Here
and
Now

opinions

After abortion, gay marriage? Fears U.S. court may target other rights

19 Comments
By Peter HUTCHISON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments
Login to comment

America, forget about starting wars abroad. There's going to be a civil war.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Pukey2Today  11:48 am JST

America, forget about starting wars abroad. There's going to be a civil war.

Only if the rabid left want ti start one. They're the ones rioting and looting when they don't get their way.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Usually this would be considered an exaggerated reaction, but in the current US situation few things are now considered impossible. Hopefully legal experts are wrong about this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

After abortion, gay marriage? Fears U.S. court may target other rights

Fear mongering.

Slippery slope.

The article even includes the only relevant statement needed when answering the hypothetical:

Alito, 72, stressed that he was talking about "the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,"

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Freedom ?

Free to need to own a gun to feel safe.

Free to need drugs you don't need.

Freedom is peace of mind .

Your body your choice ?

Your social security number and your phone number and birth certificate please.

But did you choose to be born ?

You chose this life ? Really ?

Who chose your name ?

Did you choose to be gay ?

The USA has gone whackadoodle !

Interesting times we're living in .

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Algernon LaCroixToday 12:19 pm JST

Only if the rabid left want ti start one. They're the ones rioting and looting when they don't get their way.

People SHOULD riot if their rights are suddenly being stripped away. Tell me why women should sit back and allow a bunch of old white cisgender misogynistic politicians take away our right to control our own reproduction?

Also, don't I recall that a large group of militants charged into Congress because they wanted to stop the vote count?

The right: getting pissed off that their man didn't win in a fair election, and attacking government offices, beating up police, and looting the offices of Congresspeople.

The left: getting pissed off that their rights are being slowly taken away, and attacking government offices and being beaten up BY police.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The article either has a typo or its incorrect -

-would overturn the 1973 roe vs wade decision

Could not would !

It's yet to be decided .

only a draft ruling that's leaked and not an officially released decision.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

People SHOULD riot if their rights are suddenly being stripped away. Tell me why women should sit back and allow a bunch of old white cisgender misogynistic politicians take away our right to control our own reproduction?

Exactly.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

girl_in_tokyoToday  01:56 pm JST

Algernon LaCroixToday 12:19 pm JST

Only if the rabid left want ti start one. They're the ones rioting and looting when they don't get their way.

People SHOULD riot if their rights are suddenly being stripped away. Tell me why women should sit back and allow a bunch of old white cisgender misogynistic politicians take away our right to control our own reproduction?

Also, don't I recall that a large group of militants charged into Congress because they wanted to stop the vote count? 

The right: getting pissed off that their man didn't win in a fair election, and attacking government offices, beating up police, and looting the offices of Congresspeople.

The left: getting pissed off that their rights are being slowly taken away, and attacking government offices and being beaten up BY police

There is a thing called peaceful protest, but you need patience and a few brain cells between the ears to do it. Just sitting peacefully in a spot and refusing to move/be moved until your opponents get fed up and either negotiate or use force against you. Problem is, the far left (and the far right, but the far left much more so) are emotionally unstable so can't sit still for long enough to make peaceful protest possible.

Compare this to the Canadian truckers' protest earlier this year. Peaceful, which forced the government to escalate and invoke the Emergencies Act and in doing so lose the moral argument.

Rioting is for the stupid.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

On the face of it, it makes no sense that the USA would have a Supreme Court that is so out of touch with the will of the people. But that it is the problem........because we use Electors to elect the President, and because Congressmen are not elected directly in a national election, a minority of Americans is able to control the body politic, and they have installed a majority on the Supreme Court who are out of sync with the thinking of the country as a whole.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Algernon LaCroixToday 04:31 pm JST

There is a thing called peaceful protest, but you need patience and a few brain cells between the ears to do it.

Yeah, that has worked real well for us in the last fifty years as the right has slowly but surely chipped away at our rights.

There is a reason the symbol for protest is a clenched fist and not a one star yelp review.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

girl_in_tokyoToday  06:01 pm JST

Algernon LaCroixToday 04:31 pm JST

There is a thing called peaceful protest, but you need patience and a few brain cells between the ears to do it. 

Yeah, that has worked real well for us in the last fifty years as the right has slowly but surely chipped away at our rights.

There is a reason the symbol for protest is a clenched fist and not a one star yelp review.

