Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Foxi4]

What amendment says you have the right to bodily autonomy? I must've missed that. And anyways, you can do whatever the hell you want with your body, just not a babies body. A human being with its own DNA

And also, regarding contraception, gay marriage, and sodomy. I must've missed those rights being in the constitution too....

Not that I don't think that women should have access to contraceptives or gay folks should or shouldn't be able to get married. Its just.. either pass a federal law doing so or add an amendment lmao. Because as it stands now, none of those things are "rights" by any measure

Technically speaking, bodily autonomy is covered by the 4th Amendment which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons (…) shall not be violated". The Constitution guarantees that a citizen of the United States will not be subject to any procedures that concern their body if they do not consent to them because they have a right to be secure in their persons. You cannot be forced to undergo any medical procedure or ingest any substance just because the state is telling you to, it’s a constitutionally protected right. The bodily autonomy argument flips this upside down - the claim is that bodily autonomy *entitles* one to receive certain kinds of healthcare services, which it does not.

 

[hippy dave]

Question: what are they defined by then?

If not by a god and not protected by the constitution, where do you come up with what is and isn't a human right?

Thankfully I don't live in the same country as your best buddy the constitution, neither do most people, so I guess it must be irrelevant to fundamentals affecting humanity after all.

 

[Dakitten]

Right? And I like how their solution seems to be to take away take away guns and 2a rights from the citizenry. Then what? They realize that deaths from guns are done with pistols nearl


The
The whole point of this decision is that they're taking away power from the top and giving it to states lmfao. Y'all are whack

Here is a thought experiment for you... We have record gun deaths in a country with the most guns per capita in the world. The second amendment was written a couple hundred years ago and some change. Maybe, hear me out here, maybe even if your INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment was correct (it isn't btw) it still seems to contribute to the death of innocents and is a health hazard that should be overwritten.

Also, giving the issue of rights to the states means that states can take them away. It is still an issue of depriving a fraction of the population a federal right to bodily autonomy based on the desires of a small minority of the population. There is NOTHING about roe being repealed that should be celebrated unless you're a part of that small, uninformed, often religious, largely male and thus unaffected group. States should govern and manage their territories based on local needs and federal laws, not be concerned with how their citizenry needs EXTRA laws to dictate how their lives should be lived. Y'all are whack.

Or maybe the common factor here is that... They're mentally unsound? Lmao

Since the 90s we've seen a dramatic increase in the amount of guns in distribution and owned by the citizenry, but also a sharp decrease in crime. The problem isn't that safe gun owners, which is the vast vast majority who got their guns pretty easily, it's that we don't focus on these creeps with obvious mental problems

Hey, if you want to preach for public healthcare, I'm right there with you, comrade!

However, even if you want to cite crime statistics ON THE WHOLE declining instead of gun violence statistics (which, spoilers, has been climbing ever since the assault weapon ban repeal, you probably disingenuous cherry picker you~), you should ask yourself "What has been causing so many people to suddenly become more mentally unsound?"

Spoilers: Radicalization of the right and a decline in public health and assistance programs. Desperation and rage breeds mental instability. All for treating the symptoms, but treating the cause is important too.

You should have a de facto right to arm yourself for whatever purpose you find appropriate unless there are pre-existing circumstances which prevent you from exercising that right. In the same way you are entitled to purchase a vehicle, you do not require a driver’s license to buy one. You need a license to participate in traffic, which is a different matter entirely.

Ahh, Foxi 101: If an analogy doesn't perfectly encapsulate an issue, it isn't valid!

I really don't miss your misleading rhetoric. It is true, you can buy a car and not drive it yourself and that is legal. Woo. It still involves more paperwork and time investment than procuring a firearm, and ease of firearm acquisition and number of weapons still correlates with the number of gun deaths in the USA being absurdly high.

Slavery was always at odds with the Constitution which clearly states that all men are created equal. The Founders, including the ones who owned slaves, have always held the opinion that it was abhorrent, but it had to be permitted at the time

Hashtag Foxivalues. Nobody who legally enabled slavery liked it, but they HAD to! All men were created equal obviously included them eventually! Totes didn't need a civil war to stop states from claiming their state-based right to perpetuate slavery as popular consensus shifted.

