Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 39 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15229161
wat0n wrote:It makes sense if you want to assess whether women had the right to seek an abortion (not necessarily funded by the government, of course) and to understand the evolution of the law.


No, it does not make sense to assess access to abortion, since (as I already explained) abortion meant something different to people back then.

I guess because Hale wrote about the history of common law, so he's a valid source on the matter.


So did many other people.

This inability to provide a good reason why Hale was specifically chosen supports my point that Alito chose him simply because Hale has the same misogynist notions.

It's even worse than that. Alito claims abortion was not legal before quickening but that's clearly not what Blackstone says, plainly, in his book.

He uses some examples of cases where a type of felony-murder crime would justify charging a doctor who performed an abortion of a "child" who killed the woman for murder, but that's only because neither Hale nor Blackstone mention anything about quickening. Yet, both also said life begins only when the fetus is quick, so one could then wonder if their understanding of "child" includes non-quick fetuses or not. I think the most reasonable way to interpret their position is that it did not.

Then, regarding Roe v Wade's analysis of laws banning abortion passed by the states during the 19th century, Alito states:

But Roe v Wade did not actually imply that. From a fragment I quoted earlier:

Clearly, Roe v Wade did not claim or even hint abortion was banned by the states because of Victorian customs. In fact, what it does imply is that states banned abortion to protect the mother's life.


….and yet here you are defending Alito.


No, that's not my position at all. I never said that suddenly men should suddenly have more bodily autonomy if doing so would kill or seriously harm others. If you disagree go ahead and quote me on it.

I hope you will not now say "only women can get pregnant".


Then you should clarify your position.

At this point, it seems like you are defending Alito and his arguments against RvW.

You also argued that the bodily autonomy of pregnant people and others is limited and you did so in a context that targets mainly women.

You also seem to be defending Hale, the man who lied and said marital rape was legal, and do not seem to be interested in checking to see if Hale is even telling the truth.

They have nothing to do with abortion or Hale's accuracy in describing 17th century English common law.


….except the fact that his misogyny caused him to lie about the marital rape law, and could have caused him to also lie about abortion.

He also thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the state to use violence against women as long as it has traditional support from the Bible and English law.

The fact that you keep sidestepping this makes it seem like you agree that bodily autonomy is only for cis men.

Point 2) does, but you haven't backed it up.

You are the one who's claiming Hale was a misogynist, as if it had anything to do with abortion.


Banning abortion is rooted in misogyny.
#15229165
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it does not make sense to assess access to abortion, since (as I already explained) abortion meant something different to people back then.


It did indeed, but it's still useful. After all, the fact that they made that distinction means the English common law had a different view about the personhood of fetuses than that of those who want to ban on-demand abortion completely.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So did many other people.

This inability to provide a good reason why Hale was specifically chosen supports my point that Alito chose him simply because Hale has the same misogynist notions.


That sounds like a big leap to make. Also, would you provide an example of jurists of Hale's time who weren't misogynists in your view?

Pants-of-dog wrote:….and yet here you are defending Alito.


...Because a poor justification doesn't make you a misogynist.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you should clarify your position.

At this point, it seems like you are defending Alito and his arguments against RvW.

You also argued that the bodily autonomy of pregnant people and others is limited and you did so in a context that targets mainly women.

You also seem to be defending Hale, the man who lied and said marital rape was legal, and do not seem to be interested in checking to see if Hale is even telling the truth.


I think my position has been quite clear: We need to assess whether the fetus is a person or not to make the call.

And would you finally provide backing up of your assertions about Hale?

Pants-of-dog wrote:….except the fact that his misogyny caused him to lie about the marital rape law, and could have caused him to also lie about abortion.

He also thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the state to use violence against women as long as it has traditional support from the Bible and English law.

The fact that you keep sidestepping this makes it seem like you agree that bodily autonomy is only for cis men.


Will you finally prove Hale lied about marital rape?

It's not just Hale who claims marital violence was legal under 17th century English common law. Blackstone, who was also cited by Canada's Supreme Court in its decision to legalize abortion, also did. I even provided you with the citation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Banning abortion is rooted in misogyny.


How so?
#15229193
wat0n wrote:It did indeed, but it's still useful. After all, the fact that they made that distinction means the English common law had a different view about the personhood of fetuses than that of those who want to ban on-demand abortion completely.


