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

Roe v Wade is on deck

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
947
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
CWhile the bill does not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 50-50 Senate, according to USAToday, it marks Democrats' first legislative attempt to protect the right to abortion by law.
Something they could have done with solid Democratic majorities under Carter, Clinton and Obama, but didn’t.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,625
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It shows how effective the right wing smear machine is that even sohy buys into the "cancel culture" bullshit. That whole last paragraph could have come out of any right wing radio show.

And that's just fucking depressing.
It's not me that believe in it, but I know that the Republicans have used it to lure people into their party. I think there are more important issues to concentrate on, if we don't want a country run by extremists on the far right.

But no. Cancel culture isn't bullshit. Too many people have become so fragile that they can't laugh at themselves. It has nothing to do with being indoctrinated by the far right. I have no problem with any group of people, but it makes no sense to talk more about social issues than about the things that help all groups of people. I want children to learn about systemic racism and gay rights etc., but that shouldn't be the primary purpose of a campaign. It just gives the right more ammunition to attack Dems.

A few years ago, Caitlyn Jenner was roasted and mocked during a comedy special. She was there and she was able to laugh at herself. A few years later, Dave Chappell gets "cancelled" for making a few trans jokes. I watched the controversial performance. There wasn't anything to it. Chappell has been a controversial comedian who makes jokes about most every group since he first became popular. If you don't like his comedy, don't watch him, but for fuck's sake, what he said wan't worth all the criticism he got. I'm a petite blond female, and I can laugh at dumb blond jokes because I don't take them seriously. Sure there are limits, but the things that are getting liberals up in arms over these days are insane, imo. So yeah. There is cancel culture. It's not bullshit. It's an over reaction. It's good that George Carlin is dead because I'm sure the fragile little libs on the far left would be cancelling him too. That's the kind of shit I'm talking about. So, if you wanna cancel me for having this opinion, that's on you.

Don't worry about me. I will never vote Republican and I only discuss this shit with my closest Democratic friends, who also feel that these issues are losing elections for the Dems. I don't agree with everything the Dems propose, but they are far better than the alternative. Right now, I'd like to see the party concentrate on climate change, improving education for our youth, basic civil rights, and reasonable social programs, instead of going overboard with this shit. Btw, the Republicans also do the cancel culture stuff and what they do is far worse than what the Dems do. The Dems need to do to them what they do to the Dems. It's very sad that it's come to this, but if we want to win elections, unfortunately, we need to play the game.

I'm off topic, so I'll bow out now.
So, there's an interesting issue here in that the Democrats, and liberal folks in general, will always feel as they have an obligation to defend folks who find themselves unethically thrown under a bus as a political enemy of some faction seeking some Boogeyman.

The GQP will always target the largest group they can get away with, and paint them quite brightly as a threat in some way no matter what the reality is.

They will seek to do this to as many groups as they can get away with, and we are far from the bottom of the barrel for convenient "political hostages" which will, in many ways, be increasingly more painful to defend, and increasingly stupid, self-defeating communities used for that defense.

Once society recognizes trans people are OK, there's a number of probable "next victims" floating freely in obscurity within western culture. Even once large-scale support is achieved, as we have seen, the memory of the fight and the oh-so-terrible imposition of recognizing that people have the right to make symmetric informed consent is more than enough to drag in some of the elderly "solidified" prejudice, at least the ones their public health policies haven't killed off yet.

I have full faith and confidence that things will pivot to an even harder defense if we cannot pass federal laws protecting people from laws criminalizing victimless and personal autonomy behaviors in general.

And even so, there will be yet another fight when the boundaries of personhood are pressed when our computers rub up against that limit.

Suddenly, at some point, an unthinking human ball of cells will have more rights than a thinking, self-actualized being with wants, hopes, needs, and an understanding of the universe that rivals any human beings. If that isn't a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.

The Holy Grail, for the GQP, is finally finding someone who the left can't or won't defend for having committed no crime. They want a law that they can use to criminalize someone's mere existence so they can target it first at convenient targets, and then later expand to other things that they argue against the mere existence of.
 
Last edited:

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,244
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Earlier this week the office of a Wisconsin anti abortion organization was firebombed.

I have received a statement from the group claiming responsibility. They call themselves "Jane's Revenge" (a reference to the Jane Collective).

More follows.

The statement was sent to me through an anonymous intermediary I trust. It is hosted on a Tor site (link to follow). The statement is titled "first communique" and opens with the words, "This is not a declaration of war".

They go on to state that this Molotov attack was "only a warning". Positioning themselves in response to lethal attacks on healthcare providers by anti-choice activists, they promise to adopt "increasingly extreme tactics" to maintain control over their own bodies.

They are issuing a 30 day ultimatum for all anti choice organizations and fake clinics (crisis pregnancy centers) to disband. They claim to have the ability to reach multiple states and repeat that the attack in Wisconsin was just a "warning"

They conclude by noting they are made up of several organizations: "We are in your city. We are in every city. Your repression only strengthens our accompliceship and resolve."
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,093
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
well yes, that's because the democrats are a political party engaged in governance for a huge country,

Are they?
Hillary Clinton got more votes.
Donald Trump appointed three SCOTUS judges.

Who do you think is doing the governing here?
Tom
as i said, the democrats are a political party engaged in the governance of a country.
the republicans are a political party engaged in the exertion of political power over the populace of a country.

there's an argument to be made about whether or not jockeying for power within the established system counts as 'governance', though my opinion is that it does not.
and while there's certainly an argument to be made about whether engaging in that jockeying for power within the established system can or should count as governance in a scenario wherein the opposition party is using political tactics to actively stymie governance, and in this case i agree that it does, that is not something the democrats currently engage in.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,677
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think our side's refusal to say we're pro-abortion is only hurting us in the battle for hearts and minds, and that's the battle we who are pro-decriminalization of abortion need to win. There may well have been some strategic benefit to avoiding such language back when it was possible to say you're personally against abortion but you think the government should stay out of people's bedrooms, and still win a Republican primary; but those days are long past.
Abortion is a plan B. (I've also seen it referred to as a plan C since the morning after pill is the plan B for condom breaks and the like) Plan Bs are generally not things you want to do, they are failure recovery. Thus it does not make sense to say you're pro-abortion.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,116
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Manchin to oppose Democratic bill guaranteeing abortion access | The Hill
Democrats made changes to the bill from earlier this year to try to assuage members of their caucus. In a win for that effort, holdout Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced this week that he supported the substance of the revised bill.

They removed a nonbinding findings section that, among other provisions, referred to restrictions on abortion as perpetuating “white supremacy” and called them “a tool of gender oppression.”

Good, that section is exactly the kind of CRT and radical gender overreach that is damaging democrats electorally.

That shit is ideology not facts.

The revised bill would still prevent governments from limiting a health care provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs or from providing immediate abortion services if a delay would risk a patient’s health, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The bill also prevents governments from being able to require that a patient make “medically unnecessary in-person visits” before an abortion, and would also prevent the government from requiring patients to disclose why they are seeking an abortion.

The bill also broadly would prevent governments from enacting any law that would create similar limits or that “singles out the provision of abortion services, health care providers who provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion services are provided” and “impedes access to abortion services.”

That extra stuff is probably why Collins, et al are voting no.

Doesn't matter really cuz they would not get 60 anyway, but it is better to just have separate bills if you want to get something.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,005
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Manchin to oppose Democratic bill guaranteeing abortion access | The Hill
Democrats made changes to the bill from earlier this year to try to assuage members of their caucus. In a win for that effort, holdout Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced this week that he supported the substance of the revised bill.

They removed a nonbinding findings section that, among other provisions, referred to restrictions on abortion as perpetuating “white supremacy” and called them “a tool of gender oppression.”

Good, that section is exactly the kind of CRT and radical gender overreach that is damaging democrats electorally.

That shit is ideology not facts.
I see this in two ways. The initial way was "What in the bloody heck is this doing in legislation?!"

Then I pondered about down the road and this law being challenged in court... and then the term "legislative intent" came to mind. Now yes, indicating "white supremacy" sounds over the top / off-topic, but "gender oppression" wouldn't be if it is intended to convey legislative intent directly to SCOTUS, as this would go directly to the Supreme Court.
The revised bill would still prevent governments from limiting a health care provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs or from providing immediate abortion services if a delay would risk a patient’s health, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The bill also prevents governments from being able to require that a patient make “medically unnecessary in-person visits” before an abortion, and would also prevent the government from requiring patients to disclose why they are seeking an abortion.

The bill also broadly would prevent governments from enacting any law that would create similar limits or that “singles out the provision of abortion services, health care providers who provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion services are provided” and “impedes access to abortion services.”
That extra stuff is probably why Collins, et al are voting no.

Doesn't matter really cuz they would not get 60 anyway, but it is better to just have separate bills if you want to get something.
Separate bills to each lack 60 votes? Sounds like a waste of time. Collins isn't supporting it because she wants doctors to be protected from providing abortions. Because people can apparently force doctors to do things.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,005
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Republican Governors demand an end to protests (gifted) in front of SCOTUS homes.

article said:
Demonstrators have gathered over the past week at the homes of several conservative justices, spurred by the leak of a draft opinion suggesting that the high court is preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing access to abortion nationwide.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan wrote to Garland on Wednesday, just days after some conservatives faulted Youngkin for not having protesters outside the Alexandria, Va., home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. arrested under a state statute prohibiting demonstrations at private residences.
It seems uncertain whether this should be taken to indicate that the two GOP Governors believe that abortion related harassment of people should be limited to women seeking abortions being harassed by protestors demonizing them in front of abortion clinics.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,005
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Cori Bush calls out President Biden... because he doesn't say abortion enough.
article said:
Democratic Rep. Cori Bush called out President Joe Biden for his reluctance to publicly say the word "abortion" during his time in office.

"I do think that he should say it more," the Missouri congresswoman said in an interview with HuffPost that was published on Wednesday.

"People are looking to what the president does," said Bush, who previously revealed that she got an abortion as a teen after being raped.

She added: "A lot of times that holds more weight than what people are hearing come out of Congress. Because folks may not always know their Congress member's name. ... But everybody knows who their president is."
As noted previously, the elections between 2000 and 2016 led to this Supreme Court... not President Biden. Biden didn't support Alito. He didn't even support Roberts, who I thought was SCOTUSable.

I'm growing tired of some of the few ignorant left-wingers in Congress.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,571
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Republican Governors demand an end to protests (gifted) in front of SCOTUS homes.

article said:
Demonstrators have gathered over the past week at the homes of several conservative justices, spurred by the leak of a draft opinion suggesting that the high court is preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing access to abortion nationwide.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan wrote to Garland on Wednesday, just days after some conservatives faulted Youngkin for not having protesters outside the Alexandria, Va., home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. arrested under a state statute prohibiting demonstrations at private residences.
It seems uncertain whether this should be taken to indicate that the two GOP Governors believe that abortion related harassment of people should be limited to women seeking abortions being harassed by protestors demonizing them in front of abortion clinics.
Heh.
Glad I'm not in Youngkin's shoes.
"Mr. Governor, do you believe in Freedom of Speech and peaceful protests?"
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,430
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Bomb has made an attempt to offer the weakest, most easily overturned interstate commerce arguments imaginable to "defend" that the interstate commerce clause may be appropriately turned towards interstate travel for abortions so as to protect women.
That's a gross misrepresentation.

In other threads Bomb has asked me outright whether I had ulterior motives behind asking for what is right,
Quote me.

under what I can only figure is the assumption that everyone (including Bomb) obscures what they really want and the things they ask for are merely a step towards some hidden goal and do so in bad faith.
What you can only figure is between you and your religious blinders. The rest of us do not assume whatever imbecilic things you choose to impute to us.

Therefore it makes sense to me that Bomb is likely not arguing honestly, and Obvious Plant is Obvious.
You are making false damaging accusations with reckless disregard for the truth. Crawl back under your rock.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,625
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
"Impedes access"? Did they WANT the thing to fail?
Bomb has made an attempt to offer the weakest, most easily overturned interstate commerce arguments imaginable to "defend" that the interstate commerce clause may be appropriately turned towards interstate travel for abortions so as to protect women.
That's a gross misrepresentation.

In other threads Bomb has asked me outright whether I had ulterior motives behind asking for what is right,
Quote me.

under what I can only figure is the assumption that everyone (including Bomb) obscures what they really want and the things they ask for are merely a step towards some hidden goal and do so in bad faith.
What you can only figure is between you and your religious blinders. The rest of us do not assume whatever imbecilic things you choose to impute to us.

Therefore it makes sense to me that Bomb is likely not arguing honestly, and Obvious Plant is Obvious.
You are making false damaging accusations with reckless disregard for the truth. Crawl back under your rock.
I think it's not up to you how other people interpret your actions.

You are the guy asking folks to call themselves "pro-abortion" and that should prove my point better than anything, all on its own.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,244
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,826
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.
Yah, I hope that's a portent of things to come. But I'm not optimistic.
I think the GQP calculus is correct:
'Murkins will forget all about it by November, amid the wailing GQP cries of "DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST INFLATION!!" and "STOLEN ELECTION!!".
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,005
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.
I'll await the outcome of the 2022 mid-terms before concluding that.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,005
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.
Yah, I hope that's a portent of things to come. But I'm not optimistic.
I think the GQP calculus is correct:
'Murkins will forget all about it by November, amid the wailing GQP cries of "DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST INFLATION!!" and "STOLEN ELECTION!!".
Except that if they reverse Roe as per the Alito draft, it is the Wild West in the US regarding birth control, abortion access, and access to abortion across the border. This doesn't end at this case, this case is just the beginning. And the immediate impact will be felt almost immediately as legislation is already passed in several states to trigger on this ruling. Women aren't going to forget in a couple months that abortion was made illegal... because it'll still be illegal!

And with no right to abortion, immediate challenges to abortion restrictions no longer led to a pause in the new laws. So women will immediately suffer from the consequences of this in many states. The consequences of what are to be determined if they do ban the abortion pill and then general pill birth control.. condoms?

But how that translates in November is hard to tell, especially seeing we don't even have a ruling yet.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,244
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I'm not seeing anyone commenting on the fact the this ruling not only removes the right to abortion but the right to privacy itself. Do you conservatives agree the American citizen doesn't have a right to privacy?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,679
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I'm not seeing anyone commenting on the fact the this ruling not only removes the right to abortion but the right to privacy itself. Do you conservatives agree the American citizen doesn't have a right to privacy?
Only "good" Americans deserve privacy. "Bad" Americans neither deserve nor should possess an inalienable right to privacy. Females in particular must adhere to a very high ethical standard in order to earn their right to hide anything from the government. Raped? Get ready to get friendly with the fingers of a police examiner reinvading your private places for four hours to administer a "rape kit" to ensure you aren't lying. Pregnant? You have no right to conceal or end the pregnancy in any way, or to have any time off for the birth. Too masculine in looks? You may not refuse invasive examinations of your body at school or the gym to "confirm" your biological sex. Want to vote, but accustomed to wearing the burqa or other traditional wear that covers the face? Get ready to get naked in public or give up on the vote. Really, there's no bad reason to invade a woman's privacy, from a conservative point of view. Every personal invasion is a fresh opportunity to reinforce their totalitarian theocratic views, to the benefit of all. Independent women are an inherent threat to their political regime, and must be under special scrutiny at all times.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,826
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.
Yah, I hope that's a portent of things to come. But I'm not optimistic.
I think the GQP calculus is correct:
'Murkins will forget all about it by November, amid the wailing GQP cries of "DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST INFLATION!!" and "STOLEN ELECTION!!".
Except that if they reverse Roe as per the Alito draft, it is the Wild West in the US regarding birth control, abortion access, and access to abortion across the border. This doesn't end at this case, this case is just the beginning. And the immediate impact will be felt almost immediately as legislation is already passed in several states to trigger on this ruling. Women aren't going to forget in a couple months that abortion was made illegal... because it'll still be illegal!

And with no right to abortion, immediate challenges to abortion restrictions no longer led to a pause in the new laws. So women will immediately suffer from the consequences of this in many states. The consequences of what are to be determined if they do ban the abortion pill and then general pill birth control.. condoms?

But how that translates in November is hard to tell, especially seeing we don't even have a ruling yet.

The whole societal shift that the GQP is trying to realize, involves multiple unrealities. A society WITHOUT abortions is one of them. Start with a few States.

Of course if you're rich enough and your girlfriend or your daughter becomes inconveniently pregnant she can get one, but she has to travel for decent care if y'all are in a Taliban State. (There will be no reproductive care other than OB care in Taliban States, no qualified Doctors whatsoever.). If you're not rich enough? Get married or get shunned for living in sin and having a baby. Or take your chances in the back alleys.

Just keep your mouth shut, because we don't have abortions here!
They'd like that utopia to be visited upon the whole blessed Country eventually, just as God intended.
And they will, if they can continue to leverage the corruption of SCOTUS from the top down.

How it impacts November... may depend on Democrats becoming a LOT better at scaremongering about what Republicans are doing. We're becoming Venezuela, JUST AS REPUBLICANS WARNED US WE WOULD (if we elected Hillary, or Biden).
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,244
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Earlier this week the office of a Wisconsin anti abortion organization was firebombed.

I have received a statement from the group claiming responsibility. They call themselves "Jane's Revenge" (a reference to the Jane Collective).

More follows.

The statement was sent to me through an anonymous intermediary I trust. It is hosted on a Tor site (link to follow). The statement is titled "first communique" and opens with the words, "This is not a declaration of war".

They go on to state that this Molotov attack was "only a warning". Positioning themselves in response to lethal attacks on healthcare providers by anti-choice activists, they promise to adopt "increasingly extreme tactics" to maintain control over their own bodies.

They are issuing a 30 day ultimatum for all anti choice organizations and fake clinics (crisis pregnancy centers) to disband. They claim to have the ability to reach multiple states and repeat that the attack in Wisconsin was just a "warning"

They conclude by noting they are made up of several organizations: "We are in your city. We are in every city. Your repression only strengthens our accompliceship and resolve."

Graffiti on the attacked office read "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,679
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.
Yah, I hope that's a portent of things to come. But I'm not optimistic.
I think the GQP calculus is correct:
'Murkins will forget all about it by November, amid the wailing GQP cries of "DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST INFLATION!!" and "STOLEN ELECTION!!".
Except that if they reverse Roe as per the Alito draft, it is the Wild West in the US regarding birth control, abortion access, and access to abortion across the border. This doesn't end at this case, this case is just the beginning. And the immediate impact will be felt almost immediately as legislation is already passed in several states to trigger on this ruling. Women aren't going to forget in a couple months that abortion was made illegal... because it'll still be illegal!

And with no right to abortion, immediate challenges to abortion restrictions no longer led to a pause in the new laws. So women will immediately suffer from the consequences of this in many states. The consequences of what are to be determined if they do ban the abortion pill and then general pill birth control.. condoms?

But how that translates in November is hard to tell, especially seeing we don't even have a ruling yet.

The whole societal shift that the GQP is trying to realize, involves multiple unrealities. A society WITHOUT abortions is one of them. Start with a few States.

Of course if you're rich enough and your girlfriend or your daughter becomes inconveniently pregnant she can get one, but she has to travel for decent care if y'all are in a Taliban State. (There will be no reproductive care other than OB care in Taliban States, no qualified Doctors whatsoever.). If you're not rich enough? Get married or get shunned for living in sin and having a baby. Or take your chances in the back alleys.

Just keep your mouth shut, because we don't have abortions here!
They'd like that utopia to be visited upon the whole blessed Country eventually, just as God intended.
And they will, if they can continue to leverage the corruption of SCOTUS from the top down.

How it impacts November... may depend on Democrats becoming a LOT better at scaremongering about what Republicans are doing. We're becoming Venezuela, JUST AS REPUBLICANS WARNED US WE WOULD (if we elected Hillary, or Biden).
And then 1950s will come again, then Jesus shortly after to reward them for their faithfulness.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,244
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Can you imagine the corporate windfall the removal of the right to privacy would be?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,826
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
And then 1950s will come again, then Jesus shortly after to reward them for their faithfulness.

If Putler doesn't "rapture" the whole planet first, as a tribute to his own glory the glory of the motherland on his way out...
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,465
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
PolitiFact | No evidence Blackburn wants to limit birth control to married couples only
Prior to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Blackburn released a video where she described the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut — one that overturned a state ban on contraception — as "legally unsound."

"Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut, Kelo v. the city of New London, and NFIB vs. Sebelius confused Tennesseans and left Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances," Blackburn said in the video, where she expressed her opposition to Jackson’s nomination.

The 7-2 court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut said the Constitution’s First, Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments created a right to privacy in a marriage, which the Connecticut law banning contraception violated. (The other cases Blackburn mentioned were about eminent domain and the Affordable Care Act.)

The Griswold ruling was later cited as precedent in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
So Senator Marsha Blackburn seems to want the issue to be left to the states and/or Congress and the President.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,679
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
And then 1950s will come again, then Jesus shortly after to reward them for their faithfulness.

If Putler doesn't "rapture" the whole planet first, as a tribute to his own glory the glory of the motherland on his way out...
Don't worry, the Bible says he will attack Israel, not the US.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,085
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Can you imagine the corporate windfall the removal of the right to privacy would be?
Why would it be a "corporate windfall"?

The problem with the "right to privacy" is that it has never been applied consistently, as I have pointed out many times.
If the right to privacy includes right to abortion and right to gay sex (both of which I agree with btw) then why should it not include the right to choose to have sex with someone while money is (overtly) exchanged? There is no logical reason to draw the line there. The only reason is political.

"Pro-choice" == right to choose only if "pro-choicers" agree with that choice

Since abortion was based on political, not principled considerations like "right to privacy" or "right to choose what to do with ones body" it is hardly surprised it is being undone with similarly naked political reasoning.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,085
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Only "good" Americans deserve privacy. "Bad" Americans neither deserve nor should possess an inalienable right to privacy.

That has been the position of the feminist left, particularly of the SWERF variety. Right to privacy for "good" Americans like women seeking abortions or gays, but no right to privacy for "bad" Americans like sex workers and men hiring them.

Raped? Get ready to get friendly with the fingers of a police examiner reinvading your private places for four hours to administer a "rape kit" to ensure you aren't lying.
Do you really have a problem with police actually seeking to collect evidence before they charge somebody with a serious felony like rape? No due process or presumption of innocence for men accused of rape?

Want to vote, but accustomed to wearing the burqa
Now you are defending fucking burqas? Btw, there is no way to tell who is under the burqa. You should have to demonstrate your identity in order to vote. Or cash a check. Or drive. Or fly. Or enter government buildings.
 
Last edited:

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,085
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Are they?
Hillary Clinton got more votes.

That and about three fiddy will get her coffee at Starbucks.
We run our elections by Electoral College. If US was (like France) electing presidents on popular vote, campaigns would use different strategies and vote totals would have been very different.

You cannot use metric from a different set of rules and pretend to predict what the outcome would have been.

Donald Trump appointed three SCOTUS judges.
RBG should have retired when she had the chance.

Who do you think is doing the governing here?
Tom
Right now, Biden, but his options are limited and will remain so unless Dems manage to hold the House and expand the Senate majority. A tall order, especially with inflation and economy but maybe anger at RvW decision will compensate for that.
It will be interesting Midterms.
 
Last edited:

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,339
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
That has been the position of the feminist left,
No, it isn't. Feminists overwhelmingly promote respect and equality for sex workers.

particularly of the SWERF variety.

They're out there, but there's no good reason to imply that this is a problem of feminism in general.

and men hiring them.

I agree there is no shame in hiring sex workers.
 
Last edited:

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,465
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Only "good" Americans deserve privacy. "Bad" Americans neither deserve nor should possess an inalienable right to privacy.
That has been the position of the feminist left, particularly of the SWERF variety. Right to privacy for "good" Americans like women seeking abortions or gays, but no right to privacy for "bad" Americans like sex workers and men hiring them.
What's a SWERF?

Raped? Get ready to get friendly with the fingers of a police examiner reinvading your private places for four hours to administer a "rape kit" to ensure you aren't lying.
Do you really have a problem with police actually seeking to collect evidence before they charge somebody with a serious felony like rape? No due process or presumption of innocence for men accused of rape?
I love it when right-wingers turn into born-again civil libertarians. Whenever it is a crime that they feel like they might be suspected of, they want squishy softness on crime.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,085
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
What's a SWERF?
As Zipr has said, it stands for Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
tumblr_ndxxzt0aW61rt5wzto1_r3_1280_zps6f330338.jpg

Think Toni as the SWERF type specimen on this forum.

I love it when right-wingers turn into born-again civil libertarians.
I am not a right-winger. For example, I support things like legal abortion, legal weed and gay marriage. I support levying a carbon tax to encourage decarbonization. I am in favor of people paying their fair share of taxes (although I disagree with confiscatory taxation or anti-billionaire rhetoric so common within the contemporary Left, e.g. Sens. Warren and Sanders). There is nothing right-wing about me.
Whenever it is a crime that they feel like they might be suspected of, they want squishy softness on crime.
It's not being "squishy soft" to say that police should investigate and collect evidence before they charge somebody with a crime. They should not just take the accuser's word for it. Regardless of what that crime is. Rape should not be an exception. It should not treated as a crime for which normal rules of due process do not apply, because feminism.

And do not be deceived. Any man can be falsely accused of rape. You being a left-winger does not make you not susceptible to it.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,085
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
No, it isn't. Feminists overwhelmingly promote respect and equality for sex workers.
I am sure there are some who do, but that is not the dominant/orthodox position among feminists.

They're out there, but there's no good reason to imply that this is a problem of feminism in general.
If SWERFS were a minority position among feminism, then anti-sex work legislation and policies would not enjoy this much support on the left side of the aisle. In US, but also internationally. It is not the right who pushed for the Nordic Model in countries like Sweden, Iceland and France.

I agree there is no shame in hiring sex workers.
Thanks, I guess. :)
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,625
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Only "good" Americans deserve privacy. "Bad" Americans neither deserve nor should possess an inalienable right to privacy.
That has been the position of the feminist left, particularly of the SWERF variety. Right to privacy for "good" Americans like women seeking abortions or gays, but no right to privacy for "bad" Americans like sex workers and men hiring them.
What's a SWERF?

Raped? Get ready to get friendly with the fingers of a police examiner reinvading your private places for four hours to administer a "rape kit" to ensure you aren't lying.
Do you really have a problem with police actually seeking to collect evidence before they charge somebody with a serious felony like rape? No due process or presumption of innocence for men accused of rape?
I love it when right-wingers turn into born-again civil libertarians. Whenever it is a crime that they feel like they might be suspected of, they want squishy softness on crime.
To be fair, I don't think sex work should be illegal.

I do think there should be social services aimed at supporting sexual health, and I think it should be widely available and free of charge. I am opposed to efforts like the ones that shut down craigslist personals.

Sex work is in many cases a form of therapy.

I don't think everyone who utilizes sex workers is utilizing therapy, and I don't think they should need to be.

Like people dying from back alley abortions, people die from back alley sex work.

I want people to stop dying of back alley sex work for the same reason I want people to not be forced into a back alley for an abortion: I want to see fewer people die.

I wonder what administration is more likely to criminalize acts they consider "sexually improper"

I wonder if it is the one who is going after women and birth control and probably the cases that legalized homosexuality...

No, I don't wonder that, really.

It's definitely going to be those folks, the Christian Taliban.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,625
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The fact is, the place this kind of rhetoric of reversal against our rights to privacy and bodily autonomy marches to, in jackboots and lockstep, is the world in which gay people, trans people, kinky people, doctors, and women who resist find themselves hung on a wall in the public square.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,826
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
the consistency of far-right ideological lunatics utterly refusing to admit to being what they are
…is unsurprising. If there was ever a valid “both sides” argument it might rest on this point. Extremists of any stripe don’t usually think of themselves as extremists. And in their world, they’re not. They’re generally surrounded by like minded people, groups and information sources. Their views are centrist, or at least what they think should be the center.
Isn’t technology wonderful?
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,093
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
…is unsurprising. If there was ever a valid “both sides” argument it might rest on this point. Extremists of any stripe don’t usually think of themselves as extremists.
while technically your 2nd sentence is accurate, i don't agree with the overall point you're trying to make here.
the reason why is twofold:
1. it's a false equivalence, because there is no 'extreme' left in the US - this is why when derec wants to panic-shit himself over whataboutism for a liberal boogeyman, he has to dig up references to some black woman who threw a brick at the post office in the 1960s, because that was the last time in this country anyone did anything passionate who wasn't a racist lunatic.
2. those who are nominally on the left side of the ideological spectrum may quibble over whether or not their views are 'extreme', but they don't deny that they are 'left' - getting all indignant over it being pointed out that you are the thing that you are is a uniquely rightwing phenomena.

And in their world, they’re not. They’re generally surrounded by like minded people, groups and information sources. Their views are centrist, or at least what they think should be the center.
Isn’t technology wonderful?
but again, even for those in a bubble who think their opinions are normalized don't deny that their opinions exist, the way right wingers do.

in terms of ideology and positioning on the political compass i'm about the most extreme left wing poster on this forum, and while sure i might make a philosophical argument about just how far to the left my views are, i would never get huffy and deny being a leftist politically.

being an absolute fucking cartoon of a ideologue who has an extremist view on *every* subject and yet being completely in denial over that fact is a niche product of far right extremism.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,571
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women.

I'm not sure what you think that this means.

Many, many, women oppose feticide rights. Very possibly, many of those women hadn't bothered registering before, knowing that their husbands would vote the right way. Now, they have to help.

Obviously, I don't know this. But the premise that women are lining up to vote for RvW seems unreasonable to me.
Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,679
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Most Americans have fairly nuanced views on abortion, and I see this as a major failing of our ruthlessly bipartisan political-entertainment system, that it cannot handle this type of non-bifurcate reality. Forced to choose between extremes, people will choose the extreme that best accomodates their most serious concerns, often to the injury of everyone concerned relative to a more moderate position that they would have embraced if they could. Even on just the rumor of an opinion, states are rushing to create the most extreme versions of pro-choice or pro-life legislation they can think of under the premise that this is what their voters want, even though most people actually aren't comfortable with either blanket criminalization or blanket legalization of the practice.

But I'm glad I live in a "blue state", because conservatives are better at arguing empowered liberals down to a more reasonable norm than the other way around.
 
Top Bottom