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

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  Precisely.

You'll probably get some Republican legislature reintroducing the death penalty for witchcraft.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You'll probably get some Republican legislature reintroducing the death penalty for witchcraft.

I’ve always been baffled by Christians fear and hatred of witchcraft. Jesus is like a straight up wizard, after all.

[HoodedCrow]

Why not? You’re pro science aren’t you? Heretic! Your thoughts are impure. Sinner! You aren’t obedient? Unworthy!

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve always been baffled by Christians fear and hatred of witchcraft. Jesus is like a straight up wizard, after all.

Yet. for centuries, the Church taught that fear of witches was just pagan superstition.  The real paranoia only set in during the sixteenth century.

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Yet. for centuries, the Church taught that fear of witches was just pagan superstition.  The real paranoia only set in during the sixteenth century.

Very true. Many people will mistakenly call the big witchcraft persecutions "medieval" but they really were a Renaissance and Reformation phenomenon. This does point out, though, that it is precisely in periods of more rapid change and division within societies when people get paranoid and look for scapegoats to persecute. In some ways the present world, with its conflicts between rural less educated more traditional people on one side and urban college educated change-accepting people on the other is mirroring the divisions that happened in Europe in the 16th century. The whole ideology about witches back then proposed they were a secret worldwide conspiracy organized into "covens" to infiltrate the general population, which is a lot like QAnon conspiracy theories. There probably really won't be new laws against witchcraft, but we can anticipate more attempts to suppress modern scapegoats like trans people, refugees, the media, etc.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Very true. Many people will mistakenly call the big witchcraft persecutions "medieval" but they really were a Renaissance and Reformation phenomenon. This does point out, though, that it is precisely in periods of more rapid change and division within societies when people get paranoid and look for scapegoats to persecute. In some ways the present world, with its conflicts between rural less educated more traditional people on one side and urban college educated change-accepting people on the other is mirroring the divisions that happened in Europe in the 16th century. The whole ideology about witches back then proposed they were a secret worldwide conspiracy organized into "covens" to infiltrate the general population, which is a lot like QAnon conspiracy theories. There probably really won't be new laws against witchcraft, but we can anticipate more attempts to suppress modern scapegoats like trans people, refugees, the media, etc.

The sixteenth century shows that superstition, and extreme brutality, can go hand in hand with the growth of high culture.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve always been baffled by Christians fear and hatred of witchcraft. Jesus is like a straight up wizard, after all.

Space Wizard you mean...

[Morpheus]

16 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Space Wizard you mean...

From the apocryphal post-resurrection adventures: “Jesus Christ? You think he could be related to  that crazy old hermit, Jay Christ?”

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

From the apocryphal post-resurrection adventures: “Jesus Christ? You think he could be related to  that crazy old hermit, Jay Christ?”

I thought it was crazy, old "Ben" Christ. Maybe those are just in the neo-apocryphal post-resurrection adventures. 

[DMC]

If anyone was wondering whether the Dems would be "making noise" on abortion this campaign:

Quote

Senate Majority Leader CHUCK SCHUMER said his chamber will vote Wednesday on a bill to codify abortion rights into law. It is unlikely to have the support necessary to break a filibuster (or even to pass without it).

But the high-profile vote will be followed May 14 by coordinated marches planned for D.C., Chicago, New York and Los Angeles, per Vice’s Elizabeth Landers. A variety of groups, including the Women’s March and Planned Parenthood, expect that the protests could draw hundreds of thousands of demonstrators.

The link also notes the leak yielded the best fundraising day of the year for the DCCC.  Indeed, counting outside groups, the Dems raised $7 million in a matter of hours.

[DMC]

Biden announces Karine Jean-Pierre as new White House press secretary.  Jean-Pierre will be the first black press secretary (male or female) and the first out LGBTQ+ person.

[ThinkerX]

Spread across the comments sections in multiple political articles, so no link -

- but there have been a rapidly multiplying number of posts calling for the impeachment of certain SC figures on the grounds they lied under oath during the confirmation process.

Be interesting to see if some prominent D would actually move such a motion to the floor - and what the SC's reaction would be. (I doubt it'd make it past the first vote, but still)

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, IFR said:

I think the argument would be that when individual rights conflict, the right of the conceptus to not be murdered trumps the right of the mother to have autonomy over her body. The key component being the conceptus is considered an individual. (That is to say, the individuality of the conceptus is established upon the moment and its detection: If not legally, then morally, and in this case moral law overrides actual law  until the legal system comes to its senses and matches moral law). Furthermore, the argument would continue that the mother has personal accountability for her actions. Don't want to risk children? Don't have sex. Trigger alert: 

 

As I said, a time when individual constitutional rights apply to the unborn child. Which therefore requires a definition in law of human / person / individual so as to identify when constitutional rights are applicable. To whit:

Quote

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion

 

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Therefore abortion should be at least universally legal, or at least not able to be subject to outright prohibition by state legislatures in the USA at any time before a foetus is capable of being "born alive". Since the conceptus/embryo/foetus has no constitutional rights as a person until it is in a "born alive" state.

It's not very helpful that the definitions, as far as I can tell, don't specify a standard point during pregnancy when the born alive state is reached for a foetus that has no abnormality, defect or disease condition. But interestingly, failure to reach a born alive condition can, when there are defects, abnormalities or disease conditions mean late term pregnancy including during the birthing process. Since the only person able to make an objective determination of born alive potential is a medical professional, and if they are confident that the entity is non-viable at term then the entity is not recognised as a person in law.

Recognition, other than according to the legal definition, of individuality of a conceptus/embryo/foetus would come down to personal, typically religious, opinion. Since the constitution explicitly prohibits the establishment of religion, a religious definition of person/human cannot be entertained in federal or state law, and individual opinion has no standing. 

[IFR]

@The Anti-Targ

Well said. However, note my parenthetical which tacitly acknowledges the double-speak of the pro-life advocates. I wish I could better represent their views, but my position is your position, and the pro-life advocate viewpoint is a bit baffling to me.

I guess we will see the full legal justifications from the pro-life perspective when Roe v Wade is overturned and abortion is outlawed in several states (whether it's convincing or consistent justification is of course an entirely different matter).

[The Anti-Targ]

I imagine, if the SC is not 5/9 captured by religious belief, which is not even universally held in Christianity, then any state law banning abortion when the conceptus/embry/foetus is not in a born alive condition should be struck down at every judicial level including the SC on the grounds that the entity in the womb has no constitutional protections in law.

I am also assuming a state legislature cannot define human/individual/person other than how it is defined in the federal code?

[Gertrude]

11 hours ago, Ormond said:

I know that people who turn out for special elections aren't the same as those who show up in a regular election, but it's still good news that a Democrat can win a district like this one when a completely crazy Republican gets nominated.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2022/05/democrat-lands-upset-victory-over-controversial-republican-for-state-houses-74th-district-in-kent-county.html

 

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

[mcbigski]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:22 PM, DMC said:

Why the fuck are you bringing up "partial birth abortions?"  Those were banned by federal law in 2003.  You won that battle a long time ago.

I'm tepidly pro abortion, I'd be fine with first trimester only except for bad complications later.  My point was about balancing the rational side of the debate with the emotional side.  Rationally, I don't see a difference between very late term abortion and infanticide.  Emotionally, they both seem awful in all but very edge cases.  The issue is where the line is drawn.  I don't think 1, 2, 4, or 8 fertilized cells are a person, but I do see a certain gordian knot sort of elegance in the Catholic position.  No gray area as far souls go.

Either way, I think letting each state's process decide their own rules is way better than federalizing this by judicial fiat.  So I'd be happy to see Roe get overturned, while also being fine with my state already having a law on the books (I'm fairly sure, CT for the record) that says abortion is legal regardless.

 

[mcbigski]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:00 PM, karaddin said:

Obviously it's just never come up at a point I'm involved in the conversation because I'm certainly not new to thinking this is bad. I suspect I'm probably more negative on the way corporations sell our data back and forth, but I do take issue with the government accessing that data. Sharing information with one party in no way consents to sharing it with other parties you'd refuse to share with directly and the government should not be able to simplify outsource violating your rights.

Agreed.  Though I'm pretty sure we're on the path in the US of Social Credit system de facto. Mega cap corporate and government interests are way too intertwined. Cancellation seems to fall more on conservatives than lefties to me as well, but I'm sure there's some degree of observer bias there too.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I'm tepidly pro abortion, I'd be fine with first trimester only except for bad complications later.  My point was about balancing the rational side of the debate with the emotional side.  Rationally, I don't see a difference between very late term abortion and infanticide.

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.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Rationally, I don't see a difference between very late term abortion and infanticide.

Late term abortions are incredibly rare, often caused by oppressive laws or because the mother's health is at risk and are already banned in a lot of states. Using that as a justification to end Roe is some braindead logic. 

And again, it's not going to do anything to stop abortions, it's just going to make them a fatal process for some.