Leaked draft says that Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v Wade

[xerx]

This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).

[Adam Strange]

This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).

I still say this is all about the subjugation of women by men who want to treat them as property.

[Ave]

I still say this is all about the subjugation of women by men who want to treat them as property.

I think it's a bit more complex than that, it's probably a number of motives, religious morality, constitutional originalism, and probably less about wanting to "own" women than it is not caring about women's health issues/being indifferent to it.

[Ave]

This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).

I doubt that. I think this ruling is in the mindset of "less government" that Cpig also argues for. Vaccine mandates and social distancing come from the opposite American political pole - more government.

[xerx]

This is a late response, but I must have forgotten to respond to this earlier.

This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).

I doubt that. I think this ruling is in the mindset of "less government" that Cpig also argues for. Vaccine mandates and social distancing come from the opposite American political pole - more government.

I disagree. State governments are also governments. And this ruling sets precedent for government control over an individual's body.

I'm not a lawyer; I don't know whether or not it'll set a legal precedent under the current system. It will, however, almost certainly create a moral & political precedent. The same argument that's applied to lockdowns and vaccine mandates (that mandates open the way for government control through the backdoor) can be applied to laws that criminalize abortion.

It's also rather chilling that government now has the ability to dictate the definition of life.

[Ave]

This is a late response, but I must have forgotten to respond to this earlier.





I disagree. State governments are also governments. And this ruling sets precedent for government control over an individual's body.

I'm not a lawyer; I don't know whether or not it'll set a legal precedent under the current system. It will, however, almost certainly create a moral & political precedent. The same argument that's applied to lockdowns and vaccine mandates (that mandates open the way for government control through the backdoor) can be applied to laws that criminalize abortion.

It's also rather chilling that government now has the ability to dictate the definition of life.

No worries about the late reply.

But I don't agree; yes, I agree government shouldn't have the authority to dictate the definition of life; but that isn't what they are doing. Not anymore than outlawing murder dictates the definition of life. I'm not comparing abortion to murder; but for "pro-life" people, it is, and on what basis do we say they are factually wrong? Neither supreme court decision really takes into account scientific arguments here; the question isn't even asked, it is assumed that abortion is murder, or, if you take the "opposite" position, that it cannot be murder because the control people have over their bodies is the issue.

I agree that state governments are also governments, so I have nothing to argue against there. I think Cpig's argument (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) is more about how Roe v Wade is a bad law, because, it doesn't respect the way the structure of the US governement was intended to work - I believe this is the main reason the supreme court also made this decision. Though of course, many other laws that aeren't "hot button" issues (such as the Reagan administration's pressuring states to raise the drinking age to 21 back in the 1980s) don't seem to be question except by the more radical of libertarians, and yet, this law is. I do think overturning it and letting the states decide is how the American political system is conceived to work Not saying I agree or disagree with this system, but I like the idea of either scrapping a politcal system altogether, or sticking with it - but not the idea that you can take what you like and ignore what you don't without amending it first.

Your argument about vaccine mandates also strikes me as wrong because, while, covid vaccines were never mandatory in the US, I believe many vaccines are, and noone complains (well, almost noone) because it is a question of public health. I suppose there could be a correlation where one type of policy influences another, but I also don't think vaccine mandates are dicatorial when it comes to illnesses like polio (covid is a different story, especially since the vaccines were so new, but also because it wasn't as much of a public health threat as it was hyped up to be).

I also think pro-choice vs pro-life is comical as a public "debate" because it seems both sides completely ignore the other in favor of what they consider (more) "important" without realizing, it seems, the other side is doing the same thing, not because they have ill intents, but because they don't take into account the other side's argument. One side says abortion is murder. The other side says a woman has sovereignty over her body. These points are actually not in contradiction, it's the question of whether a fetus is a person or simply part of the woman's body and nothing more, that should be addressed.

I personally tend to be pro-choice because the consequences of outlawing abortion tend to make it worse for women, and don't stop them from getting abortions anyways. I also don't like how this is framed as "murder" as if the action of abortion was done in malice; it is a difficult decision for the women who make it. I'm more in favor of setting a limit to how late a woman get an abortion. I feel like for conservatives it's a question of what "makes a person a person" though, and I won't get into that here, though I find that valid to ask at least.

[xerx]

No worries about the late reply.

But I don't agree; yes, I agree government shouldn't have the authority to dictate the definition of life; but that isn't what they are doing. Not anymore than outlawing murder dictates the definition of life. I'm not comparing abortion to murder; but for "pro-life" people, it is, and on what basis do we say they are factually wrong? Neither supreme court decision really takes into account scientific arguments here; the question isn't even asked, it is assumed that abortion is murder, or, if you take the "opposite" position, that it cannot be murder because the control people have over their bodies is the issue.

I agree that state governments are also governments, so I have nothing to argue against there. I think Cpig's argument (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) is more about how Roe v Wade is a bad law, because, it doesn't respect the way the structure of the US governement was intended to work - I believe this is the main reason the supreme court also made this decision. Though of course, many other laws that aeren't "hot button" issues (such as the Reagan administration's pressuring states to raise the drinking age to 21 back in the 1980s) don't seem to be question except by the more radical of libertarians, and yet, this law is. I do think overturning it and letting the states decide is how the American political system is conceived to work Not saying I agree or disagree with this system, but I like the idea of either scrapping a politcal system altogether, or sticking with it - but not the idea that you can take what you like and ignore what you don't without amending it first.

Your argument about vaccine mandates also strikes me as wrong because, while, covid vaccines were never mandatory in the US, I believe many vaccines are, and noone complains (well, almost noone) because it is a question of public health. I suppose there could be a correlation where one type of policy influences another, but I also don't think vaccine mandates are dicatorial when it comes to illnesses like polio (covid is a different story, especially since the vaccines were so new, but also because it wasn't as much of a public health threat as it was hyped up to be).

I also think pro-choice vs pro-life is comical as a public "debate" because it seems both sides completely ignore the other in favor of what they consider (more) "important" without realizing, it seems, the other side is doing the same thing, not because they have ill intents, but because they don't take into account the other side's argument. One side says abortion is murder. The other side says a woman has sovereignty over her body. These points are actually not in contradiction, it's the question of whether a fetus is a person or simply part of the woman's body and nothing more, that should be addressed.

I personally tend to be pro-choice because the consequences of outlawing abortion tend to make it worse for women, and don't stop them from getting abortions anyways. I also don't like how this is framed as "murder" as if the action of abortion was done in malice; it is a difficult decision for the women who make it. I'm more in favor of setting a limit to how late a woman get an abortion. I feel like for conservatives it's a question of what "makes a person a person" though, and I won't get into that here, though I find that valid to ask at least.

The "states' rights" argument has merit (I personally support devolution and decentralization, and I believe that more laws should be transferred to local jurisdictions). But there is also a certain floor of guaranteed practices, liberties, and laws that apply nation-wide. If there were no commonly-held practices, there would be no point in belonging to the same country, and it would be better to have separate political systems altogether.

Individual states can't ban the ownership of guns, violating the second amendment in the process. Individual states certainly can't violate the first amendment, and it would be illiberal to give them the right to, say, enforce "cancel culture". If those decision can be overruled at the federal level (and rightly so!), it calls into question the unassailability of the states' rights argument. The tyranny from one's neighbour can be just as real, and just as cruel, as the tyranny from a distant government.



I stand by the comparison between abortion and COVID restrictions. We've all repeatedly heard that there was no evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns and vaccines, and I'll grant that for the sake of discussion. OK, likewise, there is no evidence that a phoetus is a living being. That may change one day, but not, seemingly, anytime soon.