The Future For America.

Read this story and weep if you are not a religious rightwingnut, and cheer if you are a misogynist religious rightwingnut. Make miscarriage a crime and don't forget being raped.

There is at least one misogynist religious rightwingnut who would support the authorities in this story with all that he is and that tells us what he is.

Run rabbits run.

Do you think of Americans as rabbits?  

Miscarriage cannot be a crime in the United States under the modern juristiction of constitutional protection.   If its legally possible to burn Roe v Wade at the stake, the actual reasons would still be upheld for a more appropriate ruling.

I didn't read it since the headline has something to do with El Salvador, this is just conspirecy theory trying to time some non sense to the U.S.

Your future

while you are time traveling can you p.m. the lottery numbers, thanks.

It is very disturbing, D.

If dignity for people is not extended to all, then priviledge exists where we pretend human rights do. 

Not sure if pro sexism, or pro-life

I am for human rights from the moment of birth.

Why do you think murder should be outlawed the members of government?  How does the state justify it's intervention in cases of murder?

What does this have to do with this thread or anything I've said? It seems you're running off on a tangent. 

Eh, no need to answer.  Not drawing connections, I was just curious.

Oookay.

The actual issue in America is on the matter of abortion as you might not be aware.  The OP is worded facetiously

I don't see abortion being an issue. Those that do require human rights to be merely an aspiration to nearly half of the human population.

You can't say 'bodily autonomy is a right' and then give a list of exceptions to it. It is either a right for everyone all the time or it is not a right. Furthermore, if a person doesn't have property right on their own body, then all rights are meaningless. Simple as.

That makes some sense.  If children are naturally in the custody of their parents then as such there is no absolute human right to bodily autonomy.  However, children are not naturally born into the custody of the state, and the state may recognize adults as autonomous.  

I have to disagree in calling rights aspirational at all but I acknowledge the desire for a fulfilling society in which rights might be widely recognized.  There may not necessarily be any reason to imbue rights with personal meaning.

There is no future where California or New York would have a state-wide ban on abortion, no matter how the SCOTUS rules.

In fact, at least 30 states are strongly in the pro-abortion side with maybe 8 at the most being anti-abortion. Any woman can cross a state line and get an abortion with zero fear.

I think you've not understood me correctly. By autonomy, I mean "Freedom from external control or influence; independence", and by aspirational, I mean something not realized. If abortion were disallowed, humans rights would be something merely desired by women.

I think parents play the role of a governing body until children are mature enough to fall under state jurisdiction. Just as the state can take away your rights for fucking up,

 so can your parents! 😂

The higher issue for me in constitutional precedent, is to found a relationship in which the people are sovereign and the governing agents are fearful.  I respect the difference of opinion between the residents and representatives of the states as long as it is appropriate in juristiction.  I think if I could speak on behalf of the genuinely concerned, it would be to the idea that it's possible the states would no longer be limited to regulating the healthcare industry when it comes to our bodies, thus the people could be subjected to violations by the state.

people are subject to violations of the state at any time when they give the governing body control of the army. That's why we have a constitution. If the people want further protections, they need to amend the constitution through CONGRESS, not break their fingernails on the SCOTUS door....

Obviously there is no constitutional right to abortion and we should have elected representatives handling progressive issues.  The court system needs to do its job and the legislature does as well.  I wouldn't say that makes unenumerated rights something that should be considered constitutionally irrelevant.

 It's important to keep in mind that we aren't just attacking an evil precedent, that there may be liabilities in office, conflicts of interest 

There is not a fundamental right to an abortion silly.....that''s not how it works, and that's why there''s a legal mess.  The state's interest in life really does not outweigh our human rights though and an abortion can't legally be equovocated with murder without extending rights.  It's a medical procedure.  

 The constitution also fundamentally protects human life from legislation, and dignity (on US soil)

Denying a woman autonomy of her own body is an absolute denial of that woman's rights.

Actually, the immediate issue is denying so-called doctors the right to do what they want to her body.

And why do you think that you have a right to penalise a woman for having control of her own body?

I don't.

Your understanding of the abortion question is completely unknowing.

The question absolutely only concerns a woman's right to her body and nothing else.