Why do abortion rights people whine about a group of white men overturning Roe v. Wade?

Is there another argument which you view as people attempting to impose their personal opinion on others? Or just the abortion debate?

 

Is it really? Isn't it just the court saying that certain State laws are unconstitutional?

 

As stated earlier, the supreme court cannot write laws, but only interprets them as they apply to a case before the court. The range of interpretation possible is the variable that the best written laws will minimize- thus simple and absolute amendments are strongest. Just as people could argue about which shade of red is the true red, people will take the concept of interpretation to say black in only dark red and white is only light red. What we get depends on how far we are willing to distort the principle- and for some people, that is total.
Human nature is sometimes beautiful- and sometimes as ugly as it can get.

Remember the court only rules on arguments brought by the people; it does not randomly examine laws to test or pass judgement on.

 

Most of the arguments in this society fit that description. Gun control, the many aspects of the pandemic such as vaccinations and masks for example are people attempting to force others to conform to their demands, primarily to ease their own fears. The arguments may have some basis of validity, but they always overlook facts that say they those are of lesser priority, or just wrong because they destroy the rights of others.

Gun control for example is sourced in the fact that guns can kill people. But guns are not killers, they are mechanical devices with no malice, and only become murder weapons in the hands of a human killer.
If their were no guns, killers would kill with other weapons, which can include fists and feet, knives, clubs and rocks- same as they have since time began. If there were no killers, guns would never be murder weapons. Common sense would say that the killer is responsible, not the weapon. The laws sought to "control" guns will have no effect on killers, but will affect those willing to obey law. It would disarm the law-abiding, but not the criminals. You don't have to be brilliant to see that, just realistic. Imagine that there is a wreck resulting in a death, involving a drunk driver in a Chevy. Why don't we arrest the Chevy? Or ban Chevys altogether? It was the weapon used to cause death. But we arrest the drunk driver, not his car. The people who fear guns usually do not own guns- but they do own cars, so they think differently.
The logic we use as a basis for our laws needs to be consistent and sensible, not situational, and especially- not distorted by emotions.

Unfortunately, the human species seems far more inclined to seek control of their lives by controlling others- and the more we do that, the less control of ourselves is in our own hands, where it should be, and the more we unreasonably interfere with others rights to live as they choose.

So much of this is futile anyway. If we outlaw abortion, all we will do is drive it back underground. We outlawed liquor with prohibition, creating a new opportunity for criminals. We outlawed drugs with the "War on drugs", that's over 50 years old, but we're worse off than ever. Good laws actually improve our society, not just add to the turmoil.

What if you could shut down the drug cartels totally, in short order? There is a simple and effective way, but government doesn't like the politics involved, so nobody goes there.

 

Not just. The brain controls many things besides thoughts and the simpler more basic things come first. The resonance between the cortex or precursor structure and thalamus defines conscious thought/feeling.

 

So should it be legal to shoot comatose patients to death?

 

How do these differ from murder? Can't people argue that they should have the right to murder?

 

How do they differ? Murder is intentional. If possession of guns equated to murder- given that guns outnumber people in America, we should all be dead. But in 2019 we had 15,000 firearms murders in the US. That is climbing substantially now, starting with the riots and encouragement of racial hate and police defunding.

The whole vaccination thing attempted to force a vaccine that was only partially effective and carried many risks of it's own on people who didn't want to take the risk, by people who already too the vaccine and should have felt protected, if they believed the narrative.

Both of these are demands for laws to alleviate fears, not actual events. But this being an abortion thread, perhaps you are working around to the view of some that abortion is murder. This is a very arbitrary view- but it usually is intended to label any woman getting an abortion as a murderer. And the claim is still someone uninvolved attempting to impose their views on someone else, when thy have nothing to do with it.

The argument won't ever end, I'm sure- and there are many views that all could be considered rational. Let's take one from biology- where cells divide to reproduce, but until the separation of those cells is complete, the dividing portion is still dependent on the portion it came from. It becomes an independent cell when separation is complete. In humans, the complete separation occurs at birth. The point of viability- where by accident or intent that can occur prematurely and successfully, is about 26 weeks minimum. Before that, there is no separate viable identity. only a work in progress that may become one. WHY do some insist that people totally uninvolved be allowed to dictate their interpretation and decision on people who are totally involved? I suppose because it makes those uninvolved people fell righteous about themselves- at someone else's expense. To me, If I'm not the pregnant person, I have no right to dictate to one who is, either way.

