06-27-2022, 11:11 AM
(06-25-2022, 02:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(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
Legal precedent can lead to changes in human behavior that results from changes in the law. Unless the legal change results in unmitigated horror or that the precedent (Plessy v. Ferguson) sounds good, but contains a crippling oxymoron ("separate but equal" implies gross inequality if unequal offerings for those who make the decisions on behalf of the disadvantaged group experience no unpleasant consequences for the inequality that their decisions impose), then perhaps some legal tweak is due.
For good or ill, people have made their adjustments to the reality of abortion as a medical procedure, usually under extreme conditions. Some of the state laws drafted to allow an abortion ban will cause women to die pointless deaths if certain medically-necessary abortions are not done. The anti-abortion groups call themselves pro-life, but their consequences may be pro-death.
An abortion ban will result in more teenage girls who have been raped (statutory rape is rape) becoming single mothers at age 13 or so. It will also result in single mothers who already have children dying... and their children will be orphans.
If part of an insidious plan to destroy reproductive rights, then contraception may be next. The objective might be a population explosion that results in a copious supply of cheap labor and cannon fodder as well as people to bid up property rents so that most people can be practically destitute despite their toil. Cannon fodder of course will be vital to wars for profit.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.