Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[Chernosoth]

These people have been at each other's throats for decades. They love to hate each other. I'm genuinely surprised to see they're still at it.

I took a long hiatus from Lit but with this election year being so important I remembered there used to be some pretty fevered political discussion here. And durned if it isn't still going on!

I've seen people from both sides make valid points but there is a strong "Demoncraps versus MAGAts" contingent that generally ruins it. If you're so bitter you can't see half the country as anything other than an insult, well, that's just sad. Grow the fuck up. United we stand, divided we fall.

A thread about seeing other perspectives immediately veered into the usual partisan BS.

Many arguments here look like video game fights, poorly executed: a few moves repeated many times, until the opponent gets bored or dies of old age and that counts as a win.

 

[TomTeacher19]

This thread is in hilarious. It's supposedly about having dialogue with the other side but if you dare have a different opinion than the OP's self declared right perspective on all things then you get attacked by them for being wrong. I guess it kind of proves the point, ironically enough.

 

[Lazaran]

Is SimonDumb related to Derpy???



SimonDumb seems weirdly (and situationally) slaved to "the letter of the law" and has zero capacity to see the inherent right and wrong of the matter when it comes to the overturning of Roe. (Even though I would submit / argue that the privacy justification for the original ruling on Roe was legally / constitutionally unassailable.)



SimonDumb

 

[jaF0]

The GQP can't even get along with itself. This is at least the third state with this issue.

Colorado GOP chair ousted in a contentious vote that he dismisses as a ‘sham’​

The chairman of the Colorado Republican Party has been ousted in a vote that he says is illegitimate.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm trying to come up with a good label for the flip side of the coin of the Sea Lion: the person in an online argument who, no matter how much you try to be reasonable with them, acknowledge the legitimacy of aspects of their point of view, and even offer facts and evidence to suggest not that they're not entirely wrong, but that there are different ways of seeing things, insists that not only are you wrong but that you can't possibly believe what you are saying in good faith.

It's the John McEnroe response: "You cannot be serious!"

Well, actually, I am, and I actually know something about the subject I'm talking about from decades of study and reading, and here are my reasons . . .

"You cannot be serious!"

Maybe an "Orca." It doesn't matter what you say to an Orca or whether you are really a sea lion; if it decides it wants you to be a sea lion, it's going to treat you as one and try to eat you.

This thread has stirred up a lot of Orca activity.

Fortunately, it's an online forum and I can watch the froth on the water with bemusement but without actual worry.

This thread has become a caricature of what I initially was concerned about.

I'll know better next time. But then, there probably won't be a next time.

I'm sure the Orcas will be happy with that. Orcas don't like being disagreed with. The word "but" immediately provokes the Pavlovian Orca reaction: "Sea Lion!"

 

[SmokingFap]

A thread about seeing other perspectives immediately veered into the usual partisan BS.

Many arguments here look like video game fights, poorly executed: a few moves repeated many times, until the opponent gets bored or dies of old age and that counts as a win.

Thank you so much for weighing in. That was very insightful and valuable.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's not an issue.

This is what I mean. This is never, ever true. Everything is an issue. Everything is up for discussion and debate. Everything.

 

[adrina]

I did not do that. It's clear from the actual words I used that I did not do that. I used New York and California as the two examples that leapt most clearly to mind because they are the most populous pro-choice states. There are plenty of other pro-choice states, and there are some states where the people are less pro-choice.

"The Dobbs opinion may be opposed by the majorities of California and New York, but not by the majorities of many other states, so one can't say it's contrary to the majority of the population's opinion."

These are your words taken from your post. You made a statement without any evidence to be assumed as accurate - that the Dobbs opinion is not likely opposed by the majority of people in many other states.

All evidence points to the contrary as seen by the way the votes have gone since Dobbs was overturned.

Your usage of NY and Cali pointing to them as having majorities opposed is accurate, but you used them to mean blue states with the assumption that red states do not have majorities opposed to Dobbs. Kansas as well as every other state who have approved abortion rights or abortion measures to ballots speaks in opposition to your broad and inaccurate statement.

Now you are being ignorant as well as insulting. You don't know what I know.

