DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Draft Overturning Roe vs Wade

Did you really just interject Baker into an abortion discussion? My goodness.

A great example of what I am talking about. My comments were about members of his fan base, not Baker.

I suppose I would consider myself quite an "Originalist" when it comes to the Constitution...with the qualifier that I believe the Originalist viewpoint forces (or I should say should-force) our legislature to write & pass well-written, well-constructed legislation. (And no...I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.) I agree that the founding fathers really could not have imagined some of the things of today...but their utter brilliance was in how they established a system to deal with the future unknowns that they knew would come up...while having no idea what those unknowns would entail.

My favorite Originalist view is essentially this: When in doubt, let the states decide. You taught me in this thread that if the states create their own laws and those laws cause conflict among other states, there is a defined way forward to make related legislation federal. But the process has to play out according to the Constitution.

Oh ok...so you brought up Baker's fan base in an abortion thread...I'm sure you think that's better.

There you go yet again. Twisting the truth. GM asked about which posters were more apt to use personal attacks in their argument. My point is that there are groups of posters on this board that resort to that technique to "win" arguments. I think it's a terrible tactic and hurts conversation.

Much better to spam the boards with posts calling others evil when you don't like what they say.

I think there are extremists on both sides and people on both sides that hurt their own respective causes with their behavior. I always try to push past the personalities and other inherent BS and just look at the issue/argument on its own merit.

That said, sometimes I do get lazy and look at who is making which argument and allow that to influence my thinking (ex. I get worried if I'm agreeing too much with the likes of MTG and/or AOC).


With that out of the way, there is a topic related to this that I'm struggling with. Potentially overturning Roe v Wade doesn't actually ban abortions. It puts the decision back to the states, of which I'm generally (and as a rule) a big fan. However, I can't help but think about some of the state laws that are being thrown around right now in this country. You have Florida declaring war on Disneyland over what is essentially pearl-clutching. You have California thinking they have to balance out every other GOP-state's dumb laws with their hippy-paradise crap. And then you have the TX anti-abortion law they successfully put forward. I can understand why people believe abortion needs to be restricted or outlawed, but can't understand how those people think that TX law is the correct solution. That law is a dumpster fire, and I have a real problem giving the authors of that law more power/responsibility.

The Tx law is a work around. It's an abuse of the system. It was intended (in my opinion) to bring about exactly what you are seeing today ... well, when coupled with the the ne justices who all claimed they had no inclination to overturn Roe v Wade.

What's next? Gay rights aren't mentioned in the constitution. Gay marriage isn't a long standing US tradition or value. Of course - society at large has moved on from draconian days where to be gay was to be perceived as mentally ill. But - if we use the constitution as our guide we need to unwind those recent rights that have been granted. Based on the draft opinion, things like gay rights could be States issues.

Where does it stop?

incel community loving this. too bad they don't understand the negative effects.

thought you were having a hard time getting women to go out with you now, wait til this crap happens. Birth rates about to drop again if this goes through, which is the exact opposite of what some pro-life people think will happen.

but hey, i guess i'm one of the few on this board who doesn't agree with trying to legislate individual morality upon the masses. but we got posters who love talking about limited government cheerleading big government policies when it comes to individual americans. limited government only applies to businesses, apparently. conservatives love big government when it comes enforcing their individual beliefs onto others.

a bunch of people who are supposed to have the "mind your own business" mentality, yet can't seem to do anything BUT be all up in other people's life.

"pro life" people will go hard in the paint to control a woman's body, but still won't do anything serious about this:

US drug overdose deaths hit another record high
More than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2021.

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...overdose-deaths-hit-another-record-high/

Overdose deaths involving opioids such as illicit fentanyl and heroin jumped from an estimated 70,029 in 2020 to 80,816 in 2021. Deaths involving drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine also saw significant increases. Deaths from fentanyl alone increased from 57,834 in 2020 to 71,238 last year.

______

but just like trying to ban abortions, pro lifers think whining about the border will solve this specific problem, without asking a crucial question: who is buying the drugs, and why are they buying them?

but hey my definition of pro-life is clearly different from the mainstream version.

Isn't that the net effect of pretty much every contentious topic?

Isn't that *exactly* what trying to legislate social programs amounts to?

just a little `Devil's Advocate`.
In a nutshell, it all comes down to at what age you consider terminating life to be murder. For some, it's at conception, when it becomes the beginning of a child. Yes, it's just a mass of cells, but those cells ARE the thing they are becoming, it's just still building & growing, but the DNA combinations have occurred and it IS what it will become. For others, it isn't until much later.... if it doesn't have a heartbeat, it isn't alive, or if it couldn't survive outside the womb, then it isn't "viable" and is still open season. One side uses the "my body" argument while the other side is arguing "but, it ISN'T *your* body that you're getting rid of, it's your child's." All of this is a debate of semantics and timing with a morally charged topic; and, let's face it, morals are.... flexible.

My thoughts on abortion. I believe that once that egg is fertilized, you have a new life. Throughout my adult life, I've tried to come up with a personal decision as to whether or not I believe that a life should be defended by outside sources while still in the womb....or is it solely up to the mother whether it lives or dies? Currently, I absolutely do not trust our government to be making that decision or enforcing it. I do believe in euthanasia. I also believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle and the media are using this volatile issue to distract the citizenry.

Are you serious? You do realize that when you call abortion murder you are in fact saying that anyone who gets an abortion or supports abortion remaining legal is either a murderer or an accessory to murder, right? That's pretty personal and enrages everyone you are describing. Don't try to play innocent now.

Yes he did. Baker lives in his head. He can't seem to keep it straight which forum he's posting in.

I would have said social programs are the exact opposite of legislating morality. Social programs are aimed at helping the neediest - not judging whether they deserve that support, which is what "morality". It's not about right or wrong, it's about helping and lifting people up. Just how I would look at that situation.... Morality seems to come into play when people try to judge whether the ones needing the help deserve the support.

As for your 'Devils Advocate' take - I can't disagree with anything you stated. But I find myself believing that the ONLY justification for believing life begins at conception is based on Religion. Religion has no place in our government or laws in determining the rights of individuals and in this case, removing a right that was established 50 years ago. The idea that a women can't determine the choices she makes with her body and what's inside it - that seems to remove a fundamental right. It's not hyperbole - if men were the ones getting pregnant, I 100% believe abortion would be a statutory right.

I feel a woman has a right to her autonomy. If she were to have any other parasitic growth inside her that could make her life miserable, or even medically threaten her life, she’s got a right to remove it. I don’t see this much differently from the early stages of pregnancy.

(I have never advocated for any late term abortion except for in the most dire cases.)

Really? I'm the polar opposite. Seems like the more likely explanation for life beginning at conception would be scientific and not religious. To each his own I guess.

I don't believe science considers a futus a child.

The trifecta is complete.

He didn't say a fetus was a child, neither did I. I'm talking about a basic explanation of "when life begins". Seems like science would explain that the life of a human begins at conception. I could, and may very well be, "wrong". Just my perception of how science would see it and I'm certainly not trying to use it as an arguing point.

And you are as much a part of the trifecta as anyone else.

no, i dont believe that's what it amounts to. i dont think military spending, or healthcare, or infrastructure and those sort of programs/spending is enforcing individual morality on the masses. those are what we call "social contracts", where its implied that we all give a certain amount in order to maintain the structure of the country.

every point you just made about conception and life is valid, which is why it's different. there's no clear cut "hey, this is when life begins". and since there's clearly so much variation of opinions on that - some based in secular beliefs and some religious - makes it something the government should not be trying to legislate, either at the federal or state level.

at the end of the day, nobody is forcing your girl/wife to get an abortion. that's a decision left up to the individual/family. a woman getting an abortion doesn't affect you or your individual liberties (im using *you* as a general concept). that doesn't mean you have to be morally ok with it. that doesn't mean you have to publicly support abortions.

i don't like seeing two dudes kiss. that's a individual thing with me. but i'm not gonna try and advocate for that to be illegal just because it bothers me when i see it, because the act of two consenting adults kissing does not violate my individual rights in anyway shape or form. i can simply look away, mind my business. for me to try and legislate that would go against the values of this country, and also inherently unconstitutional. for me to want a government where i can enforce my individual morality on the masses just because i personally find it offensive would AUTOMATICALLY mean i don't support the US constitution/Bill of rights that way it's written.

You are correct. And I am sick - and wrote quickly when a more detailed explanation would have been better.

The only reason I can see to suggest that aborting anytime after inception is 'murdering a baby' - is based on religion.

Religion to me has zero place for basis of governmental policy. A little off the topic but connected - Catholicism believes contraception is wrong and a sin. But providing state or federally funded sex education and contraception actually helps society. Preaching that contraception is a sin, not providing kids education and the resources to prevent getting pregnant is not embraced ... and then when young kids get pregnant, this next step in overturning Roe v Wade is the cherry on the cake.

Gotcha. Makes a lot more sense now.

I'm simply trying to point out that the reasoning anti abortion people use is that "You're killing a human being". So if you think human life begins at conception, you don't consider that a human being? That's actually the biggest argument in all of this. At what point does a fetus become a human being? I think you took my comment the wrong way. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to hold a discussion. But calling it an argument certainly ends anything the resembles a discussion.

It didn't calls this an argument. I used the simple term "arguing point"! Damn, bro.

Regardless of where I think life begins, that life is in a woman's body, and she definitely has certain rights. I think things get sticky when we try to decide at what point those rights end.

I agree. Some think those rights end at the very beginning. I've made my opinion on the matter pretty clear from the beginning on this topic which began several years ago on this board. My personal belief system makes my personal choice on the matter anti-abortion. As such I was very young when my daughter was born, 19. I've just never been one who feels I have the right to impose my personal belief system on other members of society. I'm not gay either but I don't believe that gay people should be denied the same rights as straight people. I've just made the personal choice to never get gay married.

100% agree. And to be honest I don't hate the concept of viability outside the womb as a definition/starting point. And whether 21 weeks is used because that's the new 'record' - I wouldn't fight that, in fact I'd be happy to push for sooner. But 6 weeks - a timeframe when many wouldn't even know they are pregnant - is insanity.

This gets right to the crux of the abortion debate.

The fact is, we do not know when life begins. If we did then the answer is simple. The issue is that many people have different beliefs about it.
If you believe that life begins at conception then of you would be against abortion. But it you don't, then why would you?


I don't think science will ever be able to answer that question. I think it is more of a philosophical question which will never be agreed upon.

What is life? I suspect that this is is going to become an even bigger question in the future when AI gets significantly more advanced. At what point do the robots become living things? But that is probably a discussion for another modality. I don't think we could have a reasonable discussion on an open internet forum about what life is and isn't. We would have to define life vs human life vs intelligent life...

The constitution is a fine document, but like you said, the founders could not see modern issues. I also think the founding fathers (a patriarchy), were as flawed a group of individuals as any you might find today... BUT they did create systems to run our government, and I think they envisioned a constitutional convention being triggered or called for every 50 years or so... when was the last? You see, I think we spend far too much time trying to figure out what they thought about modern issues, instead of how the majority feels about those things now. The founding fathers set up a fluid and changeable document to guide us, NOT TO DICTATE THE FUTURE.

Additionally, those same founders worried about a President trying to make themselves king or emperor. They despised the thought of a tyrant leading us. And of course they hoped their experiment with founding a democratic Republic would be enduring, but they made a few things obvious; the government is of, by, and for the people - the constitution is a fluid document meant to be amended as the people deemed necessary - we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

I'd say we have a lot of constitutional work to do, IMO. But none of this will happen while we are at each other's throats, and unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon. No I think we are now firmly entrenched in a political quagmire and see none of it getting better under the current leadership in either party.

There are a few ways to be an Originalist. I would call myself the pragmatic Originalist. Constitution (including amendments) first, legal precedent, and then, consequential impacts of the ruling. I went a bit down the rabbit hole last night to refresh my memory, and to better understand the originalist viewpoint, which I believe can be flawed, depending on how strictly it is applied. I also read the Alito opinion which makes me want to wait until the final version comes out with the rebuttals. I was a bit surprised that the text was written in the tone that it was, and also surprised that the argument that abortion is not in the constitution was a key point.

I have to suspect that any rebuttal would involve the 9th amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

A "strict" originalist has no real answer for the 9th amendment, but my view it that it is the fundamental role of the Supreme Court to figure out if something is a right or not. It was only mentioned once in passing by Alito. The 9th amendment has come into play before, in circumstances like contraception and equality of education.

I will also say that the draft opinion spent a lot of time on the historical subject of quickening (feeling a baby move) as a precedent for other laws. I found this curious as it could be used in a modern sense to justify the concept of viability, which Alito contended was created from whole cloth, and as such was inherently flawed.

As a whole, I have to agree, the constitution and the amendments are brilliance that can stand the test of time, if we interpret them as originally intended.

Another side note, the founding fathers also include all those after 1789 who crafted amendments, including the 14th in 1868.

That's very reasonable and I agree. I think the media(s) - on both sides - overplay how a group may think or feel about an issue and then present the overplay as a blanket across/over many people in their contrived BS groups. My way or the highway only works on unruly children - if then. The top reps (mouthpieces) on both sides are in it for themselves...and permeate that aura onto their constituents. Reasonableness and compromise is seen as a weakness...even though that is essentially what a Republic amounts-to. JMO

I've stated numerous times I don't have an issue with true conservatives because you need at least two parties to have a democracy. But I personally feel one party forgot that and now neither party will acknowledge it. On the left, we will never allow another Trump-ish candidate to win, on the right, that seems to be all they want. Quagmire.

But the divides are SO much deeper than Trump or Biden. Definitions of racism, sexism, ageism, individualism, sexuality, and all our other obvious disagreements need to be hashed out and agreed to. Capitalism, Socialism, Corporatism, Elitism, and Religion all need to be discussed and hashed out because that seems to be the recipe for our democracy. We should define our spending so we can better control it. Not put out a budget we don't stick to, but a break down and hash out of how we prioritize spending. We need strong guardrails to avoid oligarchy and corporatocracy. We also NEVER want to become the bad version of socialism like Venezuela or fascist like Nazi Germany or Italy under Mussolini. We need to agree on what our democracy IS, WAS, and WILL BE. And we should do these things every 25-30 years IMO via constitutional conventions and proper amendments via congress. We should also adress term limits and put stop gaps in place to assure the government of the people, by the people, and for the people actually works for the majority OF THE PEOPLE.

The left has little to do with whether another Trump is elected or not. Neither does the right. As much as it would pain you to admit it, the margin of Independent voters are far more than enough to cover the margin of victory in every presidential election. The left will vote left. The right will vote right. Independents votes will vary and decide who gets elected president. Every.... Single.... Time.

Leftists lose it over Joe Manchin thwarting Dem abortion bill
Manchin joined Republicans to block The Women's Health Protection Act on Wednesday

Liberal pundits and celebrities tweeted against Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on Wednesday, after saying he’d vote against his party’s abortion bill.

The moderate Democrat told reporters he would oppose The Women’s Health Protection Act when it came to a procedural vote, saying it doesn’t codify Roe, but actually "expands abortion" by wiping out hundreds of state laws on abortion.

He later blocked the legislation formally.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-liberals-joe-manchin-abortion-bill

Step by Step by Step...

I didn't really want to circle back on this since the conversation has moved away from this, but just to follow back on it, I should have been more verbose when I stated "social programs". I absolutely do not consider military or infrastructure spending in that. Healthcare and all other social aid that has been contentious, however, absolutely DOES meet the criteria I listed. The fact that some feel so strongly that these things are a "right" or required and others do not means that it *IS* a morality-guided choice, and enacting them *IS* an act of legislating morality upon the masses. Not slinging mud or picking at anything, I'm just illustrating that this isn't uncommon or new. It's what every heavily debated issue has ever boiled down to.




I agree 100%, it will absolutely never affect me and it doesn't matter at all what my feelings on the topic are (which are totally ambivalent to put my stance out there), BUT this is also where the discussion circles back to "when is it another life that you're snuffing, and thus 'murder'". Depending on when that point is defined determines whether or not it is simply an individual choice, or whether it is an action that would be considered a crime. This is the muddied feedback loop that all of this constantly get mired in. If it is a "life", then aborting is "murder". If it isn't a "life", yet.. then it wouldn't be..... but, How and Where does that line get drawn?





In the end, I think we are still WAY too tightly tied to our Puritan roots. And, oddly, perhaps also too rapidly leaving behind much of the humility, decency, and decorum that prior generations venerated.
Religion does NOT have a place in government, but government absolutely MUST preserve a healthy level of morality that serves the needs of the vast majority of its citizens.
You will absolutely NEVER get all sides to fully agree with one choice on this topic, so the ONLY solution is to find the middle ground that incenses the fewest number of people.

He is a GOPer at heart, we all know it. The GOP is just too far right for him or I think he would switch parties. But he is the second most powerful man in DC right now, so why would he? He gets to veto everything the dems want to do just because we are split 50-50. He's becoming little Napoleon with that power.

Since everybody around here seems to love calling babies embryo, or fetus, or even just a clump of cells lets look at the what the law calls a embryo or fetus. Are you ready?

"The law defines "embryo" or "fetus" as any human in utero."

Would you look at that the law says a embryo or a fetus is a HUMAN. Now even a first grader knows if you plan and carry out the death of a human that you murdered them. If you think it's not murder why do we have these laws?

Fetal Protection Act
The Preborn Victims of Violence Act
The Unborn Victim of Violence Act.


Did you know Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. Yep anybody (EXCEPT) the mother can go to jail for killing a baby in utero. Funny a stranger can be sent to jail for killing a fetus in utero but his or her mother can't be. A father can be sent to jail for killing his child in the womb but the mother can't. So according to the law killing a baby before it's born is considered murder. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy IE at conception.

Sometimes the truth hurts bro.

Clump. Of. Cells.
Not. Your. Business.unless. You. Want. To. Raise. It.