What did the Justices do wrong?

@no1marauder said
People don't have to be "stupid or dishonest" to believe in an unreasonable position.

8 SCOTUS justices in the 1872 case of Bradwell v. State upheld an Illinois law which said a woman could not be a lawyer because it would interfere with her "natural" role of wife and mother. AFAIK, no one accused these men of so ruling because they were "stupid" or "dishonest" but few ...[text shortened]... cede the legislators weren't "stupid" or ( at least in passing antiabortion penal laws) "dishonest"?

So you're not saying "stupid or dishonest", but you are saying "unreasonable". And then you brought up an example of some unreasonable decision unrelated to abortion or gun rights. To me, "unreasonable" sounds like a ambiguous proxy for "stupid or dishonest (but unspecified which one)", but I know that won't convince you so I won't press you to accept that take.

Is there anything you can think of that Democrats tend to believe and Republicans don't believe that reasonable people can disagree about?

I kind of think abortion is one such thing, but I understand that you don't think that's the case. (Because if you can't think of anything, maybe you're in a cult).

Would you agree that if the right to abortion is a natural right affirmed by the Constitution, then the right to voluntarily engage in "Conversion Therapy" is also a natural right?

@techsouth said
So you're not saying "stupid or dishonest", but you are saying "unreasonable". And then you brought up an example of some unreasonable decision unrelated to abortion or gun rights. To me, "unreasonable" sounds like a ambiguous proxy for "stupid or dishonest (but unspecified which one)", but I know that won't convince you so I won't press you to accept that take.

Is t ...[text shortened]... Constitution, then the right to voluntarily engage in "Conversion Therapy" is also a natural right?

Sure, a lot of policies issues reasonable people can disagree on; how much should be spent on policing and/or national defense. what should tax rates be, I mean the list is almost endless.

Abortion itself isn't a "Natural Right"; it's a logical application of the right of bodily autonomy, a facet of liberty. Perhaps you find that "pedantic".

I have no idea what "Conversion therapy" is.

@no1marauder said
Sure, a lot of policies issues reasonable people can disagree on; how much should be spent on policing and/or national defense. what should tax rates be, I mean the list is almost endless.

Abortion itself isn't a "Natural Right"; it's a logical application of the right of bodily autonomy, a facet of liberty. Perhaps you find that "pedantic".

I have no idea what "Conversion therapy" is.

I think we all agree about the autonomy as same pertains to abortion. But it seems that there are about 50,000 posts here that incorporate the lives of other people (i.e. me) and my government in the affairs and decisions of the person who is carrying the baby. A state could, and I don't think that this has been mentioned, refuse to hear any matter of abortion brought before it. In other words, not ruling either way.
Then what?

@no1marauder said
Sure, a lot of policies issues reasonable people can disagree on; how much should be spent on policing and/or national defense. what should tax rates be, I mean the list is almost endless.

Abortion itself isn't a "Natural Right"; it's a logical application of the right of bodily autonomy, a facet of liberty. Perhaps you find that "pedantic".

I have no idea what "Conversion therapy" is.

Well, I hope you've at least heard the basis for disagreement on how abortion is not only about "bodily autonomy". I suppose you've come across it somewhere but refuse to even acknowledge there is a take on this that doesn't fit nicely into the simple frame contrived by those who are pro choice. But since that argument is so prevalent and easy to fine, I assume there is a reason you'll choose to never produce a sentence that frames it differently.

Here is a chance to explain something about the second amendment that I genuinely can't see. It's not just about how the argument is framed. I am totally missing something.

According to your interpretation of the second amendment, what can the government NOT do that it COULD do if there were no second amendment?

And I said what Conversion Therapy was earlier in the thread I think. But it is easily found on google and clearly shows that Democrats are selective when they decide how far our bodily autonomy should go. But I assume you're not going to allow yourself to be led down that road toward internal contradiction no matter how hard I try. So I'm willing to just give up on that.