Jump to content

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


Week
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Thing thing about these right wing politicians is that they'll have a way to make sure their daughters/nieces/mistresses will still be able to get discreet, safe abortions in

O no, not those GUYS -- it's their wives and their mothers who do that -- Their Wimmenz -- part of the women's work that is never done, the work these GUYS never ever do because They Are Men, and it ain't menz work. :P  Hell a significant portion these jerkwaddies writing these laws, passing these laws, enacting these laws haven't a clue about even the biology of conception, pregnancy and child birth. as they've so often been proved to be ignorant even in these US political threads as they are derisively quoted saying bs even in the hallowed halls of the federal gummit that "if it is a real rape she can shut it down."  Among other equally ignorant and stupid lies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE OFFICIAL REICHLICAN LINE ON ABORTION IS THE SAME AS THE CONFEDERACY’S ON SLAVERY BUT EVEN MORE INCOHERENT, contradictory and lies -- including the same lie the slaveholders told that they simply wished to protect their states' rights and won't / don't interfere with other states' rights.  Yes, they said that even after crowing about the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act that was to mandate / force non-slave states to participate in the institution and economy -- with bounties, even.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/opinions/supreme-court-abortion-conservatives-roe-stewart/index.html

And further, men like Ross Douthat, as we see above in this thread, out-and-out admit so many men flat out suck so badly, the only way they can get their own personal sex slave and servant / married is if women have literally no other options and are forced into it.   Which of course incels do indeed demand as their right, as we've also seen in threads on this forum.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I share anything, let me say very, very, very clearly I am pro-choice.

Ok, that out of the way, I do think it is worth pausing to note that there are important moral and ethical dimensions that we should all acknowledge, and be honest in admitting the ethical priorities that undergird our positions.  I also think it is worth noting that there is a spectrum between the (bat $h*t crazy) "every sperm is sacred" crowd, and the (equally bat $h*t crazy) crowd that in fact claims to be morally ok with infanticide within some limited period after birth.  

So, there are a few sets of stakeholders that we need to think about here:

  • Person carrying the unborn
  • Father of the unborn (genetic and non-genetic if relevant)
  • Unborn
  • Broader family and community

The rabidly anti-choice crowd ethically prioritizes the unborn, and, perhaps, a certain view of the broader family and community's interest in that unborn's potential. (I'd say the father, which is sometimes true, but that turns out to be pretty dang fraught in practice).  They put the person carrying the unborn pretty low on the list of stakeholders that matter (and as one of those people, at least potentially, eff that noise).

The rabidly pro-choice crowd ethically prioritizes the person carrying the unborn, and, perhaps a certain (different) view of the broader family and community's interest, and I think put the unborn pretty low on the priority list (but is that the right way to run an ethical society?).

Not many people have an intellectually consistent view of the subject.  This is because I think it is incredibly difficult to be both intellectually consistent and ethically responsible.  I think the polling suggests that most people prioritize the person carrying the child's choice up to a certain point (usually "viability", whatever that means to them, health of the mother at any point, non-viable unborn, and in the case of bad act pregnancies (rape and incest)).  At that point there tends to be a shift to prioritizing the unborn and other interests.  And I'm not sure that is wrong.  

And also, the fundamental difference in what the broader family/community's interest is in the unborn drives a lot of the controversy.  Is the unborn a "burden" on society that the person carrying should be able to decline?  Instead is the unborn a potential "gift" to society that should not be squandered?  And in either case there is then a second set of debates as to how society should support (with tax dollars or otherwise) both outcomes.

I come out one of those intermediate doors - I do think that there is a point in an otherwise viable pregnancy where non-spontaneous abortion is unethical (though I'm queasy on the legality points).  I'm still working out when that is - I know birth is an answer, and my own views are inalterably colored by the experience of micro premie children but also multiple pregnancy losses and friends and relatives who have terminated, and I know that other people come out other doors on this.  And I also think society should do a better job a supporting all children and that it is sad that many who do seem to want to bring children into the world aren't willing to put their money where their votes are once the unborn is in the world as a person.  But I'm trying to be honest enough to admit where I am and not just repeat talking points.

And, NONE of this has anything to do with the actual Constitutional underpinnings of Roe (piss poor), and whether it matters after 50 years of "settled law" (I actually think precedent of this age should have meaning, and that comparing this to Dred Scott is at best intellectually dishonest as that case was not taking away a person's rights that existed, unless you want to be the asshole arguing that the slave owner's side of that equation).

Ok, that's my piece.    Blow me up now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

comparing this to Dred Scott is at best intellectually dishonest as that case was not taking away a person's rights that existed

The Fugitive Slave Act 1850 took away every person's right to NOT RETURN A PERSON TO SLAVERY AND FURTHER -- DECLARED THOSE WHO DID IT COULD BE PAID FOR IT.  It took away the rights of anyone to even testify in court, under oath that the person being called a slave and taken down to the slaveocracy was NOT A SLAVE.  And those who had helped someone not be re-enslaved, or who insisted the person had never been enslaved in the first place, could not have a lawyer and a trial.

Which made even people who didn't much give a damn about slavery in the first place really angry, angry enough they went to war after Fort Sumter.

Plus those who have been saying since about 1990 that you-name-whatever-outrageous, toxic, evil, illegal, etc. thing They propose, isn't really that bad and doesn't mean that blahblahblah -- have been proven wrong every damned time, right?

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The Fugitive Slave Act 1850 took away every person's right to NOT RETURN A PERSON TO SLAVERY AND FURTHER -- DECLARED THOSE WHO DID IT COULD BE PAID FOR IT.  It took away the rights of anyone to even testify in court, under oath that the person being called a slave and taken down to the slaveocracy was NOT A SLAVE.  And those who had helped someone not be re-enslaved, or who insisted the person had never been enslaved in the first place, could not have a lawyer and a trial.

Which made even people who didn't much give a damn about slavery in the first place really angry, angry enough they went to war after Fort Sumter.

Plus those who have been saying since about 1990 that you-name-whatever-outrageous, toxic, evil, illegal, etc. thing They propose, isn't really that bad and doesn't mean that blahblahblah -- have been proven wrong every damned time, right?

Please explain the sequitur?  My point was that right's argument (which I have seen) that Dred Scott and Plessy were wrong and had to be overturned just like Roe would be overturned by Dobbs is intellectually dishonest?  I think we agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I mean...Indiana, right?  

Shut up Wisconsin Man.

9 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Maybe the D's can win this seat. Or is already a D seat?

 

It's a local election, not anything major. But it is another example of Republican men hating women and being rewarded for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychologically, there is an attitude of male possession of women, as in American women were not allowed to have a bank account independent of men, but many cultural examples come to mind. My own grandmother earned a scholarship, but was not allowed to accept because her brother didn’t get one. When I was in school we were told all about the facts of life, but no word was spoken about female orgasm. Men have ejaculations and women have periods. Umm. Our health teacher did show us a condom.

I wonder what happened to the Zika virus. It just dropped out of the news. It is carried by mosquitoes. An infected mother would have a child who would probably be viable, but would not have a functioning brain. The brain stem would keep the poor kid alive after birth but would have no real potential. The child would need around the clock care for life. Anybody want to adopt? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot of women who I'd characterize as apathetic (or not especially vocal) towards politics post a bunch of memes about the upcoming SC decision, so maybe there is going to be a backlash based on that admittedly small sample. Not just the apathetic, but also among the more 'libertarian' minded as well. However, November is pretty far away....

I should note that Michigan is one of those 'trigger law' states, so its pretty important that Whitmer and Nessel get re-elected. I think I'll focus my attention there. Forget if Stabenow is up for re-election, but she usually has no trouble (compared to Peters, who had a bit of a struggle in 2020).

Edited by IheartIheartTesla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These legal briefs are seen even by some lawyers as advocating for human trafficking.  Which is illegal.  Yet advocated by people on the SCOTUS.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d23b254a5d882ea89b6c9a80966276f197c6ea22f81b9217838040d65902172a.png

So was the Fugitive Slave Act.

So much for legal, so much for states'  rights, so much for 'nothing being taken away from anybody,' in the FSA.  Feh.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I should note that Michigan is one of those 'trigger law' states, so its pretty important that Whitmer and Nessel get re-elected. I think I'll focus my attention there. Forget if Stabenow is up for re-election, but she usually has no trouble (compared to Peters, who had a bit of a struggle in 2020).

Stabenow is up in 2024, not this cycle.  I do think the backlash has more potential to impact key gubernatorial races in MI, PA, WI, maybe even Georgia and Arizona - and agree that's where the focus should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Shut up Wisconsin Man.

 

 

Hey, man, I just live here. This state is almost as whack-a-doodle as Indiana...I mean, Scott Walker AND Paul Ryan? And that's before you get to the crazies of the Trumpy ilk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alito skips conference appearance after draft opinion disclosure
The justice was scheduled to speak at the Fifth Circuit’s Annual Conference but instead recorded a brief video for attendees.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/06/alito-skips-appearance-draft-opinion-roe-v-wade-00030826

Quote

 

Justice Samuel Alito canceled a planned appearance in Nashville, Tennessee, on Friday, just days after the disclosure of his draft opinion showed that the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade.

The justice was scheduled to speak at the Fifth Circuit’s Annual Conference but instead recorded a brief video for attendees. He said he was “very much looking forward to visiting,” according to Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, who published a blog post about the cancellation.

“Unfortunately personal attendance became impractical, and I apologize,” Alito said, according to Blackman’s post.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zorral Amy Coney Barrett wants to breed Christian babies to fill her supply and demand model.( unethical) So preganat women are expected to go along with Ginni Thomas’(extra weird because she has been barren) and provide children…that is where the handmaids tale comes in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...