Hodad

Lol. Come on. You know that's nonsense. The anti-choice movement has been driven almost entirely by evangelicals and Catholics. It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. I really don't care a whit about religious beliefs--until people start trying to turn their beliefs into legislation that affects me. Their fantasies don't hurt me until they try to inject them into my reality. Bad news for them politically though, in that non-religious people are even more invested in the outcome of the abortion debate and more pissed off about Roe. Hence why Trumps candidates in hostile states have been punished. 538 Unaffiliated Americans are today overwhelmingly in agreement on abortion — even more so than white evangelicals. A new survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that 60 percent of white evangelical Christians believe that abortion becoming less available is a good thing for society — but a much larger percentage (78 percent) of unaffiliated Americans say this has been a negative development. And a Pew survey found last year that religiously unaffiliated Americans are much more united in support for legal abortion than white evangelicals are in opposition (84 percent vs. 74 percent, respectively). Recent polling also found that 65 percent of nonreligious Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them very well, a jump from 54 percent roughly a decade earlier.

I'd have to see a specific legislative proposal to comment on whether I support it or not, but I don't have any problem with excluding the underage if it's done in a way that respects the privacy of others. Lol. At least you're consistent in that you don't like colorful examples to illustrate the point in a practical way. Which, again, is my beef with your argument. If you're not talking about these things in a practical, relevant--and compelling--way, then your message doesn't much matter. You know, funny as it is, I've NEVER tried to tell educators how to do their jobs. I've never pushed my views on anyone, nor tried to communicate any information to any children outside of my own. You, on the other hand, intend to do exactly that. You look at the decisions that these educators have made locally -- these people who have both the pedagogical expertise and the relationship with real teens--and you wag your finger and say "I know better. Get those books out of there." You've thoroughly confused our roles here. I simply asked you to examine the merits of alternative approaches amid a changing social landscape. But your response is that we should both stay out of teachers business--as long as the teachers teach the way you want them to.🙄 But you can't muster the courtesy to refer to people as they view themselves? If some biological male wants to be a woman, or vice versa, how does that harm you? Is it a power thing? They have to see and refer to themselves as you see them rather than how they see themselves? Can't manage an alternative pronoun if it makes someone else feel more comfortable? Yes, that's a pretty good example of intolerance. If you can't tolerate the harmless little differences between individuals and groups, you are intolerant. My "political ideology" is tolerance. It's basic kindness. It's the core lesson in every kindergarten class, until society teaches some kids how to be cruel, and discriminate and bully (in their tiny MAGA hats, I presume). Noooooope. You're being wildly disingenuous. Nobody anywhere is going to be persuaded that the "pro-life flag" isn't hostile to pro-choice people. There are two sides to that debate, and you know full well which side is lined up outside of reproductive medicine clinics to heckle women and shout "baby killer!" at the doctors. The pride flag has no such connotation. There are no throngs of gay people hectoring passersby trying to turn them gay. There's simply gay people finding the courage to be proud of who they are in an often hostile society. Apples and watermelons. As before, if the message of self acceptance and tolerance is a problem for you, the flag isn't the problem.

That's nonsense. But note, that you can't make the successful argument even if I stipulate that lumps of cells--without formed bodies, brains or any indication of sentience-- are people.

I absolutely reject the idea that a developing fetus is a human being, let alone a "distinct" human being. But again, even if we stipulate that that is the case you are--quite literally now--saying that it's okay if the states want to make women 2nd class citizens, condemned to serve fetal citizens against their will.

Let's get real. The 50 years of political strife and churn had NOTHING to do with the quality of Roe. The bible thumpers just can't abide a woman's right to choose. They believe they are on a divine mission, so they won't take no for an answer. If the right to abortion had been added as a crystal clear amendment it would have been challenged over and over again in the exact same way.

Yes, we all know cases have been overturned by later cases. Alito says as much to brush right past any obligation to stare decisis. But if you look at this list you should notice a few things. The first is the most of those cases are overturned fairly soon after, rather than upending longstanding decisions around which American life is built. And most of those cases are not affecting fundamental rights on a broad scale. Whether this court liked or disliked the holding in Roe, they have a responsibility to account for all the rest. Stare decisis isn't a binding rule, but it sure as hell is a reminder to the court why it should act deliberately and with due caution for it's role in American life. A reminder that something as fundamental as our constitution doesn't change every time a new ass lands on the SCOTUS bench. Roe had been in place for 50+ years. Roe involves the rights to one's own body, the most private of private decisions. Roe directly affects over half of all American citizens. Roe--and the rights it protected--were VERY popular among the governed. Roe was integral to American life and it would surely create meaningful chaos to overturn it. If ever there were a case where stare decisis should have been given extra weight, Roe was it. And if it was to be overturned, it deserved a rationale more complete and compelling that Alito's dog's breakfast of an opinion. Instead this court rushed headlong to overturn longstanding law against that will of the people and in a manner that would be both disruptive and meaningly harmful to Americans. The Federalist Society delivered as promised, but the irony should not be lost that an organization literally named for and grounded in judicial restraint has become the most activist court in living memory.

^^ I like Billy Joel's version better. 😁

Correct. If the state want's to support and sustain the elderly, it's welcome to do so. But it also is not compelling individuals to do so. When granny is on dialysis, the state doesn't show up at your door to steal your kidney. When granny gets in a car accident and needs a transfusion the state doesn't show up with a syringe and drain your blood. You'd probably find that an outrageous idea, but it's essentially what you're arguing that states should be empowered to do to women: that they should be compelled to surrender their own bodily sovereignty in order to sustain another body.

Yes, the person responsible for the child cannot neglect the child. The difference is that the responsibility is transferrable. The state won't compel a mother to support a living child--she may legally transfer that dependent to another. <--yet another example of how you would elevate the fetus to a supercitizen status with rights to other people's resources far beyond those of born citizens.

No worries. 👍

We were never in disagreement. Not sure how you got that impression. I absolutely think this court is wrong, but my opinions are not empowered to create law. Dredd Scott is a very superficial comparison, but more to the point it's entirely irrelevant to stare decisis. Remember, it wasn't overturned by a court case or re-interpretation of the constitutional text, but by an actual constitutional amendment.

Ah, there we are. ^^ "I just view life as the beginning of conception." Live vs living tissue vs personhood is always a rollicking conversation, but we can skip it. For the purpose of this conversation I'm happy to stipulate that the tiniest clump of cells is a person. Hell, why don't we go way off script and call it a citizen with full and equal rights to every other citizen. You're welcome! But wait, does any other citizen have right to occupy space within another citizen? Do you, as a citizen, have the right to take the blood and tissue of another citizen? Do others have the right to take it from you? No, of course not. But you'd have the state elevate the fetus to a sort of supercitizen, with rights beyond those of the mother. You'd make her subservient, with the state compelling her to give of herself, in violation of her physical sovereignty, to sustain another. Which is nonsense. If a woman doesn't want to nurture a fetus she should be able to evict it from her body with whatever force is required. Yes, the fetus will die without that support in the same way that people die without organ transplants and transfusions. But you wouldn't have the state stealing kidneys and draining unwilling victims of blood, would you? As before, a mother's gift to nourish a child--born and unborn--is a wonderful and generous act. But there is no theory of rights compatible with our constitution that would compel a woman to do so.

