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

Roe v Wade is on deck

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,475
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In Overturning Roe, Radical Supreme Court Declares War on the 14th Amendment - "Alito’s opinion completely elides the significance of the 14th Amendment, which was explicitly designed to address the particular horrors of slavery, including the right of individuals to determine whether, with whom, and when to form a family."
The court’s consequential ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization represents the culmination of decades of conservative ideological assault on reproductive freedom. And it opens a door for the court’s 6-3 supermajority to strike down a host of other protections grounded in the Constitution’s promise of individual liberty that the court declares in Dobbs are not actually rooted in “history and tradition” — including the right to use contraception, the right to consensual sexual relations, and the right to same-sex marriage.

Still, the text of the majority ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, is not entirely new: The substance of the ruling has not changed since a leaked draft of the opinion was published by Politico in May. As he did in the leaked opinion, Alito goes on at length about how history doesn’t include a right to abortion (notably citing the “great” Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century judge who sentenced two “witches” to death and advocated for a husband’s right to rape his wife); gives a nod to the ahistorical idea that abortion is akin to eugenics; and seems perplexed by the idea that any reliance interests may have developed around the 50-year-old abortion precedent — in other words, he can’t see how generations of people may have internalized the guarantee that they have the right to plan and control their reproductive lives.

Most consequentially, perhaps, is the majority’s cramped and somewhat confusing view of the individual liberty rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. According to the Alito majority, there are two limited categories of rights protected by it: Those specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments — like the (apparently absolute) right to bear arms — and those that comprise “a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” And where that select list is concerned, Alito writes that the court must basically determine whether a right was considered as such in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. He concludes that abortion wasn’t firmly accepted then and so cannot be considered so now.
They ought to handle the Second Amendment in that way. By that argument, it would only protect single-shot muzzleloaders. Breechloaders and multishot guns did exist in the days of the Founders, but they were not very common. Automatic and semiautomatic guns did not exist at all back then.
In fact, Alito’s opinion scoffs at the idea that individual liberty would include a person’s ability to make autonomous intimate personal choices. “While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existence,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life,’ they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts,” he wrote. “These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much.” That criteria, “at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like,” he wrote.
What's so terrible about those?

A big problem with this decision to overturn RvW is that RvW involves premises that are parts of other important decisions, like Griswold vs. Connecticut supporting birth control, Lawrence vs. Texas supporting same-sex sexual activity, Obergefell vs. Hodges supporting same-sex marriage, and Loving vs. Virginia supporting interracial marriage and sex.
In the majority opinion, Alito disregards this concern, insisting that none of the other rights are in jeopardy because abortion is different — because it involves potential life — and accusing the dissent of stoking “unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights.” Still, at least part of the majority isn’t signing on to this assurance. In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote explicitly that those other rights should be overturned. While he agreed that the right to contraception, consensual sex, and same-sex marriage weren’t on the table in the Dobbs case, he wrote that they’re actually no different from abortion in that they too have no 14th Amendment protection and thus must go. “No party has asked us to decide ‘whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,’” he wrote. But in the future they should consider the entire class of rights, because any granted on that basis are “demonstrably erroneous,” he wrote, and “we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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.
If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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
Sounds like she knows her position is inconsistent.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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
In other words, couples who really don't want children must not have sex. What about those of us with genetic issues? Are we to remain lifelong virgins?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.
This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom
What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I’m very sincere here: I did not intentionally mischaracterize anything you wrote.

Please tell me what I got wrong.

Also: am I mistaken that when you first wrote ( in some thread I don’t remember) that you and a girlfriend were looking for an abortion but she miscarried that she had not yet had a pregnancy test? I may well have misremembered that. I apologize if I was mistaken about whether or not there was a pregnancy test.
What difference does it make if there was a pregnancy test? They thought a pregnancy existed, they were looking for an abortion. Whether the pregnancy actually existed or not is irrelevant.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
123
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Inconsistency is part of every ideological position, and should be. OTOH, one should modify one's position if supporting it causes one to be compelled to support untenable ideological stances. One can always deny having changed positions. In the present environment, one can even hold an untenable position and claim that one is being misunderstood, et al.

'Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds', Emerson said. Wilde seconded him. Both claimed that stance, but were misunderstood.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

And most sodomy is committed by heterosexual couples.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.
article said:
An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.
So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.
It doesn't surprise me--good website design these days means websites that can schedule things will provide a means of exporting the schedule to the common calendars. It's also common to have buttons to share various content with social media platforms. Thus the mere existence of such links does not prove anything evil is afoot.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

And most sodomy is committed by heterosexual couples.
Especially after Dobbs. ;)
Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.
article said:
An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.
So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.
It doesn't surprise me--good website design these days means websites that can schedule things will provide a means of exporting the schedule to the common calendars. It's also common to have buttons to share various content with social media platforms. Thus the mere existence of such links does not prove anything evil is afoot.
It doesn't need to be evil, it is interconnected. That is the point. What a person thought was just one data point on one website, is actually spanning several sites, with the weakest link being any company that gives up the pipeline to authorities.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

And most sodomy is committed by heterosexual couples.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.
article said:
An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.
So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.
It doesn't surprise me--good website design these days means websites that can schedule things will provide a means of exporting the schedule to the common calendars. It's also common to have buttons to share various content with social media platforms. Thus the mere existence of such links does not prove anything evil is afoot.
Sure and mostly it’s innocuous. But now it’s definitely no longer so innocuous. Women will be followed, tracked to try to discern whether they might be pregnant and what type of care they might be seeking.

We know that the software is already tracking our purchase, what we like on social media. Once a coworker asked me what my favorite book was, over the company only email server. The next day, lots of ads for that same, unfortunately obscure book in my email, on my Amazon acct, on my Facebook acct. I wasn’t using any of those accts —didn’t use them at work, except on break maybe my personal email acct. I had no internet browsers open.

If you think that there are not malevolents who will track a woman’s purchase of period products —and home pregnancy test purchases—and her medical appointments—you’re very naive. They can and will access period trackers, which some use to help them plan around this ongoing event. In fact, Missouri has already accessed and tracked Planned Parenthood patient’s periods. https://www.salon.com/2019/11/02/mi...-periods-during-governors-anti-abortion-push/

Somehow I don’t think any man would feel very sanguine about his personal purchases or medical appointments or information being tracked by any state.

Ironically, conservatives oppose expansion of public payer medical care because they fear the state’s intrusion into private medical care and information. They know themselves so well.
 
Last edited:

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.
This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom
What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.
Every single sentence in her post was b.s.

About things I have actually discussed on this forum.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,659
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Inconsistency is part of every ideological position, and should be. OTOH, one should modify one's position if supporting it causes one to be compelled to support untenable ideological stances. One can always deny having changed positions. In the present environment, one can even hold an untenable position and claim that one is being misunderstood, et al.

'Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds', Emerson said. Wilde seconded him. Both claimed that stance, but were misunderstood.
I disagree. Consistency is the holy grail of the seeker of truth.

Inconsistency is a weed in the garden, or perhaps a creeping vine strangling the flowers, and it's sources and roots are to be regularly rid from the space with doubt and the understanding that consistency is attainable even if it may never actually be attained.

Real inconsistency is either contradiction, and mere apparent inconsistency belies poor understanding of the subject, the former necessarily implying the ability to falsify any truth or prove as true any falsehood.

Inconsistency allows any system of thought in which it is tolerated on the long term to descend into proving any statement of the system.

And even the apparent inconsistency makes for a failure of understanding that, in a similar way, will allow a bug to exist in the semantic structure that yields much the same result.

Such should, as a result, never sit well.

This is not to say that inconsistency must always be immediately addressed. Indeed usually it cannot, else it would have been earlier. It is foolish to uproot some thing in one's worldview because it is a little weedy if by in large the landscape is healthier for it than without it at the moment.

Often, one can focus on the contradictions, cognitive dissonances, that spin out of the inconsistency first, to accept that the obvious and problematic contradiction is an artifact of the former, but eventually one must address the underlying failure of understanding.

Then, I am biased. Inconsistency for me means the system will not function, the sensor will not read, the circuit will not tell the truth I wish to find out about. You can write a book where things are inconsistent, sure, but if you make a functional universe with an inconsistency, you better watch out what happens when that "inconsistency" gets dereferenced, and the system starts executing out of the BSS section.

Inconsistency is perhaps a hobgoblin of the small minded writer, it is equally the very real lich standing in the path of the higher mind, as well, the mind which would not contemplate gods but rather BE a god.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It doesn't need to be evil, it is interconnected. That is the point. What a person thought was just one data point on one website, is actually spanning several sites, with the weakest link being any company that gives up the pipeline to authorities.
The existence of the links doesn't make people use them. The links are only problematic if the data is exported without the person asking for it.

When I schedule something and click the export to Google Calendar that is a deliberate, knowing action on my part and I wouldn't do it if there was some reason I didn't want the information exported. Now, if they are silently sharing data that's quite another matter. The mere existence of the link doesn't say which case it is.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.
This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom
What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.
Every single sentence in her post was b.s.

About things I have actually discussed on this forum.
Tom
It was insensitive of me to bring up what was a painful experience in an attempt to question your claim about being less judgmental now compared to the past.

Miscarriages are painful in ways that last for many years. Speaking from experience here.
And as a witness to the pain of friends and family who have lost a pregnancy.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A thought on the "justices" and lying:

I get the strong impression that they carefully said things to make people believe they would let Roe v Wade stand, but avoided actually saying so because they didn't intend to. Truth but far from the whole truth.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It doesn't need to be evil, it is interconnected. That is the point. What a person thought was just one data point on one website, is actually spanning several sites, with the weakest link being any company that gives up the pipeline to authorities.
The existence of the links doesn't make people use them. The links are only problematic if the data is exported without the person asking for it.

When I schedule something and click the export to Google Calendar that is a deliberate, knowing action on my part and I wouldn't do it if there was some reason I didn't want the information exported. Now, if they are silently sharing data that's quite another matter. The mere existence of the link doesn't say which case it is.
Of course your information is being silently shared! You MAY be computer savvy enough and careful enough that it doesn’t happen to you but I would not risk a visit from the reproduction police over anyone’s success at stopping their private information from being shared.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
A thought on the "justices" and lying:

I get the strong impression that they carefully said things to make people believe they would let Roe v Wade stand, but avoided actually saying so because they didn't intend to. Truth but far from the whole truth.
They are lawyers and chose their words carefully. I don’t think they fooled anyone but they did provide plausible deniability to senators who wanted that cover.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,687
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
We know that the software is already tracking our purchase, what we like on social media. Once a coworker asked me what my favorite book was, over the company only email server. The next day, lots of ads for that same, unfortunately obscure book in my email, on my Amazon acct, on my Facebook acct. I wasn’t using any of those accts —didn’t use them at work, except on break maybe my personal email acct. I had no internet browsers open.

That's strange--I would expect that sort of thing if you had used something like Gmail or Hotmail to read the e-mail but it sounds like you were using an e-mail client.

If you think that there are not malevolents who will track a woman’s purchase of period products —and home pregnancy test purchases—and her medical appointments—you’re very naive. They can and will access period trackers, which some use to help them plan around this ongoing event. In fact, Missouri has already accessed and tracked Planned Parenthood patient’s periods. https://www.salon.com/2019/11/02/mi...-periods-during-governors-anti-abortion-push/

I'm not denying there can be malicious tracking. Note, however, that your example isn't web based at all--that's an investigator with access to their medical records.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
We know that the software is already tracking our purchase, what we like on social media. Once a coworker asked me what my favorite book was, over the company only email server. The next day, lots of ads for that same, unfortunately obscure book in my email, on my Amazon acct, on my Facebook acct. I wasn’t using any of those accts —didn’t use them at work, except on break maybe my personal email acct. I had no internet browsers open.

That's strange--I would expect that sort of thing if you had used something like Gmail or Hotmail to read the e-mail but it sounds like you were using an e-mail client.

If you think that there are not malevolents who will track a woman’s purchase of period products —and home pregnancy test purchases—and her medical appointments—you’re very naive. They can and will access period trackers, which some use to help them plan around this ongoing event. In fact, Missouri has already accessed and tracked Planned Parenthood patient’s periods. https://www.salon.com/2019/11/02/mi...-periods-during-governors-anti-abortion-push/

I'm not denying there can be malicious tracking. Note, however, that your example isn't web based at all--that's an investigator with access to their medical records.
If the state can gain access to physical records, it is infinitely easier to access information from medical records stored in line.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.
This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom
What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.
Every single sentence in her post was b.s.

About things I have actually discussed on this forum.
Tom
It was insensitive of me to bring up what was a painful experience in an attempt to question your claim about being less judgmental now compared to the past.

Miscarriages are painful in ways that last for many years. Speaking from experience here.
And as a witness to the pain of friends and family who have lost a pregnancy.
I appreciate that very much.

Part of what makes me so hot under the collar here is this. We're both from big Catholic families. We know a pregnancy when we see one.

Part of what made our situation difficult was that s/he was our parents first grandchild. That's a BFD! That was a problem itself. We were both from the kind of family that adopts kids in, not out.

She and I stayed close friends up until her death a year or so ago. This problem, losing babies, was a lifelong issue for her. Years later, when she and her husband wanted to start a family, it kept happening. Over and over. Get pregnant, Yay!
Lose baby, get depressed.

At one point she mentioned that she might get her tubes tied. She and Duke wanted a child. But the regular pattern of pregnancy and miscarriage was horrible.

There's a ton of back story to my rather emotional responses on issues like sex and reproduction. I realize that I'm just a man, and a faggot to boot. Ex-Catholic. I'm an easy target for bullshit.
Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.
This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom
What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.
Every single sentence in her post was b.s.

About things I have actually discussed on this forum.
Tom
It was insensitive of me to bring up what was a painful experience in an attempt to question your claim about being less judgmental now compared to the past.

Miscarriages are painful in ways that last for many years. Speaking from experience here.
And as a witness to the pain of friends and family who have lost a pregnancy.
I appreciate that very much.

Part of what makes me so hot under the collar here is this. We're both from big Catholic families. We know a pregnancy when we see one.

Part of what made our situation difficult was that s/he was our parents first grandchild. That's a BFD! That was a problem itself. We were both from the kind of family that adopts kids in, not out.

She and I stayed close friends up until her death a year or so ago. This problem, losing babies, was a lifelong issue for her. Years later, when she and her husband wanted to start a family, it kept happening. Over and over. Get pregnant, Yay!
Lose baby, get depressed.

At one point she mentioned that she might get her tubes tied. She and Duke wanted a child. But the regular pattern of pregnancy and miscarriage was horrible.

There's a ton of back story to my rather emotional responses on issues like sex and reproduction. I realize that I'm just a man, and a faggot to boot. Ex-Catholic. I'm an easy target for bullshit.
Tom

Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.

I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
A thought on the "justices" and lying:

I get the strong impression that they carefully said things to make people believe they would let Roe v Wade stand, but avoided actually saying so because they didn't intend to. Truth but far from the whole truth.
Except Kavanaugh flat out said Roe was Stare Decisis. Nothing in the US changed in the past few years to put that into jeopardy. So when he signs off on the decision that says the case isn't Stare Decisis, that is a fucking lie.

Gorsuch pulls up a little comparatively, but ultimately, he said he stood with the law of the land. His statement that he viewed it as the law simply as a statement that Roe was in effect would be the dumbest fucking statement to make.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Interesting that you see yourself as a lot less judgmental than you used to be. When you had skin in the game, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl. After she miscarried (if a pregnancy had existed), it was easy to change your mind about abortion.

It’s a nice touch that while you both were ‘enthusiastic’ it was ‘mostly her’ since you are gay, although closeted at the time.
This is the kind of dishonest post I've come to expect from you.

And feminist Wokesters in general.
Tom
What's dishonest about it? She's calling you out on hypocrisy, that's all.
Every single sentence in her post was b.s.

About things I have actually discussed on this forum.
Tom
It was insensitive of me to bring up what was a painful experience in an attempt to question your claim about being less judgmental now compared to the past.

Miscarriages are painful in ways that last for many years. Speaking from experience here.
And as a witness to the pain of friends and family who have lost a pregnancy.
I appreciate that very much.

Part of what makes me so hot under the collar here is this. We're both from big Catholic families. We know a pregnancy when we see one.

Part of what made our situation difficult was that s/he was our parents first grandchild. That's a BFD! That was a problem itself. We were both from the kind of family that adopts kids in, not out.

She and I stayed close friends up until her death a year or so ago. This problem, losing babies, was a lifelong issue for her. Years later, when she and her husband wanted to start a family, it kept happening. Over and over. Get pregnant, Yay!
Lose baby, get depressed.

At one point she mentioned that she might get her tubes tied. She and Duke wanted a child. But the regular pattern of pregnancy and miscarriage was horrible.
That sounds very personal and another reason why the State should have no say in the private reproductive lives of women.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.
I know.
It's religious views falsely attributed to me, despite all my posts, that makes me a target. But my orientation doesn't help. I'm not just male, I'm a gay male. Easy to dismiss my opinions, whether you're an Evangelical Christian or a Wokester.
I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.
No.
I was talking about Judy and me.
I didn't realize that you'd find that hard to understand.
But, obviously you do.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.
I know.
It's religious views falsely attributed to me, despite all my posts, that makes me a target. But my orientation doesn't help. I'm not just male, I'm a gay male. Easy to dismiss my opinions, whether you're an Evangelical Christian or a Wokester.
I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.
No.
I was talking about Judy and me.
I didn't realize that you'd find that hard to understand.
But, obviously you do.
Tom
Gee, and you wonder why you feel like people are always targeting you for being needlessly snippy.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.
I know.
It's religious views falsely attributed to me, despite all my posts, that makes me a target. But my orientation doesn't help. I'm not just male, I'm a gay male. Easy to dismiss my opinions, whether you're an Evangelical Christian or a Wokester.
I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.
No.
I was talking about Judy and me.
I didn't realize that you'd find that hard to understand.
But, obviously you do.
Tom
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,099
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.
I know.
It's religious views falsely attributed to me, despite all my posts, that makes me a target. But my orientation doesn't help. I'm not just male, I'm a gay male. Easy to dismiss my opinions, whether you're an Evangelical Christian or a Wokester.
I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.
No.
I was talking about Judy and me.
I didn't realize that you'd find that hard to understand.
But, obviously you do.
Tom
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.
if regressive conservatives don't make their arguments ambiguous and poorly worded, how else are they supposed to backtrack and act all offended that you just didn't understand them after their position is thoroughly destroyed by even the barest glimmer of intellectual scrutiny?

it's not an accident. it's a tactic.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.
I know.
It's religious views falsely attributed to me, despite all my posts, that makes me a target. But my orientation doesn't help. I'm not just male, I'm a gay male. Easy to dismiss my opinions, whether you're an Evangelical Christian or a Wokester.
I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.
No.
I was talking about Judy and me.
I didn't realize that you'd find that hard to understand.
But, obviously you do.
Tom
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.
if regressive conservatives don't make their arguments ambiguous and poorly worded, how else are they supposed to backtrack and act all offended that you just didn't understand them after their position is thoroughly destroyed by even the barest glimmer of intellectual scrutiny?

it's not an accident. it's a tactic.
I was talking specifically about Judy and me nearly 40 years ago.

You and Toni, at least, find that "ambiguous".

I'm calling bullshit.


Not that it will matter on this forum. It's the kind of bullshit it's designed for.
Tom
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,099
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
I was talking specifically about Judy and me nearly 40 years ago.
oh i don't know or care about the details of this specific time that you went off on some incomprehensible word-salad and then blamed everyone else for the fact that you make no sense, beyond the curio that it's apparently some anecdotal BS that you'll use to justify your oppressive views on abortion at some point.

You and Toni, at least, find that "ambiguous".
i don't find it ambiguous at all

I'm calling bullshit.


Not that it will matter on this forum. It's the kind of bullshit it's designed for.
Tom
so, like before, you're using yourself as the example of the thing you're calling shitty?
as before i applaud you for your boldness.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
i don't find it ambiguous at all

Tell me then.
Which two people do you think I meant by the word "we".

Toni thought it might be the two of us. She found that ambiguous.

I called bullshit.
Feel free to explain why you think I was being clear, and Toni was being...
Well...

Less clear.

Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
i don't find it ambiguous at all

Tell me then.
Which two people do you think I meant by the word "we".

Toni thought it might be the two of us. She found that ambiguous.

I called bullshit.
Feel free to explain why you think I was being clear, and Toni was being...
Well...

Less clear.

Tom
*sigh*
TomC said:
Part of what makes me so hot under the collar here is this. We're both from big Catholic families. We know a pregnancy when we see one.
I knew the initial context I was getting was wrong and had to back track a few times to dig through the sloppy grammar and get to the context (and when I'm bitching about grammar, there are problems).

We're is "we are" (not "we were"), which is present tense. We know, know again present tense. So with all the present tense, it creates the link to Toni, not Judy. What you should have written was:

We were both from big Catholic families. We knew a pregnancy when we see one.

No ambiguity. You shouldn't make the reader have to work for what you meant. Also, being in big Catholic families doesn't mean super-pregger detection powers. Could have miscarried, could have been late.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,842
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
"We were both from big Catholic families. We knew a pregnancy when we see one."

Mixed tenses. s/b "we knew a pregnancy when we done seen 'em."
being in big Catholic families doesn't mean super-pregger detection powers.

I think super-pregger detection is only one of several superpowers that people from large Catholic families think they have. Mrs Elixir, for example, is convinced that St Anthony helps her find stuff. She wouldn't play ball when I suggested there was probably some equal and opposite Saint who helps her lose stuff...
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom
You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,581
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom
You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.
What a gender bigot.

Believe it or not, I considered myself every bit as much a parent, every bit as much responsible for our child as Judy.

Every bit as much.

You don't think I got judgemental about parents after this happened.

Believe me when I say, I got way more judgemental. Way more.

Not so much women. Mostly I got judgemental about men.

"Women go through the pregnancy. At least step up and take care of her while she's dealing with that pregnancy asshole!
Then you owe a shit ton of child support, at the bare minimum. You really owe that child a daddy as well as support.

If you can't do the daddy part, keep your fucking dick in your pants!"

Really, I'm even more judgemental about dudes than chicks.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom
You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.
What a gender bigot.

Believe it or not, I considered myself every bit as much a parent, every bit as much responsible for our child as Judy.
That's make you expecting. Not pregnant.
You don't think I got judgemental about parents after this happened.

Believe me when I say, I got way more judgemental. Way more.

Not so much women. Mostly I got judgemental about men.

"Women go through the pregnancy. At least step up and take care of her while she's dealing with that pregnancy asshole!
Then you owe a shit ton of child support, at the bare minimum. You really owe that child a daddy as well as support.

If you can't do the daddy part, keep your fucking dick in your pants!"

Really, I'm even more judgemental about dudes than chicks.
But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.
How religious.
You can build a whole moral world view out of the difference between "expecting" and "pregnant".
Well, one indicates you could be a mother or father of an expectant child while the other says there is a fetus inside of you. I'm sorry you are offended by the dictionary.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,582
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom
You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.
What a gender bigot.

Believe it or not, I considered myself every bit as much a parent, every bit as much responsible for our child as Judy.

Every bit as much.

You don't think I got judgemental about parents after this happened.

Believe me when I say, I got way more judgemental. Way more.

Not so much women. Mostly I got judgemental about men.

"Women go through the pregnancy. At least step up and take care of her while she's dealing with that pregnancy asshole!
Then you owe a shit ton of child support, at the bare minimum. You really owe that child a daddy as well as support.

If you can't do the daddy part, keep your fucking dick in your pants!"

Really, I'm even more judgemental about dudes than chicks.
Tom
Unless I am mistaken about you being a cis male, you do not and never have had a uterus or ovaries, both requisite for becoming pregnant in the biological sense.

preg·nant
of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
"she was heavily pregnant with her second child

I realize there is a social construct to refer to expectant couples as 'we are pregnant' but only one of them has an embryo/fetus growing inside of them. Only one will have their breasts swell, their ankles swell, their belly swell. Only one will have their blood volume increase by about 50% to support the pregnancy. Only one is risking their life and health to carry the pregnancy. Only one of you will feel labor pains or push a 7 lb baby out of one of your orifices. Or be cut open and have a baby yanked out of you, then stitched or stapled back up. Only one of you will have your breasts grow heavy with milk.

Only one of you will experience a downturn in your education or career or prospects of either.

That would be the mother.


The other, statistically speaking, will get a nice career boost. That would be the father.

This is not to suggest that both mother and father are not essential to the child or that one is the better parent or more important--after pregnancy.

I'm also not suggesting that you did not experience a genuine loss when that pregnancy did not continue.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,278
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,278
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

According to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll we are seeing a big swing in voter preferences.

Democrats have regained the favor of voters to control Congress, with 48% saying they are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the fall and 41% more likely to vote for a Republican. In April, Republicans led on that question in the poll 47% to 44%, which was within the margin of error.
And voters choose Roe v Wade by a 56-40 margin.


NPR writes
, "Surveys have for years shown consistently that most Americans wanted to keep Roe in place and to see restrictions on when abortions could take place. What the court did is clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion, and that is reflected again in the NPR poll."

On the Supreme Court docket for next year is a case where conservative legislators want to change how electors are picked in their states even if it is against state constitutions.

Elections have consequences, people.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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
To say you accept something is "the law of the land" does not mean you think it is correct, nor that you would not change it if you could. I accept that this board has some specific rules for its forums, but I do not think those rules are helpful. Decisions by upper courts is something that must bind lower courts (unless they distinguish a case on the facts), but the highest court is not bound by its own previous decisions, no matter how many times they've been affirmed.

If Durbin had asked "Is there any possibility you would overrule Roe v Wade in any future judgment" and Gorsuch said 'no', then I can see that he gave a counterfactual statement.

But the above? There is nothing there.
Kavanaugh said it was Stare Decisis, then ruled it wasn’t Stare Decisis.
You don't rule something is or is not 'stare decisis'. You overrule it if you think the original decisio

Gorsuch said he accepted Roe as ‘The law of the land.’
I can only repeat myself, even though you are quoting the post where I've already addressed this.

To say you accept something is "the law of the land" does not mean you think it is correct, nor that you would not change it if you could. I accept that this board has some specific rules for its forums, but I do not think those rules are helpful. Decisions by upper courts is something that must bind lower courts (unless they distinguish a case on the facts), but the highest court is not bound by its own previous decisions, no matter how many times they've been affirmed.

Your remark is akin to saying W didn’t say “Hussein caused 9/11”. If you can’t see the trouble above, that is a failure on your part.
No: the trouble is people who want the question to have been "Will you overturn Roe v Wade if you have the chance" but nobody asked that question. They want revenge for a decision they don't like. The revenge won't change the decision.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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.
If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.
I've dealt with this about a dozen times now.

"Settled law" has no single meaning, and even if you said something was "settled law" that does not mean you promised not to change it. It just does not.
 
Top Bottom