Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:32 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,912

What conditions would it take for SCOTUS to indeed uphold the Alabama/Georgia abortion laws?


The math just isn't there; the 5-4 conservative majority contains two justices - Roberts and Alito - who would likely side with Roe out of stare decisis and the Alabama/Georgia laws are just written in such a way that they're too severe to be upheld. The only way this could plausibly result in Roe being overturned would be if Ginsberg and Breyer abruptly died or retired in the very near future and were replaced by pro-life stalwarts before a case is heard.


Any other plausible other way Roe is overturned? I can't see it.
  #2  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:46 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,463
That's an awfully slim thread to prevent the coathanger days from returning.
  #3  
Old 05-27-2019, 11:31 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
The first condition for the Court to overturn Roe would be to get a majority of justices not nominated by Republicans. The very first requirement for any justice to be considered by a Republican is that they won't overturn Roe, because if they did, then Republican politicians wouldn't have any way to rally their base for elections, and so wouldn't be able to implement their real priorities.
  #4  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:26 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The very first requirement for any justice to be considered by a Republican is that they won't overturn Roe, because if they did, then Republican politicians wouldn't have any way to rally their base for elections, and so wouldn't be able to implement their real priorities.

People say this over and over again but it doesn't make it any more true. This is akin to a broken-window fallacy; the notion that politicians can't actually give their base what they want because......their base would be satisfied, or something. Nobody says "Democrats can't elect a candidate who will actually deliver on same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and a social net because if they did........their voters would no longer be clamoring for same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and a social net." It's nonsensical.

Republican voters, like Democratic voters, have a wish list a mile long. The banning of abortion is just one of those items. If abortion were banned, there's still a thousand other items on their wish list yet to be implemented. They'd be rallied to elections for those.
  #5  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:51 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
The difference is that Democratic politicians actually want same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and so on. The reason they want to hold office is to put policies like that into place, so it would be counterproductive to forgo them. Republican politicians, by contrast, don't give a damn about abortion. It's just a means to an end to them, with that end being to move more money into the hands of the rich (including themselves).
  #6  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:56 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The math just isn't there; the 5-4 conservative majority contains two justices - Roberts and Alito - who would likely side with Roe out of stare decisis and the Alabama/Georgia laws are just written in such a way that they're too severe to be upheld. The only way this could plausibly result in Roe being overturned would be if Ginsberg and Breyer abruptly died or retired in the very near future and were replaced by pro-life stalwarts before a case is heard.


Any other plausible other way Roe is overturned? I can't see it.
I think Alito would almost certainly overturn Roe. Roberts would seem to, be he has been squishy of late. Kavanaugh is still an unknown quantity and so far he is at least not as conservative as Gorsuch. We either have the vote 5-4 right now or are as many as two votes shy. These states are either banking on having the votes now or banking on Ginsburg or Breyer retiring in the next two years before the case hits the Supreme Court.
  #7  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think Alito would almost certainly overturn Roe. Roberts would seem to, be he has been squishy of late. Kavanaugh is still an unknown quantity and so far he is at least not as conservative as Gorsuch. We either have the vote 5-4 right now or are as many as two votes shy. These states are either banking on having the votes now or banking on Ginsburg or Breyer retiring in the next two years before the case hits the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch is conservative but also conservative on the law. He's not about to overturn a previous SCOTUS dec, same with Roberts- they would allow "nibbling" sure, but never a overturn, and the new laws amount to that, so they will slap them down, i predict.. Kavenaugh is a hired gun to overturn Roe.
  #8  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:32 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Gorsuch is conservative but also conservative on the law. He's not about to overturn a previous SCOTUS dec, same with Roberts- they would allow "nibbling" sure, but never a overturn, and the new laws amount to that, so they will slap them down, i predict.. Kavenaugh is a hired gun to overturn Roe.


Breyer does not share your optimistic outlook:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
The majority has surrendered to the temptation to overrule Hall, even though it is a well reasoned decision that has caused no serious practical problems in the four decades since we decided it. Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.
I’m going to assume he has a better understanding of the thinking of the Roberts 5 on this issue than any of us armchair analysts.
  #9  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
Breyer does not share your optimistic outlook:

Iím going to assume he has a better understanding of the thinking of the Roberts 5 on this issue than any of us armchair analysts.
Sure but that's a entirely different type of case. But I could be wrong, we will see.
  #10  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:56 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure but that's a entirely different type of case. But I could be wrong, we will see.


