Roe v Wade is on deck

[bilby]

With the Roberts Court, can't tell if her complete lack of standing will matter.

Makes me ponder who can challenge it? People are literally not harmed by gay marriage.

Yeah, it's basically the ultimate example of a victimless activity.

Insurance companies that are required to provide marital benefits.

That would be an example of a party harmed by marriage.

That the effects of marriage in law may cause harm is not evidence of harm arising specifically from gay marriage.

Unless you can think of a benefit that insurance companies are required to provide to married gay policyholders, but are not also required to provide to married heterosexual policyholders.

 

[thebeave]

There are seven states in the US right now where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no limitations at all.

Can you point to a number of 3rd trimester optional abortions performed in those states?
Didn’t think so.
But let’s have monthly vaginal inspections of all our chattel women by a House Committee elder just to make sure they’re not killing microscopic blobs of protoplasm.

Can you explain why such loose abortion laws even exist in the first place, if no one wants them and no doctor will perform them? It just seems odd to me. Like going out of your way to make a law that says its legal to walk around in public with a plate of spaghetti on your head, when no one ever does this, or even wants to. I would suspect there is something fishy going on, but maybe that's just me, as I tend to be more skeptical than most people, I think.

But you aren't skeptical about a law that criminalizes walking around with a plate of spaghetti on your head? Your argument cuts both ways. There are legitimate reasons to perform late term abortions--to preserve the health of the mother or to prevent needless suffering for a nonviable fetus. There is no perfect solution for every situation, but the worst solution is for people with no stake in the outcome of such a pregnancy to overrule the judgment of the woman and her doctors.

I would most certainly be skeptical of a law that criminalizes walking around with a plate of spaghetti on your head. That would set off my spidey senses for sure. Any law having to do with a plate of spaghetti on the head is going to garner my curiousity.

And the recent discussion hasn't been about third trimester abortions where the health of the mother or a non-viable fetus is the issue. I am 100% behind those reasons, as are most reasonable people. The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

 

[Elixir]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

 

[TomC]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

I used to, but I don't anymore.
I'm appalled by the use of abortion as a form of birth control for the irresponsible. I've been for years. I thought RvW was a little too lax.

But the current shit show of "Crueler than thou" political posturing has left me convinced that the government should just shut up and stay out of it. Completely.
Tom

 

[pood]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.

 

[bilby]

It is completely legal to nail your own left hand to the ceiling.

I don't have any issue with that; I certainly wouldn't support any laws that explicitly prohibited doing that.

 

[thebeave]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

 

[TomC]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

FWIW, there are multiple threads on the subject of abortion.
Maybe one those would be better.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

Because I believe sentient groups of cells (aka people) have primacy over non-sentient groups of cells (aka blastocysts, fetuses, embryos).
Or rather, used to have, and should have.
The danger posed by abortion laws is 100% to sentient groups aka people.
The “danger” -if there is any, which has never been shown, of no abortion laws, is at least 99.99% to non-sentient groups of cells.

Then, not a driver of my opinion, but related, is the fact that Mrs. E had three ectopic pregnancies, two of which would have killed her if they happened in today’s Texas. So I’d have that emotional/rational fallback if I wasn’t already ideologically opposed to superfluous, harmful legislation.

 

[thebeave]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

FWIW, there are multiple threads on the subject of abortion.
Maybe one those would be better.
Tom

I agree. This has been a derail. I really don't have much interest in continuing the discussion here or elsewhere. As a 60+ year old white male, the risk of an unintended preganancy being part of my life now is essentially nil (not that the risk back in the day then was all that great either.). And I've heard enough pushback from others claiming that old white men have no business expressing their opinions on female reproductive issues. Which is fine by me... so, I'm out.

 

[thebeave]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

Because I believe sentient groups of cells (aka people) have primacy over non-sentient groups of cells (aka blastocysts, fetuses, embryos).
Or rather, used to have, and should have.
The danger posed by abortion laws is 100% to sentient groups aka people.
The “danger” -if there is any, which has never been shown, of no abortion laws, is at least 99.99% to non-sentient groups of cells.

Then, not a driver of my opinion, but related, is the fact that Mrs. E had three ectopic pregnancies, two of which would have killed her if they happened in today’s Texas. So I’d have that emotional/rational fallback if I wasn’t already ideologically opposed to superfluous, harmful legislation.

Fair enough. I think we will just agree to disagree on whether a fetus in the late stages of a pregnancy counts as sentient. But, yeah, I'm not a fan or what's going in Texas either. I have big problems with those on the extreme pro-choice and the extreme pro-life side.

 

[Elixir]

I think we will just agree to disagree on whether a fetus in the late stages of a pregnancy counts as sentient.

Oh, I think a very late stage fetus is sentient, if only just barely. Environmental factors are already imprinting on the brain before birth. Again, strong opinion only.
I also think abortions performed at that stage are incredibly rare and almost always because of threat to the life of the mother. Otherwise it’s a delivery, not an abortion.
OTOH, denial of care kills innocent women all the time. The GOVERNMENT is killing its citizens. Abortion laws are a fucked up idea from day one.
I believe legislators who pass those laws do not believe in the existence of innocent, pregnant women. Most are fat old white males thinking, well they fucked somebody and it wasn’t me, so I’m gonna punish them.

 

[Elixir]

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

^ Why I love the Beave.

 

[pood]

You must also remember that they are god-besotted busybodies who think fetuses are ensouled at conception and they are doing goddie’s work in saving innocent souls. Of course these same people generally vote to cut aid for the dear little souls after they have been born.

 

[bilby]

Ahh. Souls.

Are souls our souls?

 

[thebeave]

I think we will just agree to disagree on whether a fetus in the late stages of a pregnancy counts as sentient.

Oh, I think a very late stage fetus is sentient, if only just barely. Environmental factors are already imprinting on the brain before birth. Again, strong opinion only.
I also think abortions performed at that stage are incredibly rare and almost always because of threat to the life of the mother. Otherwise it’s a delivery, not an abortion.
OTOH, denial of care kills innocent women all the time. The GOVERNMENT is killing its citizens. Abortion laws are a fucked up idea from day one.
I believe legislators who pass those laws do not believe in the existence of innocent, pregnant women. Most are fat old white males thinking, well they fucked somebody and it wasn’t me, so I’m gonna punish them.

While its amusing to think the reason for abortion laws is old white men wanting to "punish the sluts"as you and Loren suggest, I can't say I find that reason to be a serious one. For one thing, there are plenty of women of all colors who approve of abortion laws. Or maybe they want to "punish the sluts" too, cause they're homely and the guys aren't persuing them?!

 

[Harry Bosch]

The discussion has been about the states where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions or reasons required (see Emily's statement above). I do have issues with those terms. Don't you?

No.
Wanna know why?

I may regret this, but, OK...go ahead.

Because I believe sentient groups of cells (aka people) have primacy over non-sentient groups of cells (aka blastocysts, fetuses, embryos).
Or rather, used to have, and should have.
The danger posed by abortion laws is 100% to sentient groups aka people.
The “danger” -if there is any, which has never been shown, of no abortion laws, is at least 99.99% to non-sentient groups of cells.

Then, not a driver of my opinion, but related, is the fact that Mrs. E had three ectopic pregnancies, two of which would have killed her if they happened in today’s Texas. So I’d have that emotional/rational fallback if I wasn’t already ideologically opposed to superfluous, harmful legislation.

Fair enough. I think we will just agree to disagree on whether a fetus in the late stages of a pregnancy counts as sentient. But, yeah, I'm not a fan or what's going in Texas either. I have big problems with those on the extreme pro-choice and the extreme pro-life side.

I get what you're saying. I'm very squeamish about third semester abortion also. But here's the deal for me: I believe that women should have bodily control of their body; just like guys do. And I trust women to make better decisions than the government.

 

[Elixir]

You must also remember that they are god-besotted busybodies who think fetuses are ensouled at conception and they are doing goddie’s work in saving innocent souls.

Oh GMAFB.
I wish that was the case; we could sue on religious freedom grounds AND Constitutional grounds. I think some people already are trying.

But - The besotted busybodies self identify as CHRISTIANS ffs. Their book, their magic guy(s) (3 of them?) - none of them mentions abortion whatsoever. Their god isn’t shy about forbidding stuff, so if abortion didn’t make the list - any of the lists - the religion excuse doesn’t hold much water.
Killing citizens to “save” zygotes is Hitlerian BS. Nobody is really serious about legislating that superstitious “ensoulment” invention.

 

[ZiprHead]

Many of those anti abortion women have had abortions of their own.

The Women Who Leave Anti-Abortion Picket Lines to Get Abortions

The rank and file of the so-called pro-life movement is full of people who need reproductive care—even if it means literally leaving a protest outside a clinic to ask for it.

www.thedailybeast.com

According to Prager, the phenomenon is so common that abortion providers have a name for it: the Me Exception.

“We in the movement often say people believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and ‘me,’ meaning whatever reason is relevant for that person,” she said. And yet, she noted, of the many surveys describing how Americans view abortion, virtually none reflect that reality.

 

[Elixir]

For one thing, there are plenty of women of all colors who approve of abortion laws.

That might matter if hey were legislators.
And there are MANY different reasons people are for or against abortion laws.
How many is “plenty”? Do you think they (you) could get, say, a majority?
I’d say then go for it.

I value democracy and trust that it will put stuff straighter than not over time.
How about a national referendum? Would you be happy abiding by that?