mdeer1st t1_it77u2s wrote on October 21, 2022 at 1:09 PM

Reply to comment by Biobot42 in Why I'm voting yes on Prop 2 & 5 by ButtonFactoryJoe

My main point on Article 22 is that nothing can be a right unless it is applied to all people. Not a segment of the population. How would this be applied to all people?

Biobot42 t1_it7ccwv wrote on October 21, 2022 at 1:44 PM

I don't see how this isn't being applied to all people. The language is constructed without gendered language. All individuals, any One's rights, etc. And that's without even debating your premise. Be specific, how is this going to be unfairly favoring any person over any other?

mdeer1st t1_it7fove wrote on October 21, 2022 at 2:09 PM

Can you tell me how this would be applied to a woman after impregnation vs how it applies to a man after said act? I will grant that the man cannot carry the fetus to term physically, however, it is still his reproduction that will be decided. Just as it is hers. Which autonomy holds more weight. According to this act, they hold equal weight. So then a court must decide which holds more weight. If one outweighs the other, they are not equal. Therefore not a right being equally applied to all individuals.

And as with anything that is versed to include a caveat of potential governmental interference, it should be loathed and cannot be a right. If an institution, in this case the government, can supersede what is alleged to be a right, it is not a right. But a granted privilege until said institution decides it will not be applied in a given case. Where is the "right" then?

Biobot42 t1_it7i70c wrote on October 21, 2022 at 2:26 PM

>Can you tell me how this would be applied to a woman after impregnation vs how it applies to a man after said act?

You're making a bold claim here that a man's bodily autonomy is infringed upon when the women's is codified. You need to defend that claim. "it is still his reproduction that will be decided" doesn't mean anything, what reproduction is being decided? Where in this law does it infringe on that?

>So then a court must decide

Again, this is not a bad thing nor a failing of the ammendment. The point of the language is to strengthen an individual's legal flooring in cases where it does go to court, not to prevent them from ever being in court in the first place. Literally anyone can be taken to court for anything, God Bless the USA, but winning is a different matter.

>If an institution, in this case the government, can supersede what is alleged to be a right, it is not a right.

Do you know what prison is? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness get suspended given a compelling state interest, in this case a conviction following a crime being committed. Are those no longer rights? Nonsense.