US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade

[Tenzen12]

Yes, viability is not arbitrary. Viability as proof of personhood in other hand certainly is. That said if you think viability is line where fetus gain right to live then you are already on pro life side of argument even if line you decided is further then some might like.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

If its not viable I don't really give a fuck what you or anyone else's opinion is TBH. The woman's rights supersede the embro/fetus/not-person/whatever you want to call it. I was pretty clear that viability was the gold standard because it balanced the rights of the woman with the potential she's carrying. There's almost no other outcome. Inalienable rights are not up to democracy to bestow or remove.

If abortion is distasteful to you that's nice I guess but I'm not compelled by emotional arguments that trample on women's rights. I'm betting no one in here has a uterus either.

I don't have any problem if that's the standard you choose. And I have no problem if that's the standard that the law agrees upon. It does seem like a fine choice to me, even if it's not perfect. But it's still just what you choose, and what the government chooses, and like any other standard there will be people for and against it with arguments that at least to them are entirely valid and compelling. Arguments that, at least in some cases, I would say aren't necessarily more or less valid than your own. That's all I was saying about that. On a matter that can't be set in stone as having one single meaning, you can't really say that what you hold it to mean is simply what it means, hands down and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. It doesn't mean I don't or couldn't support setting or keeping that as the standard.

I don't have a standard, all I care about is that it not be too late (and viability is not too late), but not so early as to drastically increase the number of women going to unregulated illegal facilities that might not be near as safe.

And again, how do you keep getting back to me "trampling on women's rights"? I specifically said that I want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, preferably to the point where fighting to ban abortions would border on pointless. Stop worrying about taking away women's rights to abortion and start worrying more about helping them to avoid situations where they would deem abortion necessary. For this to happen, men and women need to know and understand what to do and how (as well as what not to do and why), what can happen if they do things wrong, and enough to decide for themselves what things mean to them and what it means to them in regard to decisions that they may have to make down the road.

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Yes, viability is not arbitrary. Viability as proof of personhood in other hand certainly is.

"Personhood" is arbitrary, viability is not. Corporations are people too in the eyes of the law. And nobody is really pushing for late term abortions.

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

I don't have any problem if that's the standard you choose. And I have no problem if that's the standard that the law agrees upon. It does seem like a fine choice to me, even if it's not perfect. But it's still just what you choose, and what the government chooses, and like any other standard there will be people for and against it with arguments that at least to them are entirely valid and compelling.

Except they're really not, because they don't take the rights of the woman into account. Viability is the only standard that does. No matter how you wish to frame it at the end of the day you want to democratically revoke a woman's inalienable rights based on opinion. That's what suggesting that there's some 'better' standard -- somehow based on personhood, which even you acknowledge is entirely subjective -- entails. And you yourself have repeatedly ignored what I've said about a woman's rights while referring to a fetus or an embryo as a "person" so I really don't believe you to be neutral here either, even if that's the position you think is most compelling.

That aside, you're saying a lot about "sex ed" and very little about contraception leading me to believe you're on the "abstinence only" side of things which just... doesn't fucking work. A lot of the same people who are against abortion are also against contraception, and if privacy protections are weakened that's what they're going after next.

[Tenzen12]

except US almost got bill where it's own proponent admited would allow up to 9 month abortions.

Also it's false that people who are against abortion are also always against contracetpions. There might be states where it's the case but these are obviously nuts and I don't think it can be passed there anyway.

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

except US almost got bill where it's own proponent admited would allow up to 9 month abortions...

...source?

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

"Personhood" is arbitrary, viability is not. Corporations are people too in the eyes of the law. And nobody is really pushing for late term abortions.Except they're really not, because they don't take the rights of the woman into account. Viability is the only standard that does. No matter how you wish to frame it at the end of the day you want to democratically revoke a woman's inalienable rights based on opinion. That's what suggesting that there's some 'better' standard -- somehow based on personhood, which even you acknowledge is entirely subjective -- entails. And you yourself have repeatedly ignored what I've said about a woman's rights while referring to a fetus or an embryo as a "person" so I really don't believe you to be neutral here either, even if that's the position you think is most compelling.

That aside, you're saying a lot about "sex ed" and very little about contraception leading me to believe you're on the "abstinence only" side of things which just... doesn't fucking work. A lot of the same people who are against abortion are also against contraception, and if privacy protections are weakened that's what they're going after next.

OK, how does any standard that allows abortion up to a certain point "not take the woman's rights into account"? Sure, this's true for those that place the standard at the point of conception, fertilization or implantation, all of which has to occur before pregnancy can even be detected, but other things like heartbeat and neural activity simply differ on when they feel the rights of the child supersede the rights of the mother. Just like those who argue that it should be permissible until birth or at least doesn't constitute murder until the child's taken a breath outside only differ from you on the "when".

I've been saying a ton about contraception all the way through. How does "learn what to do and not to do and what can happen if you don't do it" come out to you as "don't think anything works, just don't have sex"? Especially since I started all of this talking about contraception? Again, you REALLY need to start looking at people who disagree with you seriously and not just immediately deciding they're monsters and looking for a way to make them as evil as you want them to be. It's really tiring having to constantly tell you that I never said what you want to think I said. What I want is for kids to learn what works and doesn't work, how well things do and don't work, and how to use them properly so that they get the maximum effect out of it, as I had said before if you'd bothered to pay any attention. Yes, I would say that people should also be encouraged not to jump into sex too quickly, and feel that encouraging this isn't mutually exclusive with a proper lesson on contraception, but teaching only abstinence does not work.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

OK, how does any standard that allows abortion up to a certain point "not take the woman's rights into account"?

The six week bans (like the one in your state) are designed to coincide with the time a woman is finding out she's pregnant, making abortion impractical or impossible in most cases.

Sure, this's true for those that place the standard at the point of conception, fertilization or implantation, all of which has to occur before pregnancy can even be detected, but other things like heartbeat and neural activity simply differ on when they feel the rights of the child supersede the rights of the mother. Just like those who argue that it should be permissible until birth or at least doesn't constitute murder until the child's taken a breath outside only differ from you on the "when".

Late term abortion proponents are everyone's favorite straw man but who the fuck is actually saying that? I'm still waiting for Tenzen to give me a source for some fictional commentary about some abortion bill which may or may not be fictional itself.

You already kicked science to the curb when you wanted to talk about "souls" so we're still in the realm of you just wanting to change standards because you feel like it. Moreover, your entire argument is loaded with implicit bias against the mother and you keep trying to derail any discussion of her rights.

I've been saying a ton about contraception all the way through. How does "learn what to do and not to do and what can happen if you don't do it" come out to you as "don't think anything works, just don't have sex"? Especially since I started all of this talking about contraception? Again, you REALLY need to start looking at people who disagree with you seriously and not just immediately deciding they're monsters and looking for a way to make them as evil as you want them to be.

I'm... pretty sure you're projecting here, but that aside the states going all in on abortion restrictions are generally the same states that went all in on abstinence only sex ed in the aughts. You've been really nebulous about what your sex ed would entail and from what you've said seem more into teaching about repercussions than safe sex. I don't know if I read your first post so if I misunderstood you then I apologize but my first post was specifically about people who believe pregnancy should be a "punishment" which is just incredibly fucked up.

[CrowKenobi]

Just a reminder: this thread is for discussion of the Supreme Court decision, NOT the process itself.

There are other places to discuss the process and all the theological aspects related to it, just not here.

Going forward, posts that don’t follow this will be deleted without warning.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

...source?

The failed bill I mentioned.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/4132/text

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

I'm... pretty sure you're projecting here, but that aside the states going all in on abortion restrictions are generally the same states that went all in on abstinence only sex ed in the aughts. You've been really nebulous about what your sex ed would entail and from what you've said seem more into teaching about repercussions than safe sex. I don't know if I read your first post so if I misunderstood you then I apologize but my first post was specifically about people who believe pregnancy should be a "punishment" which is just incredibly fucked up.

Projecting? You accused me of being "all abstinence and nothing else" despite the fact that I'd made it quite clear from the start that I want a focus on contraception, on teaching kids how to use various contraceptives (statistics have shown that teaching people how to properly use a condom decreases the chances of misuse by a very large margin), things to look out for (like ensuring that one has backup contraceptive methods for at least seven days if one isn't able to maintain the pill's schedule, or illness could have reduced absorption, or other meds were taken that can interfere), things not to do (seriously, pulling out is not a good method, and condoms can be degraded by certain oils, so making sure that any other things used don't contain these). I thought I was clear enough on that from the start. Heck, others got it and laughed that Republicans would never permit it out of fear it'd reduce their future voter base.

This's why I make walls of text. Even as long as my posts have been, I've been trying to be concise (yeah I know I suck at it), and I always end up cutting out or simplifying the wrong things, resulting in sounding "nebulous".

And as I said, before it was deleted for going "off topic", I have NEVER encountered anyone who said such things as "punishment". I agree wholeheartedly that that is messed up, but I've never seen it personally. I don't know if you just got unlucky in who you met, or if you "engaged" people online or through other methods where you're far more likely to encounter the loudest and most insane of both sides, but just like a very large portion of people who're anti-abortion wouldn't forbid abortion in a rape case, there's tons of people out there on that side who'd be even more offended than you at such an idea.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

And as I said, before it was deleted for going "off topic", I have NEVER encountered anyone who said such things as "punishment".

Have you not gone to a conservative news site like... ever? Because literally every comment section I've seen is filled with people saying stuff like that. Its not some kind of outlier position, IMO its the core of the movement. Maybe there's some people out there that sincerely care about fetuses but most seem interested in making sure sex has consequences.

I did read your first post BTW, and while I don't think I'd call you "sex positive" I think I get what you're advocating for as far as sex ed. But making condoms and birth control readily available is as if not more important than showing people how to use them, IMO.

Birth control could be next though if Alito's twisted logic holds. As I've already said a lot of the same people who are against abortion are against birth control as well, and have fought against things like providing it to their employees in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

Have you not gone to a conservative news site like... ever? Because literally every comment section I've seen is filled with people saying stuff like that. Its not some kind of outlier position, IMO its the core of the movement. Maybe there's some people out there that sincerely care about fetuses but most seem interested in making sure sex has consequences.

I did read your first post BTW, and while I don't think I'd call you "sex positive" I think I get what you're advocating for as far as sex ed. But making condoms and birth control readily available is as if not more important than showing people how to use them, IMO.

Birth control could be next though if Alito's twisted logic holds. As I've already said a lot of the same people who are against abortion are against birth control as well, and have fought against things like providing it to their employees in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Seriously, don't try and look at online forums for a representation of a group. The majority of people that post on places like that are either trolls or extremists, and again far from representative. Frankly, most people either don't go to those places or don't post. Especially in the ones that get as toxic as you describe. Not only does the net bring out the worst in people, it gives the absolute worst places to shout so loud that the reasonable just give up and walk away. On both sides. I've ended up in debates with extremely unreasonable people in the past. I recall I once was stuck in a debate with a far-left person whose comments were practically a guidebook to logical fallacies, but at the same time I had to endure some far-right nutjob who kept trying to butt in with their own insanity, which was a similar level of offensive to what you've described. That said, these sorts of things have only happened to me online. Offline, the people on both sides that I've met have always been far more reasonable.

And I do agree that, along with teaching kids to use contraceptives, making them available is also equally important. In particular making them either sufficiently affordable or attainable by those in particularly low-income areas, as it shouldn't be that the rich can avoid pregnancy through means besides abstinence but the poor can't. I'll admit that I might not be what some people consider "sex positive". In my ideal world people would not have sex with just anyone or treat it as a part of finding out if you love them, but rather something you only do with someone you already truly love. Not a huge hurdle, but indeed a hurdle. But I'm also a realist, and I know that this is not going to happen, and even at that level of standard there's still plenty of room for issues that can lead to pregnancy before someone's ready or with someone that one ultimately will not want to remain with, and as such contraception availability and knowledge remains important even then.

I sincerely hope that you're wrong about that last part though. As I've said the fact that so many anti-abortion politicians are equally anti-birth-control is something that I find very sad and very dangerous. It'll be an absolutely huge problem if contraceptions are made more difficult to obtain.

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

The failed bill I mentioned.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/4132/text

That's the one. Irc it failed due one of democrats votimg against Bill as well.

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

That's the one. Irc it failed due one of democrats votimg against Bill as well.

Okay but that bill only codifies viability and pushes back against state regulations. You specifically said there was a bill that allows "9 month abortions" according to its sponsor. I'll wait.

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

Seriously, don't try and look at online forums for a representation of a group. The majority of people that post on places like that are either trolls or extremists, and again far from representative.

At least you're kind of polite about your gaslighting?

As I've said the fact that so many anti-abortion politicians are equally anti-birth-control is something that I find very sad and very dangerous. It'll be an absolutely huge problem if contraceptions are made more difficult to obtain.

Because going against viability is impossible Alito shreds the notion of privacy protection instead which is just horrible precedent even if he tries to narrow the scope of the damage in his ruling. Once the genie is out of the bottle though there's no going back. Its binary; either women have inalienable rights or they don't.

[Tenzen12]

I admit I can't find that video out. It was one of these republican interrogating proponent in senate kind of thing and it was part of some more general video of someone else. I would prefer if you didn't take for liar, especially as I agree with viability as option. Not one I would choose but I do think it's better then nothing. Well if you want think of me as right wing conspirator who want enslave women, even for cost of discreding myself as liar, I can't stop you.

I will postonk once it appears in my YouTube feet again, if someone else can provide that link I would be greatful.

[ganbaru]

Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape
https://www.propublica.org/article/a...to-scotus-hale

Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

I would prefer if you didn't take for liar, especially as I agree with viability as option.

I'd prefer to be as rich as Elon Musk but that's not happening either. You may not be acting maliciously but at best you're spreading misinformation.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

I'd prefer to be as rich as Elon Musk but that's not happening either. You may not be acting maliciously but at best you're spreading misinformation.

The bill as passed in the House would allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy, that isn't misinformation.

[stray]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

The bill as passed in the House would allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy, that isn't misinformation.

You literally posted a link to the text of the bill; did you not actually bother reading it? That bill only codifies Roe v. Wade (viability) and pushes back against state regulations. There's absolutely nothing in that bill that suggests moving away from viability as a standard.

Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins I think sponsored a competing bill that was much more accommodating of state regulations but nobody signed onto it. Maybe that's the bill that allowed for "9 month abortions" or maybe you're both misinformed here.

Edit: Here's Murkowski's PR about her bill:
https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/pre...nthood-v-casey

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

At least you're kind of polite about your gaslighting?

No, I just happen to know actual people, not just trolls on sites tailor-made for the most toxic of fools. As I said, do NOT judge normal people based on folks on the net or at demonstrations who profess to be of that group or political leaning. It's just not accurate. It's like going to Westboro Baptist and thinking that represents Christians as a whole. It's just not true, and it's frankly insulting to the numerous people who aren't anything like that to judge them based on such standards.

And fortunately, Alito is not in a position to actually create any kind of laws against contraceptives. Those laws would have to pass through a variety of other forums to be passed before they could possibly face his judgment about whether they're constitutional or not.