Yes, and both ideas are equally irrelevant and unscientific.

And yet Alito is treating this as a real argument.

That sounds like a big leap to make. Also, would you provide an example of jurists of Hale's time who weren't misogynists in your view?


It is not a difficult leap to say that a lack of any good reason means only bad reasons exist.

...Because a poor justification doesn't make you a misogynist.


So you are defending someone who makes poor justifications, poor arguments, whose opinions have a measurable negative impact on pregnant people, acts like a misogynist, and uses position to take away rights from pregnant people, but you quibble about whether or not we can prove he is really misogynist since we are not mind readers.

I think my position has been quite clear: We need to assess whether the fetus is a person or not to make the call.


Are you joking?

And would you finally provide backing up of your assertions about Hale?

Will you finally prove Hale lied about marital rape?

It's not just Hale who claims marital violence was legal under 17th century English common law. Blackstone, who was also cited by Canada's Supreme Court in its decision to legalize abortion, also did. I even provided you with the citation.


If you want to minimise rape by arguing that it is merely a normal level of abuse, there is a thread for that.

How so?


Because it is not about saving babies, but about controlling the bodies of pregnant people.
#15229194
Well. I see that this thread has stopped being about the court decision and has descended into frankly laughable nonsense. As we no longer have moderators to keep us on track, I see little point in continuing. I will drop by occasionally and see if the thread has gotten back on topic. You know. About the laws in various states which have absolutely nothing to do with what you two are going on about.

@Pants-of-dog Prove it. Post a link to where you quoted Alito


Why should I bother to do what you refuse to do. You don't support your arguments. Go back and read if you are not too lazy.
#15229196
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and both ideas are equally irrelevant and unscientific.

And yet Alito is treating this as a real argument.


It's not irrelevant. Since there have been differing views on the topic as far as the law is concerned, and one of them if anything would effectively allow on-demand abortion until the 16th week, it's hard for Alito to claim there would be no deeply rooted tradition allowing on-demand abortion at least in some form.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not a difficult leap to say that a lack of any good reason means only bad reasons exist.


It is to cry misogyny just because Alito doesn't have a good reason.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are defending someone who makes poor justifications, poor arguments, whose opinions have a measurable negative impact on pregnant people, acts like a misogynist, and uses position to take away rights from pregnant people, but you quibble about whether or not we can prove he is really misogynist since we are not mind readers.


Still haven't shown how does Alito's poor arguments show he's motivated by misogynistic attitudes and not something else.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you joking?


No. Alito himself may just believe fetuses are persons and thus are entitled to be protected by the law.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to minimise rape by arguing that it is merely a normal level of abuse, there is a thread for that.


So claiming a husband has a right to "beat his wife vigorously with whips and sticks" (flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem, mentioned by Blackstone's Commentary, the same book cited by the Canadian Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion in Canada) for some misdemeanors is acceptable for a 17th century jurist but claiming he has a right to rape her is not. Is that it?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it is not about saving babies, but about controlling the bodies of pregnant people.


How do you know? And what does it have to do with misogyny?
#15229197
wat0n wrote:It's not irrelevant. Since there have been differing views on the topic as far as the law is concerned, and one of them if anything would effectively allow on-demand abortion until the 16th week, it's hard for Alito to claim there would be no deeply rooted tradition allowing on-demand abortion at least in some form.


Alito specifically claims that “there [is] no deeply rooted tradition allowing on-demand abortion at least in some form”.

Since you now agree that he cannot claim this without making a bait and switch, we can move on.

It is to cry misogyny just because Alito doesn't have a good reason.


….and because he quoted witch burners…
…one of whom made up a right of husbands to rape their wives…
…in a precedent setting case where the SCOTUS takes away rights for the first time….
…that has a huge negative impact on pregnant people.

If it quacks like a duck….

Still haven't shown how does Alito's poor arguments show he's motivated by misogynistic attitudes and not something else.


You have had ample opportunity to provide other reasons and have been unable to do so.

Feel free to show how Alito could have any other possible motive.

No. Alito himself may just believe fetuses are persons and thus are entitled to be protected by the law.


Maybe. Maybe not.

