Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Willfully Horn 8002]

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, it does suffer from the creation of a fundamental right that is only barely hinted at in the Constitution and beyond the comprehension, for the most part, of the Constitution's drafters. 

I’m not a lawyer, but I read fairly well. Ten percent of the bill of rights is not a bare hint, and I assure you that chemical abortion has been around for thousands of years.

[formermav43 4606]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Appreciation of the intrinsic value of human life does not require a secular prism, imo. 

Yeah, this line of thought stuck out from Justice Sotomayor’s questioning to me. You can argue this question on purely philosophical grounds, as the numerous books on the subject demonstrate. Whether someone finds those arguments compelling is a different matter, but it’s curious to act as if they simply don’t exist.

Edited December 2, 2021 by formermav43

[Anastasis 23464]

*non-secular

[wildcat09 29348]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Appreciation of the intrinsic value of human life does not require a secular prism, imo. 

Read this and then fuck all the way off with your pretense that only anti-abortion supporters care about human life.

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Read this and then fuck all the way off with your pretense that only anti-abortion supporters care about human life.

I think that the Texas abortion law is shit. 

I also think that appreciation of the intrinsic value of human life does not require a religious worldview.  It is completely compatible with a secularist philosophical perspective.

But thanks for the advice.   

[tantric superman 4667]

31 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

If the Court recognizes any privacy right to reproductive decisions, then it's in SCOTUS's purview to protect that right rather than throw it to the states to allow an interest in protecting the unborn to completely override that right. And I'm sure many would disagree, but I don't see what the State's compelling interest is in "protecting the unborn"  before viability in a secular republic. In a non-secular one, sure...which is why this particular SCOTUS will fail to recognize that a pregnant person's right to privacy/autonomy trumps the State's interest in the pre-viable pregnancy. 

In Roe, the Court found two government interests that were sufficiently "compelling" to permit states to impose some limitations on pregnant women's right to choose to have an abortion: first, protecting the mother's health, and second, protecting the life of the fetus.

The secular aspect doesn't affect it one way or the other.  The state already has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus which led to the third trimester limitations in Roe.  Doesn't seem too difficult for the court to simply say that this compelling interest is already recognized, and similar compelling interests don't exist when it comes to birth control, sodomy or interracial marriage.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I also think that appreciation of the intrinsic value of human life does not require a religious worldview. 

 

Sure.  But the anti-abortion "pro life" movement is rooted in Christianity, not a secular construct about the intrinsic value of human life.

[tantric superman 4667]

Religion might explain why certain groups are anti-abortion, but to me there is a powerful secular argument for the value of the fetus.

I think a woman's constitutional right trumps that value, but Roe v. Wade isn't trying to weigh a religious value against a non-religious value.  It was trying to weigh two different non-religious interests.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Religion might explain why certain groups are anti-abortion, but to me there is a powerful secular argument for the value of the fetus.

I think a woman's constitutional right trumps that value, but Roe v. Wade isn't trying to weigh a religious value against a non-religious value.  It was trying to weigh two different non-religious interests.

Those are fair points, but the attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, including those on the SC eager to do so, are rooted in religion imo. 

[wildcat09 29348]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Religion might explain why certain groups are anti-abortion, but to me there is a powerful secular argument for the value of the fetus.

I think a woman's constitutional right trumps that value, but Roe v. Wade isn't trying to weigh a religious value against a non-religious value.  It was trying to weigh two different non-religious interests.

The important thing here is that those who support repealing Roe don’t think the analysis should be that a woman has a fundamental right that is trumped by a compelling state interest when it comes to abortion. They want the law to say that women don’t have any rights in this area at all.

[tantric superman 4667]

6 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 

Sure.  But the anti-abortion "pro life" movement is rooted in Christianity, not a secular construct about the intrinsic value of human life.

Just google scholarship, but I don't think that is correct.  This puts the first "pro-life" movement as started by physicians.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/peter-skerry/abortion-in-america-by-james-c-mohr-the-ambivalence-of-abortion-by-linda-bird-francke/

This system of legal but quiet abortions fell apart in the mid-nineteenth century. The first “right-to-life” movement was not led by grassroots activists, but rather physicians, anxious about their professional status. Before then, physicians had been a largely unregulated bunch, without the institutional or cultural authority to corner the market on healing. In the early nineteenth century, a variety of other healers competed with physicians for business, especially the business of women’s reproductive healthcare. While many physicians believed that scientific medicine would benefit their patients, some, in order to hurt lay healers’ business, sought governmental licensing and regulation to weed out the competition. Physicians used anti-abortion laws, pushed in state legislatures, to increase their own stature and undermine their opponents.[1]

Of course, many would have narrated this story very differently. Some physicians claimed that this campaign was a product of superior medical knowledge. Many argued that women (and rag-tag group of healers who offered abortion) did not have adequate embryonic knowledge to determine when life began. But historians have noted that this medical insight was not a result of any advancements in embryonic knowledge. In fact, there were none during these campaigns.[2] Instead, the fetus was merely a stand-in for a broader cultural project. Here, the movement tapped into concerns over women’s increasing education, autonomy, and the extension of rights, as it reasserted women’s connection to and limitation by their own reproductive anatomy. Women’s bodies, not their words or actions, confessed to doctors the “naturalness” of uninterrupted reproduction and the “truth” about fetal life.[3] Bodily processes could “speak for themselves,” though they did need doctors to translate.

This effort largely succeeded. By 1900 every state had a law forbidding abortion at any stage, whether through the use of drugs or procedures. Almost all the laws passed during this time included a therapeutic exception, where licensed physicians could provide abortions at their own discretion as long as the abortion preserved the life of the mother. While this loophole allowed many women to obtain abortions, it also made doctors the ultimate arbiters of the morality and legality of abortions. These laws also created a large black market for women who could not access or obtain abortions through medical channels.

https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/#fn1

 

[Anastasis 23464]

3 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

But the anti-abortion "pro life" movement is rooted in Christianity, not a secular construct about the intrinsic value of human life.

Not universally:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/march-life-secular-liberal-pro-lifers-feel-welcome/580837/

 

[tantric superman 4667]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The important thing here is that those who support repealing Roe don’t think the analysis should be that a woman has a fundamental right that is trumped by a compelling state interest when it comes to abortion. They want the law to say that women don’t have any rights in this area at all.

Sure, but I was answering the question as to how you eliminate reproduction from the penumbra of privacy rights without having to eliminate all the privacy rights.  I would think the vast majority of anti-abortion folks have always felt that there is no fundamental right to an abortion.  That was the argument in the 70s and it remains so today.

Edited December 2, 2021 by tantric superman

[DigglerontheHoof 21184]

We should just outlaw sex outside of Christian marriage to be safe. 

[tantric superman 4667]

It's all so depressing.  We are in a period of social unrest and climate change and we are making it more difficult for people to make private decisions on how to negotiate the difficulties. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

When the Supreme Court is done overturning Roe V Wade can they finally take care of some important stuff like overturning Brown V Board of Education.  I mean if they did that it would be OK because the integrity of the Supreme Court shall not be questioned, right?  

[wildcat09 29348]

Their next target will be Griswold or Obergefell.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Their next target will be Griswold or Obergefell.

I know but they really need to get to the good stuff like overturning desegregation.  

Edited December 2, 2021 by Beantown Express 2.0

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

40 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Just google scholarship, but I don't think that is correct.  This puts the first "pro-life" movement as started by physicians.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/peter-skerry/abortion-in-america-by-james-c-mohr-the-ambivalence-of-abortion-by-linda-bird-francke/

This system of legal but quiet abortions fell apart in the mid-nineteenth century. The first “right-to-life” movement was not led by grassroots activists, but rather physicians, anxious about their professional status. Before then, physicians had been a largely unregulated bunch, without the institutional or cultural authority to corner the market on healing. In the early nineteenth century, a variety of other healers competed with physicians for business, especially the business of women’s reproductive healthcare. While many physicians believed that scientific medicine would benefit their patients, some, in order to hurt lay healers’ business, sought governmental licensing and regulation to weed out the competition. Physicians used anti-abortion laws, pushed in state legislatures, to increase their own stature and undermine their opponents.[1]

Of course, many would have narrated this story very differently. Some physicians claimed that this campaign was a product of superior medical knowledge. Many argued that women (and rag-tag group of healers who offered abortion) did not have adequate embryonic knowledge to determine when life began. But historians have noted that this medical insight was not a result of any advancements in embryonic knowledge. In fact, there were none during these campaigns.[2] Instead, the fetus was merely a stand-in for a broader cultural project. Here, the movement tapped into concerns over women’s increasing education, autonomy, and the extension of rights, as it reasserted women’s connection to and limitation by their own reproductive anatomy. Women’s bodies, not their words or actions, confessed to doctors the “naturalness” of uninterrupted reproduction and the “truth” about fetal life.[3] Bodily processes could “speak for themselves,” though they did need doctors to translate.

This effort largely succeeded. By 1900 every state had a law forbidding abortion at any stage, whether through the use of drugs or procedures. Almost all the laws passed during this time included a therapeutic exception, where licensed physicians could provide abortions at their own discretion as long as the abortion preserved the life of the mother. While this loophole allowed many women to obtain abortions, it also made doctors the ultimate arbiters of the morality and legality of abortions. These laws also created a large black market for women who could not access or obtain abortions through medical channels.

https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/#fn1

 

 

I guess there are multiple ways to look at the 'history' of it.  I probably should have specified within my lifetime. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/opinion/anti-abortion-history.html
 

Quote

 

The “pro-life” term was adopted by anti-abortion crusaders after the Roe v. Wade decision. The anti-abortion cause didn’t promote itself as “pro-life” until the more punitive-sounding “anti-abortion” label failed. In 1976, with the passing of the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting the use of federal funds for most abortions, opposition to abortion gained support among Republicans. The Christian right was on the rise; their socially conservative policies are inseparable from today’s Republican Party. In 1980, aided by the Baptist minister Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, the pro-life zealots took control of the Republican Party’s platform committee. Four anti-abortion presidents followed — Ronald Reagan, George H. W. and George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Isn’t it as clear now as it was in the Reagan years? Aren’t the same people who sacralize the fetus generally opposed to any meaningful welfare for unwanted children and unmarried mothers?

 

That's generally the time frame I was referring to/thinking about.  I very much remember the Moral Majority and then the Ralph Reed stuff moving from the fringe to taking over the party.  

 

Then there's the embedded racism (natch) in the movement:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/10/1776319/-The-racist-origins-of-pro-life-abortion-movement-they-never-talk-about

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not universally:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/march-life-secular-liberal-pro-lifers-feel-welcome/580837/

 

Perhaps, but I would bet (without reading that to be honest) that the non-religious are in the vast minority on that side of the issue. 

[Nivek 16923]

20 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You really are not very smart are you?  Your have to know you are fucking pregnant to get an abortion.  You have to make a fucking appt and have the pregnancy confirmed.  Did you know that not all Women are regular with their cycle?  Did you know that as you get older, weird shit happens with your period? It is an effective abortion ban.  Go fuck yourself.

Quote

 

You have to be understanding with "conservatives".  They don't really understand things unless its on TV.

[NWBuck 8552]

11 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 I very much remember the Moral Majority and then the Ralph Reed stuff moving from the fringe to taking over the party.  

Then there's the embedded racism (natch) in the movement:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/10/1776319/-The-racist-origins-of-pro-life-abortion-movement-they-never-talk-about

I've mentioned this before (and it's probably for another thread), but many highlight that abortion wasn't an issue for religious conservative Protestants (specifically evangelicals and fundamentalists) until they realized that it was an easier political cause to hang their hats on (rather than "we want to segregate and not lose our tax exempt status"). Allowed them to support nominal Christian Reagan over devout Evangelical Carter in the run up to the '80 election.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

Edited December 2, 2021 by NWBuck

[Anastasis 23464]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

They want the law to say that women don’t have any rights in this area at all.

Please, sir. "Birthing people" is the preferred nomenclature. Thank you. 

[NWBuck 8552]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Please, sir. "Birthing people" is the preferred nomenclature. Thank you. 

"Host bodies"

[CooterBrown 18005]

A compelling state interest in protecting life seems to clear the way for vaccine mandates.

[tantric superman 4667]

4 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

A compelling state interest in protecting life seems to clear the way for vaccine mandates.

Pretty much has always been the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

[Nivek 16923]

Reason to hate lawyers #322,454,545,237,842,785,456,24567

Should be a woman's right to choose.   The overturning of a medical procedure would be really funny when someone challenges other procedures on the same basis, especially if move to states choice creates unequal access to care within the nation.   

 

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

The overturning of a medical procedure would be really funny when someone challenges other procedures on the same basis

Lethal injection is a medical procedure. 

[tantric superman 4667]

While I think it's important to understand the sex and race and Christian bias in the court, the language of the legal decisions is going to generally be neutral on those areas.  I don't see the value in arguing that an anti-abortion position is necessarily religious based or sexist or racist gets you anywhere.  In fact, it's just the opposite.  It hurts one's own arguments to attack Christianity and white devils and men when the focused enemy is the elimination of women's reproductive liberty.

[tantric superman 4667]

4 minutes ago, Nivek said:

The overturning of a medical procedure would be really funny when someone challenges other procedures on the same basis, especially if move to states choice creates unequal access to care within the nation.   

Not sure what you mean "other procedures on the same basis", unless those other procedures are other methods of terminating a pregnancy/the life of the fetus.

 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

21 hours ago, Bullneck said:

 

The Supreme Court is about to lose its legitimacy.  Overturn Roe v. Wade and there will be 13 justices.  

The will of the people will not be denied.

Pfft--what about the Democratic Party in Congress (or, for that matter, in the White House) makes you think they have even a scintilla of the audacity that would be necessary to expand the Court?

The Roosevelt Administration and the New Dealers in Congress were lions; the Democratic Party today is populated by fraidy cats.

20 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Why not pass a federal law protecting the right to an abortion up to viability (yeah I know that’s a moving target) with exceptions after that for rape incest and health of mother? Seems like it could get bipartisan support in the house and might kill the filibuster in the senate. 
 

need to get talk about it started now and run hard on it in the suburbs in 2022

Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees specifically in order to add justices to the Court who would abolish Roe.

Do you think the Democrats in the Senate today would reform the filibuster to pass a statute to restore abortion rights?  Because I sure don't.

[Nivek 16923]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Not sure what you mean "other procedures on the same basis", unless those other procedures are other methods of terminating a pregnancy/the life of the fetus.

 

Interstate commerce is used to justify what?

[TwiceHorn 31443]

4 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 

Sure.  But the anti-abortion "pro life" movement is rooted in Christianity, not a secular construct about the intrinsic value of human life.

Post-Roe, I think that's fairly accurate.

[TwiceHorn 31443]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Sure, but I was answering the question as to how you eliminate reproduction from the penumbra of privacy rights without having to eliminate all the privacy rights.  I would think the vast majority of anti-abortion folks have always felt that there is no fundamental right to an abortion.  That was the argument in the 70s and it remains so today.

You're giving great analysis on the topic.

Where the rub lies, if you aren't prepared to "negate" the privacy interest, is in the "least restrictive manner" of enforcing the government's compelling interest.

And that's where I think viability comes in.  I'm not sure how you "rhetorically" analyze it, but I think if they sustain the MS statute, it will be on that viablity and how isn't the dividing line between acceptable least restrictive means, and something unconstitutional.

[Goofyboy 3269]

Lethal injection is a medical procedure. 

Forced on someone by the state. Sorta like forced birth will probably be forced on women by the state. I am looking forward to new and super strict gun laws, since this is all for the protection of children’s lives.

[TwiceHorn 31443]

4 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’m not a lawyer, but I read fairly well. Ten percent of the bill of rights is not a bare hint, and I assure you that chemical abortion has been around for thousands of years.

What I mean is this.  The Fourth Amendment recognizes "the right to be secure in their persons."  Good, I like that, I approve.  But it also immediately limits that to "unreasonable search and seizure," and then further prescribes the process by which persons can be insecure in their persons.

So the Fourth Amendment gives a bare hint as to a more general right of privacy.

And, as to the comprehension of the authors, I wasn't referring to abortion, but to viability without carrying to term.  To the authors, a foetus was a speculative thing until born.  So it was a bit hard to immediately conceive of abortion as homicide.

[bonnieblue 542]

So playing this out, could a woman have the “live” fetus removed pre or post viability from her at some point (and not aborted), and then give it up as a ward of the state for the state to then take care of medically? Or would she be forced to continue incubating it  to a viable fully birthed state. What rights does the host “owe” to the fetus. Why can’t they just go their separate ways and let the chips fall as they may?

[elfenix 34228]

all women should become wards of the state from puberty through menopause, just to be sure

[Anastasis 23464]

31 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

I am looking forward to new and super strict gun laws, since this is all for the protection of children’s lives.

I see that you are clearly versed in the arts of epidemiology. There were ~700k abortions in 2019. 12k deaths annually on average from unintentional injuries. Versus ~1700 gun violence deaths annual average. 100 die on bicycles. Less than that in school shootings. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Anastasis

[Guest Lobo]

That 700k number includes elective D&C’s to “finish” miscarriages faster and with less trauma 

[Anastasis 23464]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

That 700k number includes elective D&C’s to “finish” miscarriages faster and with less trauma 

Pull them out. How many remain?

[StassneyHorn 6575]

I want to argue when fetuses become humans

[Guest Lobo]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Pull them out. How many remain?

Jesus dude, even your God would say "Phrasing!"  

[Anastasis 23464]

Just now, Lobo said:

Jesus dude, even your God would say "Phrasing!"  

LOL.  It's hard to parse out of the CDC data. Maybe a better area to consider is number of abortions that have been preceded by 2 or more abortions. That number is conservatively (due to reporting issues) ~ 100k. Reasonable people should be able to agree that that those kind of statistics are unacceptable in a modern society. Nobody should feel comfortable with that. 

[Anastasis 23464]

14 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

I want to argue when fetuses become humans

But why?

[Goofyboy 3269]

I see that you are clearly versed in the arts of epidemiology. There were ~700k abortions in 2019. 12k deaths annually on average from unintentional injuries. Versus ~1700 gun violence deaths annual average. 100 die on bicycles. Less than that in school shootings. 

Ah… only some kids deaths are worth stopping. Got it.

[tantric superman 4667]

33 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

I want to argue when fetuses become humans

There are all humans.  An human egg is human.

 

[Anastasis 23464]

Just now, Goofyboy said:

Ah… only some kids deaths are worth stopping. Got it.

Yes. Clearly you got it. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, Goofyboy said:

Ah… only some kids deaths are worth stopping. Got it.

A fetus isn't a kid.

Even a goat fetus isn't a kid.

[Anastasis 23464]

Don't bring cabrito into this.