The last sentence of that quote from Breyer is him suggesting FUTURE cases are at risk of reversal due to the conservative 5 no longer caring about precedent. Not sure how that isn’t clear.
  #11  
Old 05-27-2019, 03:56 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
The last sentence of that quote from Breyer is him suggesting FUTURE cases are at risk of reversal due to the conservative 5 no longer caring about precedent. Not sure how that isnít clear.
And we are now in the future that that case was positing. Not sure how that isn't clear.

As to the OP. The answer is purely and simply: if they feel like it. Not sure how that isn't clear. What are the consequences to them if they do? Enormous approval and huzzahs from the half of the country that they identify with. Do you really think they wouldn't love that?

Their not voting down Roe is the surprise that would have to be explained, not their overturning it.
  #12  
Old 05-27-2019, 04:05 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Gorsuch is conservative but also conservative on the law. He's not about to overturn a previous SCOTUS dec, same with Roberts- they would allow "nibbling" sure, but never a overturn, and the new laws amount to that, so they will slap them down, i predict.. Kavenaugh is a hired gun to overturn Roe.
Well, these laws in Georgia and Alabama are meant to test that. I'm sure both laws will be struck down at the District Court level and in the Court of Appeals.

Then we get to see if the Court grants cert on either. If they grant cert on the Alabama law, then we can know if there is a willingness, or a belief in the willingness of 5 Justices to make a bold pronouncement on Roe/Casey. As it only takes 4 votes to grant cert, the conservatives would only do so if they believed that they had Roberts on board. Conversely if the 4 liberals granted cert, they would only do so if they believed that Roberts was on their side and could cement the precedent even further. I doubt that either side would risk it with the outcome so uncertain.

If they grant cert on the Georgia law, it would be because Roberts is willing to "nibble" as you said. That's more likely, but I think that for now, barring a Ginsburg or Breyer retirement, everyone will stay away from both laws.

I don't know how much the Justices talk to each other, but if I was Clarence Thomas, let's say, I would definitely ask Roberts point blank after a few scotches how he will vote on overturning Roe. It is almost like the SSM cases that led to Obergefell. Millions will be spent in legal fees to make one single person (in that case Kennedy, this one Roberts) finally declare what his vote is.
  #13  
Old 05-27-2019, 04:19 PM
Ambrosio Spinola is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 729
There's this case - Box v. Planned Parenthood - which is out of Indiana and deals with some pretty strict restrictions placed on abortions there. What is weird about this case is that the Court has been considering it since early January and has sent it back to conference now fifteen times.

What's weird about this to me is that this case is a pretty good vehicle if the Court wanted to leave Casey technically intact but in practice remove the "undue burden" standard. It's even a decent case if they want to overrule Casey entirely. Or they could send a message by denying certiorari if they didn't want to hear any such cases right now. I have no idea what it means that they're just keeping this one in holding for such a long period.
  #14  
Old 05-27-2019, 04:35 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrosio Spinola View Post
There's this case - Box v. Planned Parenthood - which is out of Indiana and deals with some pretty strict restrictions placed on abortions there. What is weird about this case is that the Court has been considering it since early January and has sent it back to conference now fifteen times.

What's weird about this to me is that this case is a pretty good vehicle if the Court wanted to leave Casey technically intact but in practice remove the "undue burden" standard. It's even a decent case if they want to overrule Casey entirely. Or they could send a message by denying certiorari if they didn't want to hear any such cases right now. I have no idea what it means that they're just keeping this one in holding for such a long period.
That case is different in kind. Two laws are at issue. The first requires that abortion babies/fetuses be buried or treated in a dignified manner. The second outlaws abortion based upon a child's disability, its race, or its sex.

I don't know why the first law is controversial or impacts Roe/Casey. It does not impact abortion in any way at all, it merely requires certain methods after the abortion has taken place. It doesn't stop a single woman from having an abortion and IMHO should not be a part of abortion jurisprudence.

The second law is a stroke of genius from pro-lifers. On one hand you have the woman's right to an abortion, but it must be unseemly, even to the most ardent pro-choice people that a woman would say, "Now, lets see. Who did I get pregnant by? Was it the white guy I was dating or was it the black dude I had a one night stand with in a bar? Because if it was the white dude, I want a nice white baby, but if it was the black dude, I just don't want one of them in the family."

The Downs Syndrome exception seems odd. Going on the theory that a child is a life, it seems to put an unborn child at a disadvantage for not having a genetic abnormality, sort of a reverse eugenics rule.

I think it keeps being relisted because how in the world can someone write a consistent opinion there either way? To keep Roe/Casey and follow its logic, a woman must be allowed to have a racist belief in what child she aborts, but that holding would be abhorrent to the progress we have made in society. A restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve a black person a sandwich, but a woman could kill her unborn child for being black? That doesn't sound like something we should condone in society.

But what legal principle could be cited to allow that distinction?
  #15  
Old 05-27-2019, 04:35 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
People say this over and over again but it doesn't make it any more true. This is akin to a broken-window fallacy; the notion that politicians can't actually give their base what they want because......their base would be satisfied, or something. Nobody says "Democrats can't elect a candidate who will actually deliver on same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and a social net because if they did........their voters would no longer be clamoring for same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and a social net." It's nonsensical.

Republican voters, like Democratic voters, have a wish list a mile long. The banning of abortion is just one of those items. If abortion were banned, there's still a thousand other items on their wish list yet to be implemented. They'd be rallied to elections for those.
It's not Republican voters who are the problem. It's Evangelical voters. Many of them only vote for Republican candidates because of a single issue: abortions. Take abortions out of the picture and they'll stop supporting Cyrus.
  #16  
Old 05-27-2019, 04:58 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
And dodging cases is exactly what you'd expect if I've got the right of it: They don't want to overturn Roe, because that'd remove the voter incentive, but they also don't want to affirm it, because that would reveal the charade. But just stalling cases indefinitely doesn't make any headlines, and still lets politicians say "well, golly, we'd love to overturn Roe, but those liberals just keep stopping us, so you need to elect more Republicans".
  #17  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:27 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And dodging cases is exactly what you'd expect if I've got the right of it: They don't want to overturn Roe, because that'd remove the voter incentive, but they also don't want to affirm it, because that would reveal the charade. But just stalling cases indefinitely doesn't make any headlines, and still lets politicians say "well, golly, we'd love to overturn Roe, but those liberals just keep stopping us, so you need to elect more Republicans".
Why would the Justices be in on this charade? They have a job with life tenure.

Do you think in Casey that the four dissenters (Rehnquist, Scalia, White, and Thomas) all got together and said, Shit, we need to get Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter to vote on the other side because if one of them votes with us, then our overlords in the Republican party will disown us!
  #18  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:32 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's not Republican voters who are the problem. It's Evangelical voters. Many of them only vote for Republican candidates because of a single issue: abortions. Take abortions out of the picture and they'll stop supporting Cyrus.
as people have said , they will still have flag burning, prayer in school, gay marriage, and a long list of issues to get worked up over.
  #19  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrosio Spinola View Post
There's this case - Box v. Planned Parenthood - which is out of Indiana and deals with some pretty strict restrictions placed on abortions there. What is weird about this case is that the Court has been considering it since early January and has sent it back to conference now fifteen times.

What's weird about this to me is that this case is a pretty good vehicle if the Court wanted to leave Casey technically intact but in practice remove the "undue burden" standard. It's even a decent case if they want to overrule Casey entirely. Or they could send a message by denying certiorari if they didn't want to hear any such cases right now. I have no idea what it means that they're just keeping this one in holding for such a long period.
And a per curiam opinion on that today: https://casetext.com/case/box-v-plan...d-kentucky-inc

A summary reversal of the fetal tissue ban and declining to review the sex/race/disability ban. Thomas concurs. Looks like the Court is saying hell no, we aren't looking at abortion cases right now, so you states cut it out.
  #20  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:12 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinion
Our opinion likewise expresses no view on the merits of the second question presented, i.e., whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex-, race-, and disability- selective abortions by abortion providers. Only the Seventh Circuit has thus far addressed this kind of law. We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals. See this Court’s Rule 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas, concurring
Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is duty bound to address its scope. In that regard, it is easy to understand why the District Court and the Seventh Circuit looked to Casey to resolve a question it did not address. Where else could they turn? The Constitution itself is silent on abortion
Yes, I think this was definitely a shot across the bow of states and saying that we aren't yet ready to jump into overruling Roe.
  #21  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:00 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
At this point, politically speaking, states don't even need to have Roe v Wade overruled; they can make abortion de facto illegal in anti-abortion states by simply regulating and legislating it to death, so that the SCOTUS accepts so many restrictions that Roe v Wade becomes moot.

