06-25-2022, 02:13 PM
(06-24-2022, 11:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Overturning Rowe v Wade has several purposes. Ostensively it is to protect the right to life of the unborn. But if that were all it really was, the proponents would see the moral virtue not only of that, but of protecting the health and the options of women. But they want more than this, which is why they won't compromise. Instead, this decision is mostly impelled by opposition to the sixties revolution, especially in regard to feminism and sexual liberation. The reactionaries whose Republican appointees made this decision want to keep women as they were in the pre-sixties era and even earlier. They want to restore patriarchy, a society of not too long ago when women had no rights. They say rights should be "based on long-standing tradition" and must be "enumerated in the original constitution." That means interpreting the constitution as it was originally designed and written by the people who had rights in 1787: Christian, white, armed, straight, wealthy males only.
Based (y'all know what that means right? haha)
As for the decision itself, I have a much weaker opinion on this than most might expect. For me, it wasn't about whether or not abortion is acceptable. That is a question for the legislature, not the courts.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the relevant question is one of choosing between the lesser to two evils:
1) overturning previously set precedent
2) upholding a precedent made based on...shaky constitutional grounds.
Regardless of the issue though, you can always count on me to join team hippie basher
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
reluctant millennial