 

Comatose people don't lack minds. Unconscious or asleep may be a less active mind, but not a non-existent one. Maybe you're thinking brain dead. What is the Difference Between a Coma and Brain Death? | LifeSource (life-source.org)

We also do have cultural rules about respect for bodies anyway. You can't really shoot a human corpse legally, either, at least not without permission of next of kin.

 

So should it be legal to shoot brain dead people to death?

 

So is abortion.

 

Well are you involved in someone unknown to you murdering a person who is unknown to you? No, but you still believe that murder should be illegal. The 'involvement' argument therefore, is not valid.

So the complete separation occurs at birth or the point of viability?

Just like if you are not the person who murders, you have no right to dictate to one who murders?

 

As i pointed out- i appeared you were trying to lead a conversation to a point you could call people murderers. And- here you are.
IF you see the existence of life as sacred at all costs, then you are responsible for many, many deaths. We all are. We raise chickens, cattle and other living things solely for the purpose of slaughtering them because we like how they taste. IF you want to take the position that lift is meaningless unless it's human- and that must be preserved at all costs. then you care only about it's existence, not it's quality. Life lived in misery is still life, right?

Abortion is nothing to celebrate. It, is a tragedy, but an option that typically exists where the alternative is also tragedy. If you want life to thrive, people to thrive, to be happy, productive, strong- they must grow up in an environment rich in nurturing, wanted rather than resented or seen as a burden, with sufficient support and quality in the environment around them to provide them with the tools to navigate life successfully.
I realize your priorities will place those things a lot lower on your list than they are on mine.

There's no way to make a person of your mindset see the other side. Now IF you were a woman and found yourself in the position that is typically faced by a woman considering abortion- you would understand.
But no matter what happens with our laws or social brandings, abortions will continue, and there is nothing you can do about that except make things worse. You can drive it back to the days of coat-hanger jobs in dark rooms, to women committing suicide, to having the radicals shoot doctors or pro-choice advocates in the name of righteous justice.... and insult anyone who looks at the issue realistically, but in the end- you will have changed nothing, except to create more misery.

The choice to have an abortion is usually preceded by soul-searching examination- and if that choice is to abort, it's done with great sadness, bu the feeling that there is no other viable option.
You don't understand that, and can't unless you are a woman who has been there- or a person who has provided them council and been a confident in their struggle with this decision. I have been in that position. I'm not speculating when I speak of this struggle, I've watched it from as close a position as anyone not in it can get.

Just for the record, I'm pro-choice with a option imitation to pre-viability. But I'm strongly an advocate for children coming into the world to thrive, live well and contribute, and that depends on many things. It's the woman's decision- nobody else's. All you can do is add pain and guilt to the already extremely stressful and difficult decision, which that person will have to cope with for a lifetime either way.

 

Well are you involved in someone unknown to you raping a person who is unknown to you? No, but you still believe that rape should be illegal. The 'involvement' argument therefore, is not valid.

Just like if you are not the person who rapes, you have no right to dictate to one who rapes?

 

Is abortion NOT intentional?

 

Great post but those who want to make women murderers by destroying their rights do NOT care if they"" add pain and guilt to the already extremely stressful and difficult decision""
THAT is their goal and aim and life's misogynistic mission..

 

Your failure to recognize the condition of pregnancy as a growth THAT IS PART OF THE MOTHER rather than an independent temporary resident borrowing her womb leads you to conclude what you do.
The answer is simple. If you hate the idea of an abortion to that extent, don't have one. If you are a male, tell any woman you may become sexually involved with how you feel, or better yet so and have yourself neutered so you can't possibly be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy. But since it's not happening to YOU, and since YOU are not going to experience the consequences- give other people who will the right to have their own opinion and make their own choices As a male, you are totally unable to understand the whole issue.

The world isn't perfect, and no person is perfect. Your view of it is just another defective version of it.

 

Brain dead people are already dead. It would be abuse of a corpse at that point. Brain death is the true definition of death, it's just that usually we presume brain death by the fact that the heart hasn't been beating for awhile. When somebody dies while on life support sometimes the heart is still beating when they died and will continue to beat on life support. But they're not really alive as a person.

 

Roe gives the states the power to limit, restrict, regulate and even ban abortions - all 50 states regulate abortion in some way, and 43 states have some kind of ban on it.
If you believe the right to an abortion is absolute and unlimited, why do you support Roe?

 

You're assuming what peoples' goals are. I would never assume what your goals are.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ning-roe-v-wade.599475/page-8#post-1073465211

 

So should it be legal to shoot brain dead people?

 

Respectfully, the question makes no sense. They're already dead.

 

Life is stressful, decisions are sometimes difficult...grow up and accept responsibility.

 

No it's simple: Should it be legal to shoot that dead person so that they are even more dead by making their heart stop?