Roe was overturned because Republicans were able to put 5 judges on the court who ideologically doing like the law and represent maybe 20-25% of the country. I did pick. My preference is he Roe doctrine. But I’m willing to accept other reasonable solutions. Banning all abortion that 80% of the people disagrees with and most of the first world disagrees with is not a reasonable solution.
You really don’t get the point. A lot of us have beliefs and preferences, but don’t necessarily think our beliefs and preferences, at least when they restrict individual freedoms, should be forced upon a large majority who disagrees with them. It is totally reasonable for someone to personally oppose abortion for religious or other reasons. That doesn’t mean their beliefs must become law. Many people believe pre marital sex is wrong, or adultery is wrong, or divorce is wrong, or even birth control is wrong. That’s fine. But people should be self aware enough that their beliefs are not universally shared, and accept that we want to live in a society that errs towards personal freedoms.
The small / limited government conservative is largely a myth. They just want government to enforce their values and their priorities.
Some of them have gone full crazytown on the abortion issue, suggesting tracking menstrual cycles, prohibiting pregnant women from crossing state lines, emboldening bounty hunters (Texas), or even possibly putting women to death. It isn’t just failing to adhere to small govt principles, it’s full on dystopian nuttery.
1. The Supreme Court is not a democratic institution, and it's not supposed to be. 2. Here's the dirty little secret, the Supreme Court has had ideological members for a long time that wouldn't even hide the ball. People are just mad now that conservatives have a 6-3 majority. Obama wanted to replace Scalia with Merrick Garland, the current Attorney General under the Biden Administration who is clearly liberal. Would abortion until point of birth be a reasonable solution? If not, you support cramming down the Roe standard on people you disagree with. You're a "forced birther" too.
You said you support the Roe standard but are willing to accept other "reasonable solutions." Again, do you think allowing abortion until point of birth is a "reasonable solution?" If not, you support forcing your beliefs on people as long as they're the minority. And that part is interesting. Do you think if a majority of people supported slavery (as they once did), the abolitionists shouldn't "force their beliefs and preferences" on the majority? Unless that personal freedom violates another person. Your rights end where the rights of another begins. You can flail your arms around all you want, that right ends when you start punching others in the face, or in this case, when you start killing other people. Now, you can make the argument that they're not people, and we've seen that argument before. I'm sure you can guess where.
Well yes people are “mad” conservatives have a majority for various reasons. The court is now more than ever a political organization. I’m not sure what this kind of discussion has to do with anything. How many times do I have to repeat myself? My preference is Roe, but I’d accept abortion to the point of conception, because from a practical sense those abortions are rare and almost always for medical reasons. As to the forced birther thing, most people believe there is a balance between the rights of the mother and the fetus and there is a point to where the fetus has developed enough such that their rights supersede those or the mother. Like Tilly and most pro lifers you have resorted to playing word games vs actually debating the merits of the issue.
Your first paragraph I answered in my prior post. As to the slavery comparison, I don’t know what the majority believed at the time. I suspect that by the time the majority believed it was wrong was around the time the civil war happened. I prefaced my arguments in terms of rights laws hat they err towards personal freedoms, and as such slavery is the opposite of personal freedom. You have now brought up the personhood argument. Most people do not believe a practically invisible embryo or a fertilized egg is a person. There are clear differences compared to a post viability fetus.
Really? Show me. Quote it. So you think slavery was fine when the majority of people agreed with slavery? Slavery is only the opposite of personal freedom if you accept Black people as "people." You are denying the unborn that same courtesy and you are rationalizing abortion in the exact same way that pro-slavery advocates rationalized slavery, by dehumanizing or altogether dismissing the aggrieved party as "not a person." There was a point that most people didn't think Black people were "people."
Largely false. The 3/5 compromise, while attrocious as a policy, did mean that slaves were counted as people in the Census. At no point in history has the Census counted a fetus as a person. So your attempt to link the two logically falls apart right there.
Do you have a center solution (example) that you can post that both the fringe Left and the fringe Right have wrong? IOW what are "center" wants... needs...solutions? I think it's pretty clear that the Leftists want to tip the boat over to the Left until the ship capsizes, so the Right has to try and Push to the Right just to get things level again... so that seems lie the Right is too far right. All I want to do is the UNDO WHAT THE COMMIES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOPING TO OUR COUNTRY. That is MAGA and that is NOT fringe Right... it's sanity, and rational and moral code of conduct though good healthy policies.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your reply to my comment that limited government conservatives need to make their own party and use either a mythical or almost extinct animal for their mascot, but it reads as though you were arguing with my statement by saying that Democrats already have a mascot. The implication is that you saw me reference limited government conservatives and thought of Democrats. If your response to me was a random dig at Democrats just for the opportunity to name call, then... okay, I guess.
post 669 no I actually agree with all that. Many people didn’t believe slaves were persons. We now know that they were wrong. In the case of a fetus, there is a clear difference. Ultimately we define person how we choose, and then we grant right to life to persons we choose. A majority of society doesn’t view a fetus as a person. There are clear scientific demonstrable facts that show that a fetus doesn’t have most of the attributes we tend to associate with personhood. (Slaves did have all of those attributes). Now if you believe a fetus should be afforded person status, and you believe they should be afforded the right to life, that’s fine. But that is your personal belief and your beliefs are in the distinct minority.
