1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Silver Lining or Too Good to Be True?

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Debater Slayer, Jun 25, 2022.

  1. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    1,594
    Ratings:
    +231
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    So that’s a side step of the issue. Restricting people from voting is not a platform or policy of Republicans or conservatives. Secure voting and avoiding fraud are. If people can’t trust that the vote is honest they tend to not behave kindly. A secure vote is in the nations best interest.
     
  2. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,569
    Ratings:
    +11,446
    Religion:
    Scientism
    There exist a disagreement about what those fundamental rights should be. I understand you are on one side of that disagreement. Just because you believe your side is correct doesn't mean that others do. There is obviously not an absolute right to body autonomy. The government is always going to have some say. About what and how much are not absolutes, regardless of how much some people might think they are.
     
  3. Guitar's Cry

    Guitar's Cry The "I" in Reality

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,589
    Ratings:
    +6,235
    Religion:
    Panreligious mystical paganism
    This is true of any right. But the SCOTUS just declared a very specific one for women that will very directly and powerfullly influence their lives. Women will die from this. Or end up in poverty. Or with children from incest and rape.

    This is in a country with a history of treating women as second class citizens while still characterizing itself as "land of the free with liberty and justice for all."

    Let women choose what happens to their bodies during pregnancy. It's a fundamental right.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,569
    Ratings:
    +11,446
    Religion:
    Scientism
    They can certainly vote.
    Unfortunately the founding father didn't consider abortion so the right to legislate on this was not provided to the Federal government.
     
  5. Guitar's Cry

    Guitar's Cry The "I" in Reality

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,589
    Ratings:
    +6,235
    Religion:
    Panreligious mystical paganism
    The Founding Fathers did consider the possibility that they missed some things (the Bill of Rights was not unanimously agreed on), and included the 9th Amendment:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Now, clearly, the case for this Amendment to be interpreted as such has been argued, and I am on the side that it is meant to be interpreted broadly in this fashion on purpose. Folks like James Madison apparently intended this so that the Bill of Rights would not be used to justify denying other rights not explicitly mentioned (which is exactly what you are suggesting).

    So if a woman's right to bodily autonomy is NOT a fundamental right, then what is? How does a person's right to own a firearm take precedence over a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,569
    Ratings:
    +11,446
    Religion:
    Scientism
    I think vaccine mandates throw any idea of bodily autonomy out the window. Obviously the government can make determinations about what happens to your body.
     
  7. Guitar's Cry

    Guitar's Cry The "I" in Reality

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,589
    Ratings:
    +6,235
    Religion:
    Panreligious mystical paganism
    I think comparing vaccine mandates, which can often be avoided with religious and philosophical exemptions or simply avoiding where these are mandated, to abortions misses a huge point: Community health sometimes takes precedence, and in general, vaccines pose a far less risk to the person getting them than the disease they prevent. In other words, the government has a good reason to try to vaccinate its citizens in order to mitigate harm, while banning abortions impacts bodily autonomy without good justification.

    Vaccines prevent death. Abortion bans tend to increase death: Study: Banning abortion would boost maternal mortality by double-digits

    Again, comparing vaccine mandates to abortion bans when it comes to bodily autonomy doesn't make sense when having an un-vaxxinated population increases harm to individuals and providing abortion access does not impact other people and decreases maternal mortality rates.
     
  8. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,569
    Ratings:
    +11,446
    Religion:
    Scientism
    I understand your justifications. Other people have different opinions and justifications. My only point is that the government has passed laws that determine what can and cannot happen to your body.
     
  9. Guitar's Cry

    Guitar's Cry The "I" in Reality

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,589
    Ratings:
    +6,235
    Religion:
    Panreligious mystical paganism

    They have, and they can if it promotes the general welfare. Abortion bans do not.
     
Loading...