
Anti-choicers are not okay with allowing abortion to the point of viability though. That's why they've devoted their lives to overturning Roe.
Personally I don't agree with viability as the line anymore. I used to, but I really can't see a justification for the state to ever be able to force someone to host another person (or thing) inside of their body against their will. I know you'd oppose that for vaccines. Presumably you'd oppose that for microchips. Why then would it be okay to force someone to house a HUMAN BEING inside their body?
I mean what if some people developed a rare tumor that scientists wanted to study, and criminalized the attempt to remove those tumors so society could research and learn more about them. That's fucked up lol. And unconstitutional. The state should not have that kind of control over people's bodies ever in my opinion, and I really think the constitution already establishes that.
But even if we accept that we have to balance the right to bodily autonomy with a state interest in the unborn child's life (as was decided in Roe), then viability seems like the only justifiable line for restriction. It shouldn't matter in any way, shape or form what voters think on bans before then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well they better get over it if they want codified rights.
I disagree. If someone says they oppose abortion after three weeks, they should be educated on the fact that someone three weeks pregnant literally just conceived and there's no way to know if you're pregnant that early (not even by blood test). We shouldn't entertain people's nonsensical ideas. People in general need to stop pushing for laws on things they don't understand. It's dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's not nearly as much opposition for a 3 week abortion as there is for a 28 week abortion.
Sure, but this is the kind of rhetoric that infuriates women. It's the same as Democrats pretending language doesn't matter when they try to enact gun restrictions and throw around words like "assault rifle." Your weeks of pregnancy are dated from the first day of your last period. That means you aren't even pregnant in the first two weeks – your body is preparing for ovulation. Urine tests can't reliably detect pregnancy until like 2 weeks after conception when you're already considered four weeks pregnant. That's why five week abortion bans when the "heartbeat" starts are so ridiculous. Most people don't know they're pregnant until that time or later.
I g2g for now but I wonder if securing an amendment for bodily autonomy wouldn't prohibit abortion restrictions based on viability. That's something I always thought was kinda weird about Roe. Like I understand the state interest argument but I think it can be challenged by solidifying more rights to our person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
That's an awesome mentality to have and I respect you for it. I'm constantly trying to challenge myself in the same way. I spent like 2 hours on the beach yesterday debating abortion from the perspective that it should be legal for states to regulate. My wife mopped the floor with me which just solidified my position even further, but I'm still down to rethink it. Always.
Let's think of a resolution about vaccination and go from there. Any preferences?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol I was just thinking to myself that would never happen. The opposition to abortion is still too high. Maybe someday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
That's an amazing attitude and I share your love of learning and challenging my beliefs. The constitutionality aspect of forced vaccination may be more clear-cut than the moral aspect (maybe not!). To be honest I don't expect anyone else to read our debate, and I don't really care about votes, so I'm down to have a conversation about either and both of those perspectives. We can chat about it or hash out the details via PM if you prefer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well for one, at the very least preventing the mutilation and sterilization of minors through supposed “transition” surgeries.
Minors (like fetuses) do not have the same rights as adult humans. It is unconstitutional to prevent neurotypical adults from having elective surgeries.
I think we can both agree that pregnancy is a rather unique situation, so I don’t really need to provide another example of when it is okay to “force someone’s body to endure things against their will”.
I think anti-choice people like to pretend that abortion allows for constitutional and legal exceptions because they can't come up with an analogy that justifies the state exercising control over a person's body and medical decisions. In the example you gave about mandatory transplants (which I don't agree with btw) the victim's rights have been violated, and the offender's punishment is some sort of compensation to them. But a fetus doesn't have any rights that were violated and need compensating.
Admittedly the fact that you would be okay with forced vaccination presents a consistency in that you don't believe in bodily autonomy; you think it's acceptable for the government to seize someone's body and take control over it if it's in the interest of the state. I disagree with that position, but presumably you recognize that the government is not legally able to do that because we do have the right to privacy and bodily integrity. What the government would probably do in a situation of some super-spreading deadly virus is say that you can't be in any public place without proof of vaccination. And as limiting as that would be, it's STILL not as invasive as forcing someone to host something inside of their body and give birth to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm joking, but I do support mandatory vaccination in certain cases, and I believe Covid was one of them at one point. Do you want to debate it?
I haven't debated in ages but I guess I could lol. I'm shocked you would support it for Covid. That almost seems too easy to win and I'd feel weird accepting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm just skeptical that the language of the Fourth Amendment really implies bodily autonomy or a Right to Privacy in a modern sense.
I'm not and to be honest I disagree with all of the pro-choice/anti-Roe critics I've heard so far. It's true that society looked much different when the founders were alive, but the fourth amendment gave people the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. When the state prevents someone from having an abortion, they are essentially seizing that person's body for nine months and forcing them to house another person inside of it. In what other scenario would the founders believe it is okay to force citizens to host someone or something inside of their body because of an alleged state interest? That was reserved for slaves.
