US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade
Discussion
InitialDave said:
As I said, I understand just fine.
I think you are viewing things too simplistically and at face value.
Where the American right push something as being for "states' rights", do not be taken in by the idea that it is some academic legal principle.
They mean "we want to do [thing]", and [thing] is usually bad and regressive.
All only in your opinion.I think you are viewing things too simplistically and at face value.
Where the American right push something as being for "states' rights", do not be taken in by the idea that it is some academic legal principle.
They mean "we want to do [thing]", and [thing] is usually bad and regressive.
The fact that the 'right' have campaigned and fund-raised for decades does not in itself mean that this is not the correct legal decision. Try to step back from your emotions on the issue.
There is some irony in the fact that the supreme court has done exactly what many are calling for, removing the State from decisions about womens' bodies.
Many factions and interest groups have done what the 'right' has done for decades in advancing their narrow agendas. Welcome to politics.
Electro1980 said:
smn159 said:
Given that you keep saying over and over again how the two sides of this 'debate' are polarised, it should be easy for you to describe what might be a moderate position on this issue
I won't hold my breath though
Do stop sealioning. It’s not helpful, and the answer is right there. The moderate position is to not paint anyone who disagrees or holds a different opinion as one of the two caricatures. I won't hold my breath though
vetrof said:
There is some irony in the fact that the supreme court has done exactly what many are calling for, removing the State from decisions about womens' bodies.
They have not. They have allowed a different element of the state to make the decision.One of the things that makes this "states' rights" position disingenuous is that it always carefully threads a narrow version of individualism to achieve the desired end.
Should this be laid out at a national/federal level? No, it should be devolved to the individual states.
Should it be further devolved to allow individual people, towns, or counties to make the decision? No, they should have it mandated to them by the state.
Had they achieved a restriction/ban on abortion at a national level, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them about "states' rights" to decide for themselves.
InitialDave said:
They have not. They have allowed a different element of the state to make the decision.
One of the things that makes this "states' rights" position disingenuous is that it always carefully threads a narrow version of individualism to achieve the desired end.
Should this be laid out at a national/federal level? No, it should be devolved to the individual states.
Should it be further devolved to allow individual people, towns, or counties to make the decision? No, they should have it mandated to them by the state.
Had they achieved a restriction/ban on abortion at a national level, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them about "states' rights" to decide for themselves.
Again, welcome to politics.One of the things that makes this "states' rights" position disingenuous is that it always carefully threads a narrow version of individualism to achieve the desired end.
Should this be laid out at a national/federal level? No, it should be devolved to the individual states.
Should it be further devolved to allow individual people, towns, or counties to make the decision? No, they should have it mandated to them by the state.
Had they achieved a restriction/ban on abortion at a national level, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them about "states' rights" to decide for themselves.
Individual interest groups will always use whatever mechanisms are available to them to reach their goals.
It is argued that the State(Federal) should keep out of state(local) decisions as much as possible (a position I agree with). The motivations of campaigners are largely irrelevant if the Constitution is to be followed.
The people and by extension their elected representatives should be responsible for the formulation of laws, not the judiciary.
Lazy and weak politicians are to blame for this mess, not the advocates of either position nor the SC.
vetrof said:
Again, welcome to politics.
Individual interest groups will always use whatever mechanisms are available to them to reach their goals.
If you understand that, then you understand why claims that it's about states' rights rather than abortion are, well, lies.Individual interest groups will always use whatever mechanisms are available to them to reach their goals.
It's about abortion. Individual state legislation on it getting primacy is purely the mechanism to achieve the end goal.
InitialDave said:
vetrof said:
Again, welcome to politics.
Individual interest groups will always use whatever mechanisms are available to them to reach their goals.
If you understand that, then you understand why claims that it's about states' rights rather than abortion are, well, lies.Individual interest groups will always use whatever mechanisms are available to them to reach their goals.
It's about abortion. Individual state legislation on it getting primacy is purely the mechanism to achieve the end goal.
InitialDave said:
If you understand that, then you understand why claims that it's about states' rights rather than abortion are, well, lies.
It's about abortion. Individual state legislation on it getting primacy is purely the mechanism to achieve the end goal.
Two things can be true at the same time. I don't believe that everyone who agrees with the decision is anti abortion, such as myself for example.It's about abortion. Individual state legislation on it getting primacy is purely the mechanism to achieve the end goal.
vetrof said:
Two things can be true at the same time. I don't believe that everyone who agrees with the decision is anti abortion, such as myself for example.