As with so much else in this country, it will be up to the people to stand up and define their country on their own. The voters will have to decide what kind of country they want to live in.
  #22  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:56 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
At this point, politically speaking, states don't even need to have Roe v Wade overruled; they can make abortion de facto illegal in anti-abortion states by simply regulating and legislating it to death, so that the SCOTUS accepts so many restrictions that Roe v Wade becomes moot.

As with so much else in this country, it will be up to the people to stand up and define their country on their own. The voters will have to decide what kind of country they want to live in.
But look at the decision I quoted. The Supreme Court left a decision standing that would allow a woman to abort her child/fetus simply because she disapproved of its race or sex. It did not review a law to the contrary.

Whatever your opinion on the law, it doesn't sound like a Court frothing at the mouth to overturn Roe or even to nibble at it. Their stated reason, because there is not a circuit split, is pretty unavailing. Any challenges to Roe itself will not have a circuit split.
  #23  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
As if we didnt know already, Mitch has the ethics of a snake.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/polit...020/index.html
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs during next year's presidential election, he would work to confirm a nominee appointed by President Donald Trump.

That's a move that is in sharp contrast to his decision to block President Barack Obama's nominee to the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.
At the time, he cited the right of the voters in the presidential election to decide whether a Democrat or a Republican would fill that opening, a move that infuriated Democrats....The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, "Oh, we'd fill it," triggering loud laughter from the audience.


Control of the Senate may be more important than getting rid of Trump.
  #24  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:41 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,912
Well......we want honest Senators, right?
  #25  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:42 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That case is different in kind. Two laws are at issue. The first requires that abortion babies/fetuses be buried or treated in a dignified manner. The second outlaws abortion based upon a child's disability, its race, or its sex.

I don't know why the first law is controversial or impacts Roe/Casey. It does not impact abortion in any way at all, it merely requires certain methods after the abortion has taken place. It doesn't stop a single woman from having an abortion and IMHO should not be a part of abortion jurisprudence.

The second law is a stroke of genius from pro-lifers. On one hand you have the woman's right to an abortion, but it must be unseemly, even to the most ardent pro-choice people that a woman would say, "Now, lets see. Who did I get pregnant by? Was it the white guy I was dating or was it the black dude I had a one night stand with in a bar? Because if it was the white dude, I want a nice white baby, but if it was the black dude, I just don't want one of them in the family."

The Downs Syndrome exception seems odd. Going on the theory that a child is a life, it seems to put an unborn child at a disadvantage for not having a genetic abnormality, sort of a reverse eugenics rule.

I think it keeps being relisted because how in the world can someone write a consistent opinion there either way? To keep Roe/Casey and follow its logic, a woman must be allowed to have a racist belief in what child she aborts, but that holding would be abhorrent to the progress we have made in society. A restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve a black person a sandwich, but a woman could kill her unborn child for being black? That doesn't sound like something we should condone in society.

But what legal principle could be cited to allow that distinction?
To be fair, most of what you have written here doesn't really follow, and it certainly doesn't break down into such a facile question as you come to in your conclusion, but this last line is where I think I see the problem that causes you to struggle with this so.

You cannot tell the difference between a woman's uterus and a public accomodation.
  #26  
Old 05-29-2019, 10:31 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
To be fair, most of what you have written here doesn't really follow, and it certainly doesn't break down into such a facile question as you come to in your conclusion, but this last line is where I think I see the problem that causes you to struggle with this so.

You cannot tell the difference between a woman's uterus and a public accomodation.
I don't think I am "struggling with it" but I respect your opinion.

The issue is that, for everyone not on either extreme position, the abortion debate pits a very difficult dilemma, the right of a pregnant woman to determine whether to bear a child, and the life, or at least the potential life of a fetus. Again, for everyone not on the extremes, that is a tough question and why it is such a contentious issue.

But when a woman would otherwise want a child, but does not want this particular child she is carrying because of its race, then the question is much easier and the sympathy for the pregnant woman all but vanishes.

No, her uterus is not a place of public accommodation, but again, except to those extreme pro-choice people, sex is understood to come with risks and responsibilities. It is how we all got here. You and I were both in a woman's uterus and that 9 month occupation of a woman is necessary for everyone's existence. Everyone knows that if you have sex that pregnancy is a possibility and most people believe that if it happens, even unintended, then that is something that a person has to deal with, and women being biologically capable of carrying a child to the exclusion of men will face a greater burden.

I, along with most other people, reject the idea that sex is or should be a consequence free recreational activity like a ride at the amusement park. That is not to shame anyone or attempt to enact some Puritan morality, but simply a realization that it involves the creation of life. To go so far as to say that the woman's freedom over her body trumps the right of potential life/life of a fetus/unborn child solely because of the race of that child is an extreme position, IMHO.
  #27  
Old 05-29-2019, 10:59 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
And as much as I might be going too far afield here, the traditional way of doing things tried to rid society of these problems. Again, I'm not a Puritan, but society recognized the issues that are present in this thread from its foundation, across all groups and all religions.

Yes, we all want to have sex. But with that comes babies. If we don't do something to constrain our sexual desires, then there are children everywhere that (at the time when only men were capable of caring for) that go unsupported because no male person feels a bond to that child. The village has to use its resources to care for an unhappy child, and money can't buy the love of a father no matter how much you spend.

So, here is the deal, society. And this is to society, not just women, but men as well. Yes, we all like sex, but you can't just fuck anyone you want. Yes, that means you too, Dave. We have too many damn kids running around, so here's the deal:

Men, you pick one woman to be with for your life, and women you do the same. And you can only have sex with that person. Any type of sex outside of this relationship heretofore described called "marriage" will be punished. If you have sex before that marriage, we call that "fornication" and it will be punished. If you have sex with another person while married, or with a married person, we call that "adultery" and it will be punished. Dammit, Dave, will you pay attention because it concerns you!

We feel that this new policy will have significant benefits. You have an outlet for your sexual desires. Any children born from sex will have two parents who know that the child is their own progeny and will care for them. The child will have the benefit of a male and a female role model to learn as it grows. This, we believe, will solve the problem of these unwanted children.

What's that Dave? No, just because you think she is good looking is not a good enough reason to depart from this rule. Any other questions from anyone not Dave? Good.

This went on for thousands of years across nearly every culture including our own. But now we want to return to our base hormonal instincts and fuck everyone. It would be like if we decided we wanted to bring back survival of the fittest.

But premarital sex and the like has become acceptable again and we have the very problems that we tried to solve thousands of years ago with marriage, and everyone just can't understand why.
  #28  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:02 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...Men, you pick one woman to be with for your life, and women you do the same. And you can only have sex with that person. ...
Funny how this miraculous solution is to just give the conservatives everything they want. With a side helping of long-since-disproven conservative talking points as proof that "it works."
  #29  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:14 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
Funny how this miraculous solution is to just give the conservatives everything they want. With a side helping of long-since-disproven conservative talking points as proof that "it works."
It's not what I "want." It is the definition of what we all don't want. Constraints on our base desires are what makes a society. Yes, I like my neighbor's house. It is much nicer than mine, but I can't kill him and take it because then I can't sleep easy at night knowing that someone else might try to kill me and take it.

I have no agenda and am not a member of any group. But the lessons I was taught as a kid seem to be correct in this instance.
  #30  
Old 05-30-2019, 10:24 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't think I am "struggling with it" but I respect your opinion.
You claimed to not be able to determine a legal principle that would distinguish a woman's uterus from a place of public accommodation. Maybe that's not struggling, but it's sure not getting it.

While I would think very poorly of a woman who had elective abortions based on the race of the fetus, I would also think poorly of a person who kicked a dinner guest out of their home due to their race, and I would not support restricting either of them doing so.
Quote:
The issue is that, for everyone not on either extreme position, the abortion debate pits a very difficult dilemma, the right of a pregnant woman to determine whether to bear a child, and the life, or at least the potential life of a fetus. Again, for everyone not on the extremes, that is a tough question and why it is such a contentious issue.
It is a hard dilema. One that I do not think that I have any right sticking my nose in. I shirk my responsibility in telling others what to do by putting the burden of that dilema on their shoulders.
Quote:
But when a woman would otherwise want a child, but does not want this particular child she is carrying because of its race, then the question is much easier and the sympathy for the pregnant woman all but vanishes.
I have little sympathy, but I don't need sympathy to allow someone freedom of bodily autonomy.
Quote:
No, her uterus is not a place of public accommodation, but again, except to those extreme pro-choice people, sex is understood to come with risks and responsibilities. It is how we all got here. You and I were both in a woman's uterus and that 9 month occupation of a woman is necessary for everyone's existence. Everyone knows that if you have sex that pregnancy is a possibility and most people believe that if it happens, even unintended, then that is something that a person has to deal with, and women being biologically capable of carrying a child to the exclusion of men will face a greater burden.
And we men get to make those decisions for them, right?

I get that pregnancy is a possibility of sex, but I really don't care about other people's babies. I would rather do things that decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, which leads to fewer abortions, than do things that will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and then complain and whine about them and attempt to use legislation to impose my morality upon them.
Quote:
I, along with most other people, reject the idea that sex is or should be a consequence free recreational activity like a ride at the amusement park. That is not to shame anyone or attempt to enact some Puritan morality, but simply a realization that it involves the creation of life. To go so far as to say that the woman's freedom over her body trumps the right of potential life/life of a fetus/unborn child solely because of the race of that child is an extreme position, IMHO.
That is exactly what you are doing is imposing your Puritan morality. I say that the woman's freedom over her body trumps the right of potential life/life of a fetus/unborn child, period. If she is shallow enough to make that choice based on race or eye color or height or anything but gross physical or mental deformity, then I will not think well of her, but just because I don't think well of her and disagree with her choice doesn't mean that I should forbid her from making it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And as much as I might be going too far afield here, the traditional way of doing things tried to rid society of these problems. Again, I'm not a Puritan, but society recognized the issues that are present in this thread from its foundation, across all groups and all religions.

Yes, we all want to have sex. But with that comes babies. If we don't do something to constrain our sexual desires, then there are children everywhere that (at the time when only men were capable of caring for) that go unsupported because no male person feels a bond to that child. The village has to use its resources to care for an unhappy child, and money can't buy the love of a father no matter how much you spend.

So, here is the deal, society. And this is to society, not just women, but men as well. Yes, we all like sex, but you can't just fuck anyone you want. Yes, that means you too, Dave. We have too many damn kids running around, so here's the deal:

Men, you pick one woman to be with for your life, and women you do the same. And you can only have sex with that person. Any type of sex outside of this relationship heretofore described called "marriage" will be punished. If you have sex before that marriage, we call that "fornication" and it will be punished. If you have sex with another person while married, or with a married person, we call that "adultery" and it will be punished. Dammit, Dave, will you pay attention because it concerns you!

We feel that this new policy will have significant benefits. You have an outlet for your sexual desires. Any children born from sex will have two parents who know that the child is their own progeny and will care for them. The child will have the benefit of a male and a female role model to learn as it grows. This, we believe, will solve the problem of these unwanted children.

What's that Dave? No, just because you think she is good looking is not a good enough reason to depart from this rule. Any other questions from anyone not Dave? Good.

This went on for thousands of years across nearly every culture including our own. But now we want to return to our base hormonal instincts and fuck everyone. It would be like if we decided we wanted to bring back survival of the fittest.

But premarital sex and the like has become acceptable again and we have the very problems that we tried to solve thousands of years ago with marriage, and everyone just can't understand why.
That is an extremely puritanical view. And the reason that it is not accepted is because it has never worked that way. Most of these cultures that you talk about were not monogamous, most of them allowed a man to have multiple wives. Even the ones that were actually monogamous didn't have any punishment for the man stepping out for some strange, only for the woman.

It's not like those were peaceful times, it's not like there was a great respect for the life of your neighbor in those times. You are looking with rose colored nostalgia at a time of suffering and brutality and wishing that we could go back to that. NO THANK YOU.

We live in the best possible time of human history, with the possible exception of an optimistic future. We did not get to this point of less violence, starvation, and poverty by following the teachings of bronze age goat herders. We got here by throwing them out, and determining through secular logic what is actually good for the community.

Maybe those rules made sense for an age when the primary form of birth control was infanticide. Maybe it made sense when women dying in childbirth was just a consequence of them being born a woman.

In order to impose your puritanical views, you have to justify them in the context of the modern world, not just express your desire to go back to a world where those views make sense.

I get it, you would like to impose your religion upon society, and are frustrated when we actually dare to question it. There are theocracies out there, take a hard look at them, and tell me that they have better lives than we do.
  #31  
Old 05-30-2019, 10:47 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's not what I "want." It is the definition of what we all don't want. Constraints on our base desires are what makes a society. Yes, I like my neighbor's house. It is much nicer than mine, but I can't kill him and take it because then I can't sleep easy at night knowing that someone else might try to kill me and take it.

I have no agenda and am not a member of any group. But the lessons I was taught as a kid seem to be correct in this instance.
That's reciprocal morality. We don't want others to murder or steal, because we don't want to be murdered or stolen from.

Can you really not sleep easy at night knowing that someone is having sex in a manner you disapprove of?
  #32  
Old 05-31-2019, 07:07 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The second law is a stroke of genius from pro-lifers. On one hand you have the woman's right to an abortion, but it must be unseemly, even to the most ardent pro-choice people that a woman would say, "Now, lets see. Who did I get pregnant by? Was it the white guy I was dating or was it the black dude I had a one night stand with in a bar? Because if it was the white dude, I want a nice white baby, but if it was the black dude, I just don't want one of them in the family."

The Downs Syndrome exception seems odd. Going on the theory that a child is a life, it seems to put an unborn child at a disadvantage for not having a genetic abnormality, sort of a reverse eugenics rule.

I think it keeps being relisted because how in the world can someone write a consistent opinion there either way? To keep Roe/Casey and follow its logic, a woman must be allowed to have a racist belief in what child she aborts, but that holding would be abhorrent to the progress we have made in society. A restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve a black person a sandwich, but a woman could kill her unborn child for being black? That doesn't sound like something we should condone in society.

But what legal principle could be cited to allow that distinction?
Flip it around. Let's say a woman from an ethnic minority has a sexual encounter with a white man that she regrets, and she'd rather put her body, time, & resources into a child fathered by a man of her own race. It would be quite an intrusion on her life to say that she has to bear the white man's child.
  #33  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:19 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Flip it around. Let's say a woman from an ethnic minority has a sexual encounter with a white man that she regrets, and she'd rather put her body, time, & resources into a child fathered by a man of her own race. It would be quite an intrusion on her life to say that she has to bear the white man's child.
Dumb question regarding the Indiana law: How would anyone know why a woman wanted the abortion? Was there to be some form she filled out with a checklist of reasons, and if she checked "race of the baby" she'd be thrown out?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #34  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:34 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The first condition for the Court to overturn Roe would be to get a majority of justices not nominated by Republicans. The very first requirement for any justice to be considered by a Republican is that they won't overturn Roe, because if they did, then Republican politicians wouldn't have any way to rally their base for elections, and so wouldn't be able to implement their real priorities.
I don't buy this.

For one, it assumes far too much realpoliticking when there are plenty of true believers who actually get elected. Sure, some Republican officials are giving pro-life voters lip service, but some aren't.

For another, it's not like overturning Roe makes the abortion issue go away any more than the Roe decision made it go away. If "Elect Republicans to stop the babykillers" is effective at rallying the base, won't "Elect Republicans to keep the Democrats from stacking the court to let the babykillers start doing it again" be pretty much just as effective? It's not like Democrats aren't going to run on the issue as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj
Dumb question regarding the Indiana law: How would anyone know why a woman wanted the abortion?
People often incriminate themselves. Sure, most women who get an abortion for that reason will not do so provably, but someone is going to get prosecuted and they'll find text messages from her saying something like "I could never raise an n-word baby!"

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 06-05-2019 at 01:37 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017