Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87."Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tired and resolute champion of justice."Architect of the legal fight for women's rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.
The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87.
"Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tired and resolute champion of justice."
Architect of the legal fight for women's rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
As a fun test, I like to subjugate folks who advocate for something to their own request. For example, if you think murderers should go to jail, what would you say if you murdered? Would you say it was fair to go to jail?
Now apply that to folks who advocate for abortion. If you were aborted, would you think that was fair?
If you're having a hard time answering that, maybe you should have the process applied to yourself and then post back here what you think.
Until then, SHUT UP, you wretched scum of a human being. How dare you advocate for murder of children.
If I were aborted I wouldn't think at all. You fascists just want more canon fodder.
If I were aborted, I certainly wouldn't be around to care.
So I have no problem with abortion, even if it were applied to me before I was born, because it would be physically impossible for me to give a shit.
Neither would anyone else who is pro-choice.
Because we can't time travel or crawl back into the womb.
Of course only a troll hiding behind anonymously would pose such an illogical question. Then again, the right isn't noted for logic.
What if you survived the abortion with only half your limbs?
Ever notice how the most staunchly anti-abortion types are the best arguments for legal abortion? Kind of makes you think...
Crap. You're one of the few people I like talking to here and you've taught me a lot about transwomen. Do you have a discord or irc channel you like to hang out on? Can email me if so.
Ever notice how the most staunchly pro-abortion types are the best arguments for legal abortion? Kind of makes you think...
Except no, we're not. I've spent plenty of time around both pro-choicers and anti-choicers, and can see clear moral differences (hint: "pro-life" ain't).
Why do you think that works, what you just tried there? Only someone completely amoral (and dumber than a chocolate teapot...) would seriously think that had any stopping power.
Abortion means the termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't mean the fetus dies in the process.
If I was like the 90% of fetuses that are aborted within the first trimester (or the other 3.5% in the next couple of weeks after it), I wouldn't have developed enough of a brain to even be self-aware, let alone have an opinion on the matter. If I was like the approx 2% that are aborted late in term, I'd prefer it over the prospect of spending hours slowly dying of catastrophic defects outside the womb.
To turn things around:
1) If you were raped by a close (first-degree) relative, and knew the result was going to derail your career/education long-term (making it extremely difficult at best to earn enough to care for your existing actual children), would you want to have the option of taking a pill to terminate before the fetus can develop sentience beyond that of an invertebrate, or would you want to be forced to carry it to term?
2) If you were pregnant and discovered mid-term that the fetus had untreatable terminal defects, would you want to be be forced to carry it to term (being reminded every waking minute that your would-be baby is slowly dying inside you) and watch it suffer outside the womb for hours or days before it passed?
3) If you discovered 3 months into pregnancy that you'd developed a medical situation where remaining pregnant would guarantee your death before the fetus is beyond "extremely premature" (low-moderate chance of survival), would you prefer to have the option of ending the pregnancy, or be forced to die along with the likely-doomed fetus?
Remember, you have to answer the actual questions, not a weaselly "but what if" scenario.
A friend's wife had something similar to situation #2 happen to her. She's Catholic and while pregnant with her third child discovered her body was not supporting the baby well at all. If the child were to survive the full term and birth, it would basically have been a vegetable for life.Even the best case scenario would have been an existence so terrible that instead of attempting to complete the pregnancy, she chose to have a an abortion and hysterectomy. I do not know how far along she was when they discovered the situation, but I cannot imagine what grief and heartache is must have been to go against all her beliefs and decide that was more desirable than bringing such a child into the world.
These are the kinds of things that the Supreme Court decides. Anything is possible, and while the court often clarifies rulings instead of overturning them, nothing stops them from saying "it was the wrong decision and here's how things are going to work now." I think this appointment is going to turn into a real shitshow, real fast. Trump already has two appointees on the court and I'm betting they're going to ram this next one through as fast as possible, consequences be damned. The Republicans showed their colors when they circled the wagons around the president for the impeachment. They have no shame.
The impeachment was a sham. Anyone claiming the charges against Trump were valid and worthy of impeachment is dishonest or deluded.
Well, first, you NEVER let males (other than your practicing physician) decide the matter. You have to exclude them entirely before a rational discussion can be had.
Women love to see other women suffer... so that'll work well....
We need to allow post natal abortions, right up to the 72nd trimester (I think the math on that is right) or out of the house, fully emancipated
How dare you advocate for murder of children.
This epitomizes why this issue can't be discussed intelligently. The pro-lifers make these sorts of comments, while the pro-choicers prattle on with nonsense about depriving women of "control over their bodies".
The issue really ought to be discussed in terms of precisely at what point in time after conception a human organism should be granted a legal right to live.
and although i'm personally against abortion in most cases, i don't agree that your child is my/societies responsibility, much less your fetus inside your body. I also don't grant the state authority over parents. The parents are not "guardians" allowed some priveleges as long as they do what the state says. The parent has full authority until the kid is an adult. Not that the law would agree in most cases, but that's what the 2nd amendment is for. Killing seditious judges and cops. If a parent abuses their kids, i'm sorry for the kid, but that's on the parents, not me. That being said, i would support justifiable homicide allowances for people who kill child abusers and that sort of thing.