Roe v Wade is on deck

[Playball40]

..we are still left with people who think the State has the right to intervene on the internal biology of a woman.

That's something I failed to ask my mother about. I presume from her approach to many things in life, that she believes she only has power over her own actions. I'll ask her and share later.

Edit: Ok that was fast. Didn't think I'd get her on the phone at this time of day (usually out in the garden away from the phone), She (paraphrasing) says her beliefs only applied to us (my siblings and myself) during the time we were her responsibility. Now that we are adults we can believe whatever we want; she did her best. I guess that means she doesn't believe she has the power over the biology of women.

Edit: I Forgot, to mention her response to the state question specifically (which came before the reply above). She (again paraphrasing) doesn't argue about laws & people decide for themselves what they believe is right or wrong. She's a Jehovah's witness so it's obvious to me that not arguing about laws thing is influenced by that.

She's a Jehovah's Witness? I would think bodily autonomy would be important to her. Ask her to imagine the 'state' telling her she MUST have a blood transfusion.

 

[Politesse]

Man, no offense, but I am not falling for the obvious bait of "tell me your real feelings about my mother".

 

[Jarhyn]

I get crazy moms. My mom would, i'm sure, be just the same as yours, Gospel. Back in the day her SIL through my father's brother got an abortion and my parents... Well, let's just say they spoke that way about them in private or that's what I caught even as an oblivious autistic brat.

I caught enough, even so, that I was judgemental when my own sister got knocked up.

Though to be fair that was more about me thinking she should have kept up with school at the time, and being utterly baffled at how she fell in love with an angry idiot who ended up just as terrible a father as I expected.

It was still a little about her sexual freedom though.

At this point, all the judgement has shifted into the fact that she is and always has been as terrible a mother as the person who owned the womb I came out of.

But that's another story.

I would much rather not see more people get fucked up like my brother was, and like my sister kind-of was.

Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.

I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.

 

[Tigers!]

Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.

Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.

I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.

I do not understand the paragraph above at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

Marist Poll: Americans Swing To Democratic Party 48 To 41 After Roe Decision

In a new poll just released, 48% of Americans said they will vote for Democrats, as opposed to 41% for Republicans.

crooksandliars.com

In a new poll just released, 48% of Americans said they will vote for Democrats, as opposed to 41% for Republicans.


The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade on Friday is having a strong negative impact on Republican poll numbers. Americans are now saying they will definitely vote now with a 24% gain for Democrats over Republicans.


According to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll we are seeing a big swing in voter preferences.

Democrats have regained the favor of voters to control Congress, with 48% saying they are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the fall and 41% more likely to vote for a Republican. In April, Republicans led on that question in the poll 47% to 44%, which was within the margin of error.

 

[Gospel]

My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

I tried asking her when she believes life starts and she refused to answer (literally sucked her teeth in that Jamaican way) and said (paraphrasing) if you don't want a baby don't have sex until you're ready for one.

I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.

Spoiler: Warning

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her

In my opinion your mother is saying something that I would bet she does not believe:
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

I would guess that your mother loves her family and respects her children as people and considers them a joy, a gift and a treasure.

But then she says they are the “outcome” of a choice that must “be accepted.”

…

When I see loving people say that, I can only stare at them, unable to reconcile the contradiction between honoring children and then also speaking in ways that tell unplanned children that they are merely an outcome that must be accepted. I honestly do not know how to look at them when they declare that children merely a consequence of risky behavior that must be accepted. It is difficult to still see the love part upon hearing that.

Full disclosure. I was an unplanned child, I was the third unplanned child, I was told that I was an unplanned child, and a self-righteous mother let me know how wonderful she was for doing her duty.

Your mother - has just told me the same thing. I do not thank your mother for that, I’m afraid.

In my opinion children should be wanted. Unplanned children should be wanted. And they should never, IMHO, be used as pawns to convey to women that they have failed at responsibility. They should never be pointed to as evidence of duty. Every person who claims that children are a consequence of irresponsible behavior is speaking directly to all of the children who were unplanned, and particularly to those whose families had difficulty thinking of them as anything else, and whose families continue to repeat the same belief that children are just an unwanted thing that happens to you when you’re bad - a punishment.

I appreciate this Rhea. I'm going to actually talk about my views on abortion in relation to my mother's opinion (in the form of sharing my thoughts on her statements) and a response to your welcomed input on her opinion if that makes sense.

My mother is a simple yet complex woman so don't take the info I share as absolute, as it's just a small glimps that I am able to type up. She was a single mom raising 4 children. My father (Max Romeo) left to chase his music carrier after trying to balance working to support us and chasing the "American Dream" reached a breaking point. Simply put, it wasn't easy for them since arriving from Jamacia in 1976** (to my recollection I changed schools around 8 different times from all the moving to escape violence from black, white & spanish people as well as financial reasons. She worked her bones off for us after his exit and made it a thing to raise independent adults that are capable of navigating this system and avoiding a criminal record (all four of her children succeeded in that btw). She's also a registered Democrat who voted for everyone on the ticket since being in this country except Hillary & Biden. I'll have to ask her to remind me specifically but from what I recall it has to do with things both of them said sometime in their carriers (before I reached the age of giving a shit about politics) about young black people.

Anyhow, my opinion on her opinions on abortion is that I believe her personal experience raising us as a single parent & seeing the fruits of her labor (black adults with no criminal record ALL FOUR OF US - yes I'm shocked) influences her opinion. I don't believe (and she clearly stated that early today) that she wishes (or ever wished) to force her experiences and way of life on others. I just think her life experienced is the how and why she is the way she is on abortion (if that makes sense).

Now, before I get into what I think about your opinion on abortion I think it's fear that I share my opinions on it first. Lots of nuances. It may piss some people off. I believe women should have 100% control over their bodies. The federal and state governments should not have any say or use force against women's bodies. I also believe that the state and federal governments should not play any role in abortions either. Like not funding organza tons like planned parenthood for example. I can't go into detailed why. Because I'm typing on my phone. But in short since tax payer money is out of it public opinion should loose it's power. They just need to answer to the regulations in place for the medical industry. Give abortion the same status as the freedom of religion and keep it separate from the state.

That's all I am able to type into this pixel 6 pro right now. Police are asking me to move (another story).

**I was only 3 years old at that time with my older sister & second oldest sister. My brother (fourth child) was born in America.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.

Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.

I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.

I do not understand the paragraph above at all.

How old was your brother when they adopted him?

And if you want to continue this, there's a thread for that.

 

[Tigers!]

Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.

Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.

I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.

I do not understand the paragraph above at all.

How old was your brother when they adopted him?

5-6months

And if you want to continue this, there's a thread for that.

Where is this thread? I must be overlooking it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.

Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.

I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.

I do not understand the paragraph above at all.

How old was your brother when they adopted him?

5-6months

And if you want to continue this, there's a thread for that.

Where is this thread? I must be overlooking it.

It's like, right next to the abortion thread in M&P.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?

I said that it’s settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis, and one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.

link

On stare decisis...

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

Durbin: There is a statement which you made in that book, which has been often quoted, and I want to make sure that I quote it accurately here today. … And I quote, “The intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” …

How could you square that statement with legal abortion?

Gorsuch: Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.

Durbin: Do you accept that?

Gorsuch: That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.

link

To say you accept something is "the law of the land" does not mean you think it is correct, nor that you would not change it if you could. I accept that this board has some specific rules for its forums, but I do not think those rules are helpful. Decisions by upper courts is something that must bind lower courts (unless they distinguish a case on the facts), but the highest court is not bound by its own previous decisions, no matter how many times they've been affirmed.

If Durbin had asked "Is there any possibility you would overrule Roe v Wade in any future judgment" and Gorsuch said 'no', then I can see that he gave a counterfactual statement.

But the above? There is nothing there.

Kavanaugh said it was Stare Decisis, then ruled it wasn’t Stare Decisis. Gorsuch said he accepted Roe as ‘The law of the land.’

Your remark is akin to saying W didn’t say “Hussein caused 9/11”. If you can’t see the trouble above, that is a failure on your part.

 

[lpetrich]

In Overturning Roe, Radical Supreme Court Declares War on the 14th Amendment - "Alito’s opinion completely elides the significance of the 14th Amendment, which was explicitly designed to address the particular horrors of slavery, including the right of individuals to determine whether, with whom, and when to form a family."

The court’s consequential ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization represents the culmination of decades of conservative ideological assault on reproductive freedom. And it opens a door for the court’s 6-3 supermajority to strike down a host of other protections grounded in the Constitution’s promise of individual liberty that the court declares in Dobbs are not actually rooted in “history and tradition” — including the right to use contraception, the right to consensual sexual relations, and the right to same-sex marriage.

Still, the text of the majority ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, is not entirely new: The substance of the ruling has not changed since a leaked draft of the opinion was published by Politico in May. As he did in the leaked opinion, Alito goes on at length about how history doesn’t include a right to abortion (notably citing the “great” Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century judge who sentenced two “witches” to death and advocated for a husband’s right to rape his wife); gives a nod to the ahistorical idea that abortion is akin to eugenics; and seems perplexed by the idea that any reliance interests may have developed around the 50-year-old abortion precedent — in other words, he can’t see how generations of people may have internalized the guarantee that they have the right to plan and control their reproductive lives.

Most consequentially, perhaps, is the majority’s cramped and somewhat confusing view of the individual liberty rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. According to the Alito majority, there are two limited categories of rights protected by it: Those specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments — like the (apparently absolute) right to bear arms — and those that comprise “a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” And where that select list is concerned, Alito writes that the court must basically determine whether a right was considered as such in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. He concludes that abortion wasn’t firmly accepted then and so cannot be considered so now.

They ought to handle the Second Amendment in that way. By that argument, it would only protect single-shot muzzleloaders. Breechloaders and multishot guns did exist in the days of the Founders, but they were not very common. Automatic and semiautomatic guns did not exist at all back then.

In fact, Alito’s opinion scoffs at the idea that individual liberty would include a person’s ability to make autonomous intimate personal choices. “While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existence,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life,’ they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts,” he wrote. “These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much.” That criteria, “at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like,” he wrote.

What's so terrible about those?

A big problem with this decision to overturn RvW is that RvW involves premises that are parts of other important decisions, like Griswold vs. Connecticut supporting birth control, Lawrence vs. Texas supporting same-sex sexual activity, Obergefell vs. Hodges supporting same-sex marriage, and Loving vs. Virginia supporting interracial marriage and sex.

In the majority opinion, Alito disregards this concern, insisting that none of the other rights are in jeopardy because abortion is different — because it involves potential life — and accusing the dissent of stoking “unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights.” Still, at least part of the majority isn’t signing on to this assurance. In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote explicitly that those other rights should be overturned. While he agreed that the right to contraception, consensual sex, and same-sex marriage weren’t on the table in the Dobbs case, he wrote that they’re actually no different from abortion in that they too have no 14th Amendment protection and thus must go. “No party has asked us to decide ‘whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,’” he wrote. But in the future they should consider the entire class of rights, because any granted on that basis are “demonstrably erroneous,” he wrote, and “we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

 

[Gospel]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I tried asking her when she believes life starts and she refused to answer (literally sucked her teeth in that Jamaican way) and said (paraphrasing) if you don't want a baby don't have sex until you're ready for one.

I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.

Spoiler: Warning

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her

Sounds like she knows her position is inconsistent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who said having self-autonomy over one's body being a right had anything to do with being a victim?

I don't know anyone who will use those words in that order, it'd be a little too honest.

But let's face it. Fetal children are commonly described as a sort of parasite that pops into existence and tethers themselves to a host.
What Gospel's mom was pointing out is that personal autonomy exists before sex. Exercising it then would eliminate most of the problem.
Tom

In other words, couples who really don't want children must not have sex. What about those of us with genetic issues? Are we to remain lifelong virgins?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.

This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom

What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m very sincere here: I did not intentionally mischaracterize anything you wrote.

Please tell me what I got wrong.

Also: am I mistaken that when you first wrote ( in some thread I don’t remember) that you and a girlfriend were looking for an abortion but she miscarried that she had not yet had a pregnancy test? I may well have misremembered that. I apologize if I was mistaken about whether or not there was a pregnancy test.

What difference does it make if there was a pregnancy test? They thought a pregnancy existed, they were looking for an abortion. Whether the pregnancy actually existed or not is irrelevant.

 

[lostone]

Inconsistency is part of every ideological position, and should be. OTOH, one should modify one's position if supporting it causes one to be compelled to support untenable ideological stances. One can always deny having changed positions. In the present environment, one can even hold an untenable position and claim that one is being misunderstood, et al.

'Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds', Emerson said. Wilde seconded him. Both claimed that stance, but were misunderstood.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

And most sodomy is committed by heterosexual couples.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.

An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.

So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.

It doesn't surprise me--good website design these days means websites that can schedule things will provide a means of exporting the schedule to the common calendars. It's also common to have buttons to share various content with social media platforms. Thus the mere existence of such links does not prove anything evil is afoot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

And most sodomy is committed by heterosexual couples.

Especially after Dobbs.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.

An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.

So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.

It doesn't surprise me--good website design these days means websites that can schedule things will provide a means of exporting the schedule to the common calendars. It's also common to have buttons to share various content with social media platforms. Thus the mere existence of such links does not prove anything evil is afoot.

It doesn't need to be evil, it is interconnected. That is the point. What a person thought was just one data point on one website, is actually spanning several sites, with the weakest link being any company that gives up the pipeline to authorities.