Actually I am being honest. I see this a lot on this forum, and mainly from conservatives. They argue from half the facts and dismiss what they don't like. See Icanhelp when it comes to Trump's record of being anti-constitution and the GOP's efforts at suppressing the vote.

I said it plainly and for good reason as you just demonstrated here:

If gerrymandering is going on, then the solution is to challenge the gerrymandering, either through the courts or the democratic process.

IF? IF? Do you really want to stand on that statement that you can't confirm and are in doubt that gerrymandering exists?

Just checking first.

There's no perfect process. But it's not obvious that the court should step in just because some of its members decide for themselves that they don't think the democratic process is working sufficiently well in a state that doesn't reach the results they don't like. It's the problem of judicial legitimacy. This is the problem that John Hart Ely -- a liberal legal scholar -- raised in his 1970s critique of Roe v. Wade, and nobody ever had a very good answer to it. You can't cut the legal Gordian Knot just by making appeals to how important you think the right is. If it's not clearly spelled out in the Constitution, then a fundamental issue arises regarding the legitimacy of the Court to say whether a right is fundamental or whether it isn't. Your own personal views and politics and judgments about what rights are "fundamental" don't settle the question for everybody else. That's where democracy--however imperfect--comes in. The people decide through the people they vote for.

You mean just like Roe wasn't perfect but in your opinion should have been overturned because of those imperfections? Regardless of the fact that it being overturned put 50 state governments between citizens and their access to healthcare?

I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm talking about the overwhelming vast majority of Americans' opinion.

You sound like you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

Consider the second amendment. The same people who want an expansive interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to include the abortion right want a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment to deny a broad individual right to own firearms. Who's right?

I don't think it's obvious in either case. Arguments can be made on both sides. I've read dozens and dozens of legal opinions and legal articles on both questions, and when people try to deny that there are different ways of looking at the issue I think they're either uninformed or one-sided.

I reject your statement on its face. The majority of people in America want some sensible gun violence laws. The majority of gun owners want some kind of gun violence laws. The majority of Americans want access to safe and legal abortion. There is no disagreement here - only which parts the courts choose to allow access to after they have legislated from the bench.


And I notice you didn't answer my questions.

If you don't have the right to privacy to control what is done with your body, then what rights do you have?

If it were men that needed abortions, how much of a debate do you think this would be?

 

[Lazaran]

I'm trying to come up with a good label for the flip side of the coin of the Sea Lion: the person in an online argument who, no matter how much you try to be reasonable with them, acknowledge the legitimacy of aspects of their point of view, and even offer facts and evidence to suggest not that they're not entirely wrong, but that there are different ways of seeing things, insists that not only are you wrong but that you can't possibly believe what you are saying in good faith.

It's the John McEnroe response: "You cannot be serious!"

Well, actually, I am, and I actually know something about the subject I'm talking about from decades of study and reading, and here are my reasons . . .

"You cannot be serious!"

Maybe an "Orca." It doesn't matter what you say to an Orca or whether you are really a sea lion; if it decides it wants you to be a sea lion, it's going to treat you as one and try to eat you.

This thread has stirred up a lot of Orca activity.

Fortunately, it's an online forum and I can watch the froth on the water with bemusement but without actual worry.

This thread has become a caricature of what I initially was concerned about.

I'll know better next time. But then, there probably won't be a next time.

I'm sure the Orcas will be happy with that. Orcas don't like being disagreed with. The word "but" immediately provokes the Pavlovian Orca reaction: "Sea Lion!"

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I'm trying to come up with a good label for the flip side of the coin of the Sea Lion: the person in an online argument who, no matter how much you try to be reasonable with them, acknowledge the legitimacy of aspects of their point of view, and even offer facts and evidence to suggest not that they're not entirely wrong, but that there are different ways of seeing things, insists that not only are you wrong but that you can't possibly believe what you are saying in good faith.

It's the John McEnroe response: "You cannot be serious!"

Well, actually, I am, and I actually know something about the subject I'm talking about from decades of study and reading, and here are my reasons . . .

"You cannot be serious!"

Maybe an "Orca." It doesn't matter what you say to an Orca or whether you are really a sea lion; if it decides it wants you to be a sea lion, it's going to treat you as one and try to eat you.

This thread has stirred up a lot of Orca activity.

Fortunately, it's an online forum and I can watch the froth on the water with bemusement but without actual worry.

This thread has become a caricature of what I initially was concerned about.

I'll know better next time. But then, there probably won't be a next time.

I'm sure the Orcas will be happy with that. Orcas don't like being disagreed with. The word "but" immediately provokes the Pavlovian Orca reaction: "Sea Lion!"

I like to think the opposite of "sea lion" is "sheep dog".

Whenever someone tries to scamper away from taking a position, I get in their face and deliver a sharp "yap!" to keep them from bolting. Gradually I herd them into a smaller and smaller box. Then they call me an "abusive little bitch" ... aka a sheep dog.

 

[ll74]

This is what I mean. This is never, ever true. Everything is an issue. Everything is up for discussion and debate. Everything.

It's an issue for people who are fucking idiots.

I don't count them

 

[TastySuckToy]

This is what I mean. This is never, ever true. Everything is an issue. Everything is up for discussion and debate. Everything.

Very true. But the radicals (mostly lefties/democrats) around here cannot conceive of the notion that their perspectives and positions could every be open to debate.

 

[Chernosoth]

I like to think the opposite of "sea lion" is "sheep dog".

Whenever someone tries to scamper away from taking a position, I get in their face and deliver a sharp "yap!" to keep them from bolting. Gradually I herd them into a smaller and smaller box. Then they call me an "abusive little bitch" ... aka a sheep dog.

You could say you write in doggystyle.

 

[MiaBabe23]

I'm trying to come up with a good label for the flip side of the coin of the Sea Lion: the person in an online argument who, no matter how much you try to be reasonable with them, acknowledge the legitimacy of aspects of their point of view, and even offer facts and evidence to suggest not that they're not entirely wrong, but that there are different ways of seeing things, insists that not only are you wrong but that you can't possibly believe what you are saying in good faith.

It's the John McEnroe response: "You cannot be serious!"

Well, actually, I am, and I actually know something about the subject I'm talking about from decades of study and reading, and here are my reasons . . .

"You cannot be serious!"

Maybe an "Orca." It doesn't matter what you say to an Orca or whether you are really a sea lion; if it decides it wants you to be a sea lion, it's going to treat you as one and try to eat you.

This thread has stirred up a lot of Orca activity.

Fortunately, it's an online forum and I can watch the froth on the water with bemusement but without actual worry.

This thread has become a caricature of what I initially was concerned about.

I'll know better next time. But then, there probably won't be a next time.

I'm sure the Orcas will be happy with that. Orcas don't like being disagreed with. The word "but" immediately provokes the Pavlovian Orca reaction: "Sea Lion!"

No; sealion because when people disagree, you start implying they haven’t done any research and couldn’t possibly understand it as well as you, because otherwise, why would they disagree!

Still waiting for your thoughts on why you think the Roe v Wade decision was legally unsound - something more please than just mentioning the constitution

 

[SimonDoom]

Whenever someone tries to scamper away from taking a position,

You mean taking YOUR position, don't you?

I have a position on Roe v. Wade. It generally accords with my policy view that a woman should have an unrestricted right to abortion up to a certain point, but that the decision is a product of poorly reasoned Constitutional law. That's a clear, consistent position. It is not logically inconsistent. It's not scampering away from anything. You may not like it or agree with it, and that's fine, but it IS a position, and many legal scholars, including liberal legal scholars, like John Hart Ely in his 1973 essay, The Wages of Crying Wolf, agree with me. Those scholars are certainly more knowledgeable and thoughtful on this subject than anyone in this thread (including me).

I don't shy away from taking positions. I take them, and I explain why. But I've found that many people simply cannot accept the idea that others can hold views they disagree with in good faith, and this thread has proved that over and over.

There's a common refrain in this thread, and it goes something like this: "I agree in general with the idea we should be respectful toward others when talking about political issues, except about the issues I really, really care about."

Of course, if you don't believe in being respectful toward people who disagree with you on something important to you, then you don't really believe in being respectful, and you can't claim as much. It's like people who claim to believe in free speech but won't ever defend the rights of those they disagree with. Those people don't really believe in free speech.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You mean taking YOUR position, don't you?

I have a position on Roe v. Wade. It generally accords with my policy view that a woman should have an unrestricted right to abortion up to a certain point, but that the decision is a product of poorly reasoned Constitutional law. That's a clear, consistent position. It is not logically inconsistent. It's not scampering away from anything. You may not like it or agree with it, and that's fine, but it IS a position, and many legal scholars, including liberal legal scholars, like John Hart Ely in his 1973 essay, The Wages of Crying Wolf, agree with me. Those scholars are certainly more knowledgeable and thoughtful on this subject than anyone in this thread (including me).

I don't shy away from taking positions. I take them, and I explain why. But I've found that many people simply cannot accept the idea that others can hold views they disagree with in good faith, and this thread has proved that over and over.

There's a common refrain in this thread, and it goes something like this: "I agree in general with the idea we should be respectful toward others when talking about political issues, except about the issues I really, really care about."

Of course, if you don't believe in being respectful toward people who disagree with you on something important to you, then you don't really believe in being respectful, and you can't claim as much. It's like people who claim to believe in free speech but won't ever defend the rights of those they disagree with. Those people don't really believe in free speech.

Why have any legal restrictions on abortion at all?

 

[MiaBabe23]

You mean taking YOUR position, don't you?

I have a position on Roe v. Wade. It generally accords with my policy view that a woman should have an unrestricted right to abortion up to a certain point, but that the decision is a product of poorly reasoned Constitutional law. That's a clear, consistent position. It is not logically inconsistent. It's not scampering away from anything. You may not like it or agree with it, and that's fine, but it IS a position, and many legal scholars, including liberal legal scholars, like John Hart Ely in his 1973 essay, The Wages of Crying Wolf, agree with me. Those scholars are certainly more knowledgeable and thoughtful on this subject than anyone in this thread (including me).

I don't shy away from taking positions. I take them, and I explain why. But I've found that many people simply cannot accept the idea that others can hold views they disagree with in good faith, and this thread has proved that over and over.

There's a common refrain in this thread, and it goes something like this: "I agree in general with the idea we should be respectful toward others when talking about political issues, except about the issues I really, really care about."

Of course, if you don't believe in being respectful toward people who disagree with you on something important to you, then you don't really believe in being respectful, and you can't claim as much. It's like people who claim to believe in free speech but won't ever defend the rights of those they disagree with. Those people don't really believe in free speech.

Appeal to authority doesn’t prove your point
You say it was legally poorly reasoned
Why do you consider the 14th Amendment insufficiently applicable?
How do you consider constitutional rights to be held by the unborn when the constitution is clearly worded such that that doesn’t apply? And are you forgetting the fact that the decision gave states broad levels of control over length etc?

 

[SimonDoom]

Still waiting for your thoughts on why you think the Roe v Wade decision was legally unsound - something more please than just mentioning the constitution

OK, I'll bite.

What makes a Supreme Court decision on whether something is a right under the Constitution sound?

There are a variety of different interpretive principles we can use to answer the question. Every law student learns these principles in law school.

First, is the claimed right grounded in the text of the Constitution? Nearly every judge and legal scholar I can think of claims that the text is at least important, if not always determinative. You should be able to point to words in the Constitution and make a good-faith argument that the right is grounded in that text.

Second, you can look at statutory history. Why was the text enacted? What was said about it? What was the law meant to do? What was its purpose?

Third, you can look at how the language would have been understood at the time the language was enacted. This is originalism.

Fourth, you can look at the function of the language within the context of the document as a whole. Would interpreting the text in X way create problems for the purpose of the Constitution? Would you be opening the gate to arguments about rights that might seem outlandish (i.e., does a right over one's body mean one has a constitutional right to ingest cocaine?).

Fifth, you can look at precedent. What legal precedents support acknowledging the right in question? How strong are they and how long have they been recognized? Would the decision upset existing precedents (thereby violating the principle of stare decisis)?

Sixth, you can look at evolving societal standards. For example, a narrow historical reading of the 8th amendment might mean recognition of methods of torture or punishment that nearly all people today would disapprove of. Probably most judges take this into account even if they don't always admit they do.

You don't have to be a strict textualist, originalist, or formalist to take these interpretive principles seriously to at least some extent. Nearly every single judicial decision I've read (I've read thousands) uses some combination of these principles to determine whether a decision is right or wrong.

One thing most people acknowledge is not appropriate: a judge doesn't get to just say, "Damn the law, I think X is the right result and I'm going to rule that way regardless of what the law says." Most judges, lawyers, and scholars would say that's not "right," and feel some duty to make their decision fit with the law, even if some realists among them might concede that some decisions do, in fact, get decided that way. I personally think that's too cynical. I think most judges try to get an answer that they believe is "right" while also trying to base their reasoning on interpretive principles that give their decision legitimacy and weight. A judge is not supposed to be a super-legislator who overrules the law just because he or she personally disagrees with it, no matter how strongly they feel.

Roe is a weak opinion by virtually all of these principles. It's based on the Fifth Amendment, but there's nothing in the Fifth Amendment language of Due Process that refers specifically or even generally to a right of abortion, or even the broader right of privacy that its predecessor decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, enunciated. There's nothing in the statutory history of the Fifth Amendment that refers to abortion. Nobody in 1791 or 1865 would have understood the language to include this right. Finding a right of abortion in the Fifth Amendment opens up the interpretation of the language to other broad "privacy" rights, such as the right to take recreational drugs, based on a theory of privacy and right over one's body, which many would find objectionable. The legal precedent for the abortion right was weak. Griswold, which created a constitutional right to contraception, was probably the least textually tethered case in US Constitutional history; Justice Douglas openly said he wasn't trying to find it within any specific language, but only within the broad "penumbras" of constitutional language. And as far as societal standards, as of the time Roe became law there was no clear consensus on abortion; most states had laws that were more restrictive than what Roe required, so Roe in its day was not in any way a "democratic" opinion that represented a consensus of societal standards. It was ahead of its time from the standpoint of public opinion.

If you want a more thorough discussion of the topic than I can give in this thread then I recommend going on line and finding the Dobbs opinion and reading Alito's analysis of Roe, which I mostly agree with, and read John Hart Ely's essay The Wages of Crying Wolf, and if you want a more thorough discussion of the issue of Supreme Court legitimacy read Ely's book Democracy and Distrust. Of course, if you read the Dobbs dissent you'll get a lengthy rebuttal to Alito's analysis, so you should read that too. I read both and I found Alito's analysis much more persuasive, although I am pro-choice.


If people disagree with me about Roe, that's fine. I won't call them stupid and I won't accuse them of bad faith. But don't accuse me of bad faith, either, and don't try to assert the obviously false statement that reasonable people cannot have legitimate differences in point of view about abortion, Roe, and Dobbs. Obviously, they can.

 

[SimonDoom]

Appeal to authority doesn’t prove your point
You say it was legally poorly reasoned
Why do you consider the 14th Amendment insufficiently applicable?
How do you consider constitutional rights to be held by the unborn when the constitution is clearly worded such that that doesn’t apply? And are you forgetting the fact that the decision gave states broad levels of control over length etc?

I just replied. It took me a while.

Why do you consider the 14th Amendment insufficiently applicable?

See the reply I gave elsewhere. The 14th Amendment made the Due Process clause applicable to the states. But there's still no very sound textualist, originalist, historical, precedential, or other reason to find that the 14th Amendment includes a right to abortion.

How do you consider constitutional rights to be held by the unborn when the constitution is clearly worded such that that doesn’t apply? And are you forgetting the fact that the decision gave states broad levels of control over length etc?

I don't. That's not what Dobbs held, and it's not what I believe. Dobbs did not say that a fetus has a Constitutional right to life. It simply turned the issue over to the states to decide.

If you read Roe v. Wade, you'll see that the majority-- which voted in favor of the Roe right to abortion--conceded that the fetus has a sufficient life interest that states have a legitimate interest in protecting it. So this concept isn't new or conservative; it comes from the liberal 7-member majority in Roe, dating back to 1973. That's precedent, too.

 

[MiaBabe23]

OK, I'll bite.

What makes a Supreme Court decision on whether something is a right under the Constitution sound?

There are a variety of different interpretive principles we can use to answer the question. Every law student learns these principles in law school.

First, is the claimed right grounded in the text of the Constitution? Nearly every judge and legal scholar I can think of claims that the text is at least important, if not always determinative. You should be able to point to words in the Constitution and make a good-faith argument that the right is grounded in that text.

Second, you can look at statutory history. Why was the text enacted? What was said about it? What was the law meant to do? What was its purpose?

Third, you can look at how the language would have been understood at the time the language was enacted. This is originalism.

Fourth, you can look at the function of the language within the context of the document as a whole. Would interpreting the text in X way create problems for the purpose of the Constitution? Would you be opening the gate to arguments about rights that might seem outlandish (i.e., does a right over one's body mean one has a constitutional right to ingest cocaine?).

Fifth, you can look at precedent. What legal precedents support acknowledging the right in question? How strong are they and how long have they been recognized? Would the decision upset existing precedents (thereby violating the principle of stare decisis)?

Sixth, you can look at evolving societal standards. For example, a narrow historical reading of the 8th amendment might mean recognition of methods of torture or punishment that nearly all people today would disapprove of. Probably most judges take this into account even if they don't always admit they do.

You don't have to be a strict textualist, originalist, or formalist to take these interpretive principles seriously to at least some extent. Nearly every single judicial decision I've read (I've read thousands) uses some combination of these principles to determine whether a decision is right or wrong.

One thing most people acknowledge is not appropriate: a judge doesn't get to just say, "Damn the law, I think X is the right result and I'm going to rule that way regardless of what the law says." Most judges, lawyers, and scholars would say that's not "right," and feel some duty to make their decision fit with the law, even if some realists among them might concede that some decisions do, in fact, get decided that way. I personally think that's too cynical. I think most judges try to get an answer that they believe is "right" while also trying to base their reasoning on interpretive principles that give their decision legitimacy and weight. A judge is not supposed to be a super-legislator who overrules the law just because he or she personally disagrees with it, no matter how strongly they feel.

Roe is a weak opinion by virtually all of these principles. It's based on the Fifth Amendment, but there's nothing in the Fifth Amendment language of Due Process that refers specifically or even generally to a right of abortion, or even the broader right of privacy that its predecessor decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, enunciated. There's nothing in the statutory history of the Fifth Amendment that refers to abortion. Nobody in 1791 or 1865 would have understood the language to include this right. Finding a right of abortion in the Fifth Amendment opens up the interpretation of the language to other broad "privacy" rights, such as the right to take recreational drugs, based on a theory of privacy and right over one's body, which many would find objectionable. The legal precedent for the abortion right was weak. Griswold, which created a constitutional right to contraception, was probably the least textually tethered case in US Constitutional history; Justice Douglas openly said he wasn't trying to find it within any specific language, but only within the broad "penumbras" of constitutional language. And as far as societal standards, as of the time Roe became law there was no clear consensus on abortion; most states had laws that were more restrictive than what Roe required, so Roe in its day was not in any way a "democratic" opinion that represented a consensus of societal standards. It was ahead of its time from the standpoint of public opinion.

If you want a more thorough discussion of the topic than I can give in this thread then I recommend going on line and finding the Dobbs opinion and reading Alito's analysis of Roe, which I mostly agree with, and read John Hart Ely's essay The Wages of Crying Wolf, and if you want a more thorough discussion of the issue of Supreme Court legitimacy read Ely's book Democracy and Distrust. Of course, if you read the Dobbs dissent you'll get a lengthy rebuttal to Alito's analysis, so you should read that too. I read both and I found Alito's analysis much more persuasive, although I am pro-choice.


If people disagree with me about Roe, that's fine. I won't call them stupid and I won't accuse them of bad faith. But don't accuse me of bad faith, either, and don't try to assert the obviously false statement that reasonable people cannot have legitimate differences in point of view about abortion, Roe, and Dobbs. Obviously, they can.

So skipping your patronizing first half - stop assuming nobody has ever read anything, you’re embarrassing yourself - your issue essentially is with an activist scotus; and that you leap to all manner of conclusions that have nothing to do with forcing a woman to give birth
The problem you identify yourself, albeit without acknowledging it, is that society, science, progress, raise problems that the founding fathers couldn’t possibly have conceived of when framing the constitution; yet in providing the bulwark of scotus, they perhaps did
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t specifically mention education; yet you correctly understand it’s appropriate that the rights therein be applied in Brown
Roe recognized that the extent of risks to a woman being forced to give birth took priority over an unborn fetus which does not yet have any constitutional protections
And the suggestion that it was perhaps not a popular decision, and therefore undemocratic, is fallacious by your own standards - Brown was very controversial at the time, yet the Court saw past that, to focus on the inalienable rights of all

You have been calling us stupid, implying disagreement equals ignorance. Really quite unnecessary

 

[PaxNurgle]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

Surprisingly to some people, yes I am open to others expressing different points of view. But... only up to a point.

I have NO RESPECT for bigotry and hate speech; this is a so-called "Different point of view" that I do not, and never will, accept as valid in any way. Too many people confuse outright racism and hate speech as a "Conservative Viewpoint." It is not. It is a sociopathic viewpoint- and I do not accept it.

And I have the utmost respect for people who present their arguments in a logical way with real facts to back them up. But the unfortunate truth on this forum is, you have some people, unfortunately most of them self described "Conservatives" that are incapable of doing so. They will argue outright fallacy and debunked falsehoods as "Truth." They will present hypocritical and self-contradicting arguments but fail to realize it when called out on it. They will devolve to name-calling and knee-jerk labeling of everything as either "Woke" or "communist/socialist/marxist" anything they disagree with, despite not knowing the definition of these terms.

I also have no tolerance for sock-puppet posters. We all know who I'm talking about, and sadly there is more than one such individual on this forum.

Babyboomer50, Wat Tyler, and Lovecraft68 are three posters whose views I often find, well, problematic at best. Yet I have far more respect for these three than a lot of the outright trolls who pose as "Conservatives." Why? Because at least they are capable of intelligent, rational discussion without resorting to outright trolling and other idiocy. They seem like decent, if flawed, people. I don't agree with most of what they post; a lot of times I have a hard time with it in fact. But at least it is possible to have a somewhat adult and constructive conversation with them. With some of the others- no names mentioned (and names are irrelevant anyway because they typically have more than one) it is simply futile.

 

[SimonDoom]

You have been calling us stupid, implying disagreement equals ignorance. Really quite unnecessary

I never called you stupid. You're making stuff up.

Nor was what I wrote in any way "patronizing." This is a fascinating exercise to me in motivated thinking. You see what you want to see. Somebody disagrees with you, and you immediately engage in hyperbole and distortion of what they say. You're the one who refuses to engage in good faith, not me.

You asked me for a discussion of the weaknesses of Roe, and I gave it, in good faith, with references to other sources to look at the issue more fully. I took time to write that answer so you could not accuse me of criticizing Roe without explaining the criticism. I explained it. I did what you asked, and then you accuse me of being patronizing.

Nothing I wrote is particularly strange or surprising. It's been said by many others before me.

And there are plenty who disagree with me. Obviously, you do.

That's fine. But please don't distort what I write. Engage in good faith.

 

[MiaBabe23]

I never called you stupid. You're making stuff up.

Nor was what I wrote in any way "patronizing." This is a fascinating exercise to me in motivated thinking. You see what you want to see. Somebody disagrees with you, and you immediately engage in hyperbole and distortion of what they say. You're the one who refuses to engage in good faith, not me.

You asked me for a discussion of the weaknesses of Roe, and I gave it, in good faith, with references to other sources to look at the issue more fully. I took time to write that answer so you could not accuse me of criticizing Roe without explaining the criticism. I explained it. I did what you asked, and then you accuse me of being patronizing.

Nothing I wrote is particularly strange or surprising. It's been said by many others before me.

And there are plenty who disagree with me. Obviously, you do.

That's fine. But please don't distort what I write. Engage in good faith.