So you think it's ok to go around smashing up other people's property if you don't get what you want? If you hate "the right" that much, why not move to one of those socialist paradises that supposedly protect the rights of workers and the oppressed, like Cuba, Venezuela, etc? I don't care whether gay people get married or not, as long as they're not harming anyone in the process of doing so. But smashing stuff up and setting other people's things on fire is not the way to get what you want. It only goes to show how much respect you'd show for the opinions of people you oppose if you got into power.

We're starting to see that now in spades, and it's both ugly and frightening for thinking people.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Algernon LaCroixToday 06:15 pm JST

So you think it's ok to go around smashing up other people's property if you don't get what you want?

In short, I think if the government decides to take away our rights, then smashing things up a bit might make them pay better attention. But do keep in mind that "if you don't get what you want" actually refers to stripping away personal freedoms like abortion and same-sex marriage, and not "our guy didn't win in a fair and legal election."

If you hate "the right" that much, why not move to one of those socialist paradises that supposedly protect the rights of workers and the oppressed, like Cuba, Venezuela, etc?

I'd rather live in Denmark, Norway, France, The Netherlands, or Sweden. You don't seem to actually know what a socialist paradise really looks like, so you just randomly name the worst places you can think of. Disingenuous much?

I don't care whether gay people get married or not, as long as they're not harming anyone in the process of doing so. But smashing stuff up and setting other people's things on fire is not the way to get what you want. It only goes to show how much respect you'd show for the opinions of people you oppose if you got into power.

If their opinions are "gay people shouldn't be able to get married" and "women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions" then no, I would have absolutely no respect whatsoever for their opinions and would be more than happy to use my power to stop them from oppressing others and taking their rights away.

What you don't get, or are pretending not to get, is that the right are the oppressors. The left simply wants to be left alone. I don't care what your opinion is; but when you want to legistlate that opinion to take away my right to marry freely, love the person I love, and control my own body, then we are going to butt heads. Big time. And if the government won't stop the oppressors from oppressing, then there will be riots. We're sick of you people. We've had it. It's time to start throwing rocks at homophobes and misogynists. Line em up.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In short, I think if the government decides to take away our rights, then smashing things up a bit might make them pay better attention. But do keep in mind that "if you don't get what you want" actually refers to stripping away personal freedoms like abortion and same-sex marriage, and not "our guy didn't win in a fair and legal election."

So if you don't get the "right" to kill unborn babies at your convenience, it's ok to smash things up that don't belong to you, such as people and private property that just happens to be in the way of your rage? If you're going to do that, you have to be accountable for the damage and face criminal prosecution for it. If a group of people protesting for their freedom not to be vaccinated with mRNA against their will ran wild and started smashing up you and/or your property, wouldn't you expect them to be held responsible for the damage they caused? Prison, restitution, etc? I would. The standard needs to be applied equally or everything falls apart and tyranny or anarchy ensues. Not utopian anarchy, but Back to the Future II dystopian anarchy. I'm not arguing for any government's right to do something to your body against your will and back it with violence; I'm simply arguing for moral consistency and personal responsibility for one's actions.

I'd rather live in Denmark, Norway, France, The Netherlands, or Sweden. You don't seem to actually know what a socialist paradise really looks like, so you just randomly name the worst places you can think of. Disingenuous much?

You're no doubt aware that the social programs run by Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the like are funded by...wait for it...market economies! The very same things that socialists despise. They always seem to forget that. And Norway's is heavily funded by...oh my lord...oil! I'm not randomly naming Venezuela and Cuba and the old USSR for giggles - they are/were socialism in action, enforced by oppressive, violent and incompetent left-wing governments not remotely interested in freedom for anyone but their cronies. It ain't me who's being disingenuous here.

We're sick of you people. We've had it. It's time to start throwing rocks at homophobes and misogynists. Line em up.

You people? You people! ROFLMAO. As a right-leaning libertarian, I'm not concerned about who you love and create, as long as you do your best to do no harm to others, including the unborn. But clearly your desire to throw rocks at "the right" - ie anyone that you perceive (wrongly, as the case may be) as your enemy - marks you out not as a peace-loving leftie hippie who's happy to live and let live, but a violent and unhinged revolutionary.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You're no doubt aware that the social programs run by Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the like are funded by...wait for it...market economies!

This is always a point made by people who tend to be on the receiving end of jokes but don’t see it.

These are the people in a bar who start sentences with ‘Did you know...?’ and then tell us something known by anyone remotely educated. They are in the wrong company.

Everyone smirks.

