If Roe v. Wade is overturned

[pecksniff]

I expect many beliefs will be dropped as vax-induced infertility becomes known.

 

[Lazaran]

I expect many beliefs will be dropped as vax-induced infertility becomes known.

So you're Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend???

A little truth for the dim witted: CONTRACTING COVID CAN ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO PROBLEMS WITH PROCREATION.

/Lesson

 

[PaxNurgle]

I expect many beliefs will be dropped as vax-induced infertility becomes known.

Or, as unvaccinated people get sick and die off.

 

[GothTalk]

Or, as unvaccinated people get sick and die off.

If only it were that dangerous of a disease.

Meanwhile nearly ALL unvaccinated folks will be just fine...only a microscopic number of them will be taken out by covid because it's just not as serious as you and the histrionic left tried to hype it up as.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Tell that to the 1,000,000+ unvaccinated Americans who have died from it.
(The only unfortunate thing being that you were not one of them.)

 

[GothTalk]

Tell that to the 1,000,000+ unvaccinated Americans who have died from it.
(The only unfortunate thing being that you were not one of them.)

There haven't even been 1,000,000+ deaths in the USA total...much less unvaccinated deaths.

Grand total is an inflated 868,000 according to google..... that's 0.27% of the population.... including some vaccinated folks.

And I'll tell it to them all day long because FACTS don't care about FEE FEES. Covid isn't even REMOTELY close to as serious as you and the hypochondriacs have tried to hype it up as.

 

[The_Trouvere]

You do realize, I hope, that at present, eugenics is not exactly a science. Not enough is known about human genetics.

If more were known . . . we might have a scenario like in David Weber's Honor Harrington novels. Check those out, focusing attention on the Mesan Alignment.

We know all we need to know, and geneticists are learning more.

 

[phrodeau]

We know all we need to know, and geneticists are learning more.

Who’s we? You and your lawn jockey?

 

[pecksniff]

We know all we need to know, and geneticists are learning more.

Eugenics:

Whilst eugenics depends, in theory, on the perfectly valid science of genetics and appeals to the practice of animal husbandry, historically its application has always been far from scientific. Whereas it is (relatively) easy to, for example, breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a "better" human being becomes a very difficult question. At this point eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that. To say nothing of the fact that there is very little room for experimentation. Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of its heyday.

The most obvious flaw with the application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Any species that looks fit on the outside may carry recessive traits which don't exhibit themselves but which will be passed on, and vice versa. The development of the field of epigenetics,Wikipedia i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

There is no reason to believe that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans could not achieve the same results that plant- and animal-breeders (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out) have achieved over the centuries, but the odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred dogs are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of "purity" is flawed in that it gives rise to many of the same problems as inbreeding — a loss of genetic biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness. A classic example of concentration is haemophilia,[21] which became the plague of the European royal families. (Ironically, a common element in eugenicist works was that "inferior races" and or "race mixing" would produce an overall correlation with genetic disorders.) Furthermore, changes in the environment can cause traits that were once advantageous to become liabilities virtually overnight. An example of this occurred in deer populations. For millions of years, natural selection favored male deer with large antlers as fitter specimens, as they could use those antlers to protect themselves and to fight other males for access to females. However, upon the rise of sport hunting, bucks with large antlers suddenly found themselves targeted specifically because of those antlers, as they made great trophies with which to establish the human hunter's prowess. The size of antlers among deer populations plunged down fast.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as "pauperism" and the vaguely defined "feeble-mindedness", could be traced back to a single genetic disorder - according to eugenicists, while we now know that the bulk of the 19th-century disorders were the result of poor sanitation, nutrition, and healthcare.[22] Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[23]

In short, eugenics could become a legitimate science... if virtually everything about how it has been applied were changed. Any "ubermensch" would need the widest possible selection of "superior" genes, meaning that any resulting super-human would be very much mixed race, something most self-proclaimed Eugenicists would abhor. It's also important to remember that as humans are a social species, the most productive society would be one where the humans all have a strong sense of empathy, something that does have a genetic component[24] and is extremely lacking in anyone that would openly advocate for the forcible sterilization or murder of others. This means that a proper eugenics program would begin with the sterilization of its more vocal proponents.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Who’s we? You and your lawn jockey?

Geneticists and those who follow their findings.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Eugenics:

Anyone can find something on the internet they like. Express this in your own words. if you cannot do that you do not understand it yourself. Intelligence and stupidity obviously run in families. So does crime.

 

[domroger]

Bump.
See First Ever supreme Court Leak.

 

[ll74]

Congress could codify women's choice this week if they wanted to.

 

[Naughtygirl201]

I

I hope you all realize, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that throws the whole issue into the legislatures -- which is the worst thing that could happen to the GOP electorally. A lot of people who now vote Pub in good conscience, as a gesture, knowing it won't really affect access to abortion, will stop doing so.

I probably fall into this camp. I'm a woman. I typically vote conservative. But this issue is important and I would consider protecting the reproductive freedom of my entire sex to be a good reason to choose differently.

 

[DimmuBurger]

Congress could codify women's choice this week if they wanted to.

They don't have the juice or the spine.

Notice they've never actually even tried to codify any right to abortion.

And considering Democrats think "shall not be infringed" = infringe all you like..... it's not shocking they don't try to shore up their legal position with something solid.

They would have to start respecting other rights to get their own.... and we know Democrats aren't about any of the other civil rights.

 

[ll74]

They don't have the juice or the spine.

Notice they've never actually even tried to codify any right to abortion.

And considering Democrats think "shall not be infringed" = infringe all you like..... it's not shocking they don't try to shore up their legal position with something solid.

They can't codify a right.

They can create a law which regulates medical procedures.

 

[DimmuBurger]

They can't codify a right.

They can create a law which regulates medical procedures.

But they wont because it would ultra fuck everything up for them, and they almost certainly won't have the juice for that either.

They would have to de-regulate and give people more privacy.

Democrats ain't about to have any of that freedom and choice going on.

 

[Dribble]

I

I probably fall into this camp. I'm a woman. I typically vote conservative. But this issue is important and I would consider protecting the reproductive freedom of my entire sex to be a good reason to choose differently.

Probably? Consider? If it hasn't made up your mind already...then you condone it. Can't have it both ways. Only time a Republican is a good Republican...is the day they die and are buried. At least let them feed worms.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

 

[Rightguide]

I hope you all realize, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that throws the whole issue into the legislatures -- which is the worst thing that could happen to the GOP electorally. A lot of people who now vote Pub in good conscience, as a gesture, knowing it won't really affect access to abortion, will stop doing so.

Probably not much will happen in most of the state legislatures. I doubt your predicted outcome.

 

[Rightguide]

They can't codify a right.

They can create a law which regulates medical procedures.

They can create a statute that is within their plenary power to do so, that being the plenary powers enumerated in the text of the Constitution. They cannot exceed that authority however if they do they chance another rejection by the SCOTUS. It is politically possible to pass a national abortion law, but the compromises required for passage or legitimacy won't be accepted by the radical left, killing the chance for passage.

 

[ll74]

So you're changing your story now....it's not that they can't...it's that they won't agree to.

Can't wait to see what comes next from you.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not talking about scripture, I'm talking about American political history. What scripture sheds any light on this?

When people initiate a political conversation with you they are met with religious theology.

 

[Rightguide]

So you're changing your story now....it's not that they can't...it's that they won't agree to.

Can't wait to see what comes next from you.

That's the point, They can write a new statute but it would have to contain compromises that would be unacceptable to the left, possibly even unconstitutional at the Court level. If the leaked draft is in fact the true outcome, Codifying Roe as is would be obviously unconstitutional because the SCOTUS is saying moral issues should be decided at the state level. Alito states:

"Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Case arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

 

[ll74]

That's the point, They can write a new statute but it would have to contain compromises that would be unacceptable to the left, possibly even unconstitutional at the Court level. If the leaked draft is in fact the true outcome, Codifying Roe as is would be obviously unconstitutional because the SCOTUS is saying moral issues should be decided at the state level. Alito states:

"Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Case arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

That's your opinion whereas before you stated that it wasn't possible at all.

As for codifying it, the wording could be created to not address abortion the same way that this case was deciding.

As long as a fetus is contained within a woman, the woman should always take priority. Any legislation that decides differently should be opposed.
(Also my opinion)

Btw - if enough constituents lobby well enough, compromise is more likely. That's kinda how it works....left or right (even the far left)