UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-24-2022, 03:42 PM   #1
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Supreme Court Decisions 2022

From my Facebook wall: (video on youtube coming later)

:I have not been posting much on Facebook over the last few years because I am tired of my posts turning into 12 hour debates. I remember one summer when I was job searching and putting just a -little- bit of time aside for sleep, exercise, and some kind of socializing, being sucked into a debate that took up two days. I had fact on my side, but the other individual in this debate never yielded. People never do online. Jan 6 made me so angry thought that I spent 3 days going back and forth on social media, some can be seen on my wall. I use Facebook everyday for a -few- minutes to keep tabs on a handful of close friend, my sis, and occasional outer-rim people.

I can’t sit aside and say nothing today. If you disagree with me, please don’t bother replying. If you do, I will ignore your post and maybe watch your opinion on the comment section get tangled into a debate with someone who agrees with me. If I check at all.

Today was a bad day. I was going to originally start off by seriously/jokingly asking if contraceptives and gay marriage would be next on the chopping block. It is. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/polit...ves/index.html

This is not about a baby’s life. I spoke with a friend of mine who went to med school and he told me that if you go back far enough, the cells that MAKE up a baby are “alive”. If it is a baby, it is not very early on.

Building on this, the same politicians who supposedly care about the lives of babies before they are born, do everything to hurt adoption and slash the social benefits that society can offer impoverished and unwanted children. This is NOT about them. The link above shows that we are entering a Gilead society.
It’s disgusting that after 50 years of abortion being legal, a doctor will be criminalized to help a poor woman out. Imagine no all the poor women who may have been raped, or are in a situation where having that baby can lead to domestic issues. This will NOT end abortion, but it will lead an uptick in back alley abortions. Goof job, Republicans.

This is a cultural war against women, personal civil liberties, and living in a first-world country. Just look at a map of how many countries in Latin America, Europe, and MANY more recognize abortion. So, like countries such as Saudia Arabia, we have more in common with repressive regimes now than free ones.
Before moving on to that, it’s not lost on me how radicalized the right and the Republican party have become over the last 40 years, as the judges who legalized abortion has been elected by Richard Nixon. No, he was no Democrat.
Speaking of having things aligned with repressive regimes, the Supreme Court also gave the thumbs up for a death-row inmate to have the right to die at the hands of a firing squad. So this “pro-life” court is ok with civil liberties when someone is sentenced to -death- by the state. WHY do we have the death penalty in 2022? While this may be more humane than the chair or lethal injection (which doesn’t always work well), the guillotine would actually be more appropriate, as it is an instant kill. A firing squad is more like 95% chance of instant kill. So, why not use a guillotine? Because it’s theatrical, like the 19th century firing squad. Again, the civil liberties the right cares about has to do with someone’s choice in how the state can take their life away. So the court supposedly cares about the life of a baby that may not even be human yet, but is ok with the state -killing- a person.

Now, while people are alive, this same Supreme Court just made it easier for folks in New York to carry a concealed gun. (https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-gun...arry/11990123/)

Oh, and people under 21 in California can purchase semi-automatics now. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...onal-rcna28437)

ALL after the record number of shootings in our country. You supposedly as a citizen then, are protected through your birth, but your safety in life, and right to live (regarding the death penalty) are not sacrosanct. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/polit...tes/index.html)

Let’s not forget the new ruling making it easier for cops to get away with telling someone their Miranda Rights. So if your living in this gun toting society with less rights than you had a year ago, the law itself may not be a good refuge if you are accused of a crime. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/polit...hts/index.html)

This next one is pending, but you may not even be allowed to live on a planet that isn’t completely destroyed by humanity due to climate change, so much for “caring about the life of a baby” (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency )
)https://www.npr.org/2022/06/22/11068...e-change-plans

This is all to say that these lawmakers do NOT care about an “unborn baby” (even if it’s debatable what that stage is). This is about breaking the wall behind Church and State and using literal Puritanical and Theocratical laws that enshrine sexism and moral judgements over marriage, sex, and life-styles. But hey, at least it’s easier now to carry a semiautomatic gun meant for a battlefield to protect said rights…. Right? I mean you certainly DON’T have the right to remain silent anymore, and women over their own body.