Polite people tend to hide the smirk, but I don’t know if that’s the right approach.

I’d retire this one if you don’t want to be smirked at.

I agree with you on the point of not perceiving the other side as ‘an enemy’. I lean left but have no time for partisans who swallow packages whole and just recite from a hymn sheet from both sides. A waste of space. While I agree they should be allowed to vote I do see it as a waste. They aren’t an enemy, they are just useless. Just squawking.

a violent and unhinged revolutionary

Now that’s just hysterical.

I don’t condone throwing stones at people you dislike but that doesn’t make the people who throw the stones revolutionaries.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Going backwards to the 1800s..

Third world..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Republican party used to be pro choice because they used to not believe in the State controlling anyone’s personal life. It was not the State’s decision to make. That started to change when they realized what a great tool the religious right would be: one main issue and lots of votes easily had. Old Republicans who are still alive are sick at what has become of their party, and the ones who have passed on are rolling in their graves.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Algernon LaCroixMay 6 10:56 pm JST

So if you don't get the "right" to kill unborn babies at your convenience, it's ok to smash things up that don't belong to you, such as people and private property that just happens to be in the way of your rage?

I don't know who told you that is does, but hyperbole doesn't take the place of reasoned argument.

We already have the right to abortion, which is not "murder" at someone's convenience. It is about womens' right to bodily autonomy, which is being stripped away by a court that the Repubs purposefully loaded with evangelical misogynists that includes two men who have committed sexual harassment. Taking away womens' right to chose as well as LGBTQIA rights has been their plan all along, as you well know.

No one said it's "okay" to smash things. What we are talking about is protest, which in itself is not about violence but civil disobedience. If things get smashed along the way, so be it.

If you're going to do that, you have to be accountable for the damage and face criminal prosecution for it.

Yes, that comes with the territory, doesn't it. But people who feel strongly about their rights are quite willing to pay the price that comes with acts of civil disobedience, since it is those acts that make the strong statement that then cannot be ignored.

If a group of people protesting for their freedom not to be vaccinated with mRNA against their will ran wild and started smashing up you and/or your property, wouldn't you expect them to be held responsible for the damage they caused?

I'm not surprised that you imagine scenarios that have not and would not ever happen and then try to use those made-up scenarios to support your argument - after all, when you don't have the truth on your side, all you really have is hyperbole.

You're no doubt aware that the social programs run by Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the like are funded by...wait for it...market economies! The very same things that socialists despise.

I notice that you aren't bothering to back down from arguing that Venezuela is what socialists consider a "paradise." This is not surprising because you people never, ever, ever, admit when you've been wrong.

As for market economies, you don't seem to be aware that market economies can be changed to work FOR us - as those countries are doing. No one has said they are perfect, but they are doing better than most.

You people? You people! ROFLMAO. As a right-leaning libertarian, I'm not concerned about who you love and create, as long as you do your best to do no harm to others, including the unborn.

Yes, YOU people. You - largely straight cisgender old white men - who want to control womens' bodies and take away the rights of LGBTQIA. I don't care what political label you use. It's of no consequence. What I care about is your agenda of oppression.

marks you out not as a peace-loving leftie hippie who's happy to live and let live, but a violent and unhinged revolutionary.

Again, I don't know who told you hyperbole can take the place of a reasoned argument, but it can't.

I've never done violence in my life, and I'm also not a "leftie hippie". I am however perfectly fine to live and let live, but that goes out the window when it's not reciprocated by the other side. The fight is on, and it wasn't we who started it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Farmboy Today 07:39 am JST

The Republican party used to be pro choice because they used to not believe in the State controlling anyone’s personal life. It was not the State’s decision to make. That started to change when they realized what a great tool the religious right would be: one main issue and lots of votes easily had. Old Republicans who are still alive are sick at what has become of their party, and the ones who have passed on are rolling in their graves.

I could not have said it better myself!

The ignorant hordes are lining up behind the Republican party because the Republicans managed to tap into that hate and fear of Other, which includes women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQIA.

That pic of Trump holding up a Bible upside down for a photo op epitomizes this. The serial rapist, cheater, man with three wives and goddess knows how many mistresses, the man who pays women for sex, stopped going to church once his presidency was over and he didn't need to use that tactic any longer. But as soon as he runs again, oh yeah, they'll see him in the pews once again.

And none of the other Repubs who hold up God as their shield are any different. Hypocrites and liars, every single one of them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites