Former astronauts and space industry professionals comment on fall of Roe v. Wade

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is so wonderful about science is that it has the ability to diminish much of the subjective elements of any claim by understanding the objective-based claims. Personal biases are real but science, over time, can overcome them with more and more direct or experimental evidence. The history of science is full of such stories.

[Article: Former NASA astronaut Terry Virts tweeted that the decision is "the latest and most egregious example of minority rule, and that needs to be fixed to save our democracy."]

It's less egregious when one knows that the democratically run states will now decide, due to the SCOTUS ruling, their own abortion laws, and states are ruled by majorities. [IMO, women, however, should (somehow) get two votes for every male vote on this one issue.]

So what does the majority actually think?... [Only 17% of Americans support full term abortion.]...
CBS News poll analysis: Americans have range of views on timing, circumstances of legal abortions - CBS News
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,640
1,092
5,560
The SCOTUS ruling upholds the 10th Amendment and sends the issue back to the State legislatures to settle. There is the Article V process to amend the US Constitution to establish explicit and declared rights or repeal specific amendments too (whiskey prohibition). We see explicit rights declared like amendments like 13th-15th after the Civil war or 26th amendment, giving 18 years old the right to vote as US citizens because of the Viet Nam war.
 
While I try to stay out of political discussions on science forums and hobby forums, I do feel it is important to note here that this article is an example of media bias in reporting, and has strayed from the "logic" of "science" into partisan politics and its associated illogical rhetoric.

The problem is that this article repeats the hyperbolic language of the political party that is arguing that a "right has been taken away" (the right to abortion) while also using similar hyperbolic language to argue that another right (the right to keep and bear arms) should be taken away. So, logically, they are trying to have it both ways at exactly the same time. And the "right" being "taken away" is not explicitly written into our Constitution, while the right they want to take away is very clearly stated in writing in the Constitution. This seems beyond illogical to the point of hypocritical. Their intent is to gain an outcome with whatever excuses can be concocted, rather than to respect the rules of the processes agreed to in our Constitution. It is the very "outcome-driven" process that they are criticizing as the tactic of the other side.

So, objectively looking at the situation, the real problem is that the political parties are trying to politicize the Supreme Court - one for the purpose of bypassing the legislative process and the other for undoing what has already been done that bypassed the legislative process, previously. And, that is becoming more and more divisive to our citizens, as politicians and the media supporting them on both sides of each issue use ever-increasingly hyperbolic language to stir passions in order to get their respective voter bases to actually take the time to go vote.

At this point, we already have each political party claiming that the elections they most recently lost were stolen either by foreign tampering or domestic corruption, and both parties impugning the integrity of the Supreme Court for not producing the political results that they wanted. This is seriously damaging the faith in our political system, and it needs to stop - from both sides.

This article has clearly "taken a side" in the name of the "space community", although that "community" is itself divided on this and many of the other political issues.

In particular, it is entirely logical for people who think that abortion should be legal (maybe with some limitations) to also think that that should not have been achieved by a Supreme Court decision on the basis of a "desired outcome" being somehow "interpreted" into the Constitution. The concern is that this type of "modification" to the Constitution, outside the actual process for modification that is written into that document itself, produces a path for future violations of the rights that are actually guaranteed to citizens by our Constitution in writing. In fact, the same party that wants to make abortion a Constitutional right by interpretation also wants to also find an "interpretation" that allows them to disregard a right explicitly written into the Constitution.

In most cases, especially those involving governance, how we do something is at least as important as getting it done.

Taking "short cuts" that produce short-term "wins" are leading to long-term "loses" in too many situations. Another example is the "rules changes" in the U.S. Senate that changed the necessary majority for several types of acts to be simple majority instead of 60% in-favor. If one party had not use this previously unacceptable "nuclear option" to undo a long-standing Senate tradition and rule, the other party would very likely not have used that same tactic to produce the Supreme Court's political composition that has undone what the "party that changes the rules" had previously accomplished by changing the rules.

So, I ask Space. com to please stop using their publication capabilities to push partisan political positions. This space should not be stooping to the illogical and hyperbolic rhetoric that is the tactic of partisan politics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts