Roe v Wade is on deck

[Gospel]

Yeah, saying that we shouldn’t allow abortion because people could just abstain from sex if they don’t want to cause pregnancies, is as sensible as saying that we shouldn’t allow first responders to save people from wrecked cars, because people could just abstain from driving if they don’t want to die slowly and in agony while trapped in mangled wreckage.

While I wouldn't equate sex with driving because one is an interaction with a person and the other is a motor vehicle I still get the point. You're saying that while sex is a privilege like driving it is also a necessity and human error (just like driving) is at play. As a society, we ought to deal with those errors (like EMS responding to car accidents) rather than bury our heads in the sand?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So clearly the solution here is for doctors to run abortion pill mills. They can claim ignorance and stupidity like the pain killer docs! Granted, it won't have as many pills to sell, seeing they aren't addictive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, saying that we shouldn’t allow abortion because people could just abstain from sex if they don’t want to cause pregnancies, is as sensible as saying that we shouldn’t allow first responders to save people from wrecked cars, because people could just abstain from driving if they don’t want to die slowly and in agony while trapped in mangled wreckage.

While I wouldn't equate sex with driving because one is an interaction with a person and the other is a motor vehicle I still get the point. You're saying that while sex is a privilege like driving it is also a necessity and human error (just like driving) is at play. As a society, we ought to deal with those errors (like EMS responding to car accidents) rather than bury our heads in the sand?

Fundamentally, this is about statistics. X number of people doing an activity that carries any particular level of risk. That risk can be mitigated, but it can not be eliminated. There are people bad at driving, there are people bad at safe sex (and of course, there are dumb states that mandate ineffective sex education!). There are people good at driving and still can get into an accident. There are people using reasonable precautions and pregnancy still happens.

Because of statistics. Saying people should just avoid sex to not get pregnant in a nation of 330 million people is really much like saying if you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Spoiler: Warning

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her

In my opinion your mother is saying something that I would bet she does not believe:
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

I would guess that your mother loves her family and respects her children as people and considers them a joy, a gift and a treasure.

But then she says they are the “outcome” of a choice that must “be accepted.”

…

When I see loving people say that, I can only stare at them, unable to reconcile the contradiction between honoring children and then also speaking in ways that tell unplanned children that they are merely an outcome that must be accepted. I honestly do not know how to look at them when they declare that children merely a consequence of risky behavior that must be accepted. It is difficult to still see the love part upon hearing that.

Full disclosure. I was an unplanned child, I was the third unplanned child, I was told that I was an unplanned child, and a self-righteous mother let me know how wonderful she was for doing her duty.

Your mother - has just told me the same thing. I do not thank your mother for that, I’m afraid.

In my opinion children should be wanted. Unplanned children should be wanted. And they should never, IMHO, be used as pawns to convey to women that they have failed at responsibility. They should never be pointed to as evidence of duty. Every person who claims that children are a consequence of irresponsible behavior is speaking directly to all of the children who were unplanned, and particularly to those whose families had difficulty thinking of them as anything else, and whose families continue to repeat the same belief that children are just an unwanted thing that happens to you when you’re bad - a punishment.

 

[Toni]

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.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.

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.

Women are already being warned to delete any period trackers from their devices.

 

[TomC]

Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom

 

[Politesse]

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

 

[pood]

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

I would just say it’s not Jesus’s America. So far as I know Jesus said nothing about abortion.

 

[Toni]

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

Surely you realize that women are not considered ‘just fine’ if they gave an unwanted pregnancy. They may be forgiven for that sin, but they are definitely marked.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?

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...

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.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom

It is blatantly obvious from the context
Rhea’s post is that part of Gospel’s Momma’s message could be interpreted as something she did not believe.

I suggest you stop digging because the hole you are currently in is pretty deep.

 

[Jarhyn]

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

Surely you realize that women are not considered ‘just fine’ if they gave an unwanted pregnancy. They may be forgiven for that sin, but they are definitely marked.

I guess the point is that the legal justification is that there is an "alternative" way to not be a parent, but that "alternative" is to sell your child to one of a legally cloaked group of organizations that each have long histories of connection to child trafficking, and even in the best of cases is nearly indistinguishable from industrial-scale human sale.

Assuming the pregnancy doesn't just outright kill you

 

[Gospel]

Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom

It is blatantly obvious from the context
Rhea’s post is that part of Gospel’s Momma’s message could be interpreted as something she did not believe.

I suggest you stop digging because the hole you are currently in is pretty deep.

I couldn't possibly convey the entirety of what kind of woman my mother is. I'll just simply say there was no shortage of love and leave it at that.

Edit: I don't care about the misrepresentation. My mother will be just fine. I focus only on the point Rhea was trying to make.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?

Jesus Christ pal. Watch the fucking video.

I accept that my opinions are generally minority ones on this board, but what I will not accept is different behaviour required of me than would be required of the majority. Generally, when people post a video without summarising anything in the video, people will not take that as evidence of anything.

First, if you are asserting something (the judges lied), the burden is on you to produce evidence of your position.

Second, if I start responding to the video, I will have to make assumptions, and like all the assumptions I make on this board, they will be interpreted in the worst possible way. If I do not respond to every single utterance because I judged one of them did not even approach the form of a lie, I will be accused of skipping out some of the most damning evidence. If I respond to every utterance, I will be accused of purposely responding to things I know are not lies and it is stupid and disingenuous of me to respond to such and such a line.

If you think these people weren't misleading, say so and say why.

The burden is not on me to disprove something, but on the person who claims a positive statement.

But, I've already said why statements were not misleading. I've already spoken about 'settled law' multiple times, and linked to an academic treatment of the phrase 'settled law', which nobody has read.

I can't know why you think something is misleading until you tell me what specific sentence is misleading you.

I think they they fucking lied lied because any sane reasonable person would look at the statements they made and assume they wouldn't take Roe v Wade to the chopping block. You seem to disagree, and I am quite interested in your reason as to why.

I need to know what statements appear to be lies. But, I will do some of the work. Here is my response to the video:

Klobuchar asks ACB if Roe is a 'super precedent'(?!).

ACB says if she is being asked about it, it probably isn't. If ACB had been accused of lying, I would enter this into evidence to exonerate her.

I have dealt with Kavanaugh's response earlier, but the video does not contain the question he was asked to respond the way he did.

Gorsuch says he accepts that 'a fetus is not a person according to Roe v Wade' and he 'accepts this as the law of the land'.

I see nothing in that sentence that is contradicted by Gorsuch overruling Roe v Wade. The law of the land can be changed.

If anything, it seems to me the Senators asking the questions are being evasive and misleading here. What they want to know: "Do you have any intention whatsoever of overturning Roe v Wade if you get the opportunity" or "Do you think Roe v Wade was rightly decided". What they ask: "is Roe v Wade settled law", which is a stupid question, because I could tell you at the time of those hearings, the answer was "yes", whether or not you agree with it or you think it should be overturned.

For Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, I can see how their answers, if you somehow had evidence that they knew their answers would mislead, even though in fact they did not utter anything counterfactual, might lead some people to think they 'lied' or 'misled'. Their answers, again stressing they said nothing counterfactual, might have been a "politician's answer", which is a carefully crafted yet formless void of an answer.

The idea that ACB said anything misleading cannot be seriously entertained. Every single clip I've seen I would have chosen as evidence to exonerate her. ACB is clearly a woman who brooks no nonsense.

And then after that, you can explain to me, and just me personally, as to why no one should believe [two US Senators who stated they were misled by these Supreme Court Justices with regards to Roe V Wade.

And just so we are clear, I am not an insufferable pedant. I find the discrepancy between "misled" and "lied" in this context to be a distinction without meaning.

I find the distinction to be quite important, in particular because AOC and others want to get revenge on the judges for 'lying under oath', not 'misleading under oath'.

 

[Politesse]

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

I would just say it’s not Jesus’s America. So far as I know Jesus said nothing about abortion.

I'm well aware of that. These Christian theocrats who have taken over the Court are every bit as much traitors to their faith as to their country.

 

[Politesse]

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

Surely you realize that women are not considered ‘just fine’ if they gave an unwanted pregnancy. They may be forgiven for that sin, but they are definitely marked.

That is, however dishonest and illogical, the legal argument that they have made.

 

[Toni]

Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom

Why do you misrepresent Rhea like that? She began her post:

In my opinion your mother is saying something that I would bet she does not believe:
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

I would guess that your mother loves her family and respects her children as people and considers them a joy, a gift and a treasure.

But then she says they are the “outcome” of a choice that must “be accepted.”

(My bold). Rhea offered her opinion of what Gospel’s mother meant.

 

[Rhea]

(My bold). Rhea offered her opinion of what Gospel’s mother meant.

No.

Rhea offered her experience of how the words spoken by Mrs. Gospel feel to the people she is talking about.

 

[Toni]

(My bold). Rhea offered her opinion of what Gospel’s mother meant.

No.

Rhea offered her experience of how the words spoken by Mrs. Gospel feel to the people she is talking about.

Ah, I stand corrected.

In reality, I understood that completely. I just did a poor job of conveying what I meant.

 

[Rhea]

Ah, I stand corrected.
In reality, I understood that completely. I just did a poor job of conveying what I meant.

I know, thanks for the mea culpa.

Since your statement provided a straighforward way to provide clarity, I used it as a springboard.