I think the right to privacy is pretty clear in all the cases you referenced. The ninth amendment states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, which allows Courts to recognize privacy rights without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. That is huge.
The whole purpose of the third, fourth and fifth amendments are to recognize people's privacy from government intrusion. But I do think the fourteenth amendment is probably the best argument re: privacy when it comes to the aforementioned cases. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What kind of due process would be available to a person seeking an abortion? Is the state going to have an investigation or trial every single time someone wants a procedure?
To the extent that our day to day business has become a valuable commodity to commerce, we possess a self-evident right to sell or refuse to sell that data as we see fit.
We don't have (and shouldn't have) a constitutional right to utilize commerce and social websites. Don't get me started on all the freeze peach ding-dongs whining about being banned on twitter lol. We agree to give companies our data / track us / market to us when we click "I Accept" the terms of service or choose to purchase something online rather than in-person. Unless there's some kind of government website required for certain things, I don't see this kind of privacy as a constitutional issue for the time being. Perhaps there should be some more laws for transparency or other regulation measures put in place, but this is something that should probably be dealt with legislatively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree. The SCOTUS answers to legislative amendments, not the other way around.
The constitution is supposed to be broad so that it encompasses a lot of things, and so that we don't have to constantly update it because it's hard to change. I guess I would support a broad amendment for bodily autonomy though considering the scumbags serving on the Supreme Court, but it really shouldn't be necessary with the current text as written.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
If you disagree certain vaccines should be mandatory, lets debate.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but I do not support mandatory vaccination.
Created:
Posted in:
Damn I thought I had time to respond to oromagi's post now but I'm going to the beach lol BBL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks for pointing out another exception to the rule. Criminals have no autonomy.
Correct, and there's no need to thank me. I've been making this point for years.
Do you agree with the SCOTUS that legislators should explicitly define bodily autonomy rights especially regarding abortion?
No I don't. Rights need not be narrowly defined. The constitution shouldn't have to specify a right to abortion either; it's not a legislative text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
U.S. statute stipulates that a pre-natal zygote / embryo / fetus has certain rights.
Incorrect.
This, because of 18 USC §1841 (a)(1): “Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.”
I'll respond to your post in full later, but the reason there is a law that makes it a crime to kill a fetus is because a fetus has no rights and it's not considered murder. The victim in this case would be the mother or the state, not the fetus. They wouldn't have needed to create a separate statute specifically for killing the unborn if killing them warranted a murder charge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It is not clear to me that preventing the Federal govt from violating my personal security means the same thing as our modern expectation of a Right to Privacy.
Thanks for your reply - that's what I was hoping to discuss. I've read countless books/articles and opinions from historians and constitutional scholars that are pro choice and anti-Roe, so I'm familiar with the arguments against Roe specifically when it comes to privacy even from people that agree abortion should be legal. I kind of wanted to start with exploring the idea of autonomy and go from there. I concur with Justice O. Douglas that a general right to privacy is found in the penumbras, or zones, created by the specific guarantees of several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and I think the nod to autonomy is even more secure than privacy. But I g2g for now - I look forward to conversing more about this later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
My point being: even if that right exists, that doesn’t justify abortion since rights aren’t absolute
You don't have to bring guns into the conversation to make that point, but yes, I agree. What are some other instances where voters should get to make decisions over other people's bodies and medical procedures or elective surgeries? Are there other cases where it would be okay to force someone's body to endure things against their will? For example would it be okay to require vaccination as a prerequisite to rights and citizenship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Constitutional rights until you're in a CIA black site interrogation. Let me guess, you think only non-Americans were detained and interrogated, that's what they let you know.
No, I don't. My wording was very intentional to account for things like this (Guantanamo Bay. etc.). That's why I specifically asked if he could think of a case where the Courts said it's okay to seize control over the bodies of non-criminal suspects.
And to be frank I don't understand why you're continuing to engage me when you've already said that you don't care about rights and I'm specifically trying to have a conversation about constitutional rights. Very weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have made my stance clear and am unsure why you are trying to male this all about me.
I responded to you because you tagged me in a post which signaled that you wanted me to engage. I was trying to be polite and acknowledge you for once. Rest assured I have no interest in making this thread about you lol. I'll stop replying if you feel that my responding to you is somehow antagonistic.
I do not base merciful treatment on rights, I base on the situation.
Sure, but I'm asking about our constitutional rights, so this is probably not a conversation you'd like to participate in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Narrow or not, it is the law of the land and implies legal exemptions to bodily autonomy in certain cases.
