Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

I didn’t capitalize L for a reason. It all comes down to when it becomes a life, and not everyone agrees. Contraception and abortion is ok prior to it becoming a life, not okay after. Libertarians just disagree on when it becomes a life. But IMO that’s truly the question for all. Even the most ardent pro choicers certainly wouldn’t kill a baby once they consider it a life

 

I would say that is reasonable.

 

Regardless the point that is it is a woman’s decision (forget gender for a second here) is crazy. The entire point of contention is when the life begins. I’d venture to guess nearly every single one of us would agree abortion/contraception is ok prior to life and not okay post life.

So the question has always been when life begins.

 

More with the states. I think.

 

Indeed, the 9th appears to have played a key role in the Roe decision. That said, there seems to be a large disagreement in what one should really take from that amendment. Further, one has to grapple with whose rights we are establishing, those of the mother or those of the child.

Most SC decisions have reasoned dissents, and I expect this one will be no different. I certainly don’t have a way to satisfactorily solve this quandary, and I would think that even those qualified to be on our highest courts wouldn’t either. Likely we will, and probably should, deal with this problem politically, as terrible as that sounds.

 

Yes via elected officials by the people

 

Impossible to answer. Thats why we are in this mess.

 

Ireland is not as catholic as it used to be. The abuses of the church have turned off most to religion. I think Ireland is majority agnostic.

 

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all said that Roe v Wade was established precedent, so Alito's opinion will be the dissenting opinion, right?

 

While all are "living" the question can also be asked should a zygote the size of the head of a pin, a fetus at six weeks roughly the size of a kidney bean, both of which cannot survive outside of the womb be treated the same as a mid-second trimester fetus which may survive outside the womb through extraordinary medical intervention or a third trimester fetus which has a high probability of survival outside the womb with medical intervention? Just my opinion but I do think the period of gestation makes a difference. To the hardcore pro-lifers, the "right to life" should begin at conception.

 

I never wander into abortion debates, but I have always disagreed with this. Both sides seem to base args on it. I find the implications of the government protecting (or even knowing about) a life that resides inside another life, concerning.

 

Even Alito himself said the same during his testimony prior to his confirmation raising the question, were all four lying through their teeth during the confirmation hearings or did they simply have a change of opinion? My guess it's the former rather than the latter.

 

I would agree that opposition to abortion is largely grounded in views about the autonomy of the embryo/fetus and its right to live. And I think that's a fair discussion. Having said that, it's also true that there were moralistic arguments and justifications for banning contraception services generally - that were not about abortion - such as in Griswold. There were also laws making homosexual intercourse illegal. We could do a Venn diagram here, but Americans have a history of wanting to make sure people, particularly women, accept the consequences of sex and/or wanting to punish people for having sex that they don't approve of.

 

If Thomas was a liberal justice, would Alito have singled out Loving as not falling under the category of rulings that could be overturned by this reasoning?

I can't really see why Loving couldn't also be overturned by the legal reasoning used here. But I can't imagine a court with a justice in an interracial marriage being willing to touch that one.

 

I don't think Alito was as clear as the others. I believe he answered the specific question about Roe with a vague response about judicial precedent, not a specific response about Roe being safe.

 

For sure this is the hardest part, and the most important part, of the issue. And I think you’re right to highlight the gray areas here, showing that virtually everyone is on this same spectrum just removed a matter of degrees. How can we properly legislate this issue for all? Im no one whose advice to seek, but I think that the big L Libertarian stance I gave earlier is as close as I could imagine to the “best” of the possible imperfect options.

 

For those of you discussing contraception, some argue birth control pills are "abortion pills" because in an early stage pregnancy once you're on the "period" cycle it can abort the fetus. Partly why there are some pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Still to this day some women can't get contraceptives other than by mail - and they're used not just for preventing pregnancy but also to treat acne, hormonal disorders, help with anemia caused by abnormally heavy bleeding, help with cramping, etc.

So using the argument about when life starts, & since objections already exist, they absolutely could come after birth control pills. And men will be ticked when they're forced to wear condoms instead of relying on her pills to keep them from child support, or their wives are anemic & weak from excess bleeding, etc.

Can't rely on tubals because they can fail and a woman needs her HUSBAND'S consent to get it. If single they refuse with the "you might change your mind" garbage.

 

The overwhelming majority of Irish citizens (77%) still identify as Catholic although I suspect that they're like American Catholics when it comes to following the doctrine of the Church, the best example being birth control which although opposed by the Church is still practiced by the majority of American Catholics of childbearing age.

 

You and that radical site are totally misinterpreting that amendment. The legal consensus, along with a plain reading of English, is that there are other rights not mentioned in the Constitution that are valid and protected. The text:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Privacy is the most prominently and often mentioned example of this. If there are protected rights not enumerated in the Constitution, there can be no more basic and foundational example of such a right than privacy.

The radical right wants to deny privacy as a right not just to end abortion, but it wants to end the easy access to contraception. That's the obvious goal of the site you linked.

The Republican Party calls for freedoms like speech, religion, and others, but in reality, it is the group that most frequently and most egregiously abridges those rights.

If we want to become fundamentalist Christians, WE'LL decide to follow that philosophy! The vast majority of us want to be left alone and not be forced to live according to such a radical construct that most of us see fundamentalism to be. It's simple: Leave us the hell alone and mind your OWN business!

 

And the draft opinion would allow 50 states to have 50 different opinions on when that is based on their prevailing politics, so it really isn't about when life actually begins but when a state legislature says it does, no?