 

[MariArch]

Technically speaking, bodily autonomy is covered by the 4th Amendment which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons (…) shall not be violated". The Constitution guarantees that a citizen of the United States will not be subject to any procedures that concern their body if they do not consent to them because they have a right to be secure in their persons. You cannot be forced to undergo any medical procedure or ingest any substance just because the state is telling you to, it’s a constitutionally protected right. The bodily autonomy argument flips this upside down - the claim is that bodily autonomy *entitles* one to receive certain kinds of healthcare services, which it does not.

Even still. My point is that this argument of "bodily autonomy means I can have an abortion" makes no sense... Because it's a different damn body lmao

 

[MariArch]

Here is a thought experiment for you... We have record gun deaths in a country with the most guns per capita in the world. The second amendment was written a couple hundred years ago and some change. Maybe, hear me out here, maybe even if your INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment was correct (it isn't btw) it still seems to contribute to the death of innocents and is a health hazard that should be overwritten.

Also, giving the issue of rights to the states means that states can take them away. It is still an issue of depriving a fraction of the population a federal right to bodily autonomy based on the desires of a small minority of the population. There is NOTHING about roe being repealed that should be celebrated unless you're a part of that small, uninformed, often religious, largely male and thus unaffected group. States should govern and manage their territories based on local needs and federal laws, not be concerned with how their citizenry needs EXTRA laws to dictate how their lives should be lived. Y'all are whack.


Hey, if you want to preach for public healthcare, I'm right there with you, comrade!

However, even if you want to cite crime statistics ON THE WHOLE declining instead of gun violence statistics (which, spoilers, has been climbing ever since the assault weapon ban repeal, you probably disingenuous cherry picker you~), you should ask yourself "What has been causing so many people to suddenly become more mentally unsound?"

Spoilers: Radicalization of the right and a decline in public health and assistance programs. Desperation and rage breeds mental instability. All for treating the symptoms, but treating the cause is important too.


Ahh, Foxi 101: If an analogy doesn't perfectly encapsulate an issue, it isn't valid!

I really don't miss your misleading rhetoric. It is true, you can buy a car and not drive it yourself and that is legal. Woo. It still involves more paperwork and time investment than procuring a firearm, and ease of firearm acquisition and number of weapons still correlates with the number of gun deaths in the USA being absurdly high.


Hashtag Foxivalues. Nobody who legally enabled slavery liked it, but they HAD to! All men were created equal obviously included them eventually! Totes didn't need a civil war to stop states from claiming their state-based right to perpetuate slavery as popular consensus shifted.

Here's an idea. Move to a state where they agree with all the bullcrap other people don't .

Tbh this brings up the bigger question of why we don't just split up the nation into like 4 different countries. We obviously all think so differently on a wide variety of topics. Idk why I should be forced to live in a country where people that live hundreds of miles away and have a completely different lifestyle can legislate how me and my community lives

 

[Foxi4]

Ahh, Foxi 101: If an analogy doesn't perfectly encapsulate an issue, it isn't valid!

I really don't miss your misleading rhetoric. It is true, you can buy a car and not drive it yourself and that is legal. Woo. It still involves more paperwork and time investment than procuring a firearm, and ease of firearm acquisition and number of weapons still correlates with the number of gun deaths in the USA being absurdly high.

It’s a bad analogy. Even if it was perfectly aligned, it still wouldn’t apply because there is no constitutionally protected right to travel using an automobile. I would argue that it falls under freedom of movement as the automobile is the de facto modern mode of transportation, but there’s two problems with that - firstly it would invalidate driver’s licenses and secondly it’s not enumerated as such, whereas arms are.

Hashtag Foxivalues. Nobody who legally enabled slavery liked it, but they HAD to! All men were created equal obviously included them eventually! Totes didn't need a civil war to stop states from claiming their state-based right to perpetuate slavery as popular consensus shifted.

It’s called a temporary compromise, with full intention of revisiting the matter at a more opportune time, which is precisely what happened historically. The seeds of abolishing slavery nationwide were in the Constitution before it was even ratified.

Even still. My point is that this argument of "bodily autonomy means I can have an abortion" makes no sense... Because it's a different damn body lmao

It does indeed neglect to account for that. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, we may or may not be talking about one or multiple persons. The reason why repealing Roe v. Wade is good is because we can now have a conversation about when that is and let the people decide, as opposed to kicking the can down the road by inventing a right out of whole cloth. Abortion was never part of the Constitution, the decision was erroneous and it’s a good thing that it was repealed - the SCOTUS should deliberate on what is and is not in the Constitution, not engage in activism. There are established systems by which the document can be amended and there’s a legislative branch responsible for passing laws. That’s the correct path of tackling the matter, and that’s the path that should’ve been taken in the first place.

