|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 11 2022 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Every friend of mine who has heard the heartbeat of their unborn child in the womb at like 3 months or whatever have all said “well suddenly my views on abortion are very complicated”. I’m in the same boat. Abortion should be legal. But pretending that little heart beat isn’t meaningful or worth protecting is not productive.
I think democrats have done their typical terrible job at messaging regarding abortion. The idea that we should treat it like dental treatment is something a lot of parents will not agree with. It’s not reasonable.
One critical thing is that democrats pretend abortions aren’t a bad thing. They should instead focus on “how do we prevent as many abortion as we can” and then advocate for contraception and sex education. Until democrats admit an abortion is a sad thing, they’re gonna keep getting clobbered by it culturally. Every poll shows the majority of people support a woman’s right to choose: that doesn’t mean it’s no big deal.
I can't remember the last time i've seen a woman getting congratulated on her abortion/misscarriage. I think it's widely accepted that it takes a heavy emotionnal toll.
Unless you buy the bullshit about girls having dozens of abortions every year...?
|
On May 11 2022 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Every friend of mine who has heard the heartbeat of their unborn child in the womb at like 3 months or whatever have all said “well suddenly my views on abortion are very complicated”. I’m in the same boat. Abortion should be legal. But pretending that little heart beat isn’t meaningful or worth protecting is not productive.
I think democrats have done their typical terrible job at messaging regarding abortion. The idea that we should treat it like dental treatment is something a lot of parents will not agree with. It’s not reasonable.
One critical thing is that democrats pretend abortions aren’t a bad thing. They should instead focus on “how do we prevent as many abortion as we can” and then advocate for contraception and sex education. Until democrats admit an abortion is a sad thing, they’re gonna keep getting clobbered by it culturally. Every poll shows the majority of people support a woman’s right to choose: that doesn’t mean it’s no big deal.
I don't think anyone implies that it's no big deal to get an abortion. Except maybe Conservatives, really, who strawman the issue by saying people use abortions willy-nilly as birth control. That is an argument I've seen. But just because messaging is focused around how important the right to an abortion is doesn't mean abortions are carted around like a fun activity. If I'm wrong on that, then yeah sure, that's bad messaging.
It is possible to advocate for abortion rights and fight that fight without also thinking it's not a big deal to get one. I daresay most everyone knows what's involved to one degree or another. No, the biggest perversion of what's involved in an abortion, in my experience, have all come from experiences with Conservatives who trivialize the issue as murdering a baby for fun.
|
On May 11 2022 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Every friend of mine who has heard the heartbeat of their unborn child in the womb at like 3 months or whatever have all said “well suddenly my views on abortion are very complicated”. I’m in the same boat. Abortion should be legal. But pretending that little heart beat isn’t meaningful or worth protecting is not productive.
There's nothing wrong with personal views on abortion being complicated, or changing. I think most women who have abortions are impacted by it (physically, emotionally, etc.), yet their decision may still end up being the right one, in their specific situation. The point is that the pregnant woman should be able to ultimately make a decision based on her view, instead of the government denying her that right. Also, something like 80-90% of all abortions happen before there's a heart at all, so the whole emotional pull of the phrase "that little heart beat [is] meaningful" simply isn't applicable in the vast majority of cases.
