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

Roe v Wade is on deck

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.
Indeed, 35% or so of women. That isn't anything to sneeze at. Of course, 65% feel otherwise. Come November however, this won't be about abortion anymore, but birth control. And if you mess with birth control, one risks mobilizing young voters... and the GOP will never win when that happens.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,049
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.
Indeed, 35% or so of women. That isn't anything to sneeze at. Of course, 65% feel otherwise. Come November however, this won't be about abortion anymore, but birth control. And if you mess with birth control, one risks mobilizing young voters... and the GOP will never win when that happens.
Lots of unsupported assertions here.

You might consider reading Politesse #1651.

And frankly, young people are a notoriously low turnout demographic. They'll Facebook about stuff, but on voting day they're too busy.
Look at 2016. Trump promised a batch of SCOTUS nominations aimed at overturning RvW. Clinton promised not to. Trump won.
Tom
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,103
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Many, many, women oppose feticide rights.
Yeah, mostly the very old, the very young (below voting age) and the very stupid.
About 2/3 have the sense to want control over their own bodies though.
"Feticide rights" is really catchy though. I'm surprised that the lobotomized right hasn't been fed that line enough that they can repeat it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.
Indeed, 35% or so of women. That isn't anything to sneeze at. Of course, 65% feel otherwise. Come November however, this won't be about abortion anymore, but birth control. And if you mess with birth control, one risks mobilizing young voters... and the GOP will never win when that happens.
Lots of unsupported assertions here.
Not really. Women support abortion more than they don't, young voters will care about birth control, and this was never about abortion from the right-wing to begin with. They want it all.
And frankly, young people are a notoriously low turnout demographic.
Yeah, and when they DO turnout, it is never good for the party of old people. And birth control access is important to young people.
They'll Facebook about stuff, but on voting day they're too busy.
Look at 2016. Trump promised a batch of SCOTUS nominations aimed at overturning RvW. Clinton promised not to. Trump won.
Tom
There is a big difference between in theory and it happened. Some people only start getting active once it is too late.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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
Want to try again?

If you were right they would have no reason to go register because they're getting what they want already.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I suspect that the timing for this decision may have had something to do with the election coming a half year later, giving the GOP candidates time to work on softening the negative impact on their image. In November, the abortion issue may not be the hottest one in the election, and there will be ample time stoke anger against the arrogant "woke" Democrats, who will be dealing with simultaneous inflation and a recession. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter when OPEC caused a huge spike in oil prices and cars formed lines at gas stations. Interest rate hikes may cool down the job market. I already have one Facebook friend who is so outraged at the cost of filling his diesel-guzzling truck that he vows not to vote for Democrats in November.
Except this isn’t about abortion, it never has been. This is about regulating sex and states are already pushing legislation to ban birth control. This isn’t giving anyone cover. There is still time to write rebuttals and once this comes out, we’ll realize the most important elections of our time was every single election from 2000 to 2016.
It’s not about regulating sex. It’s about regulating and controlling women.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,602
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I suspect that the timing for this decision may have had something to do with the election coming a half year later, giving the GOP candidates time to work on softening the negative impact on their image. In November, the abortion issue may not be the hottest one in the election, and there will be ample time stoke anger against the arrogant "woke" Democrats, who will be dealing with simultaneous inflation and a recession. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter when OPEC caused a huge spike in oil prices and cars formed lines at gas stations. Interest rate hikes may cool down the job market. I already have one Facebook friend who is so outraged at the cost of filling his diesel-guzzling truck that he vows not to vote for Democrats in November.
Except this isn’t about abortion, it never has been. This is about regulating sex and states are already pushing legislation to ban birth control. This isn’t giving anyone cover. There is still time to write rebuttals and once this comes out, we’ll realize the most important elections of our time was every single election from 2000 to 2016.
It’s not about regulating sex. It’s about regulating and controlling women.
[removed]

[removed for consistency] It isn't about sex. It is about controlling women, who happen to be usually defined as those people who biologically develop uteruses. That some people happen to also develop male genitalia in no way saves them from the social stigma.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EvoUK

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
109
Location
London
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I am also on another board, which is mostly comprised of very right wing Christian conservatives. As you can imagine, they're jumping for joy at the prospect of this court ruling, using florid language such as 'the horror of abortion' etc.

However, I've been a member there (and here, actually) for years (since Bush Jnrs first year), so know for a fact that this debate has come up numerous times, so all the posters there should know all the arguments on both sides of the aisle back to front. Recently, I keep on seeing the same simplistic 'arguments' put forward, which I suppose work when preaching to the choir, but make no sense from a pro-choice perspective - the people they're trying to argue against.

What I've found out, is that despite literal years of experience, none of them can actually articulate the pro-choice argument in a full and dispassionate way. I can do so very easily for their position, despite disagreeing with it.

A longer form version of the pro-life position would be:
  • The terms human life and human being are essentially synonymous. They mean an alive, genetically distinct human organism.
  • Human life is of value and worth protecting in almost all circumstances.
  • Human life by the above definition begins at conception.
  • Left alone, an embryo in the womb will develop into a baby, and is just a human life at early stages of development, morally equal to a human life any any other stage of development.
  • There is no real moral difference between a zygote, embryo, early foetus, late foetus, new-born, toddler, adolescent, adult, pensioner.
  • Therefore it is equally morally abhorrent to abort/kill an embryo as it would be to kill a toddler.
  • Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is just nature and doesn't count.
  • Because we know that there is a non-zero chance of pregnancy occurring due to sex - regardless of any protection used - by deciding to have sex, the woman opts into accepting that a pregnancy is possible, and therefore she is morally required to carry it to term, regardless of any cost to herself.
  • Most often, the discussion revolves around single women having sex. The situations of women in stable long term relationships including marriage not wanting to become pregnant don't often come up in examples given for the above point, but the argument remains the same regardless - she opted to have sex, so is morally required to carry it to term.
  • The risks, both mental and physical of pregnancy largely aren't discussed unless pushed in discussion, but in any case is a 'lesser evil' than deciding to abort.
  • There are often exceptions made for pregnancies at major risk to the woman (where it could result in death, 'regular' risks during pregnancy don't count), and often but not always exceptions are made for rape and incest, though this varies depending on the individual.
  • Once the baby is born, if the woman does not want it, she can give it up for adoption. Details on this process are largely vague. State provided assistance to women and unwanted children are largely frowned upon, but again this varies by individual.
  • Positions on war, death penalty, police shootings, etc. etc. vary by individual, though a distinction is often made with zygotes to foetuses that they are 'innocent', so different to other killings of human beings which they might find acceptable.

Can any of them do the same for the pro-choice position, without misrepresenting it or being otherwise deliberately obtuse? Apparently not. After years of discussing it, they learned nothing, so keep resorting to strawmen and basic kindergarten arguments. It's depressing, really.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,134
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,049
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
I haven't found that to be true myself.

"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.

Similarly,
"Pro-Life" people don't really believe in life. Only certain lives.

As a rule, I find almost all of them hypocritical socio-political extremists.

At least the ones who are noisy on the internet or are running for political office and that sort of thing. Hypocrisy abounds.
Tom
 

EvoUK

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
109
Location
London
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The terms pro-choice and pro-life aren't ideal. An alternative for the pro-life point of view is relatively straight forward - pro-birth, or pro forced-birth if I was feeling ungenerous. An alternative for pro-choice isn't as easy - pro-abortion doesn't really do it, and something like anti forced birth is a bit of a mouthful...
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,700
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
I haven't found that to be true myself.

"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,134
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
I haven't found that to be true myself.

"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.

Similarly,
"Pro-Life" people don't really believe in life. Only certain lives.
Really? What choices do the pro-choice people NOT believe in?

I’m quite surprised by this claim and wondering what you mean.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,049
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I suspect that the timing for this decision may have had something to do with the election coming a half year later, giving the GOP candidates time to work on softening the negative impact on their image. In November, the abortion issue may not be the hottest one in the election, and there will be ample time stoke anger against the arrogant "woke" Democrats, who will be dealing with simultaneous inflation and a recession. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter when OPEC caused a huge spike in oil prices and cars formed lines at gas stations. Interest rate hikes may cool down the job market. I already have one Facebook friend who is so outraged at the cost of filling his diesel-guzzling truck that he vows not to vote for Democrats in November.
Except this isn’t about abortion, it never has been. This is about regulating sex and states are already pushing legislation to ban birth control. This isn’t giving anyone cover. There is still time to write rebuttals and once this comes out, we’ll realize the most important elections of our time was every single election from 2000 to 2016.
It’s not about regulating sex. It’s about regulating and controlling women.
[removed]

[removed for consistency] It isn't about sex. It is about controlling women, who happen to be usually defined as those people who biologically develop uteruses. That some people happen to also develop male genitalia in no way saves them from the social stigma.
I meant what I wrote above: it’s about controlling women, particularly those who are or who will become of reproductive age. Of course the right wingers who are passionately anti-abortion —or are so publicly—are only willing to acknowledge that cis-women exist.

As for trans men and women: no one should be deceived or complacent: they just gave not yet gotten around to transgendered people yet, full force, although there are forays in some states. This will escalate. Or gay/lesbian people. But it’s coming.
 

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,129
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
Or who are actively seeking to deceive.
Or desperately needing their depraved world view to seem like it's no worse than others.
 

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,129
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom

YOU presented two sides, not me. Saying things you don't like, commenting on "both sides are the same" mentality, etc., are not identifiers of an us v. them extremist world view.

Certain people LOVE complaining about some political nastiness or stupidity and saying, "on both sides!" as if there's really no difference in behavior among people of very different ways of thinking, which of course are many and varied, but in the US and some other places, there is almost always some level of divide between left and right, or liberal and conservative. There's a reason for this and that reason lies in human heads.

Left and right ideologies are not like sports teams where everyone plays by the same rules and there's just two different team colors on two identical ends of the field. In ideology and world view, it's not an arbitrary distinction. There's a reason there's more criminal indictments and convictions among Republicans than Democrats, and it's not even close. There's a reason that authoritarian religions meld so well with conservative parties but not with liberal parties. There's a reason that you find a hell of a lot more authoritarian personalities on the right wing end of the spectrum and relatively few on the left. There's a reason so many accused or convicted abusers find it so easy to get on a Republican ticket for political office but virtually none can find themselves a Democrat party candidate, and when there are, people within the party actually speak out. They don't ignore it, excuse it, downplay it, or lie about it just because it's their side.

And there's a reason that right wingers will go and try to find all the examples of Dems or liberals doing any of these things and believe that whatever small number they find would compare to the mountain of Republican wrongdoing and misdeed they're ignoring.

There's a reason for this. As my signature says, the worst of human thought and behavior pools to the right. It doesn't mean anyone is dumb or unaware or any of those things that do indeed pool to the right. It just means that some people who are not dumb or unaware choose to not examine their beliefs honestly or objectively and instead choose to dig in deeper and continue to take an impersonal world even more personally.

I could go on and on, but I have better things to do today than to educate you on right wing / left wing world view and psychology, and how it all gives rise to society wide movements, attitudes, and beliefs, and to the crises and events that we're seeing in the world and have seen throughout history.

Also, people with a right wing world view and way of thinking can sometimes be pro choice or even atheist.
 

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,129
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
And to add to that "both sides" bullshit, it's not a matter of polarization being because "both sides" fall prey to extremist media, hate and fear mongering, ignorance, ideology bubbles and whatever else factors into causing extremists to attack the Capitol of our country. All people are guilty of a whole buffet of stupidities, but not all people equally. Capacity is not the same as tendency.

We're polarized because one side allows for and attracts those tendencies and can easily be led by the nose if their prejudices, fears, and religious/national identity are tapped by con artists. It takes education, flexibility, and self reflection to overcome those tendencies.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,814
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom
What does that even mean?

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but not to actually have one?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,852
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Amy Coney Barrett’s focus on ‘safe haven’ laws during Supreme Court abortion arguments draws attention, scrutiny
She noted that all states have such laws enabling people to “terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after abortion.” These measures, she said, appear to remove the “burdens of parenting” emphasized in Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the 1992 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the pivotal ruling.

“Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy,” Barrett said. “Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,134
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Get back to me when people can’t “find” their mothers 30 years later through DNA testing of 3rd parties. Then she can claim to have “removed the burden.”

edited to add, and when she can remove all the worry in the intervening years that any day, that “finding” can happen.

I know people who have found their birth parents because a sibling of that parent took a DNA test. And they narrowed in on the parent and made contact.

Several of the cases were happy meetings. One, was absolutely not.

But my point is that adoption does NOT “remove the burden of parenthood.”
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,080
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
... Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
He said "Only certain choices", not "Only certain pregnancy choices." Most people who call themselves "pro-choice" are anti-choice about a lot of stuff. Give some examples? Well, you're anti-choice about the gig economy. And aren't you anti-choice about people broadcasting their political opinions without permission of the FEC?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,602
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
... Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
He said "Only certain choices", not "Only certain pregnancy choices." Most people who call themselves "pro-choice" are anti-choice about a lot of stuff. Give some examples? Well, you're anti-choice about the gig economy. And aren't you anti-choice about people broadcasting their political opinions without permission of the FEC?

Everyone knows what the "choice" in question involves a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is really up to TomC to clarify what he meant. Similarly, everyone knows what the "life" in pro-life means. It's about the life of the fetus, not the mother or human live in general. Out of context, these labels could mean many different things, but we know what the intended context is.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,080
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
... Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
He said "Only certain choices", not "Only certain pregnancy choices." Most people who call themselves "pro-choice" are anti-choice about a lot of stuff. Give some examples? Well, you're anti-choice about the gig economy. And aren't you anti-choice about people broadcasting their political opinions without permission of the FEC?

Everyone knows what the "choice" in question involves a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is really up to TomC to clarify what he meant. Similarly, everyone knows what the "life" in pro-life means. It's about the life of the fetus, not the mother or human live in general. Out of context, these labels could mean many different things, but we know what the intended context is.
We do; but that rarely seems to stop the pro-pregnancy-choice from hassling the pro-fetal-life over calling themselves "pro-life" even though they favor gun rights and the death penalty and whatnot. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,087
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, generally when I see people stumping for the power of people to make choices, usually that power is to "choice of informed consent".

One can always make a choice to revoke consent to the use of their organs. The information here is generally simple.

One cannot make a choice of informed consent for someone else to the use of their organs.

Really, folks who are pro-choice ARE in fact for a very general form of rights to choice, namely speaking the right to informed consent of the use of their own bodies but also a right to informed consent in general.

So yes, pro choice generally references a specific choice but it doesn't need to: the most general form intended by the turn of phrase, "choice of informed consent" does not really touch on other choices.

Pro-life does not really get that luxury. If all they are is pro-fetal-life, then they are not pro-life, they are pro-birth.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,515
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
My personal beliefs about the politician's support of anti-abortion stances are:
1. It's a red meat/rabid dog issue, guaranteed to get a certain segment of society who are also single issue voters to raise money and it will get out the vote of those types of supporters.
2. They recognize the declining birth rate and the fact that significant segments of society are being propped up by immigrants, legal and not, many of whom are not white or not white enough. They want to save/produce more white babies. Not of their own bodies, but as worker bees.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,103
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
They want to save/produce more white babies.
Was your first clue Alito saying so straight up? The domestic supply of unwanted white babies is at a critically low level, and our racial supremacy is under dire threat, and God is telling
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom
What does that even mean?

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but not to actually have one?
I think it’s more like “I support your right to decide to have an abortion but really wish you wouldn’t”. It definitely reeks of “I disagree with what you’re saying but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it, so STFU!”
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,602
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
[...]

Everyone knows what the "choice" in question involves a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is really up to TomC to clarify what he meant. Similarly, everyone knows what the "life" in pro-life means. It's about the life of the fetus, not the mother or human live in general. Out of context, these labels could mean many different things, but we know what the intended context is.
We do; but that rarely seems to stop the pro-pregnancy-choice from hassling the pro-fetal-life over calling themselves "pro-life" even though they favor gun rights and the death penalty and whatnot. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...

I think that the dispute over labels has some legitimacy, however. The more extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement are not pro-life at all. They are more pro-birth. They want to give a civil right to unborn and underdeveloped fetuses. Some have gotten so caught up in their zealotry that they have murdered abortion doctors and other adults in an effort to terrorize abortion providers and women seeking abortions. Doxing abortion providers is a blatant attempt to enable harassment and violence against people. A general ban on late term abortions that are often matters of life and death for the mother make no sense in terms of being for "life". The decision really needs to be made by the mother and qualified medical professionals, not government officials. The label "anti-abortion" is a more appropriate label, because that is generally what the movement is about--removing abortion as an option that a woman can choose. The label "pro-life" renders the point of the movement obscure in a way that "pro-choice" does not. If they don't like the label "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice", then "pro-birth" would be a more honest label.

The term "pro-abortion" is a bit more problematic, because it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion. It is about providing that option for a woman who has already decided to have an abortion. So it is more about providing women with a choice rather than trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other. Some of the propaganda coming out of the anti-abortion side conveys the opposite view--that "pro-abortionists" actually advocate for the option of choosing abortion. That is what motivated the change of preferred label from "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice".
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?
About that Catholics believe abortion is murder. It’s not as universally held belief as you might think. I know Catholics who are childless by choice, who limit the number of children they have to two or fewer, practice birth control, have had abortions.
 

crazyfingers

Supermagnon
Staff member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
3,864
Location
Massachusetts USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanism
Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?
About that Catholics believe abortion is murder. It’s not as universally held belief as you might think. I know Catholics who are childless by choice, who limit the number of children they have to two or fewer, practice birth control, have had abortions.
Ya. The US Northeast is heavily Catholic but also heavily pro-choice. Massachusetts is very Catholic and very pro-choice.

If you look at the States that are anti-Choice, they are heavily Protestant evangelical, not Catholic.

I do not think that the Catholic members of the Supreme Court represent most Catholics in the US.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,602
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?
About that Catholics believe abortion is murder. It’s not as universally held belief as you might think. I know Catholics who are childless by choice, who limit the number of children they have to two or fewer, practice birth control, have had abortions.
Ya. The US Northeast is heavily Catholic but also heavily pro-choice. Massachusetts is very Catholic and very pro-choice.

If you look at the States that are anti-Choice, they are heavily Protestant evangelical, not Catholic.

I do not think that the Catholic members of the Supreme Court represent most Catholics in the US.

So the point is that we can't attribute the anti-abortion zealotry of Supreme Court justices to their religion directly, but their religion was a factor in getting them onto the Court. Abortion is viewed by most people as a moral issue, and many, if not most, believe that morality is connected to religious belief. Voting for a Catholic nominee to the Court has always been an easy decision for US senators, because that rings the right visceral bell for a large number of their constituents who oppose abortion and therefore Roe v Wade. That's why we have a Supreme Court packed with Catholics. And Republican presidents have made an effort to pick justices that they believed would vote to chip away at, if not overturn, Roe v Wade. Sotomayor is the rare exception of being a Catholic on the Court who is reliably expected to vote against gutting or overturning Roe v Wade.

Nominees to the Supreme Court have probably always involved a calculation on the politics of the justice, but demographics was never the overriding issue. We have a black justice now, Clarence Thomas, who is a conservative Republican zealot. The Republican outrage over Jackson's appointment had little to do with race, although the way some senators attacked or defended her often did reflect a racial bias. Republicans would be fine with another extremely conservative black nominee for the Court that they could count on to put a thumb on the scales of "blind" justice when making decisions about how the law should be interpreted. Republicans have finally achieved what they thought they wanted, and we will see whether they have reaped the whirlwind or just a short-lived little dust devil.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,852
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated
In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated
In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”
Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,602
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The question decided by a 7-2 majority for Roe v Wade still comes down to the conclusion in Blackmun's written opinion that the right to choose an abortion is retained by the individual, i.e. the pregnant woman, not the federal or state governments, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. His opinion stated that it was a right prohibited to the federal government, and therefore the state governments. According to the 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights, there are rights not actually enumerated in the Constitution. So it doesn't need to mention abortion or even privacy per se. The 10th amendment states that these rights are retained by the people when the Constitution forbids federal and state governments from regulating them. So Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion. It ruled that government regulation was illegal except under specified conditions. The opinion only stated when the regulation of a pregnancy by a state government could be considered legal. Alito's draft opinion seems to be attacking the underpinning of the 9th and 10th amendments. That is, it seems to be claiming that the Constitution comprehensively grants people all the rights that they possess. This ruling could therefore undermine even the right to privacy, which is not a clearly enumerated right.

See: Roe v Wade | Oyez
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,852
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.
Duh! It's much more important that the sinner be punished than whether god calls a woman home early.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated
In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”
Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.
Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,134
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.


I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.


I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?
I wasn't tested--very early miscarriage. I was just told to report any prolonged bleeding, any fever, etc.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,051
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Abortion resistance braces for demands of a post-Roe future | AP News

The article described how abortion-assistance activists work, assisting people in traveling from abortion-hostile states like Texas to abortion-friendly states like Illinois.
It’s already started. In September, Texas passed a ban on abortion after six weeks; courts let it stand. Patients fanned out into surrounding states, clogging up clinics and ballooning waiting lists -- weeks turned to months. In Alabama, Dreith’s friend Robin Marty said she was going to have to direct patients to Illinois, an eight-hour drive.

The Midwest Access Coalition’s hotline is swamped and it’s about to get much busier: If Roe is overturned, abortion is expected to be banned in more than half of American states.

...
The coalition, funded by donations and grants, will have to make hard choices. There will be too many people and not enough money. They stopped funding partners traveling with adult patients. They’re considering capping the amount of money per client, and the number of clients per month.

Texas is outside the coalition’s coverage area, but it had offered to help when the state’s support groups, called abortion funds, were thrust into crisis. But now it is routing Texas callers back to other groups, which are also stressed.

...
When the draft Supreme Court opinion on Roe was leaked, “The Handbook for a Post-Roe America” sold out overnight. “Everybody wants something to do,” said Robin Marty, who wrote the 247-page manual. “I think people want to feel like there’s something within their control.”

It’s inconceivable, Marty said, that measures she described in her book might be necessary in a matter of weeks. “If I try to think about what this would look like, I can’t, because it’s a disaster.”
A disaster that has already started.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,628
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated
In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”
Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.
Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated
In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”
Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.
Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.
True dat.
 
Top Bottom