 

[Hanafuda]

... God forbid someone wants to regulate gun control, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

This is where I would use a "wut?" meme.

 

[Hanafuda]

Thankfully I don't live in the same country as your best buddy the constitution, neither do most people, so I guess it must be irrelevant to fundamentals affecting humanity after all.

In what countries is having an abortion a right? Not just legal, but actually a guaranteed right?

 

[hippy dave]

In what countries is having an abortion a right? Not just legal, but actually a guaranteed right?

I'm not gonna go through every country's laws, have at it if you like, but Amnesty International consider it a right under international human rights laws. I feel like they've probably got better experts who've researched it better than you, so I'm gonna listen to them.

 

[NoobletCheese]

We should also factor in the autonomy of the baby, eg. foreskin removal would seem to be an autonomy issue.

Now imagine instead of shootings we had car attacks and in response to all these car attacks the gov't wanted to pass a law that restricts car ownership to only those who need it, eg. you could only buy a car if there is no public transport available in your area.

 

[MariArch]

I'm not gonna go through every country's laws, have at it if you like, but Amnesty International consider it a right under international human rights laws. I feel like they've probably got better experts who've researched it better than you, so I'm gonna listen to them.

"Experts have done their homework and researched. They have finally discovered the secret of.. what is a human right "

Lmao. Modern day bureaucratic boards of unelected officials that wish to have top down international control are just the stupidest motherfuckers

Newsflash: international law is a complete joke and you're naive to listen to it.

No, i will not be listening to international law where governments from China, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, the UK, Israel, France, or any country for that matter gets to decide how we run our government

 

[hippy dave]

Lmao. Modern day bureaucratic boards of unelected officials

Imagine such a thing (supreme court)

 

[AmandaRose]

Newsflash: international law is a complete joke and you're naive to listen to it.

Much like religion then.

 

[MariArch]

Imagine such a thing (supreme court)

Except the supreme court doesn't make law (or shouldn't), it cross analyzes the text of the constitution with laws passed to make sure that our rights listed aren't being infringed.

The supreme court isn't supposed to be fluid and swayed by the court of public opinion, hence the lifetime appointment. it's supposed to ensure that our rights arent being trampled on from the top down as listed in the constitution. Where amendments that were past with a vast majority of the house and Senate were voted on and enshrined.

 

[NoobletCheese]

"Experts have done their homework and researched. They have finally discovered the secret of.. "

 

[hippy dave]

Except the supreme court doesn't make law (or shouldn't), it cross analyzes the text of the constitution with laws passed to make sure that our rights listed aren't being infringed.

Sure, and it does so completely neutrally with no personal bias, it's the perfect system.

 

[hippy dave]

The supreme court isn't supposed to be fluid and swayed by the court of public opinion, it's supposed to ensure that our rights arent being trampled on from the top down.

So it shouldn't disagree with its own previous decisions, got it.

 

[Hanafuda]

I'm not gonna go through every country's laws, have at it if you like, but Amnesty International consider it a right under international human rights laws. I feel like they've probably got better experts who've researched it better than you, so I'm gonna listen to them.

I'm not asking whether you or I or Amnesty International (IDGAF) thinks it is a right. And I'm not asking about other country's laws ... legislatures can make something legal, or make it illegal. The US Congress can do the same. A right guaranteed explicitly in a nation's Constitution is a different matter. And I would be surprised if any country has that wrt: abortion. But maybe there is one? ... that's why I asked.

 

[deinonychus71]

What always puzzle me with Americans talking about their Constitution is how they talk about it as if everything was set in stone.
The Constitution was written in a very different era with people of very different principles. By itself, it's a piece of paper, by itself, it can and should be challenged when it stops being relevant. Saying "but the Constitution said" by itself is a weak argument.
Also getting your rights taken away by people you have not elected is a big no no, it's never okay. Wake up USA.

Meanwhile none of the urgent issues like healthcare, infrastructure or education are addressed by either side, what a fantasy.

 

[hippy dave]

I'm not asking whether you or I or Amnesty International (IDGAF) thinks it is a right. And I'm not asking about other country's laws ... legislatures can make something legal, or make it illegal. The US Congress can do the same. A right guaranteed explicitly in a nation's Constitution is a different matter. And I would be surprised if any country has that wrt: abortion. But maybe there is one? ... that's why I asked.

I don't honestly know if any other countries have the same unhealthy batshit obsession with the precious Constitution as the be-all and end-all, sorry.