|
On May 05 2022 06:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:30 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 04:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 05 2022 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Also, from Drone's article: "Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common. Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations." It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison). Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider! Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that improving sex ed and availability of contraceptives make infinitely better policy than banning abortions. But that wasn't the statement, and while dp started off so flippantly and trolly that it's amazing he wasn't actioned, he actually came back with arguments at later points and got bashed for it. Here was the initial exchange: On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. JimmyC was very vague about both aspects and notably left it to others, including yourself, to actually make that case, I don't think it is at all settled either way. In Jimmy's defense, it seems more like he was spitballing ideas than speaking from a point of certainty, whereas dp does seem very certain that the reverse is true. I personally so far think the data, insofar as there is much going around, is very much a toss up. What I took exception over was attacking dp over his follow-up point: On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. Not only are you wrong with regards to sex education, but you've conveniently ignored the fact that contraception can easily be 95-99% effective at preventing pregnancy, which means an enormous amount of abortions would be prevented. Ignoring your comment about sex ed, which I didn't expand on beyond that it's effectiveness would not change that the overall numbers are too small to accomplish what he purports, let's get to contraception. It is readily available to the VASSSST majority looking to use it. 91% of abortions are in the 20 and above age range, all of which have the ability to get contraception. which seems like an entirely reasonable counter-argument to the idea that easier access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Edit: yup, so pretty much what dp expanded on above me I disagree, being able to buy condoms at the store does not equal easy access to methods of birth control. For one thing it is only for the male and there is tons of information out there about how ineffective that can be do to social pressure and so on. This is before we get into all the various sexual assualts that happen. For example with the pill you would need to pay a doctor to persribe you the pill and given how it is in many of the places where abortion will illegal it is a legitimate fear that a doctor will either not perscribe or shame the unmarried woman from asking. There are many other examples as well, keep in mind small town Texas, Florida is not similar to places you have been. Even drug stores/convient stores will put the cobdoms behind the counter forcing people yo ask for them and the people will spread rumors, make comments and on and on about the unmarried women purchasing them. Next Drones article and it is not alone in this regard, suggests that places with illegal abortion have more abortions, not 0 abortions. This is not surprising as it is true in other versions of prohibition as well. I proposed that access and sex ed would likely reduce more thab outlawing. DP agrees that those measures would reduce abortions, he has not shown or even attempted to show that outlawing them will. And as you stated I was npt concrete, because I was not certain, and he is. Where is the data or proof for tgis certainity? So far he has just argued that the measures I suggest will not bring abortions to 0, which I never suggested. Where in any of these posts do you see anyone talking about only condoms? Women have easy access to pills, pessariums, implants and IUDs over here. As I said, I don't have a clue how that is in the US. So far I have dp's word that access is easy and your word that access is not easy in some red states. More statistics please and less anecdotes if you want to *actually* make your case. As for the numbers, there are 3 countries there that might be remotely comparable to the US in terms of socio-economic status that ban abortion: Ireland, Poland and Mexico. Of those, only Mexico had numbers in Drone's post, and it was stupidly (unbelievably) low. Meanwhile comparing the numbers of abortions per capita in Indonesia or Sudan with the US just doesn't seem at all interesting or say anything about what banning abortions might do to number of abortions. You'd need actually comparable data and that doesn't seem to exist. I was unaware is not common knowledge that access is limited. The condom comment was based on his comment that it was easy to get at the corner store. Here is a shit ton of info on how it is not easy for women to access and where it is not easy. Enjoy https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/access/birth-control-accesshttps://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2015/01/access-to-contraceptionhttps://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/contraception/state-policies-contraceptionhttps://www.yourlawyer.com/library/best-and-worst-birth-control-access-across-america/I look forward to DP providing some sort of information that is not anecdotal, but given his attitude I will not hold my breath.
In addition to my slow replying this convo has ran it's course so I think I am pretty much done. You aren't going to engage with what I say, instead just post links without scrutinizing what's inside them. For example, they refer to contraceptive deserts and define them as -
Contraceptive deserts are defined as counties where the number of health centers offering the full range of methods* is not enough to meet the needs of the county’s number of women eligible for publicly funded contraception, defined as at least one health center for every 1,000 women in need of publicly funded contraception.
* Health centers that provide the full range of methods are those that offer IUDs, implants, and most other FDA-approved methods such as birth control pills, the shot, the ring, the patch, cervical caps, diaphragms and emergency contraception on site.
I get why that is important, but I don't agree that access to every possible contraceptive on site within a radius they define in the numbers they outline is meaningful. When you describe access, is that what you mean, as well as free? Do you think when people hear lack of contraceptive access, they think in this way? So your wording is more of an issue for me I guess. Would your position be better stated as 'providing free, government funded contraceptives of every kind, to every woman, by opening and operating thousands of additional clinics that can accomplish this across the country'? I don't know what % affect it would have but it would at least be more accurate and discussion worthy.
On sex ed, papers like this - The impact of sex education mandates on teenage pregnancy: International evidence do not view it as self evident it has any impact on abortion rates. It leans towards no effect.
On what banning abortion will mean for abortion rates - Association of Travel Distance to Nearest Abortion Facility With Rates of Abortion comes to the conclusion that having closer facilities would have increased abortions by 70,000, which would be an increase of nearly 10% of total abortions. Working backwards from there, you can see the level of decrease possible through a ban. Economist Caitlin Myers theorizes that 100,000 women will be unable to reach a provider in the first year, with 75,000 having to give birth. That again would be a nearly 10% difference just from lack of access in the states that currently would automatically make it illegal.
Since these mainly focus on just the access issue, including any additional criminalization in those states will probably be a further deterrent. I don't understand what reason there is to believe abortion rates won't be affected when they are most prominent in people that already lack the means to have one.
On May 05 2022 06:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 06:05 dp wrote:On May 05 2022 04:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 05 2022 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Also, from Drone's article: "Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common. Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations." It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison). Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider! Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that improving sex ed and availability of contraceptives make infinitely better policy than banning abortions. But that wasn't the statement, and while dp started off so flippantly and trolly that it's amazing he wasn't actioned, he actually came back with arguments at later points and got bashed for it. Here was the initial exchange: On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. JimmyC was very vague about both aspects and notably left it to others, including yourself, to actually make that case, I don't think it is at all settled either way. In Jimmy's defense, it seems more like he was spitballing ideas than speaking from a point of certainty, whereas dp does seem very certain that the reverse is true. I personally so far think the data, insofar as there is much going around, is very much a toss up. What I took exception over was attacking dp over his follow-up point: On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. Not only are you wrong with regards to sex education, but you've conveniently ignored the fact that contraception can easily be 95-99% effective at preventing pregnancy, which means an enormous amount of abortions would be prevented. Ignoring your comment about sex ed, which I didn't expand on beyond that it's effectiveness would not change that the overall numbers are too small to accomplish what he purports, let's get to contraception. It is readily available to the VASSSST majority looking to use it. 91% of abortions are in the 20 and above age range, all of which have the ability to get contraception. which seems like an entirely reasonable counter-argument to the idea that easier access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Edit: yup, so pretty much what dp expanded on above me I disagree, being able to buy condoms at the store does not equal easy access to methods of birth control. For one thing it is only for the male and there is tons of information out there about how ineffective that can be do to social pressure and so on. This is before we get into all the various sexual assualts that happen. For example with the pill you would need to pay a doctor to persribe you the pill and given how it is in many of the places where abortion will illegal it is a legitimate fear that a doctor will either not perscribe or shame the unmarried woman from asking. There are many other examples as well, keep in mind small town Texas, Florida is not similar to places you have been. Even drug stores/convient stores will put the cobdoms behind the counter forcing people yo ask for them and the people will spread rumors, make comments and on and on about the unmarried women purchasing them. Next Drones article and it is not alone in this regard, suggests that places with illegal abortion have more abortions, not 0 abortions. This is not surprising as it is true in other versions of prohibition as well. I proposed that access and sex ed would likely reduce more thab outlawing. DP agrees that those measures would reduce abortions, he has not shown or even attempted to show that outlawing them will. And as you stated I was npt concrete, because I was not certain, and he is. Where is the data or proof for tgis certainity? So far he has just argued that the measures I suggest will not bring abortions to 0, which I never suggested. You can go to a doctor/clinic for 50-100$ and be prescribed the pill. There is telemedicine which can be even cheaper and you don't even have to leave your house. You can get meds delivered to your door if you are so inclined. Monthly cost between 8-10$. Are you saying women do not have access to doctors, pharmacies or 110$? I pointed out condoms because they are so readily available that there is never an argument you can't find them. And that puts the responsibility back on men as well, not forcing the women to carry the blunt of responsibility. Which is why you pivoted from them to rape pregnancy outliers. Then into this random belief that adults can't find contraception because they are from a small town, as if the ability to use the internet or travel to another town are impossible tasks. And imagine if the people in the store made comments or judged them. The horror!! This is again what I mean about infantilizing adults. Again I will provide what I can find but unfortunately data on the effectiveness of making it illegal is not a huge thing that people are looking to find out. Comparisons mainly rely on third world countries and comparing effectiveness there, which you can imagine is not really apples to apples with the US. What I find weird is that you seem to think lack of access to sex ed and contraceptives are a huge hurdle that increases abortions, but losing legal access to abortions will somehow not affect the rate downward. Finally, you really have to stop with the 0 stuff. I already asked you to show me where I said anything like this. You ignore that and repeat it. It's some random talking point you created and keep arguing against. I have not pivoted I'm giving examples, and unlike your anecdotal (which is funny you posted while I did because I predicted as much. I provided much more. You have yet to provide any evidence that supported your position that you keep asserting as fact. More over your lame "infantilizing adults" is some odd macho shit, are you going to start accusing me of not being man enough to tan my testicles next? Because you would be right, I am not near manly enough for that.
There is nothing 'macho' about pointing out the obvious. Right now, people have access to abortions even if they have to walk past pro-life assholes waving signs with babies on them trying to dissuade them. They will not have access if they are made illegal. Trying to conflate the two as the same does a disservice to what you are trying to convey. Sometimes, people suck, and you have to deal with them. That is not an access issue.
|
United States42490 Posts
On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother.
The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses.
|
On May 11 2022 02:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. How is the judiciary not doing that in this particular example? Are we going to see past overreaches of the branch expunged en masse? Considering that is the principle at play here? Or will we see Roe vs Wade specifically overturned, by the movement in the composition of the Supreme Court due to nominations by a party whose constituency wants an end to abortion? It strikes me as mightily convenient that the sole ruling on the chopping block under the auspices of judicial overreach happens to be this thing loads of people want to happenZ
It's different because by overturning Roe, the SC is not mandating that abortion be legal or illegal (as Roe did). It's simply being left up to the legislative branch, where new laws are debated and created.
As for the other rights that the SC has created, like interracial marriage and contraception, I think the SC will basically carve out a somewhat arbitrary exception for abortion and leave those other cases in place. Thus why Alito's opinion explicitly carves those other cases out, even though his reasoning might otherwise extend to them.
On May 11 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses.
Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide.
Linking these tweets just for the video:
|
|
|
United States42490 Posts
On May 11 2022 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Every friend of mine who has heard the heartbeat of their unborn child in the womb at like 3 months or whatever have all said “well suddenly my views on abortion are very complicated”. I’m in the same boat. Abortion should be legal. But pretending that little heart beat isn’t meaningful or worth protecting is not productive.
I think democrats have done their typical terrible job at messaging regarding abortion. The idea that we should treat it like dental treatment is something a lot of parents will not agree with. It’s not reasonable.
One critical thing is that democrats pretend abortions aren’t a bad thing. They should instead focus on “how do we prevent as many abortion as we can” and then advocate for contraception and sex education. Until democrats admit an abortion is a sad thing, they’re gonna keep getting clobbered by it culturally. Every poll shows the majority of people support a woman’s right to choose: that doesn’t mean it’s no big deal.
Abortions aren't a bad thing. They're just a thing. Losing a fetus when you wanted a baby is obviously bad. Losing a fetus when you didn't want a baby is obviously not bad. Given that most people who have abortions didn't want a baby that would be the general experience (excluding tragic cases like fetuses that are incompatible with life which all but the most sadistic people agree should be legal to abort).
You're taking a sample of exclusively wanted fetuses and referencing the emotional connection those parents-to-be have with the idea of their growing family. It's really not very relevant to what we're talking about here. My wife and I had a miscarriage of a wanted fetus and it was devastating but that has nothing to do with abortion because nobody is trying to force anyone to abort wanted fetuses.
|
Bisutopia19225 Posts
On May 11 2022 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Every friend of mine who has heard the heartbeat of their unborn child in the womb at like 3 months or whatever have all said “well suddenly my views on abortion are very complicated”. I’m in the same boat. Abortion should be legal. But pretending that little heart beat isn’t meaningful or worth protecting is not productive.
I think democrats have done their typical terrible job at messaging regarding abortion. The idea that we should treat it like dental treatment is something a lot of parents will not agree with. It’s not reasonable.
One critical thing is that democrats pretend abortions aren’t a bad thing. They should instead focus on “how do we prevent as many abortion as we can” and then advocate for contraception and sex education. Until democrats admit an abortion is a sad thing, they’re gonna keep getting clobbered by it culturally. Every poll shows the majority of people support a woman’s right to choose: that doesn’t mean it’s no big deal.
This is exactly me as a two time father. I was very much pro-choice as a teenager who didn't give an "f". Now I'm very much against abortion baring extreme circumstances. That being said, I still believe that the right should be upheld at the federal level. I don't think each state has the capacity to legislate on this issue with a level head. I'd rather women be left with the choice and focus on educating them as well as possible so they can make the best possible moral/responsible decision for themselves prior to and during the time in which a life is held within them.
As a reminder, I identify as a fiscal conservative, but am not represented by the Republican party.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
Doc were you really complaining about unfair representations of the Republican umbrella by taking examples of extreme just a few pages ago?
I can’t actually listen, if they’re as half as crazy as the headlines sound, well I wholeheartedly disavow such nonsense.
You are essentially agreeing with my point by saying you think an arbitrary exception will be made for Roe vs Wade.
Judicial propriety/states rights are the rationale with which to justify overturning Roe vs Wade, they are not the motivation. The motivation is pretty clear, unless myself and Simberto etc are completely off-base
If it were the other way around, Roe would not be currently sitting on the chopping block, looking around wondering why they’re the only one.
It’s a strange world where a corporation already is a person, a foetus may soon get personhood rights in many places, but living people still don’t have an inalienable right to healthcare.
|
Norway28630 Posts
I just became a dad slightly more than 12 hours ago, and I can't really say the process has changed my point of view on abortion. If anything, it has made me more understanding of how fucking sad late term abortions most likely are for the parents involved - which again, if anything, makes me think fewer hoops should have to be jumped through for the people seeking abortions. I mean, I'll always prefer a week 10 abortion to a week 22 abortion - but my very recent experience has made me think that for someone to want to abort their 22 week fetus, something absolutely disastrous would have to have happened. I can understand the fear that people get frivolous early term abortions if they're widely available (however, I don't really have any issues with early term abortions so that's fine to me), but I can't understand that any significant number of people would just sorta casually go 'okay so I carried this thingy for 6 months but now I'm sick of it' - I'm expecting that the least frivolous type of reasoning would be 'okay so the father to be just cheated on me and now we're broken up and I don't want to be a single parent', while most would be 'they've detected something seriously wrong with the baby that will severely impact its opportunity to have a good life, or end its life early'.
Forcing someone to give birth to a baby that is incompatible with life sounds absolutely sadistic. Emotionally, a whole ton happened in the first minute after birth, and while I was looking forward to seeing my boy yesterday too, I'm a couple hundred percent more emotionally attached to him now than I was 24 hours ago. I'm not saying it's a binary 'abortions are equally unproblematic until the baby is viable', because the emotional bond does gradually form - but I am saying that the reasons for people wanting abortions become gradually more narrow the longer time that passes, and that this, most likely, more than matches the degree to which abortions are 'more sad'.
I can't really watch youtube right now but I have a hard time imagining Northam or Ryan actually thinking that it's okay to kill healthy babies after giving birth, no matter if that's the story Fox or right wing twitter is trying to push.
|
On May 11 2022 03:30 WombaT wrote:
Doc were you really complaining about unfair representations of the Republican umbrella by taking examples of extreme just a few pages ago?
I can’t actually listen, if they’re as half as crazy as the headlines sound, well I wholeheartedly disavow such nonsense.
You are essentially agreeing with my point by saying you think an arbitrary exception will be made for Roe vs Wade.
Judicial propriety/states rights are the rationale with which to justify overturning Roe vs Wade, they are not the motivation. The motivation is pretty clear, unless myself and Simberto etc are completely off-base
If it were the other way around, Roe would not be currently sitting on the chopping block, looking around wondering why they’re the only one.
It’s a strange world where a corporation already is a person, a foetus may soon get personhood rights in many places, but living people still don’t have an inalienable right to healthcare.
Any decision that overturns a prior usurpation of power by the SC is a good one, even if other judge-made rights are left in place. It's a reduction in the amount of power usurpation by the judiciary. And again, unlike Roe itself it's not a mandate from the SC that the country adhere to the policy preferences of one political side. It's a withdrawal by the SC from the business of legislating - which is not an imposition by the SC of one side's policy preferences. You can attack the motivations of the SC and Republicans a you want - it's still the legally correct decision for the SC to (at least partially) get out of the business of legislating.
As for the individual politicians saying extreme things - I'm just making the point that I'll bet infanticide happens sometimes at abortion clinics. The statements are politicians are evidence that it already happens, as opposed to evidence that certain laws will be successfully enacted.
|
On May 11 2022 04:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I just became a dad slightly more than 12 hours ago, and I can't really say the process has changed my point of view on abortion. If anything, it has made me more understanding of how fucking sad late term abortions most likely are for the parents involved - which again, if anything, makes me think fewer hoops should have to be jumped through for the people seeking abortions. I mean, I'll always prefer a week 10 abortion to a week 22 abortion - but my very recent experience has made me think that for someone to want to abort their 22 week fetus, something absolutely disastrous would have to have happened. I can understand the fear that people get frivolous early term abortions if they're widely available (however, I don't really have any issues with early term abortions so that's fine to me), but I can't understand that any significant number of people would just sorta casually go 'okay so I carried this thingy for 6 months but now I'm sick of it' - I'm expecting that the least frivolous type of reasoning would be 'okay so the father to be just cheated on me and now we're broken up and I don't want to be a single parent', while most would be 'they've detected something seriously wrong with the baby that will severely impact its opportunity to have a good life, or end its life early'.
Forcing someone to give birth to a baby that is incompatible with life sounds absolutely sadistic. Emotionally, a whole ton happened in the first minute after birth, and while I was looking forward to seeing my boy yesterday too, I'm a couple hundred percent more emotionally attached to him now than I was 24 hours ago. I'm not saying it's a binary 'abortions are equally unproblematic until the baby is viable', because the emotional bond does gradually form - but I am saying that the reasons for people wanting abortions become gradually more narrow the longer time that passes, and that this, most likely, more than matches the degree to which abortions are 'more sad'.
I can't really watch youtube right now but I have a hard time imagining Northam or Ryan actually thinking that it's okay to kill healthy babies after giving birth, no matter if that's the story Fox or right wing twitter is trying to push. Congratulations!
And yes, as always Republicans argue against boogymen and fairytales because they have no argument for actual reality.
|
On May 11 2022 04:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I can't really watch youtube right now but I have a hard time imagining Northam or Ryan actually thinking that it's okay to kill healthy babies after giving birth, no matter if that's the story Fox or right wing twitter is trying to push.
This was northam describing a proposed state law at the time:
"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
Congrats on Mini-Drone dude! Hope they and their mother are keeping well.
I would largely echo that, the further you go along, the harder (emotionally) seeking an abortion becomes, and the narrower down the scope would tend to be to serious foetal abnormalities or risk to the mother.
Personally speaking Minibat was unplanned, it was touch and go what we were going to do, especially as his mother has real fertility problems and had no guarantee of conceiving again.
There definitely came a point that abortion became an emotionally untenable position for me, for all sorts of reasons.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 11 2022 04:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 04:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I can't really watch youtube right now but I have a hard time imagining Northam or Ryan actually thinking that it's okay to kill healthy babies after giving birth, no matter if that's the story Fox or right wing twitter is trying to push. This was northam describing a proposed state law at the time: Show nested quote +"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Is he not describing what happens if a non-viable pregnancy is brought to term?
It sounds very much like he’s describing the alternative to late term abortions, which sounds unpalatable because well, it is unpalatable.
If not, my mistake but it’s how the quote reads to me anyway
|
On May 11 2022 03:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 02:08 WombaT wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. How is the judiciary not doing that in this particular example? Are we going to see past overreaches of the branch expunged en masse? Considering that is the principle at play here? Or will we see Roe vs Wade specifically overturned, by the movement in the composition of the Supreme Court due to nominations by a party whose constituency wants an end to abortion? It strikes me as mightily convenient that the sole ruling on the chopping block under the auspices of judicial overreach happens to be this thing loads of people want to happenZ It's different because by overturning Roe, the SC is not mandating that abortion be legal or illegal (as Roe did). It's simply being left up to the legislative branch, where new laws are debated and created. As for the other rights that the SC has created, like interracial marriage and contraception, I think the SC will basically carve out a somewhat arbitrary exception for abortion and leave those other cases in place. Thus why Alito's opinion explicitly carves those other cases out, even though his reasoning might otherwise extend to them. Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses. Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide. Linking these tweets just for the video: https://twitter.com/alec_sears/status/1522270135205117954https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1521986348235866112
ROFL
Are you betting on nobody actually clicking your videos ?
They both said the same thing, that this should be left to the mother and the father and maybe the physicians. What an absolute clown world.
Just point me where any of them said or contemplated infanticide. And as you're a republican, I want the word "infanticide" since you made that point. Not any other word.
|
On May 11 2022 04:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 04:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I can't really watch youtube right now but I have a hard time imagining Northam or Ryan actually thinking that it's okay to kill healthy babies after giving birth, no matter if that's the story Fox or right wing twitter is trying to push. This was northam describing a proposed state law at the time: Show nested quote +"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." what is the horrible thing here? a nonviable fetus. Its in the name, nonviable...
You think its better to make a mother watch a baby live in pain or as a vegetable for a few hours/days/weeks before the body gives out because it literally cannot sustain itself it the more 'moral' option if the mother does not wish that?
|
On May 11 2022 04:35 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 03:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 02:08 WombaT wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. How is the judiciary not doing that in this particular example? Are we going to see past overreaches of the branch expunged en masse? Considering that is the principle at play here? Or will we see Roe vs Wade specifically overturned, by the movement in the composition of the Supreme Court due to nominations by a party whose constituency wants an end to abortion? It strikes me as mightily convenient that the sole ruling on the chopping block under the auspices of judicial overreach happens to be this thing loads of people want to happenZ It's different because by overturning Roe, the SC is not mandating that abortion be legal or illegal (as Roe did). It's simply being left up to the legislative branch, where new laws are debated and created. As for the other rights that the SC has created, like interracial marriage and contraception, I think the SC will basically carve out a somewhat arbitrary exception for abortion and leave those other cases in place. Thus why Alito's opinion explicitly carves those other cases out, even though his reasoning might otherwise extend to them. On May 11 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses. Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide. Linking these tweets just for the video: https://twitter.com/alec_sears/status/1522270135205117954https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1521986348235866112 ROFL Are you betting on nobody actually clicking your videos ? They both said the same thing, that this should be left to the mother and the father and maybe the physicians. What an absolute clown world. Just point me where any of them said or contemplated infanticide. And as you're a republican, I want the word "infanticide" since you made that point. Not any other word.
Sounds to me like northam was including babies with deformities in his description. He was alluding to ending the baby's life after birth, which is infanticide.
|
Was he ? I didn't hear anything about ending the baby's life, he even said that if the baby wasn't viable upon delivery, they'd still try to resuscitate it.
What a way to put words in another one's mouth. Still didn't get my timestamp for "infanticide" as you claimed (twice now) btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