Does he claim they are?

So claiming a husband has a right to "beat his wife vigorously with whips and sticks" (flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem, mentioned by Blackstone's Commentary, the same book cited by the Canadian Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion in Canada) for some misdemeanors is acceptable for a 17th century jurist but claiming he has a right to rape her is not. Is that it?


No one said anything about “acceptable”.

If you want to discuss how Hale’s marital rape law is acceptable, there is a thread for that.

How do you know? And what does it have to do with misogyny?


Because it has all the exact same impacts that one would expect from a misogynist agenda.
#15229198
ingliz wrote:In 1944, Victoria Helen McCrae Duncan, a Scottish medium, was imprisoned for not being a witch. After a trial by jury, she was convicted and sentenced to 9 months under section 4 of the Witchcraft Act 1735, which made falsely claiming to procure spirits a crime.


:lol:


OK. You got me on that one.

Funny though. Using Alito's reasoning we could start hanging witches again. States could anyway. I mean it is not specifically treated in the constitution and it is traditional. What fun. "This weeks slow choking marathon brought to you by Space-x. Space-X. A better life for the one percent."
#15229200
Pants-of-dog wrote:Alito specifically claims that “there [is] no deeply rooted tradition allowing on-demand abortion at least in some form”.

Since you now agree that he cannot claim this without making a bait and switch, we can move on.


But do you agree that it's necessary to look at the work of colonial era jurists to see if Alito is correct?

If so, yes, let's move on already.

Pants-of-dog wrote:….and because he quoted witch burners…
…one of whom made up a right of husbands to rape their wives…
…in a precedent setting case where the SCOTUS takes away rights for the first time….
…that has a huge negative impact on pregnant people.

If it quacks like a duck….


And yet the Canadian Supreme Court quoted a guy who explicitly wrote in his manual about English common law that husbands could beat their wives with "sticks and whips" for some misdemeanors.

You are making a big leap here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You have had ample opportunity to provide other reasons and have been unable to do so.

Feel free to show how Alito could have any other possible motive.


I already gave you one. There's also his stated motive that he believes this is something states should vote on.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe. Maybe not.

Does he claim they are?


No, not in the ruling. Yet he doesn't claim women should be discriminated against either.

What is explicitly stated there is that he believes the SCOTUS shouldn't take a position on this matter. He doesn't even say abortion should be illegal federally or anything like that.

Is that the correct position? Maybe, maybe not, but I think part of the reasoning is flawed and does not really address some valid substantive issues raised in Roe v Wade.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No one said anything about “acceptable”.

If you want to discuss how Hale’s marital rape law is acceptable, there is a thread for that.


You can check my posts there to see my position on the matter. But why is citing Blackstone okay and citing Hale isn't?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it has all the exact same impacts that one would expect from a misogynist agenda.


Vague. Some radical feminists advocate for policies that have the same impact as an ultramontane agenda, such as the banning of female prostitution (note this position also implies limitations on female bodily autonomy). I would not say radical feminists are ultramontane.
#15229201
Drlee wrote:OK. You got me on that one.

Funny though. Using Alito's reasoning we could start hanging witches again. States could anyway. I mean it is not specifically treated in the constitution and it is traditional. What fun. "This weeks slow choking marathon brought to you by Space-x. Space-X. A better life for the one percent."


In all fairness, he's explicit in the draft that his opinion would only apply for abortion because there's a fetus involved.
#15229202
Witch fetus. What's the difference?

Other than the hat.
#15229243
wat0n wrote:But do you agree that it's necessary to look at the work of colonial era jurists to see if Alito is correct?

If so, yes, let's move on already.


No, there is no point in looking back to a time when biology was not understood and abortion was a completely different thing at the time.

And we also avoid Alito’s bait and switch,

And yet the Canadian Supreme Court quoted a guy who explicitly wrote in his manual about English common law that husbands could beat their wives with "sticks and whips" for some misdemeanors.

You are making a big leap here.


Not really.

I explained why he is perceived as a misogynist. If your only criticism is a whataboutism, then you have no real objection.

I already gave you one. There's also his stated motive that he believes this is something states should vote on.


“States rights” has long been a dog whistle for those who hate minorities and other groups.

So this actually supports my point as well.