When you say "agree with the decision", do you mean from a purely abstract, legal perspective? That, reading the constitution in its most literal form, RvW was in fact incorrect and this is correcting that mistake?And, given that you say you are not anti-abortion, do you also agree that the impact of the decision is undesirable and in a very practical way regressive and restrictive to the rights of tens of millions of woman?
I'm sure you can concede that you can be legally correct but morally wrong, in which case surely the best course of action is to work to change the relevant legislation before committing the greater moral injustice?
But that's all by the by, because as we all know the aims of those responsible for putting all the pieces in place for the repeal of RvW were firmly anti-abortion and they are not bothered about the law either way, other than as a tool for achieving their objectives.
vetrof said:
Two things can be true at the same time. I don't believe that everyone who agrees with the decision is anti abortion, such as myself for example.
It is a decision to remove women's right to abortion access, taken specifically for the purpose of removing women's right to abortion access.Anything else, the legal mechanisms used to achieve it, are incidental to that.
Do not allow yourself to be hoodwinked into thinking that this is some kind of unfortunate side effect of a loftier aim, it is not.
If you are non anti-abortion, there is absolutely nothing worthy of your support or agreement here.
It’s also a question about democracy versus what some people regard as a basic human right.
This decision makes it a more local decision (in Europe it’d be the same as delegating a decision from the EU to a country level). If the local voting population think it’s a terrible thing they can vote those out of power who made it, and vote the ones into power that are pro-abortion. If they don’t then it shows the majority want it in that state (country). Then you have the question if you believe in democracy or not, and if that should have presidency, no matter our view on what is morally right?
This decision makes it a more local decision (in Europe it’d be the same as delegating a decision from the EU to a country level). If the local voting population think it’s a terrible thing they can vote those out of power who made it, and vote the ones into power that are pro-abortion. If they don’t then it shows the majority want it in that state (country). Then you have the question if you believe in democracy or not, and if that should have presidency, no matter our view on what is morally right?
deckster said:
When you say "agree with the decision", do you mean from a purely abstract, legal perspective? That, reading the constitution in its most literal form, RvW was in fact incorrect and this is correcting that mistake?
And, given that you say you are not anti-abortion, do you also agree that the impact of the decision is undesirable and in a very practical way regressive and restrictive to the rights of tens of millions of woman?
I'm sure you can concede that you can be legally correct but morally wrong, in which case surely the best course of action is to work to change the relevant legislation before committing the greater moral injustice?
But that's all by the by, because as we all know the aims of those responsible for putting all the pieces in place for the repeal of RvW were firmly anti-abortion and they are not bothered about the law either way, other than as a tool for achieving their objectives.
I don't think the legal perspective is particularly abstract, but yes it is a correction of a mistake.And, given that you say you are not anti-abortion, do you also agree that the impact of the decision is undesirable and in a very practical way regressive and restrictive to the rights of tens of millions of woman?
I'm sure you can concede that you can be legally correct but morally wrong, in which case surely the best course of action is to work to change the relevant legislation before committing the greater moral injustice?
But that's all by the by, because as we all know the aims of those responsible for putting all the pieces in place for the repeal of RvW were firmly anti-abortion and they are not bothered about the law either way, other than as a tool for achieving their objectives.
And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
Electro1980 said:
To set their own laws. It is exactly the same as the Brexit debate. If you don’t understand the fight around state vs federal power, no, you don’t understand US politics.
You’re kidding your self if you think this was about returning states rights, or that this court is particularly interested in giving states more power above anything else - just look at the logic used in Bruen, or what they are doing to the establishment & free exercise clauses. Also, overturning this particular ruling has been a decades long project for pro-life.
vetrof said:
I don't think the legal perspective is particularly abstract, but yes it is a correction of a mistake.
And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
It's abstract because what is legal and what is not is, in theory, driven by moral and societal imperatives. As I said, something can be legally right and morally wrong, and in those cases the emphasis should be on correcting the law rather than removing pre-existing rights.And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
You are of course correct that morals are relative and that this issue, in particular, is contentious. As a reasonable consensus however I would point to the US' peers and allies across the western world as a marker and note their position on abortion rights.
As to why haven't they legislated in the last half century: I totally agree this is a massive mistake and would have stopped the whole thing before it became an issue. I can only suggest that (1) nobody, not even the Federalist Society, really expected this to happen. And (2), given the way that US politics work it is almost impossible to get contentious legislation on the statute. I would suggest that the Republicans would have filibustered and blocked any Federal abortion law at every turn.
vetrof said:
I don't think the legal perspective is particularly abstract, but yes it is a correction of a mistake.
