• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,477
Location
Ignore list
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
How do you propose we achieve this balancing act? Should we be governed by the tyranny of the minority for half a year and by the tyranny of the majority the other half?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice. It is enduring and some ways it is permanant.

There is no analogy to pregnancy, nor is it symmetric. It is the woman and woman alone that will bear most of it.

For the state to intercede in such an event, in any way that doesn’t involve widespread legitimate concern for health of pregnant women it is a travesty of human rights.

Democracy is smaller than this. To use democracy to justify forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy or an abortion is nothing short of a mockery of democracy.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost
I mean the part where there is suffering, compromise, and even a bunch of pain. While I'm glad you think pregnancy is roses and lilacs with cherubs floating around for over nine months, that isn't exactly how it works.
Many women even plan and want to get pregnant.
And marathon runners want to run in a marathon. That doesn't mean it isn't hard and painful.

I'm certain you are going to get to some point here. Was it that the state should be allowed to force a woman to endure a pregnancy? Because your mom was overjoyed over conception?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost
I mean the part where there is suffering, compromise, and even a bunch of pain. While I'm glad you think pregnancy is roses and lilacs with cherubs floating around for over nine months, that isn't exactly how it works.
Many women even plan and want to get pregnant.
And marathon runners want to run in a marathon. That doesn't mean it isn't hard and painful.

I'm certain you are going to get to some point here. Was it that the state should be allowed to force a woman to endure a pregnancy? Because your mom was overjoyed over conception?
Honestly, I expect it is one of the longest, hardest, most painful things anyone can do, and that's not even discussing raising the child.

It honestly baffles me how anyone can have the gall to think that any of it is easy!

It is guaranteed for massive swaths of it to be shitty and miserable.

Whenever I bring it up I bring it up in relation to my hernia, the accompanying surgery, or my kidney stones, the worst of which took 2 days to pass. I'm no stranger to such pain and brokenness, and it doesn't scare me. It just isn't going to be attainable for me for a very long time.

However, it is remarkably ignorant for someone to grandstand that these are not sacrifices someone should only be expected to undergo with consent.

Consent to an orgasm, a momentary drug effect, is not consent to that, and often enough in cases of abortions sought, there was not even that much consent involved.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,624
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.
I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Honestly, I expect it is one of the longest, hardest, most painful things anyone can do
That’s because you’re a bleeding heart lib’rul. You have no idea how hard it is to keep a dodge dually full of gas, to keep four 30 round clips of .223 ammo on hand at all times and still have time and money to attend Trump rallies.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Honestly, I expect it is one of the longest, hardest, most painful things anyone can do
That’s because you’re a bleeding heart lib’rul. You have no idea how hard it is to keep a dodge dually full of gas, to keep four 30 round clips of .223 ammo on hand at all times and still have time and money to attend Trump rallies.
Only four? I had to keep 6, then later 8 30 round mags on my person at all times, and sleep with the rifle for a whole year of my life. Keeping the hummer gassed up and the turret manned was my life. And don't get me started on the jingoism I had to let myself be subjected to.

I have a coin handed to me by Robert Gates himself.

You know what nobody tells you? Rifle rounds are heavy.

.50 cal cans are even heavier.

And don't get me started how heavy that fucking SAW was...
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.
I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.
More seriously (than my previous post) I think you touch on a profoundly important point.
If a pregnant woman feels pressured at all to carry to term, the elective element of their decision is compromised, opening the door to resentment. That resentment, no matter how slight or subliminal, is going to follow the eventual child for the rest of their life.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.
I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.
More seriously (than my previous post) I think you touch on a profoundly important point.
If a pregnant woman feels pressured at all to carry to term, the elective element of their decision is compromised, opening the door to resentment. That resentment, no matter how slight or subliminal, is going to follow the eventual child for the rest of their life.
Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child, anyone who tried to coerce me to do it in anyone's timeline and by anyone's choice but my own would find only one of us walking away from that confrontation.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.
Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?
No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.
And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.
That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.
Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.
I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.
More seriously (than my previous post) I think you touch on a profoundly important point.
If a pregnant woman feels pressured at all to carry to term, the elective element of their decision is compromised, opening the door to resentment. That resentment, no matter how slight or subliminal, is going to follow the eventual child for the rest of their life.
Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child, anyone who tried to coerce me to do it in anyone's timeline and by anyone's choice but my own would find only one of us walking away from that confrontation.
I just came to the realization that the same is true for my desire, and my ability, to create technology.

I have put my mind through a gauntlet of insanity beyond insanities to figure out some of the things I know how to engineer of technology, and some of them are really cool; some are utterly terrifying; some are both!

I would again go to far lengths to realize these dreams.

I would go to far lengths to prevent someone from leveraging me to do so for purposes other than my own.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,451
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
...
Nobody is advocating that pregnant women be forced to have abortions, and unions are decided by a majority of the workers. In many unionized companies, it is possible to opt out of being a member of the union, and that typically means that one gets the benefits of a union contract without paying for it or having to stop work when a strike is called. So you've managed to construct a whataboutism
Non sequitur. By that standard, any pointing out of inconsistency whatever counts as a whataboutism. What does any of that have to do with being mealy-mouthed about the thing you favor?

Whataboutism arguments are usually about hypocrisy, which is a simple ad hominem (genetic) fallacy.
Where do you see Jimmy claiming some virtue, for there to be anything for me to be accusing him of hypocrisy about? Pointing out an inconsistency is not normally about hypocrisy; it's about helping a person to see where he made a mistake.

Why drag unionism into a discussion of abortion?
Gee, why drag anything into a discussion of anything else? If people would only stay on topic then we'd all be free to claim anything follows from anything without all that pesky checking to see if we're committing special pleading fallacies.[/sarcasm]

Jimmy was evidently thinking about abortion using an inference procedure that he shouldn't rely on because it gives wrong answers. I dragged unionism in because his procedure gives wrong answers when you apply it to anything, not just when you apply it to abortion, and I picked unionism because I happened to know Jimmy is pro-union so I figured I could count on him to see the answer his procedure outputs is wrong when it's applied to unions.

As analogies go, this one was pretty bad.
As analogies go this one was pretty good, except that it depends on the listener to be able to handle a certain degree of abstraction about the sort of entity making the choice. (What with unions being collectives; it's kind of their whole point.)

wrapped inside of a straw man.
Now you're just trumping up charges out of hostility. What the bejesus argument am I supposed to have misrepresented?

You were the one charging Jimmy of an inconsistency regarding pro-unionism, which you inserted into the discussion.
And? How the devil do you figure that's a strawman? What the bejesus argument am I supposed to have misrepresented? Wait, do you not know what "strawman" means?

The term "pro-abortion" can be taken in two different ways--to advocate that an abortion be allowed and to advocate that an abortion take place. That's why those who advocate for it being allowed prefer the term "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion". The decision should be made by the pregnant woman, not someone else who favors or opposes the abortion.
:facepalm: Oh for the love of god. The decision of whether you marry a man should be made by you and him, not by somebody else who favors or opposes the marriage. The term "pro-gay-marriage" could be taken in two different ways by somebody with a sufficiently neurotic sense of how English works: to advocate that a gay marriage be allowed or to advocate that a gay marriage take place. And yet people keep saying they're "pro-gay-marriage", not "pro-gay-marriage-choice", and never worry that anyone will take them to be saying you and some other man should have to get married whether you want to or not.

I think that Jimmy has the question on <expletive deleted> analogies. Now it's about gay marriage. :rolleyes:
I think I covered that under "Good argument". If the only reason you can come up with to dismiss an analogy is to curse at it, it's probably a good analogy. If you guys decline to reason about unions and gay marriage the same way you reason about abortion, that's a red flag that when you reason about abortion you're special pleading.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,647
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child,
What a goddam boy.

Trust me. Pregnancy is no cake walk.

I grew up in a huge Irish Catholic family. Pregnant women were just a regular fact of life. By the time my youngest aunt was birthing her last child, my oldest cousin was married and trying to get pregnant. It was just everywhere.

Believe me when I say. You don't wanna get pregnant. For some people it's not a bigger comittment than a summer garden. For some, it's much more involved. For some others, it's a life or death situation.

Do not take it lightly. It's a big fucking deal!
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,451
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
:facepalm: The guy advocated a maximum wage. Of course he's a radical far leftist. Just one who is very, very capable of compromise. If he were running in a different country's upcoming election he would conform his policy recommendations to that country's Overton window instead of to the U.S.'s.
Why would Sanders be a radical far leftist in the US, but conform his policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window if he were running in its upcoming election?
The same reason he conforms his policy recommendations to the U.S.'s Overton window when he's running in a U.S. election: because he wants to win. He'd rather get some of his wish-list enacted than none of it. This isn't rocket science.
So he is a radical far leftist in the US, but would conform his policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window? You are confused about stuff that is not even rocket science.
You evidently think those characteristics contradict each other. How do they contradict each other?
When you conform your policies to a different country's Overton window, presumably meaning you shift your policies in a rightward direction, you are no longer a radical far leftist.
You say "your policies" as if you were identifying something specific. I said "his policy recommendations". The policies a person recommends are not as a rule identical to the policies he wants. People conform their policy recommendations to Overton windows because there's little point in picking a hill to die on when it's a lost cause. They don't do it because they've magically stopped wanting something just because their neighbors won't go for it.

When you conform your policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window, in a rightward direction, presumably meaning you shut up about the unsaleably far-left stuff you favor, you are still a radical far leftist. Politesse had it precisely right: "The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting." That isn't a claim that he isn't a radical far leftist; it could just be that he's entirely capable of compromising. When people can't get everything they want, sensible ones compromise and go for the subset that's potentially achievable.

The notion that Sanders would be in the Coalition if he were an Australian MP is ludicrous. He'd most likely be an independent and usually vote with Labor.

Imagine you were shipped off by the CCP to the University of Chicago to learn how to be an economist, and you came home a hard-core free-market capitalist...
I'd no longer be a radical far leftist.
...and they gave you an economist job in some bureaucracy, while Mao was still alive. Would you talk to the people around you about how they needed to abolish communism and open a stock market and privatize inefficient factories and let just anybody hire employees? Or would you talk to them about how they could increase the food supply if they let peasants work fewer hours on the collective farm and more hours on their private plots?
I'd no longer be a radical far leftist because I am advocating capitalist policy now.
It's an analogy -- I'm asking you to contemplate a socialist's capitalist mirror image. You'd still be a hard-core free-market capitalist who wants to abolish communism even though you'd be advocating only the mildest of free-market reforms, because what you really want is outside 1970s China's Overton window, so arguing for it wouldn't accomplish anything of use and would just get you fired.

Here's another analogy. Let's suppose you're an atheist and you're living in Saudi Arabia. Are you going to tell your neighbors there's no God, or are you going to tell them there's no good reason to think God objects to women driving? Would you construe your failure to mention to them that you're an atheist as meaning you are no longer an atheist?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child,
What a goddam boy.

Trust me. Pregnancy is no cake walk.

I grew up in a huge Irish Catholic family. Pregnant women were just a regular fact of life. By the time my youngest aunt was birthing her last child, my oldest cousin was married and trying to get pregnant. It was just everywhere.

Believe me when I say. You don't wanna get pregnant. For some people it's not a bigger comittment than a summer garden. For some, it's much more involved. For some others, it's a life or death situation.

Do not take it lightly. It's a big fucking deal!
Tom
As I told SoHy:
Don't. Tell. Me. What. I. Want.

I know what I want. I know what I would suffer for it, and I certainly know me better than you know me.

I have had kidney stones, and hernias, and hernia surgeries.

I have been confined to a chair for a month and a half because my insides were broken apart and living far harder far quicker than I ought to have. I did not make good decisions there, getting out of the chair like that that one time...

I have lain prone washed with pain, unmedicated, and shaking for days, pushing through it to shake sharp rocks out of my kidneys.

I found out later the cause and then I did that thing again anyway knowing I what would happen, knowing what I would develop another and have to pass it. The second was much worse than the first, and it won't likely be the last, and I know what costs I pay and what I pay it for.

I would do that all a hundred fold to gestate and birth a child.

I would do this even if there was a significant chance it would kill me just to try.

So please don't tell me what I am willing to experience.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I think I covered that under "Good argument". If the only reason you can come up with to dismiss an analogy is to curse at it, it's probably a good analogy.
Or it is a bullshit analogy. Like 105% of all political analogies.
Bomb#20 said:
Do you think every workplace should be required to be unionized even if the employees vote against it? I can't believe you're against workers getting a say in the matter. But does this mean you'd doggedly insist that you aren't pro-union? Do you tell people, "No, no. Pro-union isn't what people like me are for. I'm pro-choice about unions. I'm pro-legal access to a union."
No, and again, that isn't remotely similar to pregnancy and women. I only care that every woman has a right to choose for herself. In order to be able to choose, abortion has to be legal, but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. I'm rather indifferent on abortion.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,451
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
So why the heck can't we talk about abortion the same way we talk about unions -- the same way we talk about everything normal?
Because most pro-choice people are anti-abortion.

I am firmly pro-union; I think that the more workers are union members, the better.

I am also firmly anti-abortion; I think that the fewer abortions that occur, the better.

But I am firmly pro-choice; I do not believe that any woman who wants or needs an abortion should be faced with legal obstacles to obtaining one.

In my ideal dream world, ...

I am anti-house fire too; But I think that making access to firefighters as difficult as possible, in an attempt to encourage people to be more responsible and not have as many house fires, would be ... insane.
So would you describe yourself as anti-fire-department, because in your ideal dream world nobody would need one?

Bailing out of a plane is traumatic. Pilots report becoming permanently shorter afterwards. Would you describe yourself as anti-ejection-seat?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So would you describe yourself as anti-fire-department, because in your ideal dream world nobody would need one?

Bailing out of a plane is traumatic. Pilots report becoming permanently shorter afterwards. Would you describe yourself as anti-ejection-seat?
Man, you seem possessed over people not wanting to use the term pro-abortion. You might need to get over it.

Now, I would say I will be pro-decriminalization of abortion (and birth control) soon. Which really seems to be the more important thing and not the molehill you apparently want to set your flag on.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So would you describe yourself as anti-fire-department, because in your ideal dream world nobody would need one?

Bailing out of a plane is traumatic. Pilots report becoming permanently shorter afterwards. Would you describe yourself as anti-ejection-seat?
Man, you seem possessed over people not wanting to use the term pro-abortion. You might need to get over it.

Now, I would say I will be pro-decriminalization of abortion (and birth control) soon. Which really seems to be the more important thing and not the molehill you apparently want to set your flag on.
Well, it's full speed ahead to Handmaid's, if we can't win the midterms.

The Dems need one strategy and one alone: Handmaid's Tale:IRL edition; it's really happening, brought to you by the GOP.

Just, clips from handmaid's tale and the BC legislation and the anti-abortion legislation, and the opinion, and the discussions on the gay sex shit.

"Vote Democrat. Stay home, or vote republican/tea party, and you vote, quite literally, for an end to freedom."

I don't really want things to get ugly.

If America descends that far to Christo-Fascism or whatever, a lot of people will die, and life will suck regardless of who "wins" the ensuing conflict for a good long time.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I can't wait for the GOP to run adds depicting botched illegal abortions from the 60s and then say they are trying to protect the lives of women.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,365
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections. I also don't believe the Supreme court will overturn Roe V Wade. The leak was probably from an over-excited clerk who thought it was wonderful news but now that the damage is done, Republicans will pay for it. Ya know, since they're mostly known for wanting to do away with abortion entirely (whether true or not). If the leak turns out to be the legit ruling OMG. the status of abortion will not be the only problem we'd have to address as a result.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections. I also don't believe the Supreme court will overturn Roe V Wade. The leak was probably from an over-excited clerk who thought it was wonderful news but now that the damage is done, Republicans will pay for it. Ya know, since they're mostly known for wanting to do away with abortion entirely (whether true or not). If the leak turns out to be the legit ruling OMG. the status of abortion will not be the only problem we'd have to address as a result.
It was 100 pages long! Unless Alito started penning this a while ago, that thing is pretty legit. And WashPo reports Roberts is in the minority (well he is a party of one in this, he likely wants to erase the viability line... somehow but keep Roe/Casey) and the majority is standing pat.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,584
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Dr. Jack Brown on Twitter: "BREAKING: In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito's Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt — that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term — giving children up for adoption." / Twitter
That's near the bottom of PDF page 34 of the 98 pages.


The leaked document is already having an impact on this years midterm Congressional elections.
Meet the Press on Twitter: "ICYMI: @JCisnerosTX says her Democratic opponent, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), “could become the Joe Manchin of the House” due to anti-abortion stance.

“The last thing we want is to hold onto a slim Democratic majority and then have someone ... keep siding with Republicans.” (vid link)" / Twitter

They are running for TX-28, and Henry Cuellar is a longtime incumbent. He is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, with a 2020 govtrack.us ideology score of 0.57 (0 = lib, 1 = con). He is also the last remaining Democratic opponent of abortion in the House. His fellow abortion opponent Dan Lipinski was primaried in 2020 by Marie Newman.


Looking in the Senate, Kyrsten Sinema is the most conservative Democrat at 0.68, and Joe Manchin second at 0.57. Of the Republicans, Lisa Murkowski is the most liberal at 0.57 and Susan Collins second at 0.61.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,773
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Dr. Jack Brown on Twitter: "BREAKING: In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito's Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt — that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term — giving children up for adoption." / Twitter
That's near the bottom of PDF page 34 of the 98 pages.


The leaked document is already having an impact on this years midterm Congressional elections.
Meet the Press on Twitter: "ICYMI: @JCisnerosTX says her Democratic opponent, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), “could become the Joe Manchin of the House” due to anti-abortion stance.
“The last thing we want is to hold onto a slim Democratic majority and then have someone ... keep siding with Republicans.” (vid link)" / Twitter
They are running for TX-28, and Henry Cuellar is a longtime incumbent. He is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, with a 2020 govtrack.us ideology score of 0.57 (0 = lib, 1 = con). He is also the last remaining Democratic opponent of abortion in the House. His fellow abortion opponent Dan Lipinski was primaried in 2020 by Marie Newman.


Looking in the Senate, Kyrsten Sinema is the most conservative Democrat at 0.68, and Joe Manchin second at 0.57. Of the Republicans, Lisa Murkowski is the most liberal at 0.57 and Susan Collins second at 0.61.
Oh fucking hell it is exactly Handmaid's Tale.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,966
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections. I also don't believe the Supreme court will overturn Roe V Wade. The leak was probably from an over-excited clerk who thought it was wonderful news but now that the damage is done, Republicans will pay for it. Ya know, since they're mostly known for wanting to do away with abortion entirely (whether true or not). If the leak turns out to be the legit ruling OMG. the status of abortion will not be the only problem we'd have to address as a result.
It was 100 pages long! Unless Alito started penning this a while ago, that thing is pretty legit. And WashPo reports Roberts is in the minority (well he is a party of one in this, he likely wants to erase the viability line... somehow but keep Roe/Casey) and the majority is standing pat.

I don't think that Republicans can stop themselves. They packed the court with lifetime appointments for justices on a mission to overturn Roe v Wade. They can't back out now without causing an uproar in their base of supporters. The next target will be contraception, but there may not be a majority on the Court that is willing to take it that far, especially after the angry reaction that this decision is going to bring down on the GOP. Too many Republicans pushed hard for this and never thought it would actually happen. Now they get what they wished for.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,051
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
This is all predicable.

Republicans refused to have hearings on Obama late term SCOTUS nominees. Trump pandered to the Christian right by promising to appoint conservative judges with veiled reference to Roe v Wade. Christians overlooked Trumps corruption and immorality, some saying 'god works in mysterious ways'. Trump an agent of god.

Anyone who interpenetrated the recent conservative judges' nomination hearings to infer they would not overn Roe v Wade was not paying attention.

I personally did not like Jackson. She is the flip side. She refused to reject judicial activism in the cause of the left.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,966
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist

This is what a rogue Supreme Court looks like--justices who want to use their power to shape public policy rather than leave that up to the legislative and executive branches. What possible point of legal issue is she thinking about here? It has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Constitution let alone Roe v Wade. This has to do with her opinion about what to do with all of those unwanted pregnancies that women will be forced to carry to term.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,584
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
In context:
Alito Draft said:
Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern develop- ‘ments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of un-married women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, that leave for pregnancy and child birth are now guaranteed by law in many cases, that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or govern- ment assistance; that States have increasingly adopted safe haven laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and that a woman who puts her new- born up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.
The last sentence footnotes what is cited above. I can't make sense of the footnote and what is Justice commentary or a direct quote. Regardless, the above is quite repugnant. Like McKinnon said, 'just do your 9', what's the big deal.

I like how insurance covers some of the costs, therefore, no problem. I'm surprised that don't consider payments for pregnancy and birth care to be speech and that abortion would inhibit that free speech.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This is all predicable.

Republicans refused to have hearings on Obama late term SCOTUS nominees. Trump pandered to the Christian right by promising to appoint conservative judges with veiled reference to Roe v Wade. Christians overlooked Trumps corruption and immorality, some saying 'god works in mysterious ways'. Trump an agent of god.

Anyone who interpenetrated the recent conservative judges' nomination hearings to infer they would not overn Roe v Wade was not paying attention.
Well, no, they did say it was settled law. They lied. That simple.
I personally did not like Jackson. She is the flip side. She refused to reject judicial activism in the cause of the left.
OFFS! Liberal judicial activism expands rights, ultra-conservative judicial activism gets "the pill" banned and women have to get illegal abortions and go to the hospital hemoragging.

Total flip side.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,584
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Pelosi just went after Newsom. She probably shouldn't have.
While appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Pelosi was told by host Margaret Brennan that "Newsom said Democrats have failed to target Republicans" on the issue of abortion. The House Speaker was then shown a brief clip of Newsom at a press conference stating, "Where is the Democratic Party? Where's the party? Why are we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort. And yes, they're winning. We need to stand up. Where's the counteroffensive?"

"Madam Speaker, why were pro-abortion rights Democrats outmaneuvered?" Brennan asked.

"I have no idea," Pelosi replied. "The fact is that we have been fighting for a woman's right to choose, and that is to choose. We have been fighting against the Republicans in the Congress constantly because the fact is they're not just anti-woman's right to choose in terms of terminating a pregnancy, but in terms of access to contraception and family planning and the rest, both domestically and globally. This is a constant fight that we've had for generations, decades, I should say in my case in the Congress."

She went on to say of Newsom, "I have no idea why anybody would make that statement unless they were unaware of the fight that has been going on."
What can she point to as defense of abortion by her party?

Here is the context of that quote that NP was shown by FTN:
"I felt this enormous sense of frustration, like where the hell's my party? Where's the Democratic Party? You guys paying attention to what's going on? It wasn't just the initiation of so much of this that came out of the private right of action and the actions in Texas, but all these other bills, that are just cookie-cutter bills that are being spun out in states all across the country, across a spectrum of issues.
GN intended this as a criticism of the likes of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, and not NP or the House Democrats.
"These culture wars, where is the counteroffensive in the Democratic Party?" Newsom said. "Why aren't we waking up to that? And it's not an indictment, it's not about the leader of the House of Representatives, she's across the spectrum delivering, it's just not getting through the door in the Senate. The president is doing all he can to deal with a hundred different crises... I applaud him for all of that work as well. It's about us as Democrats doing a better job to coordinate a more disciplined counteroffensive and message across the spectrum."

Of any possible federal legislation, Newsom said, "We've seen this across a spectrum of issues, things getting stuck in Congress, I can't take anymore Manchins, I can't take it."
Last year in Virginia, Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe didn't have any response to the Republicans' culture warring about critical race theory.

It's good that someone is willing to challenge the Democratic Party leadership's fecklessness.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,139
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist

Not sure why you would go to "body language expert" Jack Brown for breaking news, because what he said is not quite accurate. It's Alito's opinion, not Barrett's, and "domestic supply" comes from a footnote quoting from a CDC report, and to support his claim that "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home."

Of course, that only matters for women who would consider adoption. Nothing wrong with not wanting to be a baby-donor charity for others. Worse to force someone to do so.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Pelosi just went after Newsom. She probably shouldn't have.
While appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Pelosi was told by host Margaret Brennan that "Newsom said Democrats have failed to target Republicans" on the issue of abortion. The House Speaker was then shown a brief clip of Newsom at a press conference stating, "Where is the Democratic Party? Where's the party? Why are we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort. And yes, they're winning. We need to stand up. Where's the counteroffensive?"

"Madam Speaker, why were pro-abortion rights Democrats outmaneuvered?" Brennan asked.

"I have no idea," Pelosi replied. "The fact is that we have been fighting for a woman's right to choose, and that is to choose. We have been fighting against the Republicans in the Congress constantly because the fact is they're not just anti-woman's right to choose in terms of terminating a pregnancy, but in terms of access to contraception and family planning and the rest, both domestically and globally. This is a constant fight that we've had for generations, decades, I should say in my case in the Congress."

She went on to say of Newsom, "I have no idea why anybody would make that statement unless they were unaware of the fight that has been going on."
What can she point to as defense of abortion by her party?

Here is the context of that quote that NP was shown by FTN:
"I felt this enormous sense of frustration, like where the hell's my party? Where's the Democratic Party? You guys paying attention to what's going on? It wasn't just the initiation of so much of this that came out of the private right of action and the actions in Texas, but all these other bills, that are just cookie-cutter bills that are being spun out in states all across the country, across a spectrum of issues.
GN intended this as a criticism of the likes of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, and not NP or the House Democrats.
Those two voted to put up a Justice that would not have voted with the Alito draft.
"These culture wars, where is the counteroffensive in the Democratic Party?" Newsom said. "Why aren't we waking up to that? And it's not an indictment, it's not about the leader of the House of Representatives, she's across the spectrum delivering, it's just not getting through the door in the Senate. The president is doing all he can to deal with a hundred different crises... I applaud him for all of that work as well. It's about us as Democrats doing a better job to coordinate a more disciplined counteroffensive and message across the spectrum."

Of any possible federal legislation, Newsom said, "We've seen this across a spectrum of issues, things getting stuck in Congress, I can't take anymore Manchins, I can't take it."
It's good that someone is willing to challenge the Democratic Party leadership's fecklessness.
Fuck Newsom! And not in a 'oh he made me wear a mask, but not really, I hate him' sort of way, but in a, what is fucking wrong with him? Manchin isn't the reason Roe v Wade is about to get ax'd. Without Manchin, it could become a 6-2 conservative majority. Easy for Newsom to talk out in California. Manchin represents West fucking Virginia. This isn't liberal-territory, by a long shot. And we don't have 60 votes! Manchin can be a pain, but he isn't the reason why we aren't passing an abortion bill... and even if by some miracle that happened, it could be ruled unconstitutional because "it ain't in the Constitution, yee haw" - Alito. So fuck Newsom for calling out a Democrat Senator that gives the Democrat President a shot in hell of passing any legislation.

This could easily get off-topic, so I don't want to derail on third party and what not.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,647
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections.
Women were heard loud and clear in the last several elections.
That's why Trump was in the White House. Women comprise a substantial part of the TeaPartiers. TeaPartiers vote.
End of story.

Doesn't matter how you think women should vote. "Democrats" women tend not to vote, "Republican" women tend to vote.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections.
Women were heard loud and clear in the last several elections.
That's why Trump was in the White House. Women comprise a substantial part of the TeaPartiers. TeaPartiers vote.
End of story.

Doesn't matter how you think women should vote. "Democrats" women tend not to vote, "Republican" women tend to vote.
Tom
Women as a whole, historically vote in favor of the Democrats, men in favor of Republicans. link

White people, now, there is a group to blame for the GOP winning.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,365
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections. I also don't believe the Supreme court will overturn Roe V Wade. The leak was probably from an over-excited clerk who thought it was wonderful news but now that the damage is done, Republicans will pay for it. Ya know, since they're mostly known for wanting to do away with abortion entirely (whether true or not). If the leak turns out to be the legit ruling OMG. the status of abortion will not be the only problem we'd have to address as a result.
It was 100 pages long! Unless Alito started penning this a while ago, that thing is pretty legit. And WashPo reports Roberts is in the minority (well he is a party of one in this, he likely wants to erase the viability line... somehow but keep Roe/Casey) and the majority is standing pat.

Yeah, 100 pages of trash logic, self-persuasion, and supreme casuistry.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,365
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections.
Women were heard loud and clear in the last several elections.
That's why Trump was in the White House. Women comprise a substantial part of the TeaPartiers. TeaPartiers vote.
End of story.

Doesn't matter how you think women should vote. "Democrats" women tend not to vote, "Republican" women tend to vote.
Tom

Previous elections =/= coming elections (which is what I was talking about).
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,113
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Previous elections =/= coming elections (which is what I was talking about).
TomC is not wrong. There is not much of a gender difference in opinions on whether abortion should be legal. Appealing to the "war of the sexes" narrative, a feminist instinct, is not likely to be fruitful.

The whole "Women's March" was also a bad idea for this reason and others (including Islamists and racists as part of the leadership team being a big one).
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,113
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
White people[/URL], now, there is a group to blame for the GOP winning.
Always blame whitey for everything!
Dems are not at all at fault for pretty much abandoning the white working class. And still, in the post-Obama era, insisting that racial preferences should be upheld.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,625
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
What if all of the apathetic people who never vote would vote? Sadly, most of the ones I've known are either young, black or poor. Think what a different it would make if all of us voted. That's the problem in Georgia, even worse than voter suppression, is voter apathy. I'm tired of hearing "my vote doesn't count", or even dumber, "they might call me for jury duty if I vote", or "they don't let black people vote". OMG! I've heard all of those things, as well as "I'm just not going to vote. You can't make me". Stacey Abrams has motivate a lot of people to vote for the first time in their lives. But, will it continue? Can she get more people to grasp the most powerful right that they have and use it?

I may be off topic, but if everyone would vote, we'd have a chance to make things better for all of us. Our education system has failed us. We even have people in our Congress with advanced degrees from fancy colleges and universities who are ignorant or greedy for power, perhaps both.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What if all of the apathetic people who never vote would vote? Sadly, most of the ones I've known are either young, black or poor. Think what a different it would make if all of us voted. That's the problem in Georgia, even worse than voter suppression, is voter apathy. I'm tired of hearing "my vote doesn't count", or even dumber, "they might call me for jury duty if I vote", or "they don't let black people vote". OMG! I've heard all of those things, as well as "I'm just not going to vote. You can't make me". Stacey Abrams has motivate a lot of people to vote for the first time in their lives. But, will it continue? Can she get more people to grasp the most powerful right that they have and use it?

I may be off topic, but if everyone would vote, we'd have a chance to make things better for all of us. Our education system has failed us. We even have people in our Congress with advanced degrees from fancy colleges and universities who are ignorant or greedy for power, perhaps both.
Mandatory voting would put most elected Republicans out on the street. Their donors don’t want that to happen, and are currently empowered to ensure that it doesn’t. The coming battle for democracy will determine whether or not the donor class can be overthrown, among other things. I am not optimistic.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
981
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
If a government can force a woman to have a baby when she wants to have an abortion, why cannot that same government force a woman to have an abortion when she wants to have a baby?

If the government should be empowered to do the former but not the latter, I ask, why? What legal principle distinguishes one from the other?

When the issue is put this way, it becomes plain that there is no legal or constitutional issue here. There is only religion.

Life, the anti-abortion crowd yammers, begins at conception! But what does that mean? Do they hold that a zygote is a person? No one could be so daft. A zygote is not sentient. It does not feel pain. It does not think. It cannot in any way care for itself.

But apparently a certain sort of religious dementia teaches their adherents that a zygote is ensouled. Ah, there it is! It has nothing to do with constitutional principle or even personhood — it has only to do with the fact that people believe in non-existent souls! And because of this stupid belief, we are going back to the coat-hanger confederacy that existed pre-Roe v. Wade.

That stupid belief is driving us back there, and the equally stupid and sinister belief that women are appliances for men to use as they see fit.

