“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes. The entire draft opinion can be read below:
(www.scribd.com)
🏆 WINS OF THE DAY 🏆
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (243)
sorted by:
I mean this with absolutely no malice or negativity, but it's exactly that attitude that makes liberals dig their heels in so much on this.
Because these compromises aren't real compromises. Because your argument against abortion is absolutist, and doesn't permit compromises.
"The life of the unborn child is prioritized above anything that doesn't immediately threaten the life of the mother."
And if I accept that foundation as a valid legal basis, then yes, I not only can make the argument that babies from rape and incest must be protected from abortion, but I MUST make that argument.
Because it follows from the argument we already accepted, the one that justified banning abortion in the first place. There's no way to avoid going further with it. The argument itself demands to be taken as far as possible.
And so when Gaetz or Greene or someone else brave enough inevitably does introduce measures designed to outlaw abortion across the spectrum, the liberals know that not a single person offering us this compromise is going to fight to protect it.
Nobody around here is going to say, "Now wait a minute, we said we weren't going to do that. Even though we've accepted this is a life-or-death issue and the life of the baby comes before everything."
We know that, because the Justices that are voting in favor of overturning Roe pinky-swore that Roe was settled law during their hearings. It wasn't true, even if it felt true when they were saying it. It's called a "foot-in-the-door technique."
There was zero chance that they could ethically stand by their promise if they actually believed in their own pro-life absolutism.
So... yeah. I don't hold it against you. I just recognize that your argument doesn't allow you to protect a compromise. I wouldn't be able to in your position, if I was being loyal to my own argument.
For that reason, you really shouldn't be surprised that liberals are willing to fight hard for this. They know losing ground on this is going to cascade.
Because there isn't a world in which we can accept "the unborn baby comes before everything" and not eventually see in that same world men irreversibly tying themselves to a woman for life without her consent.
I don't blame women for being utterly terrified of such a world, even if you consider the possibility of such scenarios to be rare.
Which is why, despite not liking the cost of abortion, I am not uncomfortable voting liberal (for non-abortion related issues). I simply can't find a means of banning abortion that doesn't have potentially irreversible consequences for the rights of women in our society, given our current level of technology and resources.
I understand their argument. And I understand your argument. And I think that both sides don't really understand the argument of the other side. And until you admit they have a point, and until they admit you have a point, there will be no constructive progress made on this issue.
I kind of see what you're saying but the majority of pro choicers only put a fraction of a percent of the thought into their arguments as you do. You are a thinker. They are followers.
Anyways, what would be an example of a "compromise", in your eyes? I don't see what you could have in mind.
Not sure there is a compromise on this issue, because again, the pro-life argument doesn’t really allow for it. Life above all else.
Pro-choice people want guarantees beyond mere words that women will be protected, will be able to full and free lives as men can, that they won’t be compelled into motherhood, and so forth.
Abortion is really the only way to guarantee this, right now. However, if Republicans invested in a technology that could safely extract a living zygote or fetus from a woman, and the public funding to provide a healthy and educated life for that child, and the medicine/technology that would safely, reversibly allow women to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time while still enjoying purposeless sex as men can, then yes, liberals could be convinced that women’s rights are protected while outlawing abortion.
But that technology doesn’t yet exist, and conservatives show little support for the public programs needed to fund these children, and as long as a woman can get accidentally pregnant or purposefully made pregnant against her will in a land where abortion is illegal, then fear of being made a second-class citizen again doesn’t seem unwarranted.
Abortion isn’t a solution I like, but we don’t have a lot of options yet. I keep hoping one of these conservative x-illionaires will invest in the technology to abort zygotes without killing them, as this would do wonders toward resolving the abortion debate.
One of the dumbest hot chicks I ever slept with was still smart enough to pay the couple thousand dollars to receive the birth control arm implant that was 100% effective for at least 5 years at a time from what she told me.
Sure money is a barrier to entry for women who want to have sex without consequences, but what do you think that is, a human right?
Nope. It's a privilege. And privileges have always been reserved for those with the most resources in our society. The exact same concept would take place if this hypothetical technology you referenced would be made manifest one day.
Only those with extra resources would have access to it. That's just how the world works my friend. Hopefully you can at least agree that my logic is sound.