comment
stringlengths 1
9.49k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
Involuntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception).
Reasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being "retained by the people" then what the hell is?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument."
] |
>
I'll push you further.
Anyone who says "there's no right to x in the constitution" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.
The Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.
If the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. "It's not in the constitution" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?"
] |
>
Anyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.
I think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.
And, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white."
] |
>
I meant what I said.
Then you're wrong in saying it.
[9th Amendment quote]
This means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.
The 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws
So when I said "the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper," what did you think I meant?
Also...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.
While you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action."
] |
>
Your reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people.
The 9th covers rights of the people.
The 10th covers powers of government.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass."
] |
>
Your reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.
Legal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government."
] |
>
The government is not a person.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people."
] |
>
It is when it is a litigant in a suit
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person."
] |
>
Oh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit"
] |
>
The US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point."
] |
>
Pretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion).
Except funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as "not protected" or "not a right": The Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Interpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc...
But that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test."
] |
>
that ship has pretty much already flown
dudeeee
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes."
] |
>
OK, the bird has sailed. Better?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee"
] |
>
Pretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?"
] |
>
Pretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg
(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'."
] |
>
Temba, his arms open.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)"
] |
>
If the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.
Also, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.
It's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open."
] |
>
How do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?
Feels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue."
] |
>
Personally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability.
Is it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive."
] |
>
Like most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?
Would it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?
Most of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die."
] |
>
I think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.
If the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well.
I support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs."
] |
>
I struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.
If you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.
Do you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported."
] |
>
The difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?"
] |
>
What is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant."
] |
>
I would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons."
] |
>
You are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind."
] |
>
Involuntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice."
] |
>
This Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings.
It's not about the law anymore.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion."
] |
>
Absolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore."
] |
>
The constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists."
] |
>
Yeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here."
] |
>
The Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right"
] |
>
I mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions."
] |
>
A Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.
Hail Satan!
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities"
] |
>
What I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules?
Am I missing something?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!"
] |
>
Anti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?"
] |
>
The goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play."
] |
>
Yes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing ."
] |
>
They make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?
They've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs."
] |
>
NO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not."
] |
>
Is this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook."
] |
>
wishful claim
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?"
] |
>
If there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim"
] |
>
I don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author:
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives."
] |
>
When framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices."
] |
>
The 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t."
] |
>
mckeitherson
3m
The 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.
Please enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case."
] |
>
Please enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim."
] |
>
I’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions."
] |
>
The difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment."
] |
>
If its so clear then where are all the "well regulated militias"?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights."
] |
>
Militia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?"
] |
>
Where does it say that in the constitution?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense."
] |
>
Ever since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?"
] |
>
Involuntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.
Cons: oops
Right Repubs?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare."
] |
>
At what point do stand your gound laws apply?
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?"
] |
>
If we’re gonna say being forced to carrying a baby is involuntary servitude then wouldn’t it follow that being force to care for and support baby/child after they are born is also involuntary servitude including for men.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?",
">\n\nAt what point do stand your gound laws apply?"
] |
>
Absolutely not!!
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?",
">\n\nAt what point do stand your gound laws apply?",
">\n\nIf we’re gonna say being forced to carrying a baby is involuntary servitude then wouldn’t it follow that being force to care for and support baby/child after they are born is also involuntary servitude including for men."
] |
>
It’s cute that some of y’all still think “the law” has any meaning lol
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?",
">\n\nAt what point do stand your gound laws apply?",
">\n\nIf we’re gonna say being forced to carrying a baby is involuntary servitude then wouldn’t it follow that being force to care for and support baby/child after they are born is also involuntary servitude including for men.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not!!"
] |
>
Welp… good luck with that
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?",
">\n\nAt what point do stand your gound laws apply?",
">\n\nIf we’re gonna say being forced to carrying a baby is involuntary servitude then wouldn’t it follow that being force to care for and support baby/child after they are born is also involuntary servitude including for men.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not!!",
">\n\nIt’s cute that some of y’all still think “the law” has any meaning lol"
] |
>
Like the Talibangelicals care about the Constitution. Like their Bible, they only care about the parts they cherry pick to fit their agenda.
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?",
">\n\nAt what point do stand your gound laws apply?",
">\n\nIf we’re gonna say being forced to carrying a baby is involuntary servitude then wouldn’t it follow that being force to care for and support baby/child after they are born is also involuntary servitude including for men.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not!!",
">\n\nIt’s cute that some of y’all still think “the law” has any meaning lol",
">\n\nWelp… good luck with that"
] |
>
|
[
"I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the \"Abortion Ritual\" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.)",
">\n\nThat’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments",
">\n\nNo. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible.",
">\n\nYou can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.",
">\n\nThe anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude isn't going to fly at all. Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception). \nReasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment. For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it. If that's not a right being \"retained by the people\" then what the hell is?",
">\n\nI'll push you further.\nAnyone who says \"there's no right to x in the constitution\" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\nThe Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.\nIf the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. \"It's not in the constitution\" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white.",
">\n\n\nAnyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.\n\nI think you mean the 10th. The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper. It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.\nAnd, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers. Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action.",
">\n\n\nI meant what I said.\n\nThen you're wrong in saying it.\n\n[9th Amendment quote]\n\nThis means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.\n\nThe 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws\n\nSo when I said \"the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper,\" what did you think I meant?\nAlso...\n\n\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\n\n\nSo the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens. Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.\nWhile you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass.",
">\n\nYour reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. \nThe 9th covers rights of the people.\nThe 10th covers powers of government.",
">\n\n\nYour reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.\n\nLegal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people.",
">\n\nThe government is not a person.",
">\n\nIt is when it is a litigant in a suit",
">\n\nOh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point.",
">\n\nThe US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test.",
">\n\nPretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). \nExcept funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as \"not protected\" or \"not a right\": The Ninth Amendment.\n\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nInterpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... \nBut that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes.",
">\n\n\nthat ship has pretty much already flown \n\ndudeeee",
">\n\nOK, the bird has sailed. Better?",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'.",
">\n\nPretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg\n(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language)",
">\n\nTemba, his arms open.",
">\n\nIf the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.\nAlso, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.\nIt's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue.",
">\n\nHow do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?\nFeels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.",
">\n\nPersonally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. \nIs it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.",
">\n\nLike most things in life, they aren’t binary good or bad. While you might be able to justify killing an unborn child because they have downs, I would struggle to argue the same point with autism. Let’s say someone had webbed fingers, something that could be corrected with surgery. Is it still ok to abort simply because the surgery or cost of care would be expensive?\nWould it be good to do it, just to save them from potentially reproducing with a defect? Or is it only ok to justify it because of the suffering of the child itself?\nMost of these could be argued as “let people do eugenics if they want. It’s their kid.” We are now able to predict autism based off of brain scans during pregnancy. I struggle to argue that this kind of eugenics should not be allowed without also arguing against downs.",
">\n\nI think the issue needs to be framed as bodily autonomy first. Your eugenics disability argument is not going deep enough.\nIf the state can take away right to bodily autonomy at will from one group, then no group can know they are secure with theirs. You need to allow abortion for all reasons. The disabled community (which notably has very little bodily autonomy) also loses their right to get an abortion as well. \nI support pregnant people getting abortions if they want - for any reason. Because I need my right to abortion to also be supported.",
">\n\nI struggle to support someone getting abortions for reasons that can also be applied to infanticide. Otherwise, I cannot be consistent without supporting infanticide.\nIf you’re killing an unborn baby because it has Down’s syndrome, what is different once that child is 2 years old? All of the same arguments apply. With arguments surrounding bodily autonomy, they do not.\nDo you see how arguing that it’s moral to kill someone that has downs because of the suffering that that child will have to endure applies to both unborn and born babies?",
">\n\nThe difference is that a birthed child is quite literally born, but again you are making up reasons to distract from the real issue. It does not matter what happens to the fetus. It matters what happens to living people - your two year old in the example and the person who is pregnant.",
">\n\nWhat is different between these two points regarding the baby itself? What causes the arguments of mitigating suffering to not apply? If it is about bodily autonomy, then let’s agree people who do it for other reasons are doing it for bad reasons.",
">\n\nI would abort any fetus I had. I don’t just not want a baby - I never want to be pregnant. Try to have an open mind.",
">\n\nYou are ignoring the context of the discussion. I am not talking about your decision to have an abortion specifically and I am personally pro-choice.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude. Hmmm. If a member of our society is forced to give birth (involuntarily) just to serve the moral framework of others, is that not involuntary servitude? Kinda thin. But no thinner than the SC ruling against abortion.",
">\n\nThis Supreme Court has shown on a number of occasions that they'll use any reasoning they see fit to make their rulings. \nIt's not about the law anymore.",
">\n\nAbsolutely. Dominated by Christian Nationalists.",
">\n\nThe constitution is meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. This is elementary school level comprehension here.",
">\n\nYeah and the Supreme Court ruled that this particular issue wasn’t covered by the constitution and legislatures would need to legislate. Just because you like something doesn’t make it a constitutional right",
">\n\nThe Supreme Court can decide what they like and claim what's constitutional, but we all know that this particular SCOTUS is illegitimate and unqualified to be making any of these decisions.",
">\n\nI mean that’s obviously not the point. But I agree justices shouldn’t read their priorities into the constitution. Whereas most people think it’s fine as long as they agree with the priorities",
">\n\n\nA Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.\n\nHail Satan!",
">\n\nWhat I don’t understand is how does abortion not fall under HIPAA? I mean if nobody can see my cholesterol levels without my consent I’d like to think that abortion would be subject to the same rules? \nAm I missing something?",
">\n\nAnti abortion people think life starts at conception. To them, the fertilized egg is a human. Even if it has not implanted yet. They see abortion as murder because of this. By their logic, HIPAA never comes into play.",
">\n\nThe goal is to make women non-voting felons . Takes care of the pesky 19th Amendment thing .",
">\n\nYes, there is clearly no intention for the government to kill women due to some false religious belief that they will always miraculously survive and are less important than a fetus that probably will not survive. We do not own those wombs.",
">\n\nThey make some good arguments but does anyone really think good arguments will work on the current Supreme Court?\nThey've shown they will happily cherry pick any argument that suits the way they want to interpret the law and ignore anything that doesn't. No matter how well the 13th amendment may or may not support abortion, if they know the case is about abortion then they will say it does not.",
">\n\nNO. Do not solve this with another creative reading of the Constitution. Make a law, written in clear unambiguous language. Do not let Congress off the hook.",
">\n\nIs this real or like George Santo’s wishful claim?",
">\n\nwishful claim",
">\n\nIf there is anything that the Dobbs ruling proved it's that everything is up for interpretation, including the 2A. Be careful what you wish for conservatives.",
">\n\nI don't see the Supreme Court being supportive of this viewpoint, considering the quote from their ruling that was highlighted by the author: \n\n“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.",
">\n\nWhen framed as a service, yeah that opinion makes sense. When framed as involuntarily servitude then it doesn’t.",
">\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods. The Justices' quote is still applicable to the 13th Amendment in this case.",
">\n\nmckeitherson\n3m\n\nThe 13th Amendment is regarding slavery, not getting pregnant because you didn't utilize available protection methods.\n\nPlease enumerate the protection methods available to an underage rape victim.",
">\n\nPlease enumerate the relevancy of your comment. Being a victim of rape accounts for just 1% of all abortions.",
">\n\nI’d argue less than 1% of gun owners use their weapons in self defense or any other reason explicitly supported by the intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet they still are protected by the 2nd Amendment.",
">\n\nThe difference is it's clear the 2nd Amendment is clear it's regarding guns. The 13th Amendment has zero relation to abortion rights.",
">\n\nIf its so clear then where are all the \"well regulated militias\"?",
">\n\nMilitia refers to any individual capable of acting together with others for the common defense.",
">\n\nWhere does it say that in the constitution?",
">\n\nEver since Citizens United decided that money is a form of speech, there has been an unrealized argument that compelled birth is form of compelled speech since there is no universal healthcare.",
">\n\nInvoluntary servitude is illegal under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.\nCons: oops\nRight Repubs?",
">\n\nAt what point do stand your gound laws apply?",
">\n\nIf we’re gonna say being forced to carrying a baby is involuntary servitude then wouldn’t it follow that being force to care for and support baby/child after they are born is also involuntary servitude including for men.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not!!",
">\n\nIt’s cute that some of y’all still think “the law” has any meaning lol",
">\n\nWelp… good luck with that",
">\n\nLike the Talibangelicals care about the Constitution. Like their Bible, they only care about the parts they cherry pick to fit their agenda."
