Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Roe v Wade? You beez out of datez.

Oh for fuck's sake. This is so far beyond absurd. You have an entire screed arguing against something I don't want and don't support.

Wow. You needed to clip out a lot of the post that respectfully took your consideration and addressed it fully (with link and quote)... in order to get your "oh for fuck's sake" in.

What I want is the reinstallation of Roe v Wade.

Quaint. I recall you feeling Roe v Wade was the 'wrong way' to go about abortion rights. Now that it is gone, you want it back.

Do you have an objection to my position that actually addresses MY POSITION instead of arguing against something I don't support?

Your position, as is my position, aren't particularly relevant. I think it is much more likely that birth control will go away in states before abortion rights come back. But at least I know my votes didn't support a single vote on SCOTUS to rid women of their rights.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And we all said this was where it was going to go.

I call bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I don't believe for one second that "you all" were predicting this when RvW passed in 1973.

Passed?

Additionally, did Jarhyn say in 1973? We've (liberals) have been warning about this since 2000, well me since 2000. Other liberals, probably since '80 or '84.

Seriously, I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time, and I'm fairly sure you weren't even fucking born yet.

Elixir? Try 70 or 80.... ,000.

 

[Jarhyn]

And we all said this was where it was going to go.

I call bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I don't believe for one second that "you all" were predicting this when RvW passed in 1973.

Passed?

Additionally, did Jarhyn say in 1973? We've (liberals) have been warning about this since 2000, well me since 2000. Other liberals, probably since '80 or '84.

Seriously, I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time, and I'm fairly sure you weren't even fucking born yet.

Elixir? Try 70 or 80.... ,000.

As soon as someone proposed adding bureaucracy to the decision, we knew that it was pushing towards more dead and subjugated adults.

But instead of figuring out what proto-nazis looked like and dealing with them, we focused too much on what mature Naziism looks like and didn't catch it when it started repeating.

 

[Elixir]

I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time

In 1973 I wa 23. I had been living on my own for over five years. I was a home owner by then (three homes actually), was driving a new BMW, and was more aware of the societal impact of abortion than you are today.

Once again, what you think isn’t the problem - it’s what you know that ain’t so.
It would be easy to attribute your 3-fold error to the folly of youth, since you weren’t even born yet. Sorry to say, it shows.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry I overlooked that - NO. I do NOT consider a fetus a person.

You are of course welcome to a belief that fetuses are people, but I disagree with that OPINION

No, you evidently don't disagree with that opinion when it's a 38-week fetus.

Yes, yes I do.
The word viable in this context means to me “is not yet, but has a good chance to become”. If you want to take a cold rational view, <irrational view snipped for irrelevance> That’s not why I would favor <policy preference snipped for irrelevance>

So you are clearing up all the confusion and explicitly saying that in your view a 38-week fetus is not a person. Thank you. Well then,

what the bejesus was this?

your position that a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection

Is an invention of your less-than-honest mind.
... If you can’t make your case without imputing ridiculousness, your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare.

Emily didn't invent that! She got it straight out of you insisting fetuses aren't people right up to the point of delivery! Is there some substantive distinction between "I do NOT consider a fetus a person" and "nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection"? If there is in your mind, please explain it. I'm not seeing it. Emily evidently isn't seeing it.

If there is some error she made in jumping from your many statements to the effect of "I do NOT consider a fetus a person" to "nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection", and consequently misstated your position, it was because she can't read your mind and didn't anticipate that there would be some salient distinction between those that isn't obvious to us ordinary mortals. It wasn't because she invented anything. Your accusations that she was being less than honest, intellectually bankrupt, and imputing ridiculousness for some reason other than that you had made yourself look ridiculous, are misrepresentations. Stop misrepresenting Emily.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, you evidently don't disagree with that opinion when it's a 38-week fetus.

Yes, yes I do.
The word viable in this context means to me “is not yet, but has a good chance to become”. If you want to take a cold rational view, a 38 week fetus can’t replace the mother who bled out, but the mother who bled out could have, in principle, replaced the fetus. That’s not why I would favor keeping the government out of the exam room; it’s more about people suffering and dying for care delayed or denied.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here claim memories of “being” a fetus?

Look, you keep going back to this either-or scenario of the baby's life or the mothers. You just keep going back to a single situation where if the baby is protected, the mother is going to die.

I'll ask you again:
What is your view of the ethics involved when it's a 38-week healthy fetus in a perfectly health mother with no medical conditions or risks at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think there's a significantly higher likelihood of getting a federal law that enshrines RvW through congress than of getting your favored anytime-anywhere-anyreason abortion for all law passed EVER.

Why do you believe that?