I did mock you, because you're position is terribly naive. But it's also a fact that if you close off competing counterprogramming you will indeed leave their practical sex education to porn stars. As before, a pamphlet from the 50s isn't going to compete against porn. I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. The point is not to teach kids how to recreate porn, but how to have healthy relationships to sex, sexuality and one another. If you don't provide, through whatever mechanisms, competing models of healthy sexual behavior then all they are left with are harmful models. Prudish abstraction may make you feel more comfortable, but it's not conducive to the comfort of a 17 year old girl with a prolapsed anus because she and her first boyfriend have seen 47 hours of lube-free ass porn. But at least she had a pamphlet! Men can be men and women can be women, but you don't have any business deciding for people who gets to be what. They'll be fine on their own, thanks. And, again, these are bad analogies. The pro-life flag and the Christian flag (neither of which I've ever seen anywhere, so take that as a clue) are flags of superiority. Christianity asserts that it is the one true religion, so what does putting that flag in a classroom say to the muslims and Jews in the class? The pro-life (anti-choice) flag says that women should not have the right to choose whether to carry a fetus within them. What does that say to women and girls who cherish that right? Both of these flags send a signal of greater than and less than. The pride flag sends no such signal. it just says "I'm okay too!" And, again, if you can't tolerate people accepting themselves and being proud of themselves, your problem isn't with a flag.

No, its' not. Not even remotely. And you can't articulate such an argument. In fact, you've got it quite backward. States that restrict abortion enslave women on behalf of the elevated, superior fetus. Again, no. You are blatantly misrepresenting me. I said nothing of the sort.

Through the power of quoting, I compel thee... "It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way." And you are misusing the term "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights refer to rights reserved for the people, those which shall not be alienated by state law. In other words, protection from the laws of the state. The inalienable rights in the 14th amendment were the foundation of Roe, BTW. It might have been better rooted in equal protection than privacy (which is usually my argument) but in either approach the SCOTUS was right to protect women from an overreaching state.

When? Jeebus. When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, as established by the SCOTUS it was not unconstitutional. It was, in my view, not unconstitutional at the time of the drafting or now. The current court sees things differently, and they are empowered to create law through their interpretation. The court defines what is constitutional and those opinions have the force of law. That's why it's so ridiculous to say that Roe was unconstitutional. Well, no, it wasn't. This court thinks that it is currently, but it wasn't at the time. <-- This conversation, by the way, is the whole point of stare decisis. Instead of a steady constitution we have the whimsy of the court, blown by political winds. It undermines the entire notion of constitutionality, and doubly so when it turns back the clock against the general will of the governed. I mean, Clarence Thomas, of all people, has already set his sights on Loving and Lawrence based on the Dobbs nonsense. -- What's next? Overturning Brown v. Board of Education? I mean, geez, that's only been the law of the land for 70-ish years. Won't that Make America Great Again? 🙄 I did not say it was unconstitutional to overturn Roe v. Wade. I responded to a poster who said the the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional. Which is a silly statement when the definers of constitutionality defined it as constitutional.

I didn't suggest that Dobbs created fetal supremacy. I said that they were wrong to strip citizens of protection from states who would impose fetal supremacy upon its citizens. The constitution and the court exist to protect citizens from state overreach. And severe restrictions on abortion are nothing if not extreme overreach.

By "warped view" you mean you can't muster a counterargument. It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way. If this court were actually bothered by an expansive right to privacy they should be shitting themselves over the invention of this superclass. But, as I said, Dobbs didn't come from a place of reason.

I said "real sex education." You know, something relevant to the real world they inhabit today. You think the ol' nuts and bolts (so to speak) is sufficient to help today's youth successfully navigate through a vast sea of more explicit, more engaging--but generally unhealthy--information. I, on the other hand, think that's woefully naive, and that you're setting kids up for a lot of pain, failure and long-term harm. As the world changes kids will naturally face different challenges. Education should adapt to meet them. My reference to Ron Jeremy is just colorful rhetoric for an inescapable point: kids are learning about sexuality and sexual relationships from online pornography. If you don't give them an alternative, that's the only message that becomes the sole and authoritative source of truth. Trying to countreprogram with a pamphlet from the 50s is like fighting a forest fire with a squirt gun. And you want to talk about asinine rhetoric? You literally said that the pride flag was intended to "browbeat" people, lol. If that's not absurd, I don't know what is. It has a very narrow message, pride in one's self and tolerance. Again, if those ideas offend you, if you're outraged by a symbol of those ideas, then you have much bigger problems than a colorful flag. It does no harm to anyone. It does not claim supremacy. It does not make anyone "less-than." It is a simple affirmation for a long-marginalized and abused group. And yet it bothers you and you feel it's an act of aggression? Sorry, your privilege is showing.

Yes, it is today. It wasn't then. And that was one of Alito's points, but it's an entirely specious one. This court is guilty of egregious cherry picking. Not only did they wildly disrupt a longstanding status quo--which they all indicated they would not do during confirmation--but they did so so selectively as to remove all doubt about the religious motive underlying the change. Stare decisis? What's that!?! They could, almost shot for shot, apply Alito's shoddy reasoning to a whole trove of conservative darlings, but they won't, because this was never about reason. SCOTUS has never been infallible, but for most of its history it's managed to remain somewhat above the political fray. It was smart and deliberate and thoughtful and fair. Well, the shine is off that apple. Poor Roberts, despite his efforts, presides over a tattered shadow of an institution full of naked prejudice. Just one more institution Trump turned to crap.

The construction is a charter of negative rights. Nowhere does it say what you can do, Rather it is focused on what the state cannot do to you. It says you have rights to certain things that are inviolable by the state. But were in the Constitution does a non-citizen fetus have the right to the body, blood and tissue of a female citizen? It's great if a woman chooses to give of herself to grow a child. I'm certainly grateful to my mother. But it's a gift, not an obligation, and when a woman chooses not to give of herself then respect that decision. Don't enslave her, violate her privacy and sovereignty on behalf of a non-person, non-citizen. Don't elevate the possibility of a person above the interests of an actual person. That's just nuts. There's no logical way to arrive at that position. It's purely on faith.

Jeebus, that's some dark shit. Self identifying as a likely sociopath is probably good for her hopes at getting on the Trump ticket. -- If she doesn't perform well, I assume she'll request to be shot in the face, right?

Sorry, that's not how that works. The fact that is was a SCOTUS decision defines Roe as constitutional. For as long as it stood, it was constitutional. The Constitution didn't change its mind.

No it's very silly to say it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS determined that it was constitutional. That's why it existed. The Constitution hasn't changed in any relevant way. We just have a new batch of activist zealots on the bench currently who hold a different view of the Constitution. It can overrule prior decisions, but it doesn't erase that it was constitutional at that time. And yes, it's no coincidence that conservatives packed the court with Catholics who would be hostile to Roe not on logical grounds, but motivated by faith. I mean, my goodness he's talking about the quickening of the fetus but can't be bothered to mention the rights of citizen women to their own bodies? You won't find any mention of fetal rights in the Constitution, but somehow the government has more interest there than in the privacy and physical sovereignty of women citizens? Of course, that was the goal all along. And Alito's incredibly flimsy argument--and his gloating--reveal the charade. There were many articles at the time but this one is specific to his religious Easter eggs

Okay, so it sounds like you're dead set that kids should not have real sex education. Just let them figure it out with Prof. Ron Jeremy. That's fine if that's how you feel, but I hope you can see that it's reasonable for other people or jurisdictions to take a more practical approach. And no, the pride flag doesn't "browbeat" anyone. It's a message of self-worth and tolerance. That shouldn't be offensive to anyone. There is no undertone about straight people going to hell or being less-than. Again, if you're offended by messages of self worth and tolerance, a colorful flag is the least of your problems. I'm trying to empathetically imagine being outraged at people for being comfortable with their own sexuality and I just can't imagine how that works. By what mechanism? Do you feel so entitled to impose your views and values upon others that it's offensive to you when someone is proud of who they are. Is that like an incursion on your privilege?ockquote widgetblockquote widget