"As a matter of law, the majority opinion today should have focused exclusively on what has changed since the high court's 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. Stenberg struck down a Nebraska ban that was almost identical to the federal ban upheld today. That's why every court to review the ban found the federal law, passed in 2003, unconstitutional. What really changed in the intervening years was the composition of the court: Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted to strike down the ban in 2000, is gone. Samuel Alito, who votes today to uphold it, is here." -Slate
That's true, and supports the slippery slope concerns. This is a court that will hedge on the side of their morality instead of hedging on the side of freedom. But I don't think that contradicts what I said... this ruling itself does not harm a woman's freedom to an abortion any more than a ban on leaded gasoline harms your freedom to drive around. It's not what the act does but rather what somebody else called the atmosphere it provides that's wrong with this ruling.
So, why are they banning this procedure? To go back to the car analogy, why ban leaded gasoline if it's not hurting my car? And really, isn't it the car's choice?
That's what I am afraid of. The argument on the face of it is, ban it because it looks horrifying and even if we need to do abortions, we shouldn't need to be that cruel about it. And that's the one I feel sympathy for, even if I would have voted the other way in the end if I'd been on the court. But if the real reason behind it is along the lines of "one method down, 19 to go" then I have a real serious problem with it.
Because it hurts the environment. The reason to ban IDX that I have seen is that a doctor pulls out the foetus, which at this point has enough development to be potentially viable, then sticks something into its head, killing it in what is arguably a very painful manner. The argument that opponents make is that the procedure is inhumanly cruel and heartless.
Potentially, yes. It is at this point possible for the fetus to survive on its own. Likelihood doesn't kick in for a while, but medicine is getting better at it.
Not so. Killing a chicken before making it into McNuggets is illegal if done in a cruel manner. It doesn't have to have the rights of a person to have protection against cruelty.
Indeed, a certain level of cruelty should be avoided at all times if at ALL possible IMO. Personally I don't think this fits the bill though (especially if the little blob isn't mature enough to be capable of real suffering, although I guess I dunno when this time period is/isn't), it's just really fucking disgusting. But hell, so's pushing a little squishy monster out through one's girlie bits.
That's not a valid comparison. Putting an egg in a refrigerator to kill it is perfectly legal. So is boiling it. Or using an inside the egg scrambler. Pre-birth anything aren't imbued with civil rights.
Post-birth lots of things are not imbued with civil rights, including the pre-McNugget chicken. It isn't a matter of civil rights, or birth status. We, as a society are squeamish (or humane, depending on your point of view) enough that we hesitate to be more cruel to anything that can feel pain than is necessary to get the job done. The laws are logically totally inconsistent as far as I can tell; generally, something happens, some stomachs turn, and a bunch of people pass a law saying, "Don't do that, it is cruel and unnecessary
( ... )
It was convincing enough that the public at large bought it, or at least enough public to make legislators feel like their constituencies would support them.
I do not agree with this sentiment. I believe that many politicians have an agenda, and they will work that agenda, even against their constituency. There was even a politician (whose name I can't remember) on the Daily Show who said that all of the politicians should do what the President wants since he was voted into office, his ideal were obviously what America wanted. (that is paraphrasing, but reference to our discussion on the subject)
-Slate
Reply
Reply
Reply
Step 1. Illegalize D&X
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Illegalize all abortion
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I do not agree with this sentiment. I believe that many politicians have an agenda, and they will work that agenda, even against their constituency. There was even a politician (whose name I can't remember) on the Daily Show who said that all of the politicians should do what the President wants since he was voted into office, his ideal were obviously what America wanted. (that is paraphrasing, but reference to our discussion on the subject)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment