• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Best rebuttal of Alito to date

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,168
Reaction score
8,203
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The New York Times today published a rebuttal of Alito showing that the 14th Amendment clearly provided ex-slave women (and by extension all women) with protection of reproductive rights. It also refers to a key court case of 1942 of relevance to reproductive autonomy:

 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The New York Times today published a rebuttal of Alito showing that the 14th Amendment clearly provided ex-slave women (and by extension all women) with protection of reproductive rights. It also refers to a key court case of 1942 of relevance to reproductive autonomy:

Paywall. Can you summarize the gist of their argument?
 

Bear5131

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2022
Messages
5,324
Reaction score
1,706
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Just a quick skim, it says no such thing, everyone know the 14th amendment was specifically written to make the now free slaves US citizens, Indians were not included .
 

quip

Active member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
228
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The New York Times today published a rebuttal of Alito showing that the 14th Amendment clearly provided ex-slave women (and by extension all women) with protection of reproductive rights. It also refers to a key court case of 1942 of relevance to reproductive autonomy:

Paywall. Can you summarize the gist of their argument?
The bolded type.
Alito overreached via his political ruling.
 

quip

Active member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
228
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The bold type is an assertion. It's not proof that an assertion is correct.

You've overreached with your reasoning.
Alito's ruling was based on an ad pop assertion.
Difference being he held the power to enforce.
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was able to read the article (the NYT really ought to design their website security with more care). I think there are two paragraphs that summarize Ms Goodwin's argument, and they are these:

Black women’s sexual subordination and forced pregnancies were foundational to slavery. If cotton was euphemistically king, Black women’s wealth-maximizing forced reproduction was queen ...

... This Supreme Court demonstrates a selective and opportunistic interpretation of the Constitution and legal history, which ignores the intent of the 13th and 14th Amendments, especially as related to Black women’s bodily autonomy, liberty and privacy which extended beyond freeing them from labor in cotton fields to shielding them from rape and forced reproduction. The horrors inflicted on Black women during slavery, especially sexual violations and forced pregnancies, have been all but wiped from cultural and legal memory. Ultimately, this failure disserves all women.

It's an interesting analysis and could possibly be the basis for a federal abortion rights act in cases where pregnancy is involuntary. But her argument falls apart when the act that results in conception is voluntary, as it is in most cases.

Even the most favorable reading of this analysis, however, doesn't speak to the core issue: when does a woman, acting on her right to privacy, harm another? This cannot be resolved without legally defining "another," and nothing in the 13th or 14th (or anywhere else in the Constitution) gives Congress or SCOTUS the authority to do this. Only states can.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
33,733
Reaction score
24,030
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I was able to read the article (the NYT really ought to design their website security with more care). I think there are two paragraphs that summarize Ms Goodwin's argument, and they are these:



It's an interesting analysis and could possibly be the basis for a federal abortion rights act in cases where pregnancy is involuntary. But her argument falls apart when the act that results in conception is voluntary, as it is in most cases.

Even the most favorable reading of this analysis, however, doesn't speak to the core issue: when does a woman, acting on her right to privacy, harm another? This cannot be resolved without legally defining "another," and nothing in the 13th or 14th (or anywhere else in the Constitution) gives Congress or SCOTUS the authority to do this. Only states can.

Can states ban birth control since there is no right to marital privacy in the constitution?
 

quip

Active member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
228
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That is complete gibberish, and you're doing your side of the argument no favors.
It all boils down to an asserted interpretation of the constitution regarding abortion via the 14th.

You could say Roe was ad pop in the day, though granting rights versus an official dispossession of a constitutional right, behold staggering dissimilarities.
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can states ban birth control since there is no right to marital privacy in the constitution?
I’ve never said there wasn’t a right to privacy, marital or otherwise, in the Constitution. You’ll need to find someone who’s made that assertion.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
33,733
Reaction score
24,030
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I’ve never said there wasn’t a right to privacy, marital or otherwise, in the Constitution. You’ll need to find someone who’s made that assertion.

But you conveniently find there is no right to abortion?
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
15,660
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
But her argument falls apart when the act that results in conception is voluntary, as it is in most cases.

An unwanted pregnancy is unwanted whether it's the result of a guy lying about putting on a condom, birth control failing, or rape.

Even the most favorable reading of this analysis, however, doesn't speak to the core issue: when does a woman, acting on her right to privacy, harm another? This cannot be resolved without legally defining "another," and nothing in the 13th or 14th

Funny that you mention the 14th Amendment, which specifies those "born and naturalized"...
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But you conveniently find there is no right to abortion?
Whether it’s convenient or not is irrelevant. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution because there is no authority granted to the federal government to resolve the central issue of abortion law: a legally binding definition of what is and what is not human life (with rights).
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
An unwanted pregnancy is unwanted whether it's the result of a guy lying about putting on a condom, birth control failing, or rape.
Being raped is not a voluntary act. The other scenarios you describe are.