The Democrats are now talking about passing a federal law to permit abortion, even though they know that it cannot pass the current evenly divided Congress. Hmm? Why the hell did they not do that when they had actual Democratic majorities under the corporate-bought milquetoasts Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

Meanwhile, Moscow Mitch McConnell is talking about a federal ban on abortion if the GOP regains Congress, meaning the ban on abortion would be nationwide. A house divided against itself cannot stand, warned Lincoln in 1858, predicting that the house of the union would indeed stand, but only because it would soon become all free or all slave.

This Supreme Court decision, if it comes down as leaked, will be the most infamous decision since Dred Scott and must awaken the Blue State majority — not just because of this, but as the culmination of all the other Red State aberrations imposed by Red upon Blue, including the election of two Republican presidents in sixteen years who lost the popular vote but were elected because of the reactionary anachronism of the Electoral College. Confederate secession occurred a few years after Dred Scott, even though the decision went their way, because Lincoln and his fellow Republicans (the opposite of today’s Republicans) would not bow before it — Dred Scott, Lincoln said, was not a “Thus saith the Lord.”

Blue State secession must be contemplated now, not only because of this decision but for myriad other reasons. The Blue and Red states are two different nations de facto and perhaps it is time to recognize this fact de jure. Even Lincoln, who opposed secession, conceded that peaceful divorce was possible, that the two sides in a dispute could agree to dissolve the contract between them. Maybe peaceful separation is the way to go.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,051
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic

This is what a rogue Supreme Court looks like--justices who want to use their power to shape public policy rather than leave that up to the legislative and executive branches. What possible point of legal issue is she thinking about here? It has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Constitution let alone Roe v Wade. This has to do with her opinion about what to do with all of those unwanted pregnancies that women will be forced to carry to term.
HuH? The leaked paper said it shpuld be up to the states and people. FDR tried to pack the court to get around the federal courts rejecting his New Deal.

I support te right for women to choose abortion, but relying on which way the SCOTUS is leaning leads to obvious legal instability.

It is not for SCOURTUS to take into account financial and social burdens of banning abortion, only if there is a constitrutional right to abortion.

There are a number of rights which are not directly related to COTUS but were enacted by congressional legislation into law.

The battle over the ERA.

 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,426
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections.
Women were heard loud and clear in the last several elections.
That's why Trump was in the White House. Women comprise a substantial part of the TeaPartiers. TeaPartiers vote.
End of story.

Doesn't matter how you think women should vote. "Democrats" women tend not to vote, "Republican" women tend to vote.
Tom

Previous elections =/= coming elections (which is what I was talking about).
Yup. At all these protests of Alito's ruling, they are registering voters.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,624
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections.
Women were heard loud and clear in the last several elections.
That's why Trump was in the White House. Women comprise a substantial part of the TeaPartiers. TeaPartiers vote.
End of story.

Doesn't matter how you think women should vote. "Democrats" women tend not to vote, "Republican" women tend to vote.
Tom
More women than men vote, as percentages. Women are more likely to vote Democrat compared with men, including white women and white men.

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016.

Blame women all you want. It's white men who elected Trump.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ft_2020.08.18_turnout_04.png
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?
Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.
What?
Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost
I mean the part where there is suffering, compromise, and even a bunch of pain. While I'm glad you think pregnancy is roses and lilacs with cherubs floating around for over nine months, that isn't exactly how it works.
I didn't say pregnancy and birth were 'roses and lilacs'. I asked what was given up or lost because of pregnancy?

Many women even plan and want to get pregnant.
And marathon runners want to run in a marathon. That doesn't mean it isn't hard and painful.
I know a marathon runner. I doubt he would call his training an act of sacrifice.

I'm certain you are going to get to some point here. Was it that the state should be allowed to force a woman to endure a pregnancy? Because your mom was overjoyed over conception?
My point is nothing about the State allowing or forbidding abortion. It's that calling every pregnancy 'an extraordinary sacrifice' seems like you understand neither the word 'extraordinary' or 'sacrifice'.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,966
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I think women will be heard loud and clear in the coming elections.
Women were heard loud and clear in the last several elections.
That's why Trump was in the White House. Women comprise a substantial part of the TeaPartiers. TeaPartiers vote.
End of story.

Doesn't matter how you think women should vote. "Democrats" women tend not to vote, "Republican" women tend to vote.
Tom
More women than men vote, as percentages. Women are more likely to vote Democrat compared with men, including white women and white men.

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016.

Blame women all you want. It's white men who elected Trump.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ft_2020.08.18_turnout_04.png

I think that there's an argument to be made that all the people who decided not to vote or did not care to vote also elected Trump.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,624
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Top Bottom