The Roe Countdown

[Meadmaker]

Emphasis of what?

The analysis is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Loving V Virginia gave interracial couples the right to marry in 1967.

Popular support for interracial marriage didn't cross the 50% point until ~1986.

Should interracial couples been forced to wait almost an entire generation to get married?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Emphasis of what?

It appears to me you have implied something incredibly stupid but don't seem to be aware of it. The statement you are disputing (embryos aren't uiquely dependent on their mother) and example you cited (in vitro and surrogates) only seem to make sense if you think that transplanting pregnancies is generally possible. I hope you don't think that and mean something else but I can't figure out what you might mean. What do you actually mean?

 

[tyr_13]

It appears to me you have implied something incredibly stupid but don't seem to be aware of it. The statement you are disputing (embryos aren't uiquely dependent on their mother) and example you cited (in vitro and surrogates) only seem to make sense if you think that transplanting pregnancies is generally possible. I hope you don't think that and mean something else but I can't figure out what you might mean. What do you actually mean?

The contention is that Meadmaker claims he has not argued that an embryo is a human so he doesn't have to struggle with if it is a person or not, and that nothing he has argued requires the assumption that an embryo or fetus is a human person.

Which, needless to say, is simply wrong. If an embryo or fetus isn't a human nor person, then Meadmaker has absolutely zero basis for arguing it has any right to life to exist inside a person. To have any right to exist inside of someone else, being a person with rights is at least necessary even if it is not sufficient.

Simply, if Meadmaker's claim that he has not argued anything regarding humanity nor personhood, his argument is at best irrelevant and also contradicted by that being needed for the rest of his arguments.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do agree. However, I there is a pretty good argument that overturning Roe was (or will be) made due to the popular opinion of minority who put the majority of current justices on the court.

May I assume that you would agree this is a bad thing, if true?

No, I do not agree. I don't much care about what motivated the electorate to elect whichever presidents who then nominated whichever justices. I care about the merits of the decision itself. For example:

Loving V Virginia gave interracial couples the right to marry in 1967.

Popular support for interracial marriage didn't cross the 50% point until ~1986.

Should interracial couples been forced to wait almost an entire generation to get married?

I think Loving v Virginia was correctly decided. If a motivated minority had pushed for justices who then made this ruling contrary to popular opinion, that wouldn't change my mind that it was correctly decided, nor do I think them having done so would be a bad thing.

Likewise, we could look at another case like Kelo v New London. I don't think the topic was really on anyone's radar prior to that case. Nobody pushed to get particular justices on the court in anticipation of how they would vote on this issue. So in regards to your concern about electoral influence, I think the court's opinion on the topic was essentially unaffected by electoral politics. Nevertheless, I consider their decision in that case to be a bad thing, because I think it was wrongly decided on the merits. On the other hand, if a minority HAD pushed for that decision beforehand, I wouldn't consider the outcome to be any worse as a result. The Supreme Court as an institution should have some accountability to the voters, even if individual justices do not, so I'm OK with this kind of influence on the courts.

 

[Upchurch]

It appears to me you have implied something incredibly stupid but don't seem to be aware of it. The statement you are disputing (embryos aren't uiquely dependent on their mother) and example you cited (in vitro and surrogates) only seem to make sense if you think that transplanting pregnancies is generally possible. I hope you don't think that and mean something else but I can't figure out what you might mean. What do you actually mean?

No, I don't mean that transplanting pregnancies is generally possible. (Although, it doesn't seem like there is any reason they shouldn't be, only being limited by current technology.)

 

[Upchurch]

No, I do not agree. I don't much care about what motivated the electorate to elect whichever presidents who then nominated whichever justices. I care about the merits of the decision itself.

You either didn't read my post very carefully or you are contradicting yourself.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think Loving v Virginia was correctly decided.

I didn't ask what you thought of it. I don't care.

I asked if people should have to wait until bigots get around to being the minority before they have rights.

 

[Upchurch]

The contention is that Meadmaker claims he has not argued that an embryo is a human so he doesn't have to struggle with if it is a person or not, and that nothing he has argued requires the assumption that an embryo or fetus is a human person.

Which, needless to say, is simply wrong. If an embryo or fetus isn't a human nor person, then Meadmaker has absolutely zero basis for arguing it has any right to life to exist inside a person. To have any right to exist inside of someone else, being a person with rights is at least necessary even if it is not sufficient.

Simply, if Meadmaker's claim that he has not argued anything regarding humanity nor personhood, his argument is at best irrelevant and also contradicted by that being needed for the rest of his arguments.

^This, which is why Meadmaker is making hay with ambiguously worded part of my argument, rather than addressing the crux of it:

But, "organisms" are not equal nor inherently protected by law or Constitution. We don't even recognize most organisms' right to life. With a few exceptions, we reserve that for human people.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, I don't mean that transplanting pregnancies is generally possible. (Although, it doesn't seem like there is any reason they shouldn't be, only being limited by current technology.)

Then what did you mean? And BTW you also disputed the claim that embryos depend on the pregnant woman which implies you think an embryo can survive outside the womb somehow. I still don't see what you meant.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't ask what you thought of it. I don't care.

I asked if people should have to wait until bigots get around to being the minority before they have rights.

I thought I made myself fairly clear: the whole purpose of the supreme court is that it should not rule on the basis of popular opinion. And since I think that case was decided correctly, you should have been able to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that no, I don't think anyone should have to wait for popular opinion to exercise their rights.

But that goes both ways. Skeptic Ginger tried to use the unpopularity of this pending decision as an argument against it, and I'm saying that's invalid for exactly the same reason. That doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against this pending ruling, but SG's argument ad populum isn't one of them.

 

[Ziggurat]

You either didn't read my post very carefully or you are contradicting yourself.

I didn't contradict myself, so if I misunderstood you, perhaps you simply need to explain yourself better.

 

[Upchurch]

And BTW you also disputed the claim that embryos depend on the pregnant woman which implies you think an embryo can survive outside the womb somehow.

They can.

 

[Meadmaker]

The contention is that Meadmaker claims he has not argued that an embryo is a human so he doesn't have to struggle with if it is a person or not, and that nothing he has argued requires the assumption that an embryo or fetus is a human person.

Which, needless to say, is simply wrong. If an embryo or fetus isn't a human nor person, then Meadmaker has absolutely zero basis for arguing it has any right to life to exist inside a person. To have any right to exist inside of someone else, being a person with rights is at least necessary even if it is not sufficient.

Simply, if Meadmaker's claim that he has not argued anything regarding humanity nor personhood, his argument is at best irrelevant and also contradicted by that being needed for the rest of his arguments.

But I'm in a hurry. I'll have to get back to this later.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They can.

Your dodging is making me think you meant the stupid things you said.

That article is about IVF and I specifically questioned your argument because it only seems to make sense in a non-IVF situation.

 

[Upchurch]

I didn't contradict myself, so if I misunderstood you, perhaps you simply need to explain yourself better.

However, I there is a pretty good argument that overturning Roe was (or will be) made due to the popular opinion of minority who put the majority of current justices on the court.

May I assume that you would agree this is a bad thing, if true?

No, I do not agree.

I asked if you agreed that it was a bad thing if the court made the decision to overturn Roe based on the popular opinion of the minority who got justices on the court. You are saying you do not agree with that statement. Cancelling out all the double negatives, you are saying you think it is a good thing for the justices to overturn Roe based on the popular opinion of the minority who got those justices on the court.

But then:

I don't much care about what motivated the electorate to elect whichever presidents who then nominated whichever justices. I care about the merits of the decision itself.

You say you don't care about the popular opinion of minority who got those justices on the court, but that you care about the merits of the decision. This is a contradiction to your previous statement where it was good for justices to rule based on a group's popular opinion, which would not be based on the merits of the case.

 

[Upchurch]

Your dodging is making me think you meant the stupid things you said.

That article is about IVF and I specifically questioned your argument because it only seems to make sense in a non-IVF situation.

What are you talking about? You literally asked whether embryos could exist outside of the womb. They can and do.

All of which is irrelevant to the question of personhood, rights, and how these decisions are made.

 

[bruto]

Well, yes.

I don't think anyone could convince a court that mandatory kidney transplant would pass constitutional muster, but in overturning it, the court would have to find some reason rooted in the Constitution. I don't think it would be hard.

I doubt they would find it too hard if motivated, but if they stick to the overturn of the privacy principle, which is rooted in the security of one's person against search and seizure, it will prove more difficult.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What are you talking about? You literally asked whether embryos could exist outside of the womb. They can and do.

And I supplied the context of the question which was an organism inside a pregnant woman.

Can embryos be transplanted as you implied or not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"All questions are asked within SANE NORMAL PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING."

There that should help.