Jump to content

US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream


Week

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well that's great for you, except it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  What we're talking about is 26 states primed to outlaw abortion virtually immediately once this decision is officially handed down.

Funny enough, when I saw that bit about trigger laws, I thought it was about states that had laws on the book to legalize abortion if Roe got overturned, as that is to the best of my knowledge my local situation.  

Why are you quoting NY Post though?  Everyone knows their stuff has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.  

And also, that's 26 states that are poised to put some restrictions on.  Not accurate to say 26 state are going outlaw abortion.  Pretty much every country in Europe has some restrictions on abortion, don't they?  So not apples to apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Funny enough, when I saw that bit about trigger laws, I thought it was about states that had laws on the book to legalize abortion if Roe got overturned, as that is to the best of my knowledge my local situation.  

If this is how little you understand the issue, why are you even talking? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ty says what, that I can't form my positions from my own consideration without getting spoon fed from centralized sources?  That sounds healthy for a democratic republic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

So Ty says what, that I can't form my positions from my own consideration without getting spoon fed from centralized sources?  That sounds healthy for a democratic republic!

So you're the "I'll do my own research" guy, and by doing your own research you're going to do exactly nothing and shoot from the hip, offering up the exact opposite of what's true despite the information being less than a 60 second Google search away. Okay...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Funny enough, when I saw that bit about trigger laws, I thought it was about states that had laws on the book to legalize abortion if Roe got overturned, as that is to the best of my knowledge my local situation.  

Nah, abortion is already legal in Connecticut, no need for a trigger law.  In fact they just passed a bill designed (in part) to legally protect women who come to the state to get an abortion.

23 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Why are you quoting NY Post though?  Everyone knows their stuff has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.  

Heh, wondered if someone would ask that.  Thought it was appropriate considering who I was responding to.  I also could've cited The Guardian, which has some good geographic data/graphs.  Or I could've just cited the original Guttmacher Institute report from last October, which both the Post and Guardian are basing it on anyway (and I've cited on here months ago).

23 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Not accurate to say 26 state are going outlaw abortion.

Yes, it is.  In fact you're lying if you're saying they aren't.

23 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Pretty much every country in Europe has some restrictions on abortion, don't they?  So not apples to apples.

The fuck does that have to do with anything?  Literally every state had/has restrictions on abortion too.  Your efforts at willful ignorance to basic facts are really pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So you're the "I'll do my own research" guy, and by doing your own research you're going to do exactly nothing and shoot from the hip, offering up the exact opposite of what's true despite the information being less than a 60 second Google search away.

I don't want to live in a society where right think is handed down from above.  There are some very serious incentive issues there.  Everyone should reason them out for themselves, if they aren't obvious.

You're also being very naive, if you trust google's algorithms as the arbiter of truth.

If I understand correctly, your issues here are that my moral reasoning is wrong, and that I should have appealed to google's authority on moral reasoning?  

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nah, abortion is already legal in Connecticut, no need for a trigger law.  In fact they just passed a bill designed (in part) to legally protect women who come to the state to get an abortion.

...

Yes, it is.  In fact you're lying if you're saying they aren't.

The fuck does that have to do with anything?  Literally every state had/has restrictions on abortion too.  Your efforts at willful ignorance to basic facts are really pathetic.

If the definition of a trigger law in this context is only laws that restrict, rather than permit abortion, then I'm wrong by that definition.  Seems to me like either way a pre-passed law subordinate to R v W would trigger (whether pro or con) if R v W got overturned, but I'm just a handsome tall drunk guy with a proportional endowment.

Think through your last two points.  You said 26 states would outlaw abortion.  Full Stop.  That's wrong.  I said that article said that 26 would impose some additonal restrictions on abortions, and pointed out that pretty much every jurisdiction as far as I know has some restrictions on abortion.  So we're kind of agreeing there on the bit that every state has restrictions on abortion?  Such that 26 is not the number of states that will outlaw abortion entirely.

I'd certainly be happy to wager on the under at 26 states outlawing abortion in any case.  I think you would too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Such that 26 is not the number of states that will outlaw abortion entirely.

22 states will undoubtedly outlaw abortion.  4 states - Florida (where DeSantis just signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks), Nebraska (where they are planning to pass a trigger law right now), Indiana (where a trigger law is expected) and Montana - will almost certainly follow suit.

These laws have already been passed - in the case of 9 states there are pre-Roe abortion bans that are still on the books.  You are wrong about this, and after being told and shown you're wrong all you are doing now is repeating disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I don't want to live in a society where right think is handed down from above.  There are some very serious incentive issues there.  Everyone should reason them out for themselves, if they aren't obvious.

Except you didn't even bother to learn anything, so there was nothing for you to reason out. You literally took a shit, smeared your hand in it, finger painted on a wall and thought you made a point. 

I agree that you shouldn't accept everything as a fact just because someone of authority said it is, but you have to at least try and show your math and that you've put in some effort to understand an issue. To take a stance that's exactly 100% wrong shows you gave no effort, which is just sad. And you don't get to preach from that position.

Quote

You're also being very naive, if you trust google's algorithms as the arbiter of truth.

I trust them more than your ability to look up basic information online that is very objective. :P

Quote

If I understand correctly, your issues here are that my moral reasoning is wrong, and that I should have appealed to google's authority on moral reasoning?  

They're not just wrong, they're as thought out as Homer's plan to jump the Springfield Gorge on Bart's skateboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I don't want to live in a society where right think is handed down from above.  There are some very serious incentive issues there.  Everyone should reason them out for themselves, if they aren't obvious.

You're also being very naive, if you trust google's algorithms as the arbiter of truth.

If I understand correctly, your issues here are that my moral reasoning is wrong, and that I should have appealed to google's authority on moral reasoning?  

If the definition of a trigger law in this context is only laws that restrict, rather than permit abortion, then I'm wrong by that definition.  Seems to me like either way a pre-passed law subordinate to R v W would trigger (whether pro or con) if R v W got overturned, but I'm just a handsome tall drunk guy with a proportional endowment.

Think through your last two points.  You said 26 states would outlaw abortion.  Full Stop.  That's wrong.  I said that article said that 26 would impose some additonal restrictions on abortions, and pointed out that pretty much every jurisdiction as far as I know has some restrictions on abortion.  So we're kind of agreeing there on the bit that every state has restrictions on abortion?  Such that 26 is not the number of states that will outlaw abortion entirely.

I'd certainly be happy to wager on the under at 26 states outlawing abortion in any case.  I think you would too?

I guess it depends on how technical you want to be. Are there 26 states that will ban abortion 100% of the time? I don't know. If a state only bans 99% is it that meaningfully better (or worse) I don't think many would notice the difference.  I bet you win the literal argument under your terms but I don't think it matters. It's besides the point. For what it's worth Daily mail describes it as 26.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10777013/26-states-abortion-likely-illegal-SCOTUS-overturns-Roe-vs-Wade.html

I tend to agree with you on late term abortions. Just make an exception for saving the life of the Mother.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late term and even PBA's are surely never a case of simply changing one's mind and deciding a baby is an undesirable inconvenience, to be simply discarded. It must surely always be a case of medical necessity because of serious health risk of the mother, or certain non-viability of the foetus (will not be "born alive" per the definition of personhood in the federal statute). Therefore late term abortions and PBA's when carried out for medical necessity or non-viability of the foetus is not rationally the same as infanticide. It is usually a highly traumatic and very upsetting necessity, which the parent(s) concerned will grieve over for many years, and probably second guess their decision and run a whole bunch of what if I did this or that differently questions through their heads. Suggesting such people are no different to baby killers by failing to discern a distinction is pretty outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I guess it depends on how technical you want to be. Are there 26 states that will ban abortion 100% of the time? I don't know. If a state only bans 99% is it that meaningfully better (or worse) I don't think many would notice the difference.

Yes, there are extreme exceptions in the case of the life of the mother and in some (but not all!) states for rape and incest.  If that's what he's saying by "not all," well then that's just an absurdly dumb semantic argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

22 states will undoubtedly outlaw abortion.  4 states - Florida (where DeSantis just signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks), Nebraska (where they are planning to pass a trigger law right now), Indiana (where a trigger law is expected) and Montana - will almost certainly follow suit.

These laws have already been passed - in the case of 9 states there are pre-Roe abortion bans that are still on the books.  You are wrong about this, and after being told and shown you're wrong all you are doing now is repeating disinformation.

So is saying no abortions after 15 weeks banning abortions or restricting abortions?  Because it sounds like you're saying the Florida law, for example, allows some abortions.  I was stating that when you 26 states are about to ban abortion, that was a gross misstatement.  

 Got to look again at the disinformation article you quoted, but it sounds like we're now down to 22 states "will undoubtedly" ban all abortions.  I still expect the total number of states to ban all abortions to be well under 22.

 

1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: @mcbigski

Sometimes, I feel like you google the phrase “wrong side of history“ and you just start copying and pasting whatever pops up.

 

 

 

 

 

Simmer down or else me, Vercingetorix, and Stannis, the rightful king, are going to have pretty severe words with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

So is saying no abortions after 15 weeks banning abortions or restricting abortions?  Because it sounds like you're saying the Florida law, for example, allows some abortions.  I was stating that when you 26 states are about to ban abortion, that was a gross misstatement.  Maybe only 25 if you concede that Florida isn't poised to go zero abortions?

*sigh*  I mentioned the 15 week bill parenthetically to point out that Florida is already well on their way to banning abortion.  In the process of saying that Florida is yes one of the 4 of 26 states that hadn't technically codified an full abortion ban yet, but is almost certain to do so soon.  The only "common ground" here is those four states haven't quite completely banned abortion once the Dobbs decision comes down - yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does having a law that says abortion is allowed before 15 weeks mean that the end game is no abortion at all?  From a poli sci point of view, do you think Desantis has support right now for 15 months, but not say 5, and that he also will have support for 0 months if Roe is tossed?

No one is actually expecting the supreme court to rule that abortion is illegal every where, rather than that it's not a federal issue right?  Or is this my sort of ignorance Ty was mewing about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Why does having a law that says abortion is allowed before 15 weeks mean that the end game is no abortion at all?  From a poli sci point of view, do you think Desantis has support right now for 15 months, but not say 5, and that he also will have support for 0 months if Roe is tossed?

JFC.  First, yes, DeSantis will move to ban abortion entirely.  This is the guy that got the GOP legislature to pass his own self-drawn redistricting maps after they themselves passed their own maps.  Indeed, that drawn out process is part of why the Florida legislature hasn't gotten around to banning abortion yet.  The only way DeSantis doesn't eventually sign an abortion bill is if he's defeated in November, but I ain't holding my breathe on that.

Second, and much more importantly, that's one state.  The point of this is that you kept saying, "oh they're just imposing more restrictions on abortion," when no, 22 of these states already have laws on the books that will ban abortion.  Stop grossly mischaracterizing what is happening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yall are arguing with the drunk guy who believes fervently that masks don't help airborne transmission, that Biden is completely senile, that Ukraine tried to rig the 2016 election.

And you're arguing with him to compromise with some of the restrictions coming, as if only 13 weeks wasn't a massive restriction on women's body autonomy or rights. 

Just...what the fuck guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

And you're arguing with him to compromise with some of the restrictions coming, as if only 13 weeks wasn't a massive restriction on women's body autonomy or rights.

Huh?  I'll readily admit trying to argue with him is completely futile, but I definitely wasn't trying to "compromise" anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I hope this is a good sign of things to come.

The leak of the upcoming repeal of RvW has enraged me. I thought I was enraged on Jan 6th, but this one hit very much different. It feels more personal. An attack on me as a woman, me as an atheist having to adhere to Christian standards. This right was just a given to me growing up and I knew nothing else and it rocked me that it could be so callously tossed aside. I know the Queer community can also feel the target shifting more directly onto them.

I don't really have a lot of hope that as a nation we can get a Dem supermajority. It would be great, but I'm not hopeful. I am, however, more hopeful about local elections. Maybe this will be the thing that gets people to care about their state legislature and how they shape our lives. Iowa has felt pretty damn red for a while now, but it was just 10 years ago when we legalized gay marriage, so I still feel we could be at least purple. And I hope this is the issue that gets young Iowans to the polls to make a difference. Use the Millennial numbers game to our advantage and override the Boomer majority. Gen X will, once again, not be a factor :p

According to Pew Iowa actually has 52% who say that abortion should be legal in "all or most" situations -- the same % as Minnesota. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...