Welcome to Gilead, it will go down. To all my female compatriots and friends, you have my support now and forever. To everyone else, don’t vote for the Republicans this mid-term or in 2 years, unless you want the remaining Supreme Court seats to be radically right-wing for the next 50 years. Remember, the most recent appointment as for someone in their 40’s. With their 4 month vacations and “Socialist” tax-paid top of the notch health insurance, these justices are living in to their 90’s. Don’t be stupid at the ballot box.

In the mean time, march, organize, vocalize. The internet allows us to reach out across the world and share a tweet in under 10 seconds. This is not a time to be docile. They can warp the law beyond recognition, but they won’t be in office forever. Fight back at the ballot box and (yes, peacefully) by marching on the street. Don’t vote Republican either… this is a life-long commitment.
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2022, 07:38 PM   #2
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Here is a video of me reading the abovehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Stc9TwIik&ab_channel=BrianFrancisco
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2022, 09:10 PM   #3
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 13,828
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Roe was admittedly a flimsy justification for something as sweeping as reproductive rights. About as flimsy as Major League Baseball's legal monopoly under "interstate commerce".

That said, Congress had...~50 years to introduce amendments to legally define Roe protections. That never happened.

Also, arguing a Lawful Neutral position (a by-the-numbers enforcement of the word of the law) is very insincere when the Supreme Court justices are partisan, as has been the case for most of its existence.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2022, 09:39 PM   #4
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Roe was admittedly a flimsy justification for something as sweeping as reproductive rights. About as flimsy as Major League Baseball's legal monopoly under "interstate commerce".

That said, Congress had...~50 years to introduce amendments to legally define Roe protections. That never happened.

Also, arguing a Lawful Neutral position (a by-the-numbers enforcement of the word of the law) is very insincere when the Supreme Court justices are partisan, as has been the case for most of its existence.
1. Not a fan of the MLB exemption under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act either, the reasoning that it's exempt due to a game taking place in "one" location is silly, as game locations rotate and the fact that I always side on the line of anti-trust.

2. As far as it being "flimsy", it's no more flimsy than what the Supreme Court argued today. The problem with the Supreme Court is that they never have to actually elaborate on their findings more than they chose to.

3. It's impossible to pass an Amendment under the current political climate, both in Congress and between the States. In fact, it has been since the time of Roe, that being the 1970's. Just look at the Equal Rights Amendment.

4. Your point about by the numbers enforcement can open the can for making the arguement that every law in the land needs to be codified in the Constiution. This is impossible.

5. The Supreme Court is more partisan than it has ever been. It used to work. Keep in mind that Roe passed during the time that Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, was on the bench. There are many other examples of a Justice appointed by a Democrat or Republican "crossing the aisle" to interpret the law. The idea that the political affiliation of a justice will always guarantee partisan voting is 80% barely a decade old, maybe even as young as Trump's appointments. The other 20% of rare occasions are about only 25 years old.
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2022, 07:42 AM   #5
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 13,828
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
2. As far as it being "flimsy", it's no more flimsy than what the Supreme Court argued today. The problem with the Supreme Court is that they never have to actually elaborate on their findings more than they chose to.
That isn't true though. The Roe trimester scheme came out of Harry Blackmun's arse. The original justification for Roe was, in fact, a literal read of the 14th amendment - All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Framer's intent is popular with conservatives and bipartisan coalitions because despite having an apparently creative license to do anything, it's an appeal to the highest authority in the minds of US citizens - the founding fathers - while also a rollback of what the Supreme Court can actually relegate. In most cases it's a deferral to the states, which is the entire point behind what the founding fathers actually wanted. A fairly weak federal government with independent nation-states.

Since Roe was literally made manifest out of nowhere, the justification for rolling it back can't be any more absurd. The issue though is that Roe being status quo for a while meant that the justices who love status quo would have to admit they dun goof'd, which is what happened here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
3. It's impossible to pass an Amendment under the current political climate, both in Congress and between the States. In fact, it has been since the time of Roe, that being the 1970's. Just look at the Equal Rights Amendment.
That's a minor point. Congress had 50 years to do it, with Democratic majorities and presidents I might add, not just one. And if "the majority" of Americans support Roe then an amendment would pass easy-peasy.

The fact that Roe needed a Supreme Court ruling for nationwide reproductive rights just shows that there wasn't universal support for it and that the claims there are are just misinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
4. Your point about by the numbers enforcement can open the can for making the arguement that every law in the land needs to be codified in the Constiution. This is impossible.
You don't need an amendment. The Constitution allows for the creation of statues that form the basis of all federal laws not referenced specifically in the Constitution. They are also passed by Congress and are collected in a yearly book called "The United States Code".

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
5. The Supreme Court is more partisan than it has ever been. It used to work. Keep in mind that Roe passed during the time that Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, was on the bench. There are many other examples of a Justice appointed by a Democrat or Republican "crossing the aisle" to interpret the law. The idea that the political affiliation of a justice will always guarantee partisan voting is 80% barely a decade old, maybe even as young as Trump's appointments. The other 20% of rare occasions are about only 25 years old.
That court has always been deeply partisan. I know the history of it. It's portrayed itself as non-partisan because it has to and it's convenient to do so. That veneer has been eroded in the internet age though, so now the truth is in plain sight.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2022, 04:29 PM   #6
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11,989
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
There is widespread support for abortion now among the populace, the problem is that America is a failing democracy and that doesn't matter anymore. All that gets passed is more police state bills.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2022, 09:16 PM   #7
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 13,828
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
I don't agree with that. I think that more people in the US support abortion than not...but most of them are concentrated in blue urban, elite suburban stongholds or in diffusely blue states. So "widespread" not necessarily, and if that's the not case, why feel a need to impose a federal ban when strongly red states don't want it?

Also, the Supreme Court is the opposite of a democracy - it's an unelected panel of judges who serve life terms and are behooven to none but their own ideologies. The simple majority vote that dictates court decisions is laughable compared to the numerous restrictions that come with passing laws through the legislature.

It's for this reason that most of the US presidents, since Clinton I believe, choose to bypass Congress with their executive orders and "guidance". And I wonder if, despite Trump's time in the hot seat, Americans would prefer a dictator-like King who can enact sweeping changes rather than having to put up with the balley-hoo of Congress.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2022, 11:53 PM   #8
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Dear god I hope not, but after living through the Trump era, I can't rule that out. The biggest issue I've seen in Democracies in the last 20 years is that people either expect ALL of their economic/social problems to be solved overnight and each side getting everything they want.... and then getting bewildered when things stonewall.

The younger, spoiled, generation wines that they want a daddy to ram things through for them and them alone, and then a new dictatorship begins. The cycle seems to stop there recently what with dictatorships being able to use the internet and mass surveillance to keep the populace down, using xenophobic language to paint the outside world as the enemy, or economic prosperity buying the hearts of the people.

Tis the political problem of the 21st century.
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2022, 11:55 PM   #9
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
There is widespread support for abortion now among the populace, the problem is that America is a failing democracy and that doesn't matter anymore. All that gets passed is more police state bills.
I wouldn't go that far but if you are talking from the position of midnight, I'd say we are dangerously at 10:30 PM. If the Republicans secure 2022/2024 we will likely hit 11:00 PM.
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2022, 11:57 PM   #10
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Does anyone have any thoughts on some of the later rulings that came out last week such as the EPA ruling or a topic that caught your attention?
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2022, 12:33 AM   #11
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
That isn't true though. The Roe trimester scheme came out of Harry Blackmun's arse. The original justification for Roe was, in fact, a literal read of the 14th amendment - All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Framer's intent is popular with conservatives and bipartisan coalitions because despite having an apparently creative license to do anything, it's an appeal to the highest authority in the minds of US citizens - the founding fathers - while also a rollback of what the Supreme Court can actually relegate. In most cases it's a deferral to the states, which is the entire point behind what the founding fathers actually wanted. A fairly weak federal government with independent nation-states.

Since Roe was literally made manifest out of nowhere, the justification for rolling it back can't be any more absurd. The issue though is that Roe being status quo for a while meant that the justices who love status quo would have to admit they dun goof'd, which is what happened here.



That's a minor point. Congress had 50 years to do it, with Democratic majorities and presidents I might add, not just one. And if "the majority" of Americans support Roe then an amendment would pass easy-peasy.

The fact that Roe needed a Supreme Court ruling for nationwide reproductive rights just shows that there wasn't universal support for it and that the claims there are are just misinformation.



You don't need an amendment. The Constitution allows for the creation of statues that form the basis of all federal laws not referenced specifically in the Constitution. They are also passed by Congress and are collected in a yearly book called "The United States Code".



That court has always been deeply partisan. I know the history of it. It's portrayed itself as non-partisan because it has to and it's convenient to do so. That veneer has been eroded in the internet age though, so now the truth is in plain sight.
1. Are you implying that Blackmun came up with the medical idea of the trimester? I don't think you are, but im just asking for clarification.

2. I don't care about the intent of some of the framer of the Constitution. I believe in a living Constitution which changes in time in light of humanity becoming more tolerant and progressive. As a citizen of the US in 2022 who has read about or seen "state's rights" perpetuate and expand slavery, put down the civil rights won by a civil war for over 100 years, and seen how LGBTQ folks have been treated in some states, I don't care about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They had brilliant minds but were not always correct and were coming at this from the mind-set of battling an all powerful monarchy. If they could have lived to see how many times this has gone wrong, I doubt as many would stick to their guns. Except for those who would, and who I disagree with. America has a real problem with treating the Constitution as a holy text in the first place.

3. As far as rolling something back when one of the reasons propping it up as status quo being a weak legal argument, facts are facts and as you said, this undid things in the arguments of the conservative Justices. This could also be used to destroy other civil liberties too....

4. 50 years to do it doesn't account for politicians pandering to the "middle" to win votes, the Democrats themselves also having "pro-life" candidates through 2000, and the fact that it would take 3/4 of the states to pass, not a numbered majority- which would lead back to the point of a hot button issue making it maybe impossible for Dems to win general elections from the point of view of campaign managers.

5. I agree that in the 70's the majority of Americans probably didn't support Roe. Partly due to a cow-boyesque religious culture, not understanding the stages between embryo and baby, along with the fact that the 70's saw the beginning of the conservative backlash of the last 45 years after 15 years of rapid cultural and political change. Kind of like what we saw in the last few years after the decade leading up to it. However, it doesn't mean the majority was -right- and had the moral authority to control other people's lives.

6. You do need an amendment if you want a law to become untouchable, anything less than an amendment being repealed. Federal protection written into the Constitution would have prevented last week's decision.

7. I disagree on it being as partisan as it is now. I gave examples of Justices being given the job by President's from the opposition party and ideology. I was even surprised to see that Gorsuch was on the side of the liberals in Castro v. Oklahoma.

So it looks like bipartisan and indepdendant rulings are not completely dead yet, but inching closer and becoming more the norm. I am -not- saying that things were rainbows and Kumbaya until 2016, and yes there have been landmark cases of a divided court, often on partisan lines, but what I'm saying is that it is more reliably partisan now depending on the R or D next to the Justice in question.
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2022, 03:05 AM   #12
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
This article articulates my thoughts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...nding-fathers/
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2022, 04:11 PM   #13
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11,989
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
I don't agree with that. I think that more people in the US support abortion than not...but most of them are concentrated in blue urban, elite suburban stongholds or in diffusely blue states. So "widespread" not necessarily, and if that's the not case, why feel a need to impose a federal ban when strongly red states don't want it?
So while there are some discussions about the differences in policy in certain matters due to unique factors, abortion is not one of those issues. It doesn't matter if most of these people live in blue cities or not, because that's irrelevant to the issue. Abortion is, by all matters of common sense, an issue that should be dealt with on the federal level, not the state level. The fact that the American political system can classify it as a states issue does not give it legitimacy, but points to genuine failings in the Enlightenment era democracy handed down to us.

This is of course ignoring that many other issues that get tied up with abortion, such as ectopic pregnancies or accidental stillborns/miscarriages. It ignores the fact that abortions will still continue to happen and now these people will be exploited by systems which are unsafe and unethical (much like drug use).

I think when discussing about law as well we have to deal with a parallel phenomenon that occurs which is actions regarding codifying Row vs Wade into actual law were de-prioritized due to its legal protection from the Judicial branch. This isn't to say it's never been attempted, but it's hard to codify stuff into law when you have an ambivalent party and a hostile party.

Quote:
Dear god I hope not, but after living through the Trump era, I can't rule that out. The biggest issue I've seen in Democracies in the last 20 years is that people either expect ALL of their economic/social problems to be solved overnight and each side getting everything they want.... and then getting bewildered when things stonewall.

The younger, spoiled, generation wines that they want a daddy to ram things through for them and them alone, and then a new dictatorship begins. The cycle seems to stop there recently what with dictatorships being able to use the internet and mass surveillance to keep the populace down, using xenophobic language to paint the outside world as the enemy, or economic prosperity buying the hearts of the people.
This is a take I've seen from time to time and I think its broadly, bluntly, shite for a number of reasons, speaking as someone with a huge amount of anxiety on these matters.

1) The younger generation has not lived in a world where it has felt like they're going to get their due from society. I'm 27 now and even growing up in the early/mid 2000s had a different feel to it, and that's ignoring that for example I've lived most of my life under the Patriot Act. These people increasingly see a future they are not a part of. A future of housing speculation, a future of monopolies, a future with a growing surveillance and police state etc. It's a world of increasing economic instability that's completely out of their control no matter what they do.

Then there's climate change and a dozen other crises looming over the horizon because of the failure of our spoiled generations to act on them.

2) This creates a really massive sense of urgency which really kind of drives people to expect some kind of action. Most people don't want a magic silver bullet, but they do want some solutions to occur in their lifetime. When we hear that climate change needs considerable action done in the next 10 years, the general resounding remark is "Oh, we're fucked" because no one expects the American government to actually get it's shit together and take action.

I would also like to add this isn't how you get dictatorships, movements like the fascist theocracy movement in America is how you get dictatorships.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2022, 08:04 AM   #14
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 13,828
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
1. Are you implying that Blackmun came up with the medical idea of the trimester? I don't think you are, but im just asking for clarification.
It's not a medical idea. Blackmun had originally wanted to be a physician, and much of his early career was spent as an attorney for doctors and as a consul for the Mayo Clinic.
Blackmun's trimester breakdown is based on science but has no origin in scientific papers, since "when does life begin" is a subject of philosophy and not medicine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
2. I don't care about the intent of some of the framer of the Constitution. I believe in a living Constitution which changes in time in light of humanity becoming more tolerant and progressive. As a citizen of the US in 2022 who has read about or seen "state's rights" perpetuate and expand slavery, put down the civil rights won by a civil war for over 100 years, and seen how LGBTQ folks have been treated in some states, I don't care about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They had brilliant minds but were not always correct and were coming at this from the mind-set of battling an all powerful monarchy. If they could have lived to see how many times this has gone wrong, I doubt as many would stick to their guns. Except for those who would, and who I disagree with. America has a real problem with treating the Constitution as a holy text in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi
So while there are some discussions about the differences in policy in certain matters due to unique factors, abortion is not one of those issues. It doesn't matter if most of these people live in blue cities or not, because that's irrelevant to the issue. Abortion is, by all matters of common sense, an issue that should be dealt with on the federal level, not the state level. The fact that the American political system can classify it as a states issue does not give it legitimacy, but points to genuine failings in the Enlightenment era democracy handed down to us.

This is of course ignoring that many other issues that get tied up with abortion, such as ectopic pregnancies or accidental stillborns/miscarriages. It ignores the fact that abortions will still continue to happen and now these people will be exploited by systems which are unsafe and unethical (much like drug use).

I think when discussing about law as well we have to deal with a parallel phenomenon that occurs which is actions regarding codifying Row vs Wade into actual law were de-prioritized due to its legal protection from the Judicial branch. This isn't to say it's never been attempted, but it's hard to codify stuff into law when you have an ambivalent party and a hostile party.
Okay, these arguments overlap quite a lot and I think the main point is being muddled. Let's step back a bit.

I believe you two consider the right to an abortion something akin to an unalienable human right and so should be universal, which is why you believe it should be federally mandated. What if I said, though, that the supremacy clause were reversed and that state rights triumph over federal? What would you prefer,

1. Each state voluntarily legalizes abortion
2. The supremacy clause is restored and federal law trumps state

The first case, of course, is what is leading to legal marijuana. Marijuana is a banned substance but many states legalized it, meaning that state police, local police and county sheriffs cannot charge you for a crime if you possess it, but the feds can. And because the feds are spread thinner in states like California they don't have the time to jail every pothead.

This is why the bounty system is so important in states like Texas which don't even care about Roe to terrorize abortion supporters. States from the beginning are basically countries and they have the ability to craft their state constitutions and laws however they want. Most state constitutions also have to duplicate the bill of rights since historically, the constitution only applied to federal enforcement on individuals. I.e., the FBI cannot curb your free speech, but state troopers can unless there's a state law defining free speech protections.

So regardless of whether you feel that the federal government should trump state (and it shouldn't IMV, feds suck) it's really up to the states to get their act together and fix things.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2022, 05:00 AM   #15
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
It's not a medical idea. Blackmun had originally wanted to be a physician, and much of his early career was spent as an attorney for doctors and as a consul for the Mayo Clinic.
Blackmun's trimester breakdown is based on science but has no origin in scientific papers, since "when does life begin" is a subject of philosophy and not medicine.





Okay, these arguments overlap quite a lot and I think the main point is being muddled. Let's step back a bit.

I believe you two consider the right to an abortion something akin to an unalienable human right and so should be universal, which is why you believe it should be federally mandated. What if I said, though, that the supremacy clause were reversed and that state rights triumph over federal? What would you prefer,

1. Each state voluntarily legalizes abortion
2. The supremacy clause is restored and federal law trumps state

The first case, of course, is what is leading to legal marijuana. Marijuana is a banned substance but many states legalized it, meaning that state police, local police and county sheriffs cannot charge you for a crime if you possess it, but the feds can. And because the feds are spread thinner in states like California they don't have the time to jail every pothead.

This is why the bounty system is so important in states like Texas which don't even care about Roe to terrorize abortion supporters. States from the beginning are basically countries and they have the ability to craft their state constitutions and laws however they want. Most state constitutions also have to duplicate the bill of rights since historically, the constitution only applied to federal enforcement on individuals. I.e., the FBI cannot curb your free speech, but state troopers can unless there's a state law defining free speech protections.

So regardless of whether you feel that the federal government should trump state (and it shouldn't IMV, feds suck) it's really up to the states to get their act together and fix things.
Well, it is a human right. Whether or not the United States recognizes it in 2022 or not. The laws may not be with it and sometimes may even go backwards. In some other countries the laws haven't even gotten there yet. It's important to make the statement before and law or philosophy goes against the grain, because although it is an absolute statement, laws are fundamentally based on absolute ideas about how people ought to act, so to retract that to circumstantial beliefs is just an endless loop. Restricting abortion will cause human suffering.

Fed vs state is tricky. For every time a state has gotten it right (Healthcare, drug use for example in Massachusetts), look at how many states terrorized their citizens during slavery and segregation. The southern states mucked things up long enough that it brought on a Civil War and stalled southern economies up through this day with the plantation model. However, the ideas of a tyrannical government being diluted with 50 smaller countries, as you put it, does have its strength's, even when history has shown its failures. Again, i'd suggest that Fed trumps State when it lessens human suffering, and vice-versa. Messy, messy, messy, and it could take decades to sort out if there was a convention held over this.
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2022, 05:12 AM   #16
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 154
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
It's not a medical idea. Blackmun had originally wanted to be a physician, and much of his early career was spent as an attorney for doctors and as a consul for the Mayo Clinic.
Blackmun's trimester breakdown is based on science but has no origin in scientific papers, since "when does life begin" is a subject of philosophy and not medicine.
Misspoke, as I was asking if you meant that his entire idea framework had no previous precedent in medical journals, but your statement about the trimester model being based on science but having no origin in scientific papers clarified things.

Unfortunately, yes, it falls under philosophical, as some groups will go as far back as a heart beat counting as life. Some will even say before a fetus can be considered a fetus at all, it is alive. On another end some Genesis taken literally implies that life begins when a baby takes it's first breath, while I once saw a video of a Hindu guru saying life began when the sperm first -touches- the egg (!)

Not that I personally think people should take cues on science from religion, but this is the country we live in.

The point is, it would be great if the laws and science would line up more with no ulterior motives. Imagine if you will if in 200 years they could monitor an egg all the way though birth and understand the brain activity, heart beats, breathing. Being able to understand if it is a person kicking or sucking their thumb in the womb, or rather an embryo that is just acting out the actions that has been mapped out for it by it's dna. Although, one could point out that technically that is what -all- life is at any stage.

Anyway, as you said, it's a mess and I don't see this shifting backwards in this culture war until the last 40 years of conservatism dies out. When will that happens? Who knows? Not just here either, if you had visited Saudi Arabia and Iran in 1970, and seen girls in skirts and men with long hair, you'd be shocked to see 52 years -later- how their culture's conservative movement turned things around
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.