And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
There are other routes they could have taken. Alito decided it was all or nothing, but it didn't have to be. And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
For example he has a footnote on an amicus brief which laid out an equal protection argument for abortion (this has long been thought of as a stronger constitutional argument for abortion) he just brushes over it and mentions established precedent... as if this court cares about that at all.
deckster said:
vetrof said:
I don't think the legal perspective is particularly abstract, but yes it is a correction of a mistake.
And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
It's abstract because what is legal and what is not is, in theory, driven by moral and societal imperatives. As I said, something can be legally right and morally wrong, and in those cases the emphasis should be on correcting the law rather than removing pre-existing rights.And yes it has an undesirable effect on womens' rights. 'moral injustice' is an abstract concept and not at all uniform across the populace (hence the contentious nature of the issue).
It seems to me that "Roe v Wade" has been flagged as a potential problem for my whole life, politicians have had half a decade to get this sorted. The question has to be asked why haven't they?
You are of course correct that morals are relative and that this issue, in particular, is contentious. As a reasonable consensus however I would point to the US' peers and allies across the western world as a marker and note their position on abortion rights.
Not to mention morals changing over time - homosexuality and abortion were illegal before, precisely because they were viewed as morally wrong at the time.
NRS said:
The issue with that is the majority may disagree with the other countries, in which case should they be made to have rules which no one agrees with?
Not to mention morals changing over time - homosexuality and abortion were illegal before, precisely because they were viewed as morally wrong at the time.
I do agree with the basic point - values change, and what is right for one country isn't right for another.Not to mention morals changing over time - homosexuality and abortion were illegal before, precisely because they were viewed as morally wrong at the time.
The point about morals changing over time is exactly the one that I was making about what is legal, and what is morally correct. Typically morals are more subjective and move faster than the law, so there will always be a point where what is now to be considered to be perfectly OK is outside of a law that was set in a previous time. Which is why I think it's so important, in these cases, to consider whether it is the law that is wrong, or the action.
In terms of what is right for the country - there are and always be edge cases, but (betraying my comfortable middle-class Western perspective here) there is broad consensus in "countries like us" about human rights. Right to self-determination and right to enjoy your life without undue interference from others are pretty high on that list which is why things like sexual identity are such hot topics right now. Almost all Western countries agree that the same applies to abortion and so, when we are discussing what is morally acceptable or correct in "countries like the US", denying access to abortion sticks out as as a severe outlier to both points.
It's also worth pointing out that pretty consistently the majority of the US (60-70% in almost all polls) agrees that abortion should be available at least some of the time. So taken at that level, the majority do indeed agree with abortion.
NRS said:
The issue with that is the majority may disagree with the other countries, in which case should they be made to have rules which no one agrees with?
That's a fair point when both options are roughly equal, but in cases such as this, there isn't really much equivalence.If you think abortion is wrong, but abortion is legal, you are unaffected other than knowing other people are doing it. No one is dragging you off and forcibly aborting your baby.
If you think abortion is acceptable, but it is illegal, you may very much be adversely affected by this if you need/want one. You are forced to do something. That could be having a child. It could be an illegal abortion. It could be travelling hundreds of miles to get one. It could be dying.
See also being gay, being trans, marrying someone of a different race.
The ban it and permit it "sides" are not equivalent.
InitialDave said:
That's a fair point when both options are roughly equal, but in cases such as this, there isn't really much equivalence.
If you think abortion is wrong, but abortion is legal, you are unaffected other than knowing other people are doing it. No one is dragging you off and forcibly aborting your baby.
If you think abortion is acceptable, but it is illegal, you may very much be adversely affected by this if you need/want one. You are forced to do something. That could be having a child. It could be an illegal abortion. It could be travelling hundreds of miles to get one. It could be dying.
See also being gay, being trans, marrying someone of a different race.
The ban it and permit it "sides" are not equivalent.
Correct.If you think abortion is wrong, but abortion is legal, you are unaffected other than knowing other people are doing it. No one is dragging you off and forcibly aborting your baby.
If you think abortion is acceptable, but it is illegal, you may very much be adversely affected by this if you need/want one. You are forced to do something. That could be having a child. It could be an illegal abortion. It could be travelling hundreds of miles to get one. It could be dying.
See also being gay, being trans, marrying someone of a different race.
The ban it and permit it "sides" are not equivalent.
Giving people the choice is not the polar opposite of "pro-life" (which is a ridiculous term anyway)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff