US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade

[Magin]

As much as I'm pro-choice and think Republicans have devolved, one proposed idea kinda... makes sense, unfortunately. Mind you, the idea needs a TON of support that Repubs will never do.

The short-but-taken-to-extremes version is that this is as close as the Republicans can get to a eugenics program without actually saying "eugenics"

So it starts off with this. I ask: so... if the easiest way to prevent abortion is to not even get pregnant in the first place, are y'all okay with women not sleeping with any men? The answer I saw to that one was "Yes, women should only sleep with men once they're married!" (Note: I am only taking into account consensual acts, not other things like rape or incest).

Now, arguably marriage can be VERY cheap: technically speaking, you just go in front of a court of law, say your vows and sign a piece of paper; no need for the Victorian-style wedding that most people think of. But, I'm pretty sure most Republicans think of married people as "have a good chunk of money and can afford to get married". So let's say we've checked all the "appropriate" boxes for Republicans to be happy about someone having a baby, and also going to ignore any miscarriages. Add in how much it costs to give birth, and Republicans are essentially saying "Poor people shouldn't breed!"

And in all honesty... at least from my view, there's a certain amount of sense to that: if you're unable to provide resources for a new life, then don't create new life. But the abstinence-only method also has been shown not to work. So, if they don't want women having sex, you'd think they'd support sex ed. And yet, they don't support much of any education in the first place.

I'd say it's ironic, and a classic case of double-think: They're essentially saying "Well, we want people to breed (because Bible and "be fruitful and multiply")... but not poor people. Poor people need to stop existing". Wait a second... okay, eugenics isn't the right word, but it sounds like Class Warfare. But on top of that... it's the states with the highest amount of poor people that are also most likely to vote Republican. Are you saying you want the people who vote for you the most to stop existing? I won't go so far as to say that actually ends up being a good thing for Democrats in the long run, but sure... keep shrinking not only your base, but also where (whether they admit it or not) most of the labor for the "undesirable" jobs come from.

And again... so, you're forcing people to give birth. So, that means that if you're forcing a child into existence, you ARE going to now support this life that you said MUST exist, right? Either that, or women should just stop having sex so as to prevent pregnancy in the first place. If you're a single guy, you're ok with that, right? If so, I don't want to hear any stories about what are known as "incels" getting angry that they aren't getting laid.

[BWTraveller]

Actually, that's the reasoning I've heard people use to claim that "pro-choice" laws were for eugenic purposes. If you have tons of "undesirables" having babies that they don't really want and/or can't afford, what's the best way to fix that "problem"? Give them the means to get rid of those unwanted babies and encourage them to do so, of course. If you can convince all the "types" you don't like to have more abortions, their numbers will go down pretty quickly.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

I wasn't saying the states are entirely trustworthy, just that they're no worse than the federal government, something that has also proven fairly true throughout the history of the US (see 2016-2020).

The biggest legacy of the Trump administration is the illegitimate supreme court. For generations now the supreme court has generally favored more freedom, a legacy which Dobbs basically spits on.

And there most certainly are reasons to empower the states. I wouldn't say that abortion qualifies, but different locations have different needs and values (and no, I'm not talking about moral values). A state that's almost all rural farmland is going to have a lot of different needs than a state that's almost all urban. This's part of why things like an electoral college and two separate houses remain important in my opinion: attempt to make sure that the needs of more sparsely-populated regions aren't always superseded by the needs of more densely-populated ones.

I'm not arguing against states handling their overall administration, I'm saying they can't be trusted with human rights. All the bullshit conservatives say about "small government" usually amounts to 'divide and conquer'.

BTW you did see Clarence Thomas concurring opinion saying that Griswold (contraceptives case from 1965) should be reviewed in light of the Dobbs decision I'm assuming? The notion you kept defending last month that forced birthers would stop at overturning Roe is quaint.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

The biggest legacy of the Trump administration is the illegitimate supreme court. For generations now the supreme court has generally favored more freedom, a legacy which Dobbs basically spits on.I'm not arguing against states handling their overall administration, I'm saying they can't be trusted with human rights. All the bullshit conservatives say about "small government" usually amounts to 'divide and conquer'.

Conservatives aren't universally as bad as you think, seriously. Truth is, a lot of them aren't thinking in terms like "divide and conquer". They simply feel that it's dangerous to put too much power in too few hands. And countless governments in the past and, sadly, present, would lend some credence to that. There are good points and dangers to both centralization and decentralization, and like it or not a lot more people are concerned with what they see as the dangers of the side they don't support than the potential benefits of the side they do.

BTW you did see Clarence Thomas concurring opinion saying that Griswold (contraceptives case from 1965) should be reviewed in light of the Dobbs decision I'm assuming? The notion you kept defending last month that forced birthers would stop at overturning Roe is quaint.

Again, it takes a MAJORITY, not one or two, and with the way the rest spoke of their opinions on contraception in comparison, I'd say that the chances of such things passing aren't near as high. Abortion is far more controversial, whether you or I like it or not.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

They simply feel that it's dangerous to put too much power in too few hands.

Maybe its me, but having so much power in an partisan majority of 6 people on the supreme court who it took a lot of gamesmanship and multiple rule changes to get appointed seems like the definition of too much power in too few hands. Even beyond the hypocrisy "conservatives" just aren't very conservative when it comes down to it. They were more than willing to claim state interest superseded cities when it came to things like mask mandates.

Again, it takes a MAJORITY, not one or two, and with the way the rest spoke of their opinions on contraception in comparison, I'd say that the chances of such things passing aren't near as high. Abortion is far more controversial, whether you or I like it or not.

Your logic has as many holes in it as Alito's. You're both claiming birth control is different but not really giving any substantive reason why.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

Maybe its me, but having so much power in an partisan majority of 6 people on the supreme court who it took a lot of gamesmanship and multiple rule changes to get appointed seems like the definition of too much power in too few hands. Even beyond the hypocrisy "conservatives" just aren't very conservative when it comes down to it. They were more than willing to claim state interest superseded cities when it came to things like mask mandates.Your logic has as many holes in it as Alito's. You're both claiming birth control is different but not really giving any substantive reason why.

That's kind of my point: the more centralized it is, the more damage the wrong person in the wrong office can do over the entire country.

And I wasn't personally saying it's different, I was noting that the majority SAID that THEY considered contraception to not be the same as abortion. Not to mention, they most certainly DID give a substantive reason, which I previously mentioned: it doesn't involve the question of an additional life. Abortion involves a living, unique human organism, and the question of when that organism gains any number of rights and when those rights supersede other individuals' rights. Contraception doesn't involve any other organisms at all, just sperm, eggs, and the body's ability to produce and transmit these to the necessary location. I can understand your confusion though. Anyone's arguments can seem illogical if you ignore or miss some of what they said.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

And I wasn't personally saying it's different, I was noting that the majority SAID that THEY considered contraception to not be the same as abortion.

They also said Roe v Wade was settled law at their confirmation hearings and look at how that worked out. "Trust us" is not really reassuring when you've already given ideologues with a life term too much power.

Anyone's arguments can seem illogical if you ignore or miss some of what they said.

Roe v Wade actually balanced rights of the mother with the rights of a potential child, while 3/4 of the posts I've made in this thread draw attention to the fact that in Dobbs neither the draft nor the final decision even attempted to address the viability standard; they vacated Roe v Wade on bullshit "originalist" grounds.

You should probably read both Roe and Dobbs yourself if you get a chance.