- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
- Messages
- 4,213
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Not to mention the weakening of the 14th amendment and all that entails.Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.
Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.
You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.
This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.
And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.
So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?
This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us.
Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.
During the Progressive Era (ca. 1890 to 1920), the United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[125] Thomas C. Leonard, professor at Princeton University, describes American eugenics and sterilization as ultimately rooted in economic arguments and further as a central element of Progressivism alongside wage controls, restricted immigration, and the introduction of pension programs.
Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was "scientific" -- its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding. The term "gene" had not yet been coined -- among the surprises in Bruinius' book is that the science and the word "genetics" were born of the pseudoscience eugenics, and not vice versa -- but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people, you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the "unfit" among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent, final solution.
Progressive genocide
Less than 100 years ago, America's finest minds were convinced the nation was threatened by sexually insatiable female morons. A new history of the eugenics movement sheds light on a bizarre chapter in U.S. history.www.salon.com
So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?
Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.
Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.
You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.
This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.
And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.
So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?
Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.
Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.
You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.
This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.
And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.
So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?
The rationale underpinning Roe had absolutely nothing to do with what employers, banks, etc. can do with your medical information. As far as governments are concerned, it's easy enough to legislate in those areas without implicating abortion.
Why? How? Is your medical privacy a right or not? Can you explain, you seem very definite.
Maybe you can expand on 'the rationale underpinning Roe?'
It's not absolute of course, no right is...but currently there needs to be specific probable cause to access such records.
How?The rationale underpinning Roe had absolutely nothing to do with what employers, banks, etc. can do with your medical information. As far as governments are concerned, it's easy enough to legislate in those areas without implicating abortion.
The constitution generally doesn't limit what private companies can do to you. It restricts the government.
Pass laws limiting what the government can do with your private information.How?
If you refuse to hand over your medical records to your employer, they cannot compel you to do so legally. They can fire you but they cant force you to do so. That's because the federal govt, via the Const, protects your right to that privacy (not private consequences).
The Const and it's enforcement 'protect' people. And what is the 'underpinning rationale behind RvW?'
Doctor patient confidentiality isn't tied to RvWBasically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.
No. Over turning it doesn't mean abortion becomes illegal and it has nothing to do with doctor patient confidentiality.Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.
How does it do that?You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history.
So the first amendment will automatically be repealed? How did it exist up until 1972?Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.
How? We're the government dictating medical procedures up until 1972?This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us.
So they were doing that up until 1972?Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.
I wasn't aware the constitution and all the rights acts were ratified in 1972. RvW was the founding of the country... Who knew?And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.
So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?
No it doesn't. The reason your employer can't force you do do hand over your medical records is because they have no authority to force you to hand them over. Full stop. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.
The Constitution "protects people" from the government, not from other people.
THey have a level of authority, if you want to keep your job. THey cant force you do to so, because that information is 'special', it' protected under the umbrella of privacy. The Const provides that protection.
Yeah I know, that's why I wrote that it couldnt protect them from private consequences (like those from the employer).
I worry you might be right. But then, we've been on a decline for years.There now is no longer a right to privacy. That was an underpinning of Roe. They are tossing Roe, therefore the idea that you have a constitutional right to privacy is gone as well. The government can and will now access your medical records at will, and they will provide that information to anyone they want.
And don't think this is the end. This will embolden the right to challenge other laws they find distasteful, such as the legality of contraception, same sex marriage, sexual harassment, voting rights, medical marijuana, etc.
Yep, America had a good run. We're done.
No it doesn't. Not against an employer.
Yet you just said "the Const provides that protection" in the context of talking about what an employer can or cannot force you to do.
Which is it?
Third time: they cannot force you to turn over medical records. There can however be private/personal consequences, like...they can fire you.
"Third time" you dodged the point, indeed.
Huh, where were all the pro choicers advocating for “medical privacy” and “choice” during the vaccine mandates? Choicers just want abortions. They don’t care about “privacy” anyway.Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.
Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.
You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.
This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.
And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.
So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?
Huh, where were all the pro choicers advocating for “medical privacy” and “choice” during the vaccine mandates? Choicers just want abortions. They don’t care about “privacy” anyway.
No, you're not pro life. You're all about controlling women. So I can see why you're thrilled with this decision. You'll also celebrate when they overturn Griswald as well.I’m pro life and delighted by the overturn of Roe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?