No, not in the ruling. Yet he doesn't claim women should be discriminated against either.

What is explicitly stated there is that he believes the SCOTUS shouldn't take a position on this matter. He doesn't even say abortion should be illegal federally or anything like that.

Is that the correct position? Maybe, maybe not, but I think part of the reasoning is flawed and does not really address some valid substantive issues raised in Roe v Wade.


Since he did not mention the personhood of fetuses, it is illogical to assume that is his motive. Therefore, misogyny still seems like the main driving force.

You can check my posts there to see my position on the matter. But why is citing Blackstone okay and citing Hale isn't?


Again, you are the one who wants to make Hale seem “okay”. No one else is discussing it.

Again, please use the appropriate thread for defending Hale’s made up marital rape law.

Vague. Some radical feminists advocate for policies that have the same impact as an ultramontane agenda, such as the banning of female prostitution (note this position also implies limitations on female bodily autonomy). I would not say radical feminists are ultramontane.


It is not vague to me or the people who analyzed the impact that abortion has had on women.

The fact that Alito seems to have lied about this too does not make it vague.
#15229260
@Pants-of-dog
“States rights” has long been a dog whistle for those who hate minorities and other groups.


Just to be clear, you oppose state's rights? So you think it is a bad thing that absent Washington leadership, California allowed same sex marriage, Arizona and Mass provide universal health care, Oregon codifies a woman's right to an abortion and Alaska returns oil revenue to the citizens. Those are all bad because of "states rights" being a dog whistle? As you oppose states rights you would lower California's minimum wage from $15.50 per hour to the Federal $7.25? You would condemn uber liberal Vermont for its permissive gun laws, because states rights allowed the people to choose that one red issue?

States rights puts power closer to the people. It truly supports consent of the governed. It is the very linchpin of our democracy. Unlike the UK where virtually all law is national and Canada which is all about centralizing power, we in the USA believe that day-to-day decisions about how we wish to live should be made by the people affected. Not a nearly fascist level of centralization. We are happy that the power of our states allows for diversity of opinion and governance. And most importantly, that the relative autonomy of our states constrains the central government from overreach and the dilution of individual franchise. We believe that local schools should be governed locally and not by a lawyer in Washington.

You can say that states rights are an effect of slavery and I will partially agree with you. Nevertheless, states rights offer advantages and benefits independent of that. Your emotional approach to governance forces you to look back hundreds of years for your bugaboo. Try to get the emotion out of your political opinions and allow a little objectivity. You never have POD but just try.
#15229270
@Drlee

That is not only a strawman, but also a logical contradiction.

Also, you would be more correct to say that the citizens of said states have rights that citizens of other states do not, rather than arguing that a state has rights.
#15229273
You define everyone who disagrees with you as presenting strawman arguments when your posts abound in them. You do not argue in good faith. I think we can all recognize that and dismiss your arguments as simply emotional diatribes.
#15229277
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, there is no point in looking back to a time when biology was not understood and abortion was a completely different thing at the time.

And we also avoid Alito’s bait and switch


Except for the fact that we do if we want to know if abortion was a "deeply rooted tradition" at some point. There's precedent this matters, which I would if anything appreciate as a legal argument to allow 93%+ of abortions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really.

I explained why he is perceived as a misogynist. If your only criticism is a whataboutism, then you have no real objection.


No. If the Canadian Supreme Court is not misogynistic for quoting a jurist who believe husbands had a right to beat their wives, then it's hard to see why Alito is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:“States rights” has long been a dog whistle for those who hate minorities and other groups.

So this actually supports my point as well.


@Drlee is right in his response to you.

It seems your only argument is to engage in a fallacy of association.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since he did not mention the personhood of fetuses, it is illogical to assume that is his motive. Therefore, misogyny still seems like the main driving force.


Firstly, he did mention it. He said he would not take a position in his ruling, which is actually different from Roe v Wade in that regard and may or may not overturn its holding that fetuses are not persons under the US Constitution.

Secondly, you are the one who's said we should not rely on what people mention since they can often have ulterior motives.

Lastly, claiming this shows Alito is moved by misogyny is a non-sequitur.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you are the one who wants to make Hale seem “okay”. No one else is discussing it.

Again, please use the appropriate thread for defending Hale’s made up marital rape law.


