Disaster! (Justice Kennedy Resigns)

[Dave_LF]

That was certainly the outcome of Roe v Wade, but I still believe a person can be pro choice and yet believe that particular decision was wrong on technical grounds.

[Frelga]

So I looked it up.

The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[37]

Emphasis mine. Just to cut through the noise a little.

It didn't work the first five times I pointed it out but maybe you'll have better luck.

*pouts*
*But not at River*

[yovargas]

It didn't "work" because what the court did say is not particularly relevant to one's views on what they should have said. I'm sure there are other court decisions you could find that you would disagree with, for example.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As for pro-choice, the term is generally accepted in the U.S. to mean believing that a woman has a right, implied in and therefore guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to make her own choices about reproductive rights.

Huh. I've always interpreted "pro-choice" to mean a belief that women should be (for the most part) permitted to terminate their pregnancies at will; not specifically that the US Constitution guarantees this as a fundamental right. Obviously if you believe that, it becomes tautological that the matter shouldn't be left to the states, but wouldn't that imply you can't meaningfully be "pro-choice" anywhere but in the US? For my part, I see no logical problem with a hypothetical American being in favor of abortion rights as a matter of principle but also believing that the Constitution is effectively silent on the matter.

Of course someone outside the US can be pro-choice. Anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about her own body is pro-choice. If you believe that the government, whether a national government, state government, provincial government, or local government, should have the ability to take away that fundamental right, you are not pro-choice.

No matter how many times you say you are.



Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Dave_LF]

For the record, I consider myself pro-choice, but I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on whether Roe v Wade was the correct decision from a Constitutional standpoint. But yes, in some sense, I don't think any governmental entity "should" forbid abortion under ordinary circumstances. That said, as in all things, I recognize that democratic governments will sometimes (often) make decisions I disagree with, and that they have the right to do this.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

As for pro-choice, the term is generally accepted in the U.S. to mean believing that a woman has a right, implied in and therefore guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to make her own choices about reproductive rights.

Huh. I've always interpreted "pro-choice" to mean a belief that women should be (for the most part) permitted to terminate their pregnancies at will; not specifically that the US Constitution guarantees this as a fundamental right. Obviously if you believe that, it becomes tautological that the matter shouldn't be left to the states, but wouldn't that imply you can't meaningfully be "pro-choice" anywhere but in the US? For my part, I see no logical problem with a hypothetical American being in favor of abortion rights as a matter of principle but also believing that the Constitution is effectively silent on the matter.

Of course someone outside the US can be pro-choice. Anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about her own body is pro-choice. If you believe that the government, whether a national government, state government, provincial government, or local government, should have the ability to take away that fundamental right, you are not pro-choice.

No matter how many times you say you are.

Hey Yovi, remember when you doubt my statement about those whose commitment is to keeping it a federal issue? That they would gladly risk the possibility of a federal pro-life ruling rather than have it go to the state's?

If you think there are technical issues with Roe and see the constitution as dictating that it should go back to the states, you "can't" be pro-choice.I

By the way Dave, your interpretation of V's words was spot on. Anyone in the world can believe that the US constitution protects the right of abortion in the US, so therefore anyone in the world might meet V's requirements of being pro-choice. Actually being pro-choice isn't enough, you have to believe it is in the constitution already. That is why V thinks I'm pro-life and Ted Cruz isn't.

[Inanna]

Legality aside, I am confused about how one can describe oneself as “pro-choice” but think it’s okay for states to take away that choice?

[Dave_LF]

Because my support for the democratic process supersedes my personal opinions on almost any individual issue.

It's not that I believe it's "ok" for governments to behave in this way or that, just that I believe they're allowed to, according to rules I support.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That is why V thinks I'm pro-life and Ted Cruz isn't.

C_G, you are welcome to post your own views here, so long as you follow our rules of civility. However, you may not mis-state what others have said, whether it is me or anyone else. If it happens again, your posting rights will be restricted

[Inanna]

Governments all over the world do things, that is lawful within their legal framework, but absolutely awful from a humanitarian perspective. And you support that because it is “legal”. That’s the position Yov and you are going on about?

(Took me a while to get it..)

[Dave_LF]

There is a place for "I disagree with what you're doing but I support your right to do it." Not for, say, concentration camps, but maybe here. I don't know exactly where I stand on that myself, but I certainly believe it's possible for some logically-consistent person to be personally pro-choice and still support the right of democratic governments to pass laws restricting it if that's where the process arrives.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But that is not "pro-choice." That is "ideally I'd like women to have a choice but if not oh well."

[Dave_LF]

No, it's "I believe women should have a choice, and if the state restricts that, I'll lobby my Congressperson, write letters to the editor, attend rallies, whine on Facebook, etc." As opposed to "I believe women should have a choice, and if any state attempts to restrict that, the people responsible should be punished."

[Faramond]

But that is not "pro-choice." That is "ideally I'd like women to have a choice but if not oh well."

Oh. Oh oh oh. Wow. You just mis-characterized another poster's position!

*points accusingly*

You know what you have to do, Voronwë.

You have to threaten to restrict your own posting status if you do it again. ( And you have to use the scary red letters too. )

Fair is fair.

[Dave_LF]

Technically, if anything, he's only mischaracterized the position of my hypothetical person, whose rights are hypothetical too.

[Faramond]

Technically misunderstandings are best hashed out with conversation, not threats. Goodness knows I found Voronwë and CG's positions confusing enough to not be sure that CG *was* mischaracterizing Voronwë. It's amazing the kind of light conversation can shed.

For what it's worth I think arguing about abortion on a messageboard is a wicked wicked sin. You're all going to HTML. Heck, I could be risk of going to HTML just by being here!

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

That is why V thinks I'm pro-life and Ted Cruz isn't.

C_G, you are welcome to post your own views here, so long as you follow our rules of civility. However, you may not mis-state what others have said, whether it is me or anyone else. If it happens again, your posting rights will be restricted

You said I am not pro-choice. Abide your own rules please.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm sorry, Faramond, that you can't tell the difference between expressing an opinion about what others have said and stating that some said the opposite of what they actually said (e.g., I specifically stated that Ted Cruz was pro-life and C_G said that I said the opposite, and I never stated that I thought that he was pro-life). If you have any further problems, please feel free to either PM me or take it up in the Henneth Annûn forum. At this point, this thread is going to be locked.