[RD] Abortion, once again

[Lexicus]

I was unaware the Supreme Court was the only branch of government in the United States.

"in this context"

And when the Supreme Court established Roe, I guess the undemocratic nature of the Court wasn't an issue then

I wasn't alive when Roe was decided but I have been condemning the Supreme Court as an antidemocratic travesty for quite a while now, even when it makes decisions I agree with. I actually think it's something of a political problem for liberals, as many seem to have simply assumed that the conservative legal movement would leave the (anomalous) liberal precedents from the days of the Warren/Burger courts untouched, when in fact the conservative legal movement was founded precisely to undo those precedents and return the American court system (and especially the Supreme Court) to the reactionary form it has taken for most of American history.

I don't condone João III's actions anymore than Firaxis

Fireaxis did animate him with that douchey smirk...

 

[João III]

"in this context"

Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say "in this context"? The Supreme Court doesn't exist independently of the other branches of government

If the antiabortion crowd really cared about children, there wouldn't be one in five children being food insecure, schools would be a higher priority and not an institution they demean and underfund, there would psychological counseling available to every child, financial assistance would be available to parents to improve housing, all underserved neighborhoods and small towns would have government grocery stores to give every child access to fresh fruit and vegetables, every foster child would be cared for by foster parents and there would be hardly any children up for adoptions.

But in reality, once a child is actually born, then the pro-lifers stop caring. The sheer hypocrisy completely discredits their commitment to the "sanctity of life."

These people you speak of, are they in this thread? Or are you just making a lot of assumptions?

 

[El_Machinae]

Love it that we have a dude outright saying that trans men and women's bodily autonomy and even life is intrinsically worth less than that of a fetus and thst the latter should be prioritized over the former

I think that everyone here is agreeing that there's some ratio of intrinsic worth, not that the one-to-one set of intrinsic worth balances equally. We could snapshot any specific case that way, but what we're really arguing is aggregate policies.

We're trading a certain number of fetuses per woman's life, not one to one. And we're trading a certain number of FASD kids per "woman's bodily autonomy". Now, the first case (fetuses killed per woman saved) can have a ratio that's much less than one all the way to much more than one. And then we're going to factor in that not all fetuses are equal. I guess with the 2nd, I guess the ratio is naturally capped in one direction, since ratio of FASD pregnancies will be necessarily a fraction of total ones.

But in reality, once a child is actually born, then the pro-lifers stop caring. The sheer hypocrisy completely discredits their commitment to the "sanctity of life."

This is intensely disingenuous. The gamut of 'pro-lifers' are people will be misogynists all the way to people who actually believe in protecting life. There are a variety of factors that prevent us from properly taking care of every wanted child, nevermind all the unwanted ones. The hypocrisy of pro-choicers is also complete, as well, given how much of this is just arm-chair quarter-backing. That's if we wanted to paint with too-broad a brush.

 

[João III]

liar.

What have I lied about? Or are you just throwing around accusations based on your own assumptions?

I'll quote myself, from this very thread

I would hope people here would at least think about what I've said. Sadly however, I think it's easier for some people to paint a picture of the "evil pro-life misogynist" in their mind and dismiss someone outright instead of actually attempting to engage with or understand their position.

 

[Estebonrober]

I was unaware the Supreme Court was the only branch of government in the United States. And when the Supreme Court established Roe, I guess the undemocratic nature of the Court wasn't an issue then

I don't condone João III's actions anymore than Firaxis

At least back then the SCOTUS was put in by presidents and senators who won actual elections. Considering how gerrymandered this nation is at this point to let the minority rule in perpetuity I'd consider SCOTUS considerably less democratic then when Roe was originally ruled.

America is already a failed state, we are just watching the body wither away.

 

[Estebonrober]

What have I lied about? Or are you just throwing around accusations based on your own assumptions?

I'll quote myself, from this very thread

Caring about life, you have demonstrated in other threads that consideration is conditional.
I'm personally pro-life but deciding for women what they should be is demonstrably misogynistic. You cannot have this take and not be a misogynist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Enough of the name calling and personal attacks. If you cannot be civil, stop posting here.

 

[João III]

Caring about life, you have demonstrated in other threads that consideration is conditional.
I'm personally pro-life but deciding for women what they should be is demonstrably misogynistic. You cannot have this take and not be a misogynist.

No idea what you're talking about, but you're welcome to read what I've written in this thread, my first post is on page 11. Otherwise you're just proving my point that some would rather argue with the people they imagine than the people they're talking to

 

[Lexicus]

Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say "in this context"? The Supreme Court doesn't exist independently of the other branches of government

In the context of Roe v Wade and its probable overturn by the Court. You are correct that the Supreme Court doesn't exist independently of other branches - the Supreme Court can declare the activities of the other branches illegal, so I'm not sure how that supports your point that the attitudes of voters matter.

 

[Estebonrober]

No idea what you're talking about, but you're welcome to read what I've written in this thread, my first post is on page 11. Otherwise you're just proving my point that some would rather argue with the people they imagine than the people they're talking to

It does matter. We'll use your scenario here and assume person good begins at conception. A human being, through no choice of their own, is in the womb. Do they not have sovereign bodily autonomy? How can one human life be worth less than another? These are important questions.


Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. There was a time in the United States when slaves were legally defined "quite clearly" as property.

Yes I would bet this is a lie. Do you support any wars? Do you support death penalty for anything? Do you support a strong welfare state? If you happen to be the one catholic who posts mainly conservative reactionary talking points but then is actually consistent on this topic, good for you. I seem to recall you supporting death in the Ukraine War thread but I cannot find it so I might be mistaken.

 

[Estebonrober]

I want to be real clear here, calling someone a misogynist for being this level of anti-choice is not jsut name calling. It's a demonstrably true statement. Calling someone a bigot for refusing to acknowledge the reality of the plight of minorities because they can find one study in one right wing think tank's paper that says otherwise is bigotry. Calling people out for that kind of behavior should be allowed.

 

[João III]

In the context of Roe v Wade and its probable overturn by the Court. You are correct that the Supreme Court doesn't exist independently of other branches - the Supreme Court can declare the activities of the other branches illegal, so I'm not sure how that supports your point that the attitudes of voters matter.

Ah okay, I think I get what you're saying now. My point is simply that voters are capable of influencing policy to a certain extent within a democratic system in general. Perhaps I'm just speaking more broadly than you

Do you support any wars?

No

Do you support death penalty for anything?

No

Do you support a strong welfare state?

Yes

If you happen to be the one catholic who posts mainly conservative reactionary talking points but then is actually consistent on this topic, good for you.

Expressing support for anarchy and distributism are famously conservative reactionary talking points

I seem to recall you supporting death in the Ukraine War thread but I cannot find it so I might be mistaken.

That's because you don't know what you're talking about and should refrain from making baseless accusations about people you don't know or even try to understand

I want to be real clear here, calling someone a misogynist for being this level of anti-choice is not jsut name calling. It's a demonstrably true statement.

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means

Calling people out for that kind of behavior should be allowed.

What you're doing is called "committing libel"

 

[Estebonrober]

Ah okay, I think I get what you're saying now. My point is simply that voters are capable of influencing policy to a certain extent within a democratic system in general. Perhaps I'm just speaking more broadly than you

No

No

Yes

Expressing support for distributism is a famously conservative reactionary talking point

That's because you don't know what you're talking about and should refrain from making baseless accusations about people you don't know or even try to understand

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means

What're you're doing is called "committing libel"

libel lol

No. You deciding how women should live their lives is misogynistic. Period.

Look I reserve the right to be wrong about your positions, there is a lot of reactionary talking points on this thread and if I confused you in another thread with someone else I apologize for that confusion. In regards to the bigot and misogynist labels in general? this forum ha s a real problem with both of these things for obvious reasons, it is largely white males talking in here and since a certain purge a while back it has lost a lot of more progressive voices.

fwiw my position is we should not be legislating morality on others unless it effects others, this one issue is fraught because of the personhood question. I lie personally farther conservative then I do policy wise. I was fine with the 20-25 week bans with health of mother exceptions. This is nonsense and its going to get worse if current state legislatures have anything to say about it.

Daily Wire host calls for nationwide ban against abortion: "You're either with us or against us on this" | Media Matters for America

 

[Birdjaguar]

Corporate response to abortion law changes. Lead paragraph.

After state abortion fights, Corporate America braces for the end of Roe
The nationwide shift would trigger profound logistics and cultural challenges for companies and workers
By Todd C. Frankel Taylor Telford Danielle Abril

In recent months, Apple has offered to cover medical expenses for workers in Texas who have to travel out of state to seek abortions. Salesforce has offered to relocate workers from state, where a restrictive abortion law took effect earlier this year. And on Monday, Amazon said it would cover $4,000 in travel costs for U.S. workers seeking medical care, including elective abortion and transgender surgery. The cautious first steps by companies in response to new state-level laws on abortion and LGBTQ issues highlight the unprecedented, nationwide challenges that businesses could now face with the leaked draft opinion overturning the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. The news this week caught corporate America off-guard, resulting in a barrage of worried emails and phone calls trailing into the night as corporate officials grappled with the realization that the slew of state abortion laws were simply dress rehearsals for a bigger, nationwide policy shift.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/05/04/companies-abortion-decision/

 

[João III]

No. You deciding how women should live their lives is misogynistic. Period.

Do you have anything substantive to say about anything I've said or just ad hominem?

I reserve the right to be wrong about your positions,

You're not just wrong, you've baselessly called me a liar and then proceed to be disingenuous about all of my positions

 

[Estebonrober]

Do you have anything substantive to say about anything I've said or just ad hominem?

You're not just wrong, you've baselessly called me a liar and then proceed to be disingenuous about all of my positions

are you just generating strawmen for devil's advocates reasons? Your stance is life at conception is to be defended above a woman's... that's a misogynistic take.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Corporate response to abortion law changes. Lead paragraph.

After state abortion fights, Corporate America braces for the end of Roe
The nationwide shift would trigger profound logistics and cultural challenges for companies and workers
By Todd C. Frankel Taylor Telford Danielle Abril

In recent months, Apple has offered to cover medical expenses for workers in Texas who have to travel out of state to seek abortions. Salesforce has offered to relocate workers from state, where a restrictive abortion law took effect earlier this year. And on Monday, Amazon said it would cover $4,000 in travel costs for U.S. workers seeking medical care, including elective abortion and transgender surgery. The cautious first steps by companies in response to new state-level laws on abortion and LGBTQ issues highlight the unprecedented, nationwide challenges that businesses could now face with the leaked draft opinion overturning the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. The news this week caught corporate America off-guard, resulting in a barrage of worried emails and phone calls trailing into the night as corporate officials grappled with the realization that the slew of state abortion laws were simply dress rehearsals for a bigger, nationwide policy shift.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/05/04/companies-abortion-decision/

It will interesting to see whether the same conservatives who champion the free market and the accumulation of wealth, and who call corporations people, will be angry that corporations are using their wealth in this way.

 

[João III]

are you just generating strawmen for devil's advocates reasons? Your stance is life at conception is to be defended above a woman's... that's a misogynistic take.

So you accuse me of setting up straw man arguments before promptly misrepresenting my position and calling me misogynistic. Again. Okay. I think I've seen enough for now

 

[Remorseless1]

Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say "in this context"? The Supreme Court doesn't exist independently of the other branches of government

These people you speak of, are they in this thread? Or are you just making a lot of assumptions?

These people of which I speak? Neighbors, friends, colleagues, and most importantly, people I met while 26 years as a journalist. I knew two strong antiabortion women who themselves got abortions, but they did it for the " right" reasons. The vast majority of people I interact with are those I see face to face.

Instead of attempting to deny half the population of control of their own bodies, I would suggest turning to the issues facing children and their families. As an example, the Build Back Better legislation included a provision that childcare be subsided to help families struggling to make ends meet even with multiple jobs, but the party that cares about the unborn voted down that provision.

But hey, a potential human being deserves more civil rights than an actual human being, amirite?

 

[Naskra]

amirite?

Youbewrong. Roe was overturned because it was sloppy jurisprudence. You should be happy the court is trying to show a little professionalism.