Because, for like the fiftieth time now... The vast majority of americans, including the vast majority of women, support having some reasonable constraints on late-term abortions. Democrats would not have widespread public support for a completely unfettered abortions up until delivery law, because the vast majority of people do not want that.

I estimate both chances to be zero in the next two plus decades, based on where we are now and the direction this country is headed. Either you’re looking at a longer view*, or you’re hopelessly naive.

* assuming you’re quite a bit younger than I, that’s understandable.

If memory serves (which it might not at this point) I think you're about a decade older than me? I'm in my early fifties, and I think I recall that you're in your mid sixties?

 

[Emily Lake]

* assuming you’re quite a bit younger than I, that’s understandable.

I thought everyone was younger than you.

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Or Emily has a job and other things to do that respond to your needling questions on demand?

Also, I didn't say I think restoring RvW is a possibility in the near future, I said it has a higher likelihood than your preference of no-holds-barred abortion-as-a-right-to-the-last-day does.

Realistically, I think it's likely to stay at the state level for a while. That said, I also think that most states will end up converging to something that is very much like RvW. Even in those states where it's currently illegal in all or most situations, it's being constantly challenged - and it will continue to be challenged for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, in states with viability-based laws (which almost all have exceptions for medical reasons after viability) there isn't nearly as much challenge to those laws.

 

[Emily Lake]

Quaint. I recall you feeling Roe v Wade was the 'wrong way' to go about abortion rights. Now that it is gone, you want it back.

Why on earth do you think I held that position? With whom have you confused me?

 

[Elixir]

what the bejesus was this?

your position that a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection

Is an invention of your less-than-honest mind.
... If you can’t make your case without imputing ridiculousness, your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare.

Why are you unable to understand that "not a person" doesn't mean "devoid of value"? I'd call that "speciesism". Are you unable to see yourself doing that?
My horse is "not a person" either. And if I had to sacrifice him to save "person X", I would hesitate, but not for long. This, despite the fact that that horse has more people who like him or love him, than any 28 week fetus that ever was, prior to the internet. He is tremendously valuable, to a lot of people.

Please quit imputing beliefs to me in order to provide a veneer of rationality to your own blatantly irrational opinion.

 

[Emily Lake]

what the bejesus was this?

your position that a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection

Is an invention of your less-than-honest mind.
... If you can’t make your case without imputing ridiculousness, your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare.

Why are you unable to understand that "not a person" doesn't mean "devoid of value"?

I didn't say devoid of value, I said not worth of protection.

I'd call that "speciesism".

I don't care about your "speciesism" accusation, tossed out as if it has some moral connotation that would shame anyone. People are worth more to people than other animals are, generally speaking. The idea that anyone should be expected to care as much about any other species as we do about our own is inane.

Are you unable to see yourself doing that?
My horse is "not a person" either. And if I had to sacrifice him to save "person X", I would hesitate, but not for long.

If you had to sacrifice a horse to save a person, sure. How do you feel about killing a horse because their owner decided they didn't want him anymore?

This, despite the fact that that horse has more people who like him or love him, than any 28 week fetus that ever was, prior to the internet. He is tremendously valuable, to a lot of people.

This is an assertion you really can't support. It's projection to assume that 1) people care more about a horse than about a developing fetus in general and 2) that the number of people who feel strong affection for a horse or person increases that horse or person's value. If #2 were true, you'd have to conclude that Trump has higher value than most americans, given the number of people who seem to adore him for some reason. And don't get me started on Jason Momoa, he would have to be damned near god-level in terms of value on that basis.

Please quit imputing beliefs to me in order to provide a veneer of rationality to your own blatantly irrational opinion.

Which belief is being imputed to you that you do not actually hold? What opinion of Bomb#20's do you believe is irrational?

 

[Elixir]

I don't care about your "speciesism" accusation,

You sure spent a lot of time spinning to avoid facing it.

tossed out as if it has some moral connotation that would shame anyone.

Lulz! Methinks she doth protest too much. That's what comes from elevating non-sentient fetuses to "personhood".

People are worth more to people than other animals are, generally speaking.

People are worth more to people than fetuses are, generally speaking. Of course YMMV, and it looks like it does.

This is an assertion you really can't support.

Why would I need to? The statement you're arguing with was obviously based on my subjective observations. You cannot really undermine it rationally.

Which belief is being imputed to you

Are you daft? One more time, just for you:

"a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection"

THAT^^^ "belief" which you REPEATED ABOVE.

Are you just PLAYING dumb, or are you prematurely senile? A fucking planaria is "more than a lump of cells".
You are playing a very dishonest game. The dishonesty is not with me, it's with yourself. I think you believe are arguing in good faith, but it is obvious that you are not.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because, for like the fiftieth time now... The vast majority of americans, including the vast majority of women, support having some reasonable constraints on late-term abortions.

There were reasonable constraints to late term abortions before politicians got involved.

 

[Elixir]

Because, for like the fiftieth time now... The vast majority of americans, including the vast majority of women, support having some reasonable constraints on late-term abortions.

There were reasonable constraints to late term abortions before politicians got involved.

Zackly. Those "constraints" came from the political arena, not the medical arena, and their presence in the political arena is why we are where we are now, with women (actual people) bleeding out in red State parking lots.

 

[lostone]

Because, for like the fiftieth time now... The vast majority of americans, including the vast majority of women, support having some reasonable constraints on late-term abortions.

There were reasonable constraints to late term abortions before politicians got involved.

and there were also unwritten rules doctors followed., based on their own personal opinions, on whose life to save, the fetus or that of the mother

 

[Toni]

Again, I am singularly uninterested in "saving" that fraction of 1% of aborted fetuses at the expense of people with names and address, SS#s, friends, relatives, jobs, memories and lovers.

What if those people are not harmed by refusing to kill the fetus that's a month shy of delivery?

Ok, I freely admit that I haven’t followed this entire thread but while I agree with you about restoring Roe V Wade, I honestly don’t understand this post I’m quoting here.

Can you please help me out?

 

[Bomb#20]

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Of course it's a possibility. The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028. The 2028 election actually will be the referendum on Trump the Dems unrealistically pinned all their hopes on 2024 being. So there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030. Some Congressthing will no doubt submit a bill to enact RvW as federal law, just as some did the last times we had a Democratic WH and Congress, during segments of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it, i.e., do their bloody job for the American people, instead of what they did the last two times the opportunity presented itself -- they calculated that not having RvW in federal law was to the advantage of the Democratic Party, so they bottled the bills up in committee until their majorities went away. One would hope they've learned their lesson from the subsequent debacle, but the Dems are very good at not learning from defeats, so I wouldn't tell anyone to bet on them not repeating their mistake. But it's a possibility.

 

[Elixir]

The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028.

ROFL!!
Their welcome will not be up for re-election in 2028. I doubt there will be anything like a free or fair elections in 2026. I predict that the Trump Party will enjoy a yuuuuge victory in 2026 once all the gerrymandering and court cases are done. Referenda on Trump will be such a quaint thought.
By 2028, the dictatorship will be well established, if Cheato is still alive.

there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030.

What do you see that is “good” about their chances? By the time 2026 rolls around, the TrumPutin media complex will be telling the rubes that riches beyond their wildest dreams await a week or few down the road but only if they defeat the Dems who are responsible for the last couple of years of rampant double digit inflation. And the Murkinz will eat it up. (Especially if “leftist” media has been silenced by the free speech people in this administration as planned)

The GQP playbook mandates causing massive pain and blaming Dems for it. Again. It works like a charm on this overfed under informed population.

What it DOESN’T include, is conceding elections they lose.

all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it

Yawn. Will SCOTUS just sit there and pretend they didn’t already put the smack down on RvW? You seem to be assuming
* there is an election and
* The election is “fair” and
* The propaganda doesn’t work for once and
* America votes for a Dem Congress and
* The Trump cabal allows that Congress to be seated and
* SCOTUS doesn’t intervene to keep that from happening

I don’t believe there will be anything like a level playing field in any future election as long as this junta controls Washington.
For your scenario to play out, I believe their Orange Jesus will need to be dead. And if he IS dead I predict he will still get 20-plus percent of the Republicans vote (that’s how stupid they are as a group)

Not that that is out of the question, and I hope for America’s sake that he croaks very soon. I wouldn’t bet on it but I’d pray for it if I was religious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Of course it's a possibility. The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028. The 2028 election actually will be the referendum on Trump the Dems unrealistically pinned all their hopes on 2024 being. So there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030. Some Congressthing will no doubt submit a bill to enact RvW as federal law, just as some did the last times we had a Democratic WH and Congress, during segments of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it, i.e., do their bloody job for the American people, instead of what they did the last two times the opportunity presented itself -- they calculated that not having RvW in federal law was to the advantage of the Democratic Party, so they bottled the bills up in committee until their majorities went away.

Had the Democrats passed that legislation in 2009 and Obama signed it... it would not be the law of the land today because of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision. SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government. Dobbs already overrules the legislation you think the Dems should pass. It'd have to go back to the Supreme Court to be over-over-ruled.

Right now it would take a Constitutional Amendment to put it back in the Federal sphere.

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government.

Right. I don’t know what B#20 is imagining.
Perhaps he will elaborate.