You are the one complaining about the quoting of Hale. You still have not backed your claims about him up.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not vague to me or the people who analyzed the impact that abortion has had on women.


Are you implying only women can have abortions?

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that Alito seems to have lied about this too does not make it vague.


You have yet to prove he lied about it, just as you have yet to prove Hale lied in his work about 17th century English common law.

Thus far you have only been engaging in some association fallacy here.
#15229280
wat0n wrote:Except for the fact that we do if we want to know if abortion was a "deeply rooted tradition" at some point. There's precedent this matters, which I would if anything appreciate as a legal argument to allow 93%+ of abortions.


And this is once again all about the bait and switch.

Remember, sperm was not discovered by Europeans until 1683 or so.

So all the laws governing abortion before that point were not based on the idea of a fetus that is conceived and then eventually reaches maturity.

Instead, we had the idea of quickening.

All their abortion laws dealt with abortion after quickening.

So when Alito is showing this as a pattern of criminalising abortion, he is incorrectly using laws governing late term abortion and applying these laws to abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

This creates an imaginary tradition of abortion being illegal, but also negates a real tradition of legal abortion before quickening.

As Alito’s opinion notes, there was no law limiting abortion before quickening.

No. If the Canadian Supreme Court is not misogynistic for quoting a jurist who believe husbands had a right to beat their wives, then it's hard to see why Alito is.

@Drlee is right in his response to you.

It seems your only argument is to engage in a fallacy of association.


I made a list as to why I think Alito is misogynist. You may address it at your lesiure.

Firstly, he did mention it. He said he would not take a position in his ruling, which is actually different from Roe v Wade in that regard and may or may not overturn its holding that fetuses are not persons under the US Constitution.


Then why did you claim he did not?

Please clarify whether or not you are arguing that Alito’s motive was fetal personhood.

Secondly, you are the one who's said we should not rely on what people mention since they can often have ulterior motives.


I doubt Alito openly claimed to be misogynist.

Lastly, claiming this shows Alito is moved by misogyny is a non-sequitur.


Then it is a good thing that my claim that Alito is a misogynist depends on other things and this was merely a refutation of a possible other motive.
#15229286
Pants-of-dog wrote:And this is once again all about the bait and switch.

Remember, sperm was not discovered by Europeans until 1683 or so.

So all the laws governing abortion before that point were not based on the idea of a fetus that is conceived and then eventually reaches maturity.

Instead, we had the idea of quickening.

All their abortion laws dealt with abortion after quickening.

So when Alito is showing this as a pattern of criminalising abortion, he is incorrectly using laws governing late term abortion and applying these laws to abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

This creates an imaginary tradition of abortion being illegal, but also negates a real tradition of legal abortion before quickening.

As Alito’s opinion notes, there was no law limiting abortion before quickening.


And because of all of this, it's a relevant idea to take into account for the purposes of a court ruling, so relevant the Canadian Supreme Court decided to mention it in R v Morgentaler.

And yes I agree with your substantive points about the quickening standard here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I made a list as to why I think Alito is misogynist. You may address it at your lesiure.


It's based on association fallacies or just assuming he is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then why did you claim he did not?

Please clarify whether or not you are arguing that Alito’s motive was fetal personhood.


Because he's vague about what the constitutional status of the fetus' personhood, despite the fact that Roe v Wade is clear about this topic.

It seems he believes they should be, but won't make the leap because of the legal consequences that type of ruling would have.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt Alito openly claimed to be misogynist.


Why could that be his only ulterior motive?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is a good thing that my claim that Alito is a misogynist depends on other things and this was merely a refutation of a possible other motive.


Yes, the other things are association fallacies. And just as importantly, there are much better arguments to discuss Alito's position.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think Hale was actually discussing a real legal tradition when he defended marital rape.

Why?


Why not? Was marital rape illegal in medieval England? How about 16th century England?

You are the one claiming Hale's wrong, so maybe you could clarify that. I'd be surprised if a tradition that allows a husband "beat wife with whips and sticks" for certain misdemeanors would have strong laws banning marital rape.

Also, will you explain why is abortion a women's issue? Men can also get pregnant, in 2022 at least.
#15229288
wat0n wrote:Right, and if the fetus is a person this analysis has to consider both the mother and the fetus while if the fetus isn't a person, it doesn't.

I consider the fetus in the analysis regardless of whether it is a person or not. Again, personhood it is irrelevant. I even told you that as far as I am concerned, you can have a fully grown adult inside the uterus whose personhood is not even into question and told you that this person should not have the right to supersede the bodily autonomy of another person aka, mother. You are drowning on a glass of water.

The comparison between an "old" fetus (in terms of gestational age) and a newborn is then relevant to see why would or wouldn't the fetus be a person.

Irrelevant.
The considerations for late-term pregnancy abortion include: It is riskier to abort a late pregnancy, mothers typically have known for a while they are pregnant and decided to go through the delivery, new serious complications to mother/fetus have been detected, etc.

That's my point. In this case, you'd just tell her an induced birth would be better and (why not) more ethical. Am I correct here?

What?

Hold on. Would you say an animal can be said to be conscious?

Of course.
We are animals btw.

That instinctive part you mention, could be considered to be evidence of conscience.

No. There are disctint. A cell might move towards a chemical, a worm away from the light and a fly will fly away when swatted. These are not concious actions, these are simple "biological programs". Consciousness involve far more complex interactions and processing of information.

Drlee wrote:@XogGyux What would be the effect on these laws if your side carried the day and we all agreed that a fetus was not a person until it cried?

My answer is "none".

Indeed. I have been saying that from day 1, In fact, I think every time this topic comes up I say the exact same thing, for years.
Personhood is irrelevant in this analysis. Using a woman against her will as an incubator does not depend on whether you are incubating a chicken egg or a 30 year old guy.
#15229290
XogGyux wrote:I consider the fetus in the analysis regardless of whether it is a person or not. Again, personhood it is irrelevant. I even told you that as far as I am concerned, you can have a fully grown adult inside the uterus whose personhood is not even into question and told you that this person should not have the right to supersede the bodily autonomy of another person aka, mother. You are drowning on a glass of water.


Yes, and I said this need not be the case. I even gave you an example of a terrorist where we'd completely ignore his bodily autonomy, showing it's not an absolute.

The dependence argument seems arbitrary to me.

XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant.
The considerations for late-term pregnancy abortion include: It is riskier to abort a late pregnancy, mothers typically have known for a while they are pregnant and decided to go through the delivery, new serious complications to mother/fetus have been detected, etc.


None of this would override the mother's bodily autonomy, would it?

XogGyux wrote:What?


I think I was clear. If an early induced delivery is safer than an abortion and doesn't lead to the unnecessary killing of a fetus, why wouldn't this be a better way to terminate a late pregnancy than an abortion?

XogGyux wrote:Of course.
We are animals btw.


Clearly by "animals" I mean non-human animals.

XogGyux wrote:No. There are disctint. A cell might move towards a chemical, a worm away from the light and a fly will fly away when swatted. These are not concious actions, these are simple "biological programs". Consciousness involve far more complex interactions and processing of information.


How would a cat be conscious and a newborn human wouldn't? Or you'd say the cat isn't conscious?
#15229295
wat0n wrote:And because of all of this, it's a relevant idea to take into account for the purposes of a court ruling, so relevant the Canadian Supreme Court decided to mention it in R v Morgentaler.

And yes I agree with your substantive points about the quickening standard here.


All the relevant parts and facts are also the bits that show Alito is wrong.

It's based on association fallacies or just assuming he is.

Yes, the other things are association fallacies. And just as importantly, there are much better arguments to discuss Alito's position.

Because he's vague about what the constitutional status of the fetus' personhood, despite the fact that Roe v Wade is clear about this topic.

It seems he believes they should be, but won't make the leap because of the legal consequences that type of ruling would have.


This seems like unverifiable speculation.

Why could that be his only ulterior motive?


It is possible, but since none other has been presented that has any support, I will continue to believe in that which is supported empirically.

Also, will you explain why is abortion a women's issue? Men can also get pregnant, in 2022 at least.


Strawman.
  • 1
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 62
Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

agree, and I've noted previously in this thread t[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

From a US-centric think tank. Its good info, but b[…]

Politics is a circus. :) I mean, just look at th[…]

Another good argument I just saw on line is =>[…]