Only in the case of raising armies because the constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to do that. Is there any other case you can think of where the Courts said it's okay to seize control over the bodies of non-criminal suspects?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think it's reasonable to distinguish rights based on characteristics including IQ. There's a reason minors can't legally consent to sex. The mentally impaired may not be cognizant enough to vote or exercise control over their person and property in some cases. For instance Britney Spears was forced to use an IUD as contraception against her will. And while I disagree with the extent of her conservatorship, there is legal precedent (and usually good reason) to limit people's rights based on certain attributes. For example a convicted murderer loses their second amendment right to own firearms. So not all Americans qualify for the same rights let alone all humans at all stages of development. That's a good thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Well the implications are clear as day light, that is the argument you are insinuating.
It's fair to speculate about the context of my question, and yes my question does stem from concerns I have about abortion. But my feelings on abortion really don't matter - it matters what the law says. I'm asking if people agree that a constitutional right to bodily autonomy exists and we can go from there.
Is the "my body my choice" argument one which you support?
Yes, and I think the principle should be extended even further than the status quo (i.e. all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc).
Why do you think the concept of exercising control over one's body is such a stupid idea?
I can ask the same to you. Why are you mentioning fetal viability? Nowhere in your OP are the terms "fetal" or "viability" mentioned.
Lol well I only mentioned viability because you brought it up. I was asking about the constitutional right to bodily autonomy and that's it.
As for your original stipulation, "does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right", I would say most agree, which is why the fetus too ought have the bodily rights not to be killed.
Where does the law stipulate that constitutional rights apply to the unborn? I don't believe that the unborn qualify for the right to bodily autonomy the same way they don't qualify for the right to free speech.
In McVall v. Shimp, the Court ruled that it is unacceptable to force someone to donate body parts even in a situation of medical necessity. So even if we accept that the unborn have a right to not be killed per se, there is a question about the extent to which a woman has to "donate" or utilize her body to keep that fetus alive. But I digress. I really didn't want to debate abortion specifically, at least not yet. I wanted to focus on the constitutional rights to autonomy and privacy, generally, because I so vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas about the futility of the cases built upon those rights (Obergefell, Griswold, etc.). I'm wondering if anyone here genuinely believes that Americans do not have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I think we all agree that fetuses CANNOT make decisions about their own bodies, so we can talk about fetuses later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not every human being has the same legal rights, that's correct. Just ask any immigrant, mentally impaired, minor or felon.
Do you think that American citizens have the right to bodily autonomy generally? I couldn't help but notice that you never answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Fetal viability doesn't seem relevant to the question I'm asking about bodily autonomy. Our right to bodily autonomy exists outside the scope of pregnancy. Men and infertile women have bodily autonomy regardless of their ability to get pregnant. The question I'm asking is whether or not aspects of our body in terms of sexual expression, medical care, elective surgery, or forced conditions like pregnancy and vaccination should be subjected to a public vote regardless of our personal will. Before we can answer that question I'm wondering if anyone denies that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or feels we shouldn't have that right. Only people who deny this right exists have a leg to stand on saying "the states/voters should decide" on the legality of abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Did someone say "my body, my choice" in this thread? It's interesting you would argue against a point that nobody made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like the WIC program?
Worse: paying impoverished women for kids they do not want. What could go wrong?
Now let's get back to the question at hand on why abortion be left to the states if we have bodily autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I do know Arver v. United States codified a constitutional right for the government to seize your body and place it on a battlefield.
This was a narrow decision that's limited to bodily conscription for the purpose of armies. It acknowledges that Congress explicitly has the power to raise armies pursuant to the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). There is no constitutional power for Congress to seize your body for any other means, and fwiw conscripted soldiers are paid for their service. I mentioned in another thread how government paying women to become baby makers opens up a whole other can of moral questions and concerns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wouldn't object to a constitutional right to abortion, but we wouldn't need one if SCOTUS interpreted the constitution honestly.
I'm investigating the logic behind letting states/voters regulate abortion if we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy (and to a lesser extent, privacy).
I don't understand the link you're making between SCOTUS' vaccination cases and DART user's opinions, but usually the analogies between abortion and vaccination are pretty weak. Nobody in this country is forced to get a vaccine. There are vaccine requirements for voluntary participation or employment in certain industries, and generally that has been upheld by the Courts as a matter of public safety. The public's safety is not compromised when someone terminates a pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am asking what people believe. I specifically asked if everyone believes in or acknowledges the constitutional right to bodily autonomy.
One could acknowledge the right to B.A. exists and disagree with it. For instance some people believe in forced sterilization or vaccination.
I'm wondering if anyone here believes that government/voters should have a say over what citizens can or have to do with their bodies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, we already have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy while the constitution says nothing about fetal ownership.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I love machine guns. They have no relevance to my question about the constitutional right to bodily autonomy.
Created: