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

Roe v Wade is on deck

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.
That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.

If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.
That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.

If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?
Do you realize how much the court has changed in the last 12 years? As foolish as it seems now, no one predicted Trump.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This may surprise you, but during the many times that the Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, they may have even tried a constitutional amendment. Or they could have exercised their dormant power of determining what the SCOTUS can review when passing legislation to codify RvW. There are more options that just leaving it to a court.
You are right - it does surprise me that anyone thinks a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion would have had a chance of success given the fate of the ERA amendment.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
EDIT: 1986 Joe Biden said there was an 'overwhelming, universal criticism' of the bad reasoning in Roe v Wade.

Many years ago, I asked why (probably to someone on this board), if the Republicans were so anti-abortion, they didn't just ban it federally when they had the chance(s). The simple answer was 'Roe v Wade prevents them doing that', which was true. But over the years, I never understood the reasoning in 'Roe v Wade'. Or, rather like my experience with the Ontological argument for the existence of God, I thought I didn't understand it. But nowI think I did understand it, it is just bad and shaky reasoning.

What I really don't understand is the criticism of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade because of the outcome. It was a Constitutional question, not a policy question. If anything, the first decision ought be criticised, because it reached the outcome so many people wanted, but based on nothing. And if the recent decision was somehow 'political', then so was the first one.

Roe v Wade was a bad judgment--that's what typically happens when the Supreme Court steps in and does Congress' job. The Supreme Court doesn't really have the power to do laws right.

Thus we get things like the Miranda decision--the legislature (state and federal) refused to do anything about cops ignoring the 4th so they acted in the only way they could--throwing out the evidence rather than punishing the cops because they had no power to punish the cops. Likewise Roe v Wade, they noted that all the existing anti-abortion laws were about punishing the woman rather than about any legitimate state interest and imposed their answer since they didn't have the power to do it properly.

Note that I am not saying these decisions are wrong, but rather the best they could do given the lack of the right tools for the job.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?
All but Thomas if memory serves.
Metaphor said:
What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned?
Settled means resolved. It can be overturned
Metaphor said:
If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?
Maybe. But there is no stated rationale of changed minds for those justices.



Metaphor said:
So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?
Shakier.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.
That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.

If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?
Do you realize how much the court has changed in the last 12 years? As foolish as it seems now, no one predicted Trump.
So, you realise the Supreme Court can change susbtantially in 12 years, let alone 50, yet it was never a 'foremost priority' for Democrats to codify Roe into law?

You also appear to concede that a court cannot be permanently bound by its own previous decisions (any more than a legislature should be permanently bound by its own previous decisions). But why does overturning a previous decision mean the court does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

I am asking people who appear to be upset by this decision why they think it reflects badly on the Court itself. Is it because it is a political outcome you didn't like? That doesn't mean the decision was bad legal reasoning. It means you want the Court to be 'activist judges', as long as they are activist in the direction you like.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?
All but Thomas if memory serves.
I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.

Metaphor said:
What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned?
Settled means resolved. It can be overturned
So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.

Metaphor said:
If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?
Maybe. But there is no stated rationale of changed minds for those justices.
But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.

Metaphor said:
So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?
Shakier.
But what evidence is there of internal inconsistency?

Why do you think the overturning was wrong, legally speaking? What was the error in judgment?

I am not a lawyer, let alone a specialist in American Constitutional law, so I can't answer the question for myself. But it does seem to me that the 1973 opinion of the Court was a product of the political times, and not a product of solid legal reasoning from the Constitution.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?
All but Thomas if memory serves.
I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.
IIn this situation, there is no evidence to support your hypotheticals.

Metaphor said:
So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.
Already asked and answered.

Metaphor said:
But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.
Senators Manchin and Collins disagree with your apologia because they rightly thought being told that something is settled law or a precedent indicated that those individuals would not overturn Roe v Wade.

It is pretty clear you have no clue about the history involved. Try googling it.

It is my understanding of SCOTUS reversing precedents is overwhelmingly in situations of expanding not restricting rights.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?
All but Thomas if memory serves.
I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.
IIn this situation, there is no evidence to support your hypotheticals.
The fact that 'settled law' does not really have a fixed meaning does have evidence, and I linked to it upthread.

The fact that you claim justices said something was 'settled law' and then overturned it doesn't mean they did something wrong, does it? So what makes it a travesty?

Metaphor said:
So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.
Already asked and answered.
Well, no, you didn't. What makes it a travesty?

Metaphor said:
But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.
Senators Manchin and Collins disagree with your apologia because they rightly thought being told that something is settled law or a precedent indicated that those individuals would not overturn Roe v Wade.
Well, I disagree that they were misled. I've listened to what Gorsuch, and ACB, and Kavanaugh said. Not one of them said "Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it".

It is pretty clear you have no clue about the history involved. Try googling it.
I have.

I have read article after (mindless) article making claims that the justices lied, and none of those articles actually evidence that claim.

You called this decision 'a travesty' but I am no closer to understanding why you think it is a travesty.


It is my understanding of SCOTUS reversing precedents is overwhelmingly in situations of expanding not restricting rights.
So...what, exactly? Even if I agreed that this decision "restricted" rights somehow (I don't agree: I think it changes the level of jurisdiction of rights), so what? "Precedents can only be overturned if they expand rights" is not a legal concept.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?
Citing a witch hunter from the 1600s to justify a decision you've made with regards to women's rights in 2022 is batshit crazy. And it was exactly what Alito did.
So...what?

Citing somebody from the 17th century to help understand the context of an 18th century document does not seem 'batshit crazy' to me.

What was legally wrong in the majority opinion that the Roe decision actually got right?
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,793
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?
All but Thomas if memory serves.
I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.

Metaphor said:
What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned?
Settled means resolved. It can be overturned
So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.

Metaphor said:
If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?
Maybe. But there is no stated rationale of changed minds for those justices.
But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.

Metaphor said:
So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?
Shakier.
But what evidence is there of internal inconsistency?

Why do you think the overturning was wrong, legally speaking? What was the error in judgment?

I am not a lawyer, let alone a specialist in American Constitutional law, so I can't answer the question for myself. But it does seem to me that the 1973 opinion of the Court was a product of the political times, and not a product of solid legal reasoning from the Constitution.

That’s the problem. You can’t just read Roe and Griswold and think you understand it. You have to read dozens of cases that came before those, going back to the first cases after the Civil War. The cases build on each other. Yes, they’re a product of their political times as were all the others that came before them. But the concepts didn’t just appear out of nowhere. To truly understand them you have to read the Slaughterhouse cases, Lochner and it’s progeny and many other cases that ultimately led to the panoply of rights that are now threatened by this decision. Is Roe not a good constitutional decision? I think so. But obviously Alito doesn’t. But that’s obviously a product of his political and religious thinking, not simply constitutional. There are many approaches to interpreting the Constitution. But there isn’t one particular way that always gets to the correct legal interpretation as your answer seems to imply.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,862
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
The four most liberal Supreme Court Justices often cancel out the votes of the four most conservative Justices, and the center-most Justice — the "median" or "swing-vote" Justice — decides many important issues. It may be interesting to trace the history of the median Justice.

Nixon appointed four conservative Justices; this made Byron "Whizzer" White, a JFK appointee, the median Justice. For many years, White, Arthur Kennedy and/or Sandra Day O'Connor formed a centrist core of the Court.

White voted against Miranda in 1966; Miranda would have lost had this case been decided a few years later when White was the median Justice. OTOH, Nixon's appointees took Roe's side in the 1973 Roe v Wade case with White voting against her. (There wasn't the dogmatic hyper-partisanship we see today.)

Bush-41 replaced Thurgood with Clarence and two years later Clinton replaced White with Ginsburg. The net effect was to replace a centrist with a right-winger, but the median Justice (O'Connor or Kennedy) was still centrist. Bush-43 replaced O'Connor with Alito; the court was now split 4-1-4 with Arthur Kennedy the only remaining centrist. Arthur Kennedy was the deciding vote in many close decisions, sometimes siding with the liberals, sometimes the conservatives. He often wrote majority opinions for the Court. (His views on abortion were "centrist": he antagonized both sides.)

Kennedy's retirement at age 82 and replacement with Brett Scumbag was a tragedy, since there were now 5 right-wingers. The median Justice became Chief John Roberts, who started his career as a political hack, working for Reagan and coming up with ploys to suppress black votes. But Roberts was a true "swing" Justice, taking the rational side in a few important cases.

Finally, the death of Ruth Ginsburg sealed the fate of American democracy. With five bat-shit crazies now on the Court and with QOPAnon and Trumpsucking lawyers pushing cases they'd never have pursued in saner days, Republican hack Roberts often finds himself voting with the liberals. It may no longer make sense to speak of a median Justice, but it might be Kavanaugh himself if one insists.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The four most liberal Supreme Court Justices often cancel out the votes of the four most conservative Justices, and the center-most Justice — the "median" or "swing-vote" Justice — decides many important issues. It may be interesting to trace the history of the median Justice.

Nixon appointed four conservative Justices; this made Byron "Whizzer" White, a JFK appointee, the median Justice. For many years, White, Arthur Kennedy and/or Sandra Day O'Connor formed a centrist core of the Court.
This is just wrong. Kennedy and O'Connor were very much conservatives on most issues, except rights. On rights, they were very open to the expansion of rights. This SCOTUS seems to be the first that is actually giddy over reducing rights of people.

Kavanaugh, on paper, might have looked like a Kennedy, but for social issues, very much not. We are seeing Barrett, Alito, and Thomas as flat out judicial partisans when it comes to social issues.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Metaphor said:
You called this decision 'a travesty' but I am no closer to understanding why you think it is a travesty. So?

This ruling takes away a long established right for a woman to make an important and possible life saving choice in her life. It permits states to establish their religious view that an embryo is a person as law which is a violation of the separation of church and state in order to prevent women from taking care of their bodies. It uses hypocritical reasoning about allowing elected officials as representatives of the voters to make these laws while striking laws. It uses hypocritical reasoning to determine what is inot in the constitution (the right to privacy is mot mentioned but neither is am individuals unrestricted right to bear arms) And, it shows the mendacity of a majority of these justices and therefore the perception of thus particular SCOTUS’ legitimacy

In short, in my opinion this decision is a theologically driven decision hiding under hypocritical reasoning that threatens the well-being of women and everyone’s right to privacy.
I think it will embolden the theocrats to impose more of their religious views on the public. So I think the decision is a travesty.

You can agree or not with my conclusion, but I will not debate the merits of reasons or your objections because I feel no need for agreement with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?
Citing a witch hunter from the 1600s to justify a decision you've made with regards to women's rights in 2022 is batshit crazy. And it was exactly what Alito did.
So...what?

Citing somebody from the 17th century to help understand the context of an 18th century document does not seem 'batshit crazy' to me.

What was legally wrong in the majority opinion that the Roe decision actually got right?
Simply put, the right to privacy saturates the Bill of Rights. This right comes forth from the First, third, fourth, and fifth amendments. The idea that the Founding Fathers would presume that they'd be fine with the State requiring to bless a marriage for it to happen would be akin to being alright for the King to do likewise. It is absurd. Marital privacy didn't abound from itself, it came from a series of other cases, dating back to the 1920s.

And now we are dealing with a woman's right to her own body. Self-autonomy. It is judicial cowardice to suggest 'well it isn't explicitly in the Constitution'. No, women voting wasn't either and it took over one hundred years to get that amendment! Shall African Americans have waited another 100 years for an amendment instead of Brown v Board of Education. The institution of the Supreme Court allows for us to see that these rights are applied to all people.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.
That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent?
Not 100%, but if it doesn't heed to precedence, the legal system falls apart real quickly. There must be extraordinary reason to break with precedence. Roe v Wade wasn't even controversial in its time. Not like Dred Scot, of which Dobbs shares a decent amount of similarities.

The far right majority SCOTUS sought to right a problem that the people didn't even think existed in plurality (and depending on the question, in majority). SCOTUS instead went to try and protect the rights of people that don't exist at the price of women that very much do exist. It is preposterous.
 

hurtinbuckaroo

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
4,261
Location
Delaware, USA
Basic Beliefs
laissez le bon temps rouler
I’ve seen claims that private info (SSN, full credit card info, etc.) for the five “justices” and their family members have been posted online, with a tag line of “Their card, our choice”.

I’m sure some fascists will blame Biden/FBI/NSA/CIA within 24 hours.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: The Overturning of Roe v. Wade, June 2022​

Majority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade... More than Six in Ten Say Decision Will Push Them to the Polls in November​

 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.
That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent?
Not 100%, but if it doesn't heed to precedence, the legal system falls apart real quickly. There must be extraordinary reason to break with precedence. Roe v Wade wasn't even controversial in its time.
That isn't the impression Joe Biden had in the 1980s.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Metaphor said:
You called this decision 'a travesty' but I am no closer to understanding why you think it is a travesty. So?

This ruling takes away a long established right for a woman to make an important and possible life saving choice in her life. It permits states to establish their religious view that an embryo is a person as law
The Justices haven't done any such thing.

which is a violation of the separation of church and state in order to prevent women from taking care of their bodies. It uses hypocritical reasoning about allowing elected officials as representatives of the voters to make these laws while striking laws. It uses hypocritical reasoning to determine what is inot in the constitution (the right to privacy is mot mentioned but neither is am individuals unrestricted right to bear arms)
Did the other decision establish an "unrestricted right to bear arms"?

And, it shows the mendacity of a majority of these justices and therefore the perception of thus particular SCOTUS’ legitimacy

In short, in my opinion this decision is a theologically driven decision hiding under hypocritical reasoning that threatens the well-being of women and everyone’s right to privacy.
I think it will embolden the theocrats to impose more of their religious views on the public. So I think the decision is a travesty.

You can agree or not with my conclusion, but I will not debate the merits of reasons or your objections because I feel no need for agreement with you.
Right.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Metaphor said:
This ruling takes away a long established right for a woman to make an important and possible life saving choice in her life. It permits states to establish their religious view that an embryo is a person as law
The Justices haven't done any such thing.
Would you please explain this.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Metaphor said:
This ruling takes away a long established right for a woman to make an important and possible life saving choice in her life.
It doesn't "take away" the right. It says the Constitution never provided such a right. It is individual States that are taking away or granting rights. For example, women in California or New York have not lost any rights compared to what they had before the ruling.

Metaphor said:
It permits states to establish their religious view that an embryo is a person as law
The Justices haven't done any such thing.
Would you please explain this.
Roe v Wade did not establish that an embryo is or is not a person. Whether you think an embryo is a person depends on your definition of 'person' and other metaphysical assumptions. It may or may not be a 'religious' belief. If a State made an abortion law using religious reasoning, it would fail Constitutional muster.

I don't think an embryo is a person. I don't think an embryo has "interests". But I also do not see that the Roe decision was somehow correct and well-reasoned contrasted with the decision to overturn it. If you think the current decision is 'political' or 'religious', it seems the same accusation should be made of 'Roe'.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,449
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Another response to JD Vance, the Republican candidate for US Senate in Ohio:
J.D. Vance on Twitter: "If your worldview tells you that it’s bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you’ve been had." / Twitter

Then
Jessica Valenti on Twitter: "These motherfuckers will do anything they can to make oppression sound like a favor they're doing us (link)" / Twitter
and
Jessica Valenti on Twitter: "If being a full-time parent is so great why don't more men do it? And if motherhood is women's natural imperative why do men need to create laws to force them into it?" / Twitter


Maria Reppas on Twitter: "@JessicaValenti And if child care and domestic work are the most important things a woman can do, then why do wealthy families outsource both responsibilities?" / Twitter

Fake Greek Grill on Twitter: "@ReppasMaria @JessicaValenti And if they are so important, why aren't the compensated with money, prestige, and bromides rather than head pats and bromides?" / Twitter
and
Fake Greek Grill on Twitter: "@ReppasMaria @JessicaValenti First "bromides" should read "power" ugh" / Twitter


More about JD Vance, alluding to his book "Hillbilly Elegy":
Sarah Reese Jones on Twitter: "@JDVance1 If your worldview tells you someone with a Yale degree who worked in venture capitalism and visited Appalachia for a few weeks is not the elite he rails against, you’ve been had." / Twitter

Ms. Tom Morrow 📚📚🦄🌊 on Twitter: "@PoliticusSarah he barely went to Appalachia, he spent most of his time in a town between Cincinnati and Dayton. source: I grew up near where he lived. he’s done a great job fooling a lot of people." / Twitter

Miss Lelaina Is Angry on Twitter: "@hbnyc87 @PoliticusSarah I lived in Middletown for a little while. Some of the population there is…special. Next town over, there was a Confederate monument that no one there knew about, but when they found out, they were indignant that it was going to be removed for traffic sight lines." / Twitter


Rishona Fleishman on Twitter: "@JessicaValenti And it is all performance too! His wife works in Big Law and clerked for Roberts and Kavenaugh. And they have three kids. He probably has health insurance through her. Her cubicle life definitely supports his political ambition." / Twitter

goldnecklace on Twitter: "@RishonaF @JessicaValenti This. I don’t care what any mom does, but writing things like this while your own kids are def raised by a nanny is…something else." / Twitter
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,449
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

The interview mentioned Jason Linkins writing in The New Republic:
The Democrats' Theory of Change: Wait for the Republicans to Screw Up

"For the GOP, change comes after long periods of hard work, steady funding, and maintaining enthusiasm and momentum through periods of setback. For Democrats, change is reactive, coming only after the GOP's ambitions have hurt just enough people to make Republican rule untenable."
AOC suspected that the Democratic leadership is nostalgic for an earlier style of politics. Like their wanting a strong Republican Party. A sentiment I find sick. To me, the Democratic Party leadership reminds me of the gerontocratic leaders of the Soviet Union in its last years.

For the House,
  • Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, born 1940, elected 1986
  • Steny Hoyer, Maj Ldr, born 1939, elected 1980
  • Jim Clyburn, Whip, born 1940, elected 1992
  • Hakeem Jeffries, Dem Caucus Ldr, born 1970, elected 2012
  • Jerry Nadler, head Judiciary Cmte, born 1947, elected 1992
  • Carolyn Maloney, head Oversight Cmte, born 1946, elected 1992
  • Adam Schiff, head Intelligence Cmte, born 1960, elected 2000
  • Richard Neal, head Ways & Means Cmte, born 1949, elected 1988
  • Joe Crowley, head Dem Caucus Ldr, born 1962, elected 1998, unseated 2018 by AOC
  • Eliot Engel, head Foreign Affairs Cmte, born 1947, elected 1988, unseated 2020 by Jamaal Bowman
For the Senate,
  • Chuck Schumer, Maj Ldr, born 1950, elected 1998
  • Dick Durbin, Whip, born 1944, elected 1996

Some progressive politicians are nevertheless very aged, but they had special circumstances.
  • Elizabeth Warren, born 1949, elected 2013 -- she got involved in politics rather late
  • Bernie Sanders, born 1941, elected Mayor of Burlington 1980, elected House 1990, elected Senate 2006 -- on the fringes for a long time
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,449
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Daily Beast on Twitter: "“The left will say, ‘Well what about in cases of rape or incest?’ I'm a law-enforcement officer. I became a police officer in 2011. I’ve worked one case where as a result of a rape, the young woman became pregnant," said Yesli Vega (link)" / Twitter
noting
Yesli Vega, Virginia GOP Rep Nominee, Says She Doubts Pregnancy Comes After Rape in Leaked Audio Comments - '“I’m a mother of two, I’m fully aware of how women get pregnant,” she later said in a statement.'

Woman ordered to pay child support to her accused rapist after sheriff 'dropped the ball'

'The View': Whoopi Goldberg Sends Warning To Clarence Thomas Amid Roe Rollback: 'He Better Hope That They Don't Come For You' With Loving

-- That's Loving vs. Virginia, where the Supreme Court decided that interracial marriage was legal, overriding some states' laws against it. Clarence Thomas has an interracial marriage.

Taylor Hirth Was Gang-Raped in Her Own Bed - Justice for Missouri Victim of Sexual Assault
Police Said They Couldn’t Find the Men Who Gang-Raped This Woman While Her 2-Year-Old Watched. Then Another Woman Was Raped.

In August, the Independence Police Department closed Taylor Hirth's case. Now a man has been charged with raping her and endangering her child.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,449
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) ..." / Twitter
The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) is never reported to police and never will be.

Most assaults happen by someone known or trusted. Forcing survivors to recognize, relive, & convince strangers in public of what happened to them is extremely traumatizing.

It takes years for many survivors to even realize/accept what happened.

The criminal system is not meant nor designed to deal w/sexual assault and therefore doesn’t w/ the exception of a minority of cases

Police reports & cases alone are not reliable or complete data whatsoever

Trying to advance police reporting as the standard for belief denies the overwhelming reality of sexual assault, rape, & child/domestic abuse & strengthens a system that protects violators & silences victims.

It’s also one example why criminalization and justice aren’t synonyms.
I hope that she might be willing to discuss in more detail what she considers good alternatives to criminalization. The first thing I think of is how traffic violations are handled, but she ought to speak for herself on that subject.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,449
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
H.R.1011 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Life at Conception Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.

Nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.
Sponsor: Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV-2] (Introduced 02/11/2021)
Cosponsors: 163, original 91, all Republicans. As one might expect, MTG and Lauren Boebert were among them.

There are 210 Republicans in the House, making that 78% of those Republicans.

It has a companion bill,
S.99 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Life at Conception Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.

Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Introduced 01/28/2021)
Cosponsors: 18, original 13, all Republicans

There are 50 Republicans in the Senate, making that 38% of those Republicans.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."
What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?
That Roe v Wade was settled law.

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) ..." / Twitter
The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) is never reported to police and never will be.

Most assaults happen by someone known or trusted. Forcing survivors to recognize, relive, & convince strangers in public of what happened to them is extremely traumatizing.

It takes years for many survivors to even realize/accept what happened.

The criminal system is not meant nor designed to deal w/sexual assault and therefore doesn’t w/ the exception of a minority of cases

Police reports & cases alone are not reliable or complete data whatsoever

Trying to advance police reporting as the standard for belief denies the overwhelming reality of sexual assault, rape, & child/domestic abuse & strengthens a system that protects violators & silences victims.

It’s also one example why criminalization and justice aren’t synonyms.
I hope that she might be willing to discuss in more detail what she considers good alternatives to criminalization. The first thing I think of is how traffic violations are handled, but she ought to speak for herself on that subject.
I don't think she is dichotomizing. She is saying not that there is an alternative that is not also criminalization of rape and sexual assault; rather, formulating strategies to successfully address it in ways that place investigation and enforcement on a different mechanism than the current police structure.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."
What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?
That Roe v Wade was settled law.
As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.
Right. I'm certain you believe it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."
What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?
That Roe v Wade was settled law.
As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.
Right. I'm certain you believe it.
What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied. I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.

I did not mention ACB.

I am certain that you believe the men because of course you do. Never mind whether or not you paid any attention at all to testimony during their confirmation hearings. I’m not certain you were out of diapers when Thomas was confirmed. I understand why you disbelieved the accusations from women about these two men.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."
What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?
That Roe v Wade was settled law.
As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.
Right. I'm certain you believe it.
What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied.
You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.
I disagree with unevidenced, mindless partisan assertions. If you believe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade, produce their lies. Quote them to me.

 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."
What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?
That Roe v Wade was settled law.
As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.
Right. I'm certain you believe it.
What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied.
You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.
I disagree with unevidenced, mindless partisan assertions. If you believe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade, produce their lies. Quote them to me.

Sigh. I did not offer MY opinion. I merely stated WHY people said they lied.

Here’s some video:

Your opinions about how the law works in the US are worth far less than the time and effort to type this sentence.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."
What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?
That Roe v Wade was settled law.
As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.
Right. I'm certain you believe it.
What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied.
You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.
I disagree with unevidenced, mindless partisan assertions. If you believe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade, produce their lies. Quote them to me.

Sigh. I did not offer MY opinion. I merely stated WHY people said they lied.
Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?

 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,867
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
But then you have a mother that still has to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle. Conservatives long for the times when the woman stayed home and raised the kids, but also refuse to pay people enough so they can raise a family on one income.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

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

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

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
But then you have a mother that still has to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle. Conservatives long for the times when the woman stayed home and raised the kids, but also refuse to pay people enough so they can raise a family on one income.
They be saying the quiet parts more loudly now. They want to get rid of birth control because they want woman back 'where they belong'. The majority of America does not approve of this... and we are slipping into a state of tyranny of the minority.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?
Nominee Kavanaugh said:
I said that it’s settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis, and one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.
link

On stare decisis...
legal mumbo jumbo said:
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

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

How could you square that statement with legal abortion?

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

Durbin: Do you accept that?

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

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

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

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

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her
At one point in time, I pretty much agreed with your momma. I was very young and had an idealistic/romantic bent of mind. I knew that I really wanted to have children, and probably a large family.

But then I began to look at abortion differently: what, really, was the difference between a baby conceived through rape or through a loving relationship--or even just teenagers fooling around and things getting out of hand with no precautions taken--or available to take? There is no real difference as far as the fetus is concerned. There is a pretty huge difference as far as the woman is concerned.

However a pregnancy begins, it is an enormous physical and emotional burden for the woman carrying the pregnancy, with many, many implications beyond the physical demands. Even if we lived in an ideal world where there was zero stigma attached to a woman becoming pregnant and zero negative consequences educationally or career wise or socially and even if she has access to the best medical care, secure and good housing, good nutrition, excellent support from all around her--even if her education and her career prospects are not negatively affected at all---pregnancy can cause serious medical complications and can result in the death of the mother. Some of those complications can affect her future fertility and her health for a period of time ranging from short term to permanent. There's also an emotional toll that can be enormous during pregnancy and after childbirth. Many women suffer post partum depression and the effects are not always recognized and are often untreated or under treated. Society has a lot of judgment to offer for the pregnant woman as well. There is an enormous loss of privacy when strangers want to touch your belly, offer you advice or cautionary tales and their opinions--some of which can be uplifting and even amusing and some of which are just awful, unwelcome, intrusive. This does not diminish among friends, family members, members of the medical community. All of this is just for starters.

And of course, we do not live in an ideal world.

I changed my mind as the reality of what pregnancy means and what its implications are became more apparent to me. No one has the right to force that choice on another person. Society does not have the right to force a girl or a woman to carry a pregnancy any more than society has the right to force the woman to terminate a pregnancy or surrender a child unless she has demonstrated she's unfit to raise the child or to insist she raise the child.

People have the right to their own body autonomy. Whether they donate blood or not is their choice. Whether they donate organs is their choice--even after their death, so long as they have made that choice known and recorded. Pregnancy means that the woman's blood and body fluids and tissues and organs are being used by another entity, at her expense and sometimes at the expense of her health, her reproductive capacity, and even her life. She has the right to agree to this or to choose not to carry the pregnancy.

I'm very solidly pro choice.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

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

I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.
While it is decent advice to talk about not getting pregnant as a way to avoid accidental pregnancies, the truth is, people in mature relationships have accidents too. And ultimately, we need to step away from the Just Say No argument. There are unwanted pregnancies before Roe, during Roe, and now tragically after Roe. Abortion isn't the cause of unwanted pregnancies. Human nature is. And much like in an ideal world we wouldn't have car accidents, accidental pregnancy among a large group of people, despite precautions is a guarantee.

So the see no evil, hear no evil approach is effectively naïve. We need to address the problem, not pretend we can prevent it all the time.

And we are seeing with some GOP'ers and Justice Thomas, the target is well well beyond abortion. They are aiming at birth control (hence they aren't seeking to eliminate accidental pregnancies) and basic gay rights.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.
She fuckin' nailed it.

She doesn't appear to buy the culture of entitlement and victimhood. Nobody is entitled to sex, and the predictable outcome doesn't mean you're a victim.
Tom

ETA ~Be sure to tell her that a white, atheist, faggot, Yankee said so. :)
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.
She fuckin' nailed it.

She doesn't appear to buy the culture of entitlement and victimhood. Nobody is entitled to sex, and the predictable outcome doesn't mean you're a victim.
Tom
Who said having self-autonomy over one's body being a right had anything to do with being a victim?
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Who said having self-autonomy over one's body being a right had anything to do with being a victim?
I don't know anyone who will use those words in that order, it'd be a little too honest.

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

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Who said having self-autonomy over one's body being a right had anything to do with being a victim?
I don't know anyone who will use those words in that order, it'd be a little too honest.

But let's face it. Fetal children are commonly described as a sort of parasite that pops into existence and tethers themselves to a host.
What Gospel's mom was pointing out is that personal autonomy exists before sex. Exercising it then would eliminate most of the problem.
Tom
The bolded portion above us as dishonest a piece of gobblety goop as I’ve read outside of a transcript of one of Trump’s speeches.

It would be much more honest if you to just state outright that bodily autonomy exists for men but not women, especially if they somehow manage to lose their virginity. Sex is an act that, for women, requires punishment and pregnancy and childbirth, or at least a loss of one’s reputation is fitting punishment. After all, Eve ate fruit from the forbidden tree and then she tempted Adam. Women are nothing but temptresses and the wellspring of all evil. Except, of course, for the Virgin Mary. And your mom.

As for men, boys will be boys.
 
Top Bottom