] |
And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.
|
[] |
>
Over/Under on # of times she says some form of "woke agenda"? I'm betting 4.5.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation."
] |
>
I’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5."
] |
>
"woke socialism" = everyone finish their drink
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?"
] |
>
Damn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink"
] |
>
Bombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February."
] |
>
I don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)"
] |
>
You're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps."
] |
>
I don't want reassurance. I want results
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man."
] |
>
The only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results"
] |
>
That’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it."
] |
>
All GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?
It may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.
Also, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.
Perhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it."
] |
>
An honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal."
] |
>
He might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler."
] |
>
He better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see.
"I will not let you take our country hostage."
I can dream.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric"
] |
>
State of the union:
High food prices.
High gas prices.
High healthcare prices.
High inflation.
High debts.
Unaffordable homes.
Tax refund are getting slimmer and slimmer.
Politicians don’t care and only serve themselves and the rich who are getting richer.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric",
">\n\nHe better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see. \n\"I will not let you take our country hostage.\"\nI can dream."
] |
>
“There, there…now, now. It’s ok.”
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric",
">\n\nHe better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see. \n\"I will not let you take our country hostage.\"\nI can dream.",
">\n\nState of the union:\nHigh food prices.\nHigh gas prices.\nHigh healthcare prices.\nHigh inflation.\nHigh debts.\nUnaffordable homes.\nTax refund are getting slimmer and slimmer.\nPoliticians don’t care and only serve themselves and the rich who are getting richer."
] |
>
Im excited to learn nothing!
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric",
">\n\nHe better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see. \n\"I will not let you take our country hostage.\"\nI can dream.",
">\n\nState of the union:\nHigh food prices.\nHigh gas prices.\nHigh healthcare prices.\nHigh inflation.\nHigh debts.\nUnaffordable homes.\nTax refund are getting slimmer and slimmer.\nPoliticians don’t care and only serve themselves and the rich who are getting richer.",
">\n\n“There, there…now, now. It’s ok.”"
] |
>
I look forward to completely ignoring Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response as well as the trump response (which has evidently already been recorded.)
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric",
">\n\nHe better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see. \n\"I will not let you take our country hostage.\"\nI can dream.",
">\n\nState of the union:\nHigh food prices.\nHigh gas prices.\nHigh healthcare prices.\nHigh inflation.\nHigh debts.\nUnaffordable homes.\nTax refund are getting slimmer and slimmer.\nPoliticians don’t care and only serve themselves and the rich who are getting richer.",
">\n\n“There, there…now, now. It’s ok.”",
">\n\nIm excited to learn nothing!"
] |
>
Every time I see Biden up there instead of little Donnie I am reassured that we have an adult running the show. It’s not perfect but we could and have done worse.
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric",
">\n\nHe better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see. \n\"I will not let you take our country hostage.\"\nI can dream.",
">\n\nState of the union:\nHigh food prices.\nHigh gas prices.\nHigh healthcare prices.\nHigh inflation.\nHigh debts.\nUnaffordable homes.\nTax refund are getting slimmer and slimmer.\nPoliticians don’t care and only serve themselves and the rich who are getting richer.",
">\n\n“There, there…now, now. It’s ok.”",
">\n\nIm excited to learn nothing!",
">\n\nI look forward to completely ignoring Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response as well as the trump response (which has evidently already been recorded.)"