By being patronizing - displaying your superior and condescending attitude - such as thinking you need to give a sub-101 summary on the interpretation of the constitution to a PoliSci specialist is implying you regard me as stupid
Your view of someone isn’t only conveyed by specific words

Look, I kept at this precisely because I believed you were genuine in wanting open debate
You’d seemed a genuine person from all I’d seen
Yet it’s ended up you more than anyone on this thread are generalizing people according to their beliefs, and now you accuse me - with the points I’ve made, several of which supported your apparent aims in starting the thread, alongside my legitimate questions and reasoned positions, of not responding in good faith…
Simon, go read your original question, and think about all your sweeping comments and criticisms of people here - and how easily and quickly you moved to that point
You have your answer

 

[adrina]

I never called you stupid. You're making stuff up.

Nor was what I wrote in any way "patronizing." This is a fascinating exercise to me in motivated thinking. You see what you want to see. Somebody disagrees with you, and you immediately engage in hyperbole and distortion of what they say. You're the one who refuses to engage in good faith, not me.

You asked me for a discussion of the weaknesses of Roe, and I gave it, in good faith, with references to other sources to look at the issue more fully. I took time to write that answer so you could not accuse me of criticizing Roe without explaining the criticism. I explained it. I did what you asked, and then you accuse me of being patronizing.

Nothing I wrote is particularly strange or surprising. It's been said by many others before me.

And there are plenty who disagree with me. Obviously, you do.

That's fine. But please don't distort what I write. Engage in good faith.

You took what I wrote as an insult and walked away without answering.

Shrugs.

 

[SimonDoom]

"The Dobbs opinion may be opposed by the majorities of California and New York, but not by the majorities of many other states, so one can't say it's contrary to the majority of the population's opinion."

These are your words taken from your post. You made a statement without any evidence to be assumed as accurate - that the Dobbs opinion is not likely opposed by the majority of people in many other states.

I haven't done a survey of public opinion on abortion in every state. This is true. That seems like a bit much to ask in a forum like this one. Nobody is held to a standard like that.

From what I've seen, majorities of people generally oppose the Dobbs opinion, although substantial numbers support it. In Utah a majority of people, according to Pew, believe abortion should be illegal in most cases. So there are still states where majorities think this way.

Regardless, I don't think it matters. We don't govern by polls. We govern by democratic processes. The people can act through their democratic processes and legislatures to pass laws they like. The fact that these democratic processes break down is not a reason --in my opinion--for the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the issue without authority rooted in the text of the Constitution.

IF? IF? Do you really want to stand on that statement that you can't confirm and are in doubt that gerrymandering exists?

Just checking first.

Yes, Republicans are engaged in blatant efforts at gerrymandering in places like North Carolina. The Republican Party is not the friend of democracy right now.

That's still not really relevant to whether Dobbs is correct or not.

You mean just like Roe wasn't perfect but in your opinion should have been overturned because of those imperfections? Regardless of the fact that it being overturned put 50 state governments between citizens and their access to healthcare?

I don't understand this line of argument. The Court shouldn't overturn a decision because of "imperfections." It should ask, was the decision correct? And if not it should overturn it. Your argument about state governments and health care is a policy argument and I don't dispute it. As a legislator I would vote to protect a right to abortion. But as a judge those considerations wouldn't be relevant.

You mean just like Roe wasn't perfect but in your opinion should have been overturned because of those imperfections? Regardless of the fact that it being overturned put 50 state governments between citizens and their access to healthcare?

You have the rights that are enumerated under the constitution in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, things like a right to Due Process (5th Amendment), Free Speech and Freedom of Religion (1st amendment); the right against unreasonable and warrantless searches (4th Amendment), etc. But there's no language in the Constitution that grants to people a general right of control over their bodies, privacy, etc. If somebody wanted to propose such an amendment, I'd be all for it. But as of right now, it's not there.

If it were men that needed abortions, how much of a debate do you think this would be?

Not much of one. I have no doubt abortion would be legal everywhere.

Justice Ginsburg was a critic of the Roe opinion and thought it might have been stronger if they'd grounded abortion rights on a theory of equal protection rather than privacy. I think she was right. But that's not what the Court opted to do.