Unable to load image

[๐Ÿค“๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜] Defense of Clarence Thomas in Roe v Wade

https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1foptlu/defense_of_clarence_thomas_in_roe_v_wade/

Angriest Comments

Angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

What the frick is this argumentMinority communities are specifically targeted by pro-choice campaigns because fetal tissue + organs are ridiculously valuable to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. It's no exaggeration to say that the minority underclass of the United States is being liquidated to prop up US oligarchs. Did you forget that fetuses have rights too?1) Men can't become pregnant, so they can't decide to have an elective abortion. Whatever right to abortion that purportedly exists doesn't apply to them for that reason. Full stop.2) Negative rights are actions that demand non-interference from others in order to function. Abortion, as an action, requires at least two participants. That's why it categorically cannot be classified as a negative right. (1)

An accurate one. Slavery is clearly a violation of bodily autonomy, and we fought a civil war over states who wished to violate that right for a portion of their citizens. I then followed up with an example of a state that is CURRENTLY violating the rights of its citizens by punishing them for actions taken outside of the state. Actions that they are forced to take because of the state's violation of their bodily autonomy.You're missing the forest for the trees here, and it has a whiff a racism as well, but I'm just going to assume that you either haven't fully examined root causes on this topic, or that are just blindly repeating a talking point that you heard but haven't fully thought out.First, the prevalence of clinics in minority communities is primarily due to demand. Minority communities tend to have lower incomes and lower levels of education, both of which are indicators of an increase in unprotected sexual activity. More pregnancies in an area inherently mean more unwanted... (1)

Angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

To answer your questions: YESConservatives would simply never even think to regulate the freedom of men to be sovereign over their own bodies like this. Their base wouldn't have it.Their resistance to gun control is a good parallel. Guns are the number one cause of death of minors, yet Conservatives refuse to act. Curious how that concern with the life of children ends the moment protecting them no longer involves controlling women.There is zero room to call such hypocrisy "pro life" IMO. (1)

See this is the cartoonish vision of those that dont vote like you do that leads to issues. If someone could own a license to kill a child with a gun do you really think "conservative" voters would ignore that because it involves guns and not women?ย That's the equivalent here, the issue isn't on banning incisors or bio vacuums which are cowtools with more uses thank abortions, but on the license to kill that those with facilities for abortion have.ย So this is not a parallel, there still seems far more complicated factors than a arbitrary targeting of women.ย Killing kids with guns is already illegal.ย Again this seems so obvious to me that this is a whataboutism. There are big differences in the subjects even if on some very surface level you see "dead child" as a connection point.ย I mean I don't doubt that people truly are exist in this world and have a thrill of enacting power on those not like them. But your imagining of this nuanced and deep argument as a 95% malice is just going to ... (1)

Angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

Roe was problematic for several reasons.The first was that it prohibited states from deciding the issue of abortion. Anti-abortion states were forced to accept abortion regardless of the will of the electorate. The second was that it invented a negative right out of whole cloth by asserting that women (and only specifically women) have an inalienable right to abortion based on medical privacy.Ignoring for the moment that all rights are universal and inalienable, SCOTUS asserted that a positive right was essentially a negative right, and that no state could interfere for that reason. (1)

History has shown that there are certain topics to which states can not be trusted to decide for themselves. Slavery, for instance, is an apt comparison because slavery is another violation of bodily autonomy. States are already overreaching in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Texas is trying to violate interstate travel laws by prohibiting people from seeking abortions in other states, all in the name "protecting the sanctity of life." Heck, they even offered bounties for turning in people who even ASSIST in getting someone to another state for an abortion.A couple of points here. First, women wouldn't be the only ones to have a right to an abortion. They would simply be the only ones to exercise that particular right. Second, abortion access isn't exactly one-sided when trying to determine the type of right it is (positive vs. negative). It is a negative right in the sense that the government wouldn't be able to pass laws prohibiting access, and it is a positive right in the sense ... (1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/OfTheAtom

Score: ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿ”˜

Number of comments: 9

Average angriness: ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

Maximum angriness: ๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก๐Ÿ˜ก

Minimum angriness: ๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining! :marseyminer:

:marppy: autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. :marseycapitalistmanlet: Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion :marseyjamming:

33
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reported by:
  • HailVictory1776 : It is a child not a choice therefore murdering the child violates their 1st and 4

The right to abortion should be decided on the 4th Ammendment, not the 14th.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Abortion bans violate a woman's right to be secure in her person, or body, against government control. This is because the government's control of a woman's uterus is a form of seizure

Lmao that entire thread is r-slurred

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

roe v wade was based on the 4th amendment and that peoples medical decisions with their doctor should be private. This actually applied to a number of things not jist abortion. For instance states like california and ny were unable to force their residents to get vaccinated as much as they would have liked to even tho that is something states have been able to do in the past before roe v wade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

In fact i believe that ca and ny didnt even try bc they knew that such a decision could lead to a legal battle that could have overturned roe v wade like the dobbs dwcision eventually did. The 14th amendments application just has to do with the observance of certain constitutional rights alsp applying to the states as it does the federal gov. Its dumb that anyone would think that only one law would apply to a legal analysis of a circumstance lile this.

!slots123

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Biden attempted to force every amerikkkan to get vaccinated setting up the legal basis to remove the roe vs wade decision. There is no medical privacy in this country

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Biden attempted to force every amerikkkan to get vaccinated

notice tho when he did that he was very careful to make it arguable thatbit was a "choice" by having the DOL issue a rule for emplpyers of 100 or more employees to fire antivaxxers rather than jist forcing everyone unilaterally to get the vax. Funny enough, "antivax" right wingers like Desantis were just biding their time for this. He signed a bill in 2018 making it so that the FL government can force vaccinate everyone and go house to house searching for and vaccinating non-compliers/place people into quarantine camps.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2018/381.00315

That law would have villated roe v wade if actually enforced, butt now since thats been overturned the real authoritariansim can begin.

https://media.tenor.com/l7Tbv1Wkz1EAAAAx/ron-desantis-laugh.webp

!kowalski is this a :marseywingcuck: or a :marseyhorseshoe: situation?

!slotsmb100

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Florida can forcibly vaccinate everyone

!Nooticers Is this disinformation?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

from the link above to the FL senates website

If the individual poses a danger to the public health, the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual....The department has the duty and the authority to declare, enforce, modify, and abolish the isolation and quarantine of persons, animals, and premises as the circumstances indicate for controlling communicable diseases or providing protection from unsafe conditions that pose a threat to public health, except as provided in ss. 384.28 and 392.545-392.60. Any order of the department issued pursuant to this subsection shall be immediately enforceable by a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.

(5)โ€ƒThe department shall adopt rules to specify the conditions and procedures for imposing and releasing an isolation or a quarantine. The rules must include provisions related to:

(a)โ€ƒThe closure of premises.

(b)โ€ƒThe movement of persons or animals exposed to or infected with a communicable disease.

(c)โ€ƒThe tests or treatment, including vaccination, for communicable disease required before employment or admission to the premises or to comply with an isolation or a quarantine.

(d)โ€ƒTesting or destruction of animals with or suspected of having a disease transmissible to humans.

(e)โ€ƒAccess by the department to isolated or quarantined premises.

(f)โ€ƒThe disinfection of isolated or quarantined animals, persons, or premises.

(g)โ€ƒMethods of isolation or quarantine.

(6)โ€ƒThe rules adopted under this section and actions taken by the department pursuant to a declared public health emergency, isolation, or quarantine shall supersede all rules enacted by other state departments, boards or commissions, and ordinances and regulations enacted by political subdivisions of the state.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ty bb but that's too long to read

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean that effectively forces everyone to get the vax though like imagine being "oops we cant hire you if you dont provide vax status" to your prospective employer of all people completely ruining any medical privacy anyone had

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The only way the government can tell if a doctor has performed an abortion is by randomly sticking a scope up her patient's vagina

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Such barbaric practices are beneath us as a country. Instead we should train sniffer dogs to recognise a haunted kitty and direct officers to arrest offenders

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17272912352024136.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseydownvote: No killing babies.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

!goyslopenjoyers how do you feel about the fricking other white :marseymayo: meat

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Darn I remember this being a Maddox post before he realized he was lame

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

These people are all avoiding the elephant in the room about how the first ruling was a tortured, activist ruling and didn't address any of the arguments. Redditors can't handle that maybe the democrat party could've passed a federal abortion law when they had super majorities but choose not to on top of abortion not being as popular as they want to think.

:#marseyhammersnoo:

Wealthy women are just as r-slurred near me, putting slacktivist signs in their lawns "regulate guns, not women', "in this house....", "be kind", etc.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It would literally kill some of these people to look at things objectively and admit they might've been wrong for once.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Redditards just comprehend r*pe and palestinian lives matter, both of which they support.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A lot of intellectually honest libs acknowledged that Roe was shitty as a legal decision even if they're pro-choice. They were just ignored.

But as others have observed, if "bodily autonomy" were a real legal principle why does it only get raised in the context of abortion? Why shouldn't it protect my right to smoke? Do drugs? Get surgeries? Sell my organs? Kill myself? etc. etc.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why shouldn't it protect my right to smoke? Do drugs?

It should, but it doesn't protect your right to own drugs, or to transact in same

Get surgeries?

It should

Sell my organs?

As above, you can get whatever surgeries you want, but the government has an interest in regulating what you do with those organs afterwards, and especially regulating whether you can sell them

Kill myself?

:marseyropewithme: Come to canada brother

One thing you'll notice is that the government could attempt to regulate not the abortion proper, but the procedure used to perform the abortion, or the monetary transaction that paid the doctor that performed the abortion, or the medical licensing that permitted them to do it, or any number of other things. But all that is excluded by the Roe v Wade ruling, which was expressly on the grounds of medical privacy. If a doctor says a procedure is necessary, then the government has to allow it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The people arguing for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy will also cite it as a reason you shouldn't be allowed to own guns

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why shouldn't it protect my right to smoke? Do drugs? Get surgeries? Sell my organs? Kill myself? etc. etc.

It should and the world is catching up to that point.

Honestly I think the right to keep yourself safe is a good thing in the long run because most people no matter how good a life they lived die miserably in the end, so I see a society where you can keep yourself safe before the worst moments as a good thing and an upgrade.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17272974491512747.webp

Someone ping the foid group

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fun fact. The Democrats haven't appointed a white male christian SCOTUS judge since the 60s.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anon with the most lukewarm criticism of the Warren Court that everyone heard in US civics class by a guy who can't understand the ethical/political ramifications of an abortion on a fetus versus getting cosmetic surgeries.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wow that's a lot of fricking r-slurs.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They call Dramanauts, Neurodivergents. Neurodivergents... easily duped, will believe anything, and by the time the destruction is upon them, one or more of their family has been captured and turned against the team. "/r/Drama has served us well...," one captor gloated.

Snapshots:

https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1foptlu/defense_of_clarence_thomas_in_roe_v_wade/:

An accurate one. Slavery is clearly a violation of bodily autonomy, and we fought a civil war over states who wished to violate that right for a portion of their citizens. I then followed up with an example of a state that is CURRENTLY violating the rights of its citizens by punishing them for actions taken outside of the state. Actions that they are forced to take because of the state's violation of their bodily autonomy.You're missing the forest for the trees here, and it has a whiff a racism as well, but I'm just going to assume that you either haven't fully examined root causes on this topic, or that are just blindly repeating a talking point that you heard but haven't fully thought out.First, the prevalence of clinics in minority communities is primarily due to demand. Minority communities tend to have lower incomes and lower levels of education, both of which are indicators of an increase in unprotected sexual activity. More pregnancies in an area inherently mean more unwanted...:

See this is the cartoonish vision of those that dont vote like you do that leads to issues. If someone could own a license to kill a child with a gun do you really think "conservative" voters would ignore that because it involves guns and not women?ย That's the equivalent here, the issue isn't on banning incisors or bio vacuums which are cowtools with more uses thank abortions, but on the license to kill that those with facilities for abortion have.ย So this is not a parallel, there still seems far more complicated factors than a arbitrary targeting of women.ย Killing kids with guns is already illegal.ย Again this seems so obvious to me that this is a whataboutism. There are big differences in the subjects even if on some very surface level you see "dead child" as a connection point.ย I mean I don't doubt that people truly are exist in this world and have a thrill of enacting power on those not like them. But your imagining of this nuanced and deep argument as a 95% malice is just going to ...:

History has shown that there are certain topics to which states can not be trusted to decide for themselves. Slavery, for instance, is an apt comparison because slavery is another violation of bodily autonomy. States are already overreaching in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Texas is trying to violate interstate travel laws by prohibiting people from seeking abortions in other states, all in the name "protecting the sanctity of life." Heck, they even offered bounties for turning in people who even ASSIST in getting someone to another state for an abortion.A couple of points here. First, women wouldn't be the only ones to have a right to an abortion. They would simply be the only ones to exercise that particular right. Second, abortion access isn't exactly one-sided when trying to determine the type of right it is (positive vs. negative). It is a negative right in the sense that the government wouldn't be able to pass laws prohibiting access, and it is a positive right in the sense ...:

/u/OfTheAtom:

๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜๐Ÿ”˜:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hello Snappy,

Your recent activity involving the mention of a Reddit user has been noted. We advocate for privacy and respectful discourse. The mentioned user has been notified. Please reflect on the importance of privacy and respect in all your future interactions.

Best wishes,

CrossTalk PM - Automated Message (Unmonitored Account)

Please contact @J with questions

Join https://rdrama.net/!friendsofcrosstalkpm to be pinged for hits

Join !superfriendsofcrosstalkpm to be pinged when we ping

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.