] |
>
|
[
"And following that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will give the response by pumping fear propaganda and culture wars talking points into the nation.",
">\n\nOver/Under on # of times she says some form of \"woke agenda\"? I'm betting 4.5.",
">\n\nI’ll take the over on that. What about socialism?",
">\n\n\"woke socialism\" = everyone finish their drink",
">\n\nDamn. Straight from dry January into binge drinking February.",
">\n\nBombay Gin Saphire enters chat;-)",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance, I want fascist scalps.",
">\n\nYou're not going to get that from the Democrats. Sorry man.",
">\n\nI don't want reassurance. I want results",
">\n\nThe only thing that will bring me reassurance right now is seeing Trump and his co-conspirators arrested and put on trial for their numerous crimes. Their fascist movement is the greatest threat we face right now and nobody is doing anything about it.",
">\n\nThat’s not true. They’re enabling and normalizing it.",
">\n\nAll GQP members going to pass through the metal detector?\nIt may be good idea to take that small hammer from McCarthy's hand.\nAlso, curious how much 'Biden is not the real President, it is Trump\" rebuttal speech by Sarah Fuckabee Sanders going to last.\nPerhaps, they will coordinate, the attack happens right after the rebuttal.",
">\n\nAn honest assessment of the huge divide in this country and the dangers it poses would be a lot cooler.",
">\n\nHe might as well skip it then. We've had enough empty rhetoric",
">\n\nHe better turn around and speak directly to McCarthy for the world to see. \n\"I will not let you take our country hostage.\"\nI can dream.",
">\n\nState of the union:\nHigh food prices.\nHigh gas prices.\nHigh healthcare prices.\nHigh inflation.\nHigh debts.\nUnaffordable homes.\nTax refund are getting slimmer and slimmer.\nPoliticians don’t care and only serve themselves and the rich who are getting richer.",
">\n\n“There, there…now, now. It’s ok.”",
">\n\nIm excited to learn nothing!",
">\n\nI look forward to completely ignoring Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response as well as the trump response (which has evidently already been recorded.)",
">\n\nEvery time I see Biden up there instead of little Donnie I am reassured that we have an adult running the show. It’s not perfect but we could and have done worse."
] |
Sound test pls 😏🥴
|
[] |
>
Can't really do a proper sound test, do not have the proper equipment for it.
Not forgetting on video the sound has a more noticeable click, than how it sounds in real life, thus a comparison is hard to make
|
[
"Sound test pls 😏🥴"
] |
>
|
[
"Sound test pls 😏🥴",
">\n\nCan't really do a proper sound test, do not have the proper equipment for it.\nNot forgetting on video the sound has a more noticeable click, than how it sounds in real life, thus a comparison is hard to make"
] |
Liberal capitalism.
I define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.
This ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.
The ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By "socialization" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.
|
[] |
>
we already have this
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale."
] |
>
Maybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.
We had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.
What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.
What we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4.
What we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.
What we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.
What we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.
That is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.
We have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.
I could go on.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this"
] |
>
What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.
That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive.
Corporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.
Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on."
] |
>
That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive.
😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.
Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.
I would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.
You may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:
trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.
One more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation."
] |
>
I am a marxist, yes.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?"
] |
>
Alright then.
You accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?
You believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?
I am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.
At least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes."
] |
>
Yep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.
To your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher
You and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.
It's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative."
] |
>
I understand why you see things the way that you do.
I am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.
I don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case."
] |
>
I believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads.
We see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest.
The US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too."
] |
>
I disagree.
This is not the "next big ideology" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.
We will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.
They have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.
What's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident."
] |
>
that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.
It has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor.
Set aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.
According to the voting rights lab:
Over the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.
That's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.
And what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.
On the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6.
Our institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it.
And our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors.
It doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority."
] |
>
I think you have summed up the fight pretty well.
I'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.
They are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power."
] |
>
They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.
Again, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor.
It is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.