What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade | The Washington Post

Scott

Scott

Well-known member
Contributor
I hope it's ok to do start a thread based on a conversation that started in another thread, but I think it makes sense, seeing as how the original thread really had nothing to do with the subject. So, with that said, on to the conversation...

zymurgy said:
Yes, it is very complicated and nuanced. Which is another reason getting rid of a single universal rule that applies to all people in such a huge country made sense.
Click to expand...

I agree that the issue is complicated, but I think the universal rule was a good one, if focusing on the wrong issues. I think the following article from the Washington Post on former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brings up a lot of good points:
What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade | Washington Post

It may appear to be behind a pay wall, but I've found that if I go in incognito mode, it lets me see the article after removing some pop up ads.

Quoting some interesting excerpts from said article:
**
There’s no question Ginsburg disagreed with how Roe was decided. But it’s hardly that simple.

Indeed Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe.

[snip]

Indeed, Ginsburg regularly said that Roe might have harmed the evolution of abortion rights by going too far, too fast. She argued support for abortion rights was already increasing, but that the court with its one fell swoop altered that trajectory and created a more polarized environment.
**
 
Phoenyx said:
I hope it's ok to do start a thread based on a conversation that started in another thread, but I think it makes sense, seeing as how the original thread really had nothing to do with the subject. So, with that said, on to the conversation...



I agree that the issue is complicated, but I think the universal rule was a good one, if focusing on the wrong issues. I think the following article from the Washington Post on former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brings up a lot of good points:
What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade | Washington Post

It may appear to be behind a pay wall, but I've found that if I go in incognito mode, it lets me see the article after removing some pop up ads.

Quoting some interesting excerpts from said article:
**
There’s no question Ginsburg disagreed with how Roe was decided. But it’s hardly that simple.

Indeed Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe.

[snip]

Indeed, Ginsburg regularly said that Roe might have harmed the evolution of abortion rights by going too far, too fast. She argued support for abortion rights was already increasing, but that the court with its one fell swoop altered that trajectory and created a more polarized environment.
**
Click to expand...

Roe was a bad decision based on specious arguments at best
 
I have very little respect for Ginsburg. She was an activist, which is not what I want out of my judges.

Only seven countries allow elective abortions after 20 weeks - Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

And Canada won't perform them, they send them to us and have us do it.

Removing this aberration will allow us to be more civilized, like the rest of the world.

It also allows us to focus nationally on other issues and possibly start getting along again. As you can battle locally for these issues and nationally for things like foreign policy
 
Phoenyx said:
We can just agree to disagree, or you can lay out why you think it was based on specious arguments.
Click to expand...

You posted why from Ginsburg herself

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

She also would of preferred State Legislatures to be more involved, so she agreed that allowing this to continue to percolate in the states was wise
 
zymurgy said:
You posted why from Ginsburg herself

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

She also would of preferred State Legislatures to be more involved, so she agreed that allowing this to continue to percolate in the states was wise
Click to expand...


After some thought, I've decided that I disagree with her that it would have been better let it continue to percolate in the states. My reasoning is I believe that having the law nation wide gave the U.S. the chance to see that life could still be alright while allowing abortions. Now, states that have gone back to banning abortions can remember how things used to be like, instead of never having had the experience of abortions being legal. However, I do agree that the decision should have focused more on a woman's rights, rather than a physicians'. Not that those aren't important too.
 
Yakuda said:
Well cite the section of the 14th amendment that says we have a right to privacy which was the basis for roe.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn't thinking you were going to get so technical. I'm not really interested in the technicalities. To quote one of my favourite science fiction authors, Frank Herbert "Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?" I think that women should have the choice of whether or not to carry a fetus to term, not the technicalities of the laws the Supreme Court ruled on, both in the original Roe vs. Wade decision, or its overturning.
 
Phoenyx said:
After some thought, I've decided that I disagree with her that it would have been better let it continue to percolate in the states. My reasoning is I believe that having the law nation wide gave the U.S. the chance to see that life could still be alright while allowing abortions. Now, states that have gone back to banning abortions can remember how things used to be like, instead of never having had the experience of abortions being legal. However, I do agree that the decision should have focused more on a woman's rights, rather than a physicians'. Not that those aren't important too.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree on the laws itself

My disgust is how the (liberal) media lies and makes it out that we are so different from the rest of the world now. Germany has a 12 week ban. Australia is exactly just like we are now - some territories will ban outright, others allow with no restrictions.

The idea that this election is about some ground breaking difference in how rights are seen here vs the rest of the world is utter bullshit - and that lie can do nothing but agitate people and create violence.
 
Phoenyx said:
Oh, I wasn't thinking you were going to get so technical. I'm not really interested in the technicalities. To quote one of my favourite science fiction authors, Frank Herbert "Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?" I think that women should have the choice of whether or not to carry a fetus to term, not the technicalities of the laws the Supreme Court ruled on, both in the original Roe vs. Wade decision, or its overturning.
Click to expand...

There is truth to what he said but like ignore not the technicalities are what rule the day.

So you think woman should have the choice. Why?
 
zymurgy said:
We can agree to disagree on the laws itself

My disgust is how the (liberal) media lies and makes it out that we are so different from the rest of the world now. Germany has a 12 week ban. Australia is exactly just like we are now - some territories will ban outright, others allow with no restrictions.

The idea that this election is about some ground breaking difference in how rights are seen here vs the rest of the world is utter bullshit - and that lie can do nothing but agitate people and create violence.
Click to expand...

You may have a point there.
 
Phoenyx said:
I hope it's ok to do start a thread based on a conversation that started in another thread, but I think it makes sense, seeing as how the original thread really had nothing to do with the subject. So, with that said, on to the conversation...



I agree that the issue is complicated, but I think the universal rule was a good one, if focusing on the wrong issues. I think the following article from the Washington Post on former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brings up a lot of good points:
What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade | Washington Post

It may appear to be behind a pay wall, but I've found that if I go in incognito mode, it lets me see the article after removing some pop up ads.

Quoting some interesting excerpts from said article:
**
There’s no question Ginsburg disagreed with how Roe was decided. But it’s hardly that simple.

Indeed Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe.

[snip]

Indeed, Ginsburg regularly said that Roe might have harmed the evolution of abortion rights by going too far, too fast. She argued support for abortion rights was already increasing, but that the court with its one fell swoop altered that trajectory and created a more polarized environment.
**
Click to expand...

Yes, r v. w needed updating but not repealing.
 
Yakuda said:
There is truth to what he said but like ignore not the technicalities are what rule the day.
Click to expand...

I think the most important technicality in this case is who gets nominated to the Supreme Court :-p.

Yakuda said:
So you think woman should have the choice. Why?
Click to expand...

I've been pro choice for a while, but back in June, I revisited the issue due to a thread in another forum. I found an article that I still think is quite moving. Quoting from it:

**
by Kate Daloz


May 14, 2017


As a child, I knew only that my grandmother had died when my mom was still a baby. The one time I asked what had happened to her, a bolt of panic flashed across my mother’s face. “A household accident,” was all she said.


I was twelve years old when she finally told me the truth. Some friends and I had got into a long after-school discussion about abortion, prompted by the gruesome posters that a protester had staked in front of the Planned Parenthood in our Vermont town. I had already begun reading my mother’s Ms. magazines cover to cover, but this was the first time I’d encountered a pro-life position. When I hopped into my mom’s car after school, I was buzzing with new ideas. I had almost finished repeating one friend’s pro-life argument when I saw the look on Mom’s face. That’s when she told me: the “household accident” that had killed her mother had, in fact, been a self-induced abortion.


[snip]


Sitting beside her in the passenger seat, I struggled to absorb the meaning of what she’d told me. I had only just grasped what abortion was a few hours earlier, and was still trying on this new pro-life idea. “O.K.,” I said, “but what about the uncle or aunt I never had?” Mom whipped toward me, face taut with a rage and fear that I somehow understood had nothing to do with me. “What about the mother I never had?” she said.

**


Full article:


My grandmother's desperate choice | New York Times
 
Phoenyx said:
I think the most important technicality in this case is who gets nominated to the Supreme Court :-p.



I've been pro choice for a while, but back in June, I revisited the issue due to a thread in another forum. I found an article that I still think is quite moving. Quoting from it:

**
by Kate Daloz


May 14, 2017


As a child, I knew only that my grandmother had died when my mom was still a baby. The one time I asked what had happened to her, a bolt of panic flashed across my mother’s face. “A household accident,” was all she said.


I was twelve years old when she finally told me the truth. Some friends and I had got into a long after-school discussion about abortion, prompted by the gruesome posters that a protester had staked in front of the Planned Parenthood in our Vermont town. I had already begun reading my mother’s Ms. magazines cover to cover, but this was the first time I’d encountered a pro-life position. When I hopped into my mom’s car after school, I was buzzing with new ideas. I had almost finished repeating one friend’s pro-life argument when I saw the look on Mom’s face. That’s when she told me: the “household accident” that had killed her mother had, in fact, been a self-induced abortion.


[snip]


Sitting beside her in the passenger seat, I struggled to absorb the meaning of what she’d told me. I had only just grasped what abortion was a few hours earlier, and was still trying on this new pro-life idea. “O.K.,” I said, “but what about the uncle or aunt I never had?” Mom whipped toward me, face taut with a rage and fear that I somehow understood had nothing to do with me. “What about the mother I never had?” she said.

**


Full article:


My grandmother's desperate choice | New York Times
Click to expand...

Then the technicalities are important arent they? Maybe you should pay more attention to them.

Not sure how that explains why women should have a choice.
 
Yakuda said:
Then the technicalities are important arent they? Maybe you should pay more attention to them.

Not sure how that explains why women should have a choice.
Click to expand...

choice is just a buzzword

Alabama should be able to choose differently than California.

we can all frame this as being about choice
 
Let’s make laws saying men can’t have any penile treatment without the approval of government


Your local politician needs to be consulted


If it might reduce or interrupt your sperm count the county gets to decide if it’s legal for your doctor to treat
 
evince said:
Let’s make laws saying men can’t have any penile treatment without the approval of government
Click to expand...

First, society needs to recognize that a penis is a sovereign life form with rights of its own - which is not the craziest legislation the democrats have put out to be honest :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top