Funny that you mention the 14th Amendment, which specifies those "born and naturalized"...
Correct. I think one could argue that federally protected rights cannot be extended to the unborn. That does not prohibit a state from creating rights for the unborn within their own jurisdiction.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
33,733
Reaction score
24,030
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Whether it’s convenient or not is irrelevant. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution because there is no authority granted to the federal government to resolve the central issue of abortion law: a legally binding definition of what is and what is not human life (with rights).


There is no right to marital privacy either.... Is there a right for parents to choose the school where their child attends or can the state force them into public schools?
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no right to marital privacy either.... Is there a right for parents to choose the school where their child attends or can the state force them into public schools?
There is a limited right to privacy in the 4th amendment, and I don’t believe there’s a martial exclusion described anywhere else in the Constitution.

Sorry, you’re camel’s nose argument is going no where.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
15,660
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Being raped is not a voluntary act. The other scenarios you describe are.

Obviously not if precautions were taken, then the pregnancy was not intended. A woman in that scenario did not agree to become pregnant.

To argue otherwise is to punish the woman for having sex.

That does not prohibit a state from creating rights for the unborn within their own jurisdiction.

Yes it does. Any retriction on abortion inevitably involves limiting or curtailing the rights of a woman to both pursue her own medical affairs and limits her bodily autonomy.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
33,733
Reaction score
24,030
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There is a limited right to privacy in the 4th amendment, and I don’t believe there’s a martial exclusion described anywhere else in the Constitution.

Sorry, you’re camel’s nose argument is going no where.

LMAO... Where is a limited right to privacy in the 4th amendment... Are you trying to have penumbra cake and eat it? What about the right to choose your kids school? Can states now compel attendance at public schools?

After setting out the above facts, the Society's bill alleges that the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that, unless enforcement of the measure is enjoined the corporation's business and property will suffer irreparable injury.

 

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
36,992
Reaction score
11,671
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
L
The New York Times today published a rebuttal of Alito showing that the 14th Amendment clearly provided ex-slave women (and by extension all women) with protection of reproductive rights. It also refers to a key court case of 1942 of relevance to reproductive autonomy:

lol this nonsense sounds so stupid it’s not even worth the time to read
 

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
36,992
Reaction score
11,671
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was able to read the article (the NYT really ought to design their website security with more care). I think there are two paragraphs that summarize Ms Goodwin's argument, and they are these:



It's an interesting analysis and could possibly be the basis for a federal abortion rights act in cases where pregnancy is involuntary. But her argument falls apart when the act that results in conception is voluntary, as it is in most cases.

Even the most favorable reading of this analysis, however, doesn't speak to the core issue: when does a woman, acting on her right to privacy, harm another? This cannot be resolved without legally defining "another," and nothing in the 13th or 14th (or anywhere else in the Constitution) gives Congress or SCOTUS the authority to do this. Only states can.
So the argument is that because black women got pregnant while slaves and had children, and the 13th amendment repealed slavery, that black women have a “right not to reproduce”?

There seems to be a lot of errors with this. This is clearly white journalism graduates at a cocktail party try to make a racially inflammatory nonsense argument.
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
10,405
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obviously not if precautions were taken, then the pregnancy was not intended. A woman in that scenario did not agree to become pregnant.
The pregnancy may be unwanted, but that does not make it the product of an involuntary act. There is no reason to believe any means of contraception is 100% fail safe.

To argue otherwise is to punish the woman for having sex.
No, it makes them accountable for their voluntary behavior, just as men are.

By your reasoning, any man should be able to avoid child support simply by claiming he did not “agree” to the woman becoming pregnant.


Yes it does. Any retriction on abortion inevitably involves limiting or curtailing the rights of a woman to both pursue her own medical affairs and limits her bodily autonomy.
Of course it does. I have never claimed abortion bans don’t curtail the privacy rights of women or place a limit on their bodily autonomy. I have repeatedly said exactly the opposition. After all our exchanges on this topic, do you really understand so little about my position?

:rolleyes:
 

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
36,992
Reaction score
11,671
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Can states ban birth control?
Well because the Supreme Court wrongly ruled in 1965 they can for now. In the future the constitution will be restored and the clear right to do so will be restored with it.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
33,733
Reaction score
24,030
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well because the Supreme Court wrongly ruled in 1965 they can for now. In the future the constitution will be restored and the clear right to do so will be restored with it.

Can states compel children to attend public school?
 
Top Bottom