Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Nivek 17036]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water. The frequent use of Pharisses as a pejorative in the New Testament kind of drives home the point. 

Generally speaking anything in the Old Testament is dismissed or cherry picked as one sees fit.

 

 

10 commandments.  Religion is all cherry picking by those with a fundamentalists brain.

[F250 28943]

45 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the rabid pro-life movement, at least in the US, pretty much started gaining steam in the second half of the 20th century, and it was conceived as a more palatable rallying point than the true impetus behind the movement:  maintaining segregation, particularly in schools.  It was easier to get the masses going in one direction by being "pro-baby" than by being "pro-entrenched-racism".

I mean, the Southern Baptist Convention outlined and subsequently reaffirmed its hardly-conservative stance on abortion in the years before AND after Roe V Wade.

This is good advice. The Prolife movement within Protestant Christianity is about as old as most Millennials. It's a pretty new movement in Christianity outside of Catholicism. A big difference though is Catholicism is consistent with anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and pro social gospel. The Protestant movement is just anti-abortion.

[Willfully Horn 8087]

14 minutes ago, F250 said:

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water. The frequent use of Pharisses as a pejorative in the New Testament kind of drives home the point. 

Generally speaking anything in the Old Testament is dismissed or cherry picked as one sees fit.

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46471]

39 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Outlawing abortion relies on invoking fetal rights. While arguing about fetal “life” is more moot than persuasive (and I am a breath of life believer,) what Liberty does a fetus possess? 

I was leaning on the "Life" part of the phrase.  Again, I agree with you, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

[Ghost of LL 15604]

15 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Well they don’t have a majority in the senate even with Kamala so it’s academic.

I don't think that's accurate.  As much of a pain in the ass as Manchin and Sinema are, I'm pretty sure both are pretty reliably pro-choice.

I don't think there's any senator in the Democratic caucus who would be opposed to enshrining Roe/Casey in legislation (and anybody who did would put him-/herself in serious risk of a primary challenge).

But it requires busting the filibuster.  And as we've seen repeatedly with respect to voting rights, a Senate rule is more sacrosanct than the Constitution.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2687]

This insane stubbornness of keeping the filibuster is going to cost the Dems the House and Senate. Just like I predicted last year. 

[wildcat09 29453]

3 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

This insane stubbornness of keeping the filibuster is going to cost the Dems the House and Senate. Just like I predicted last year. 

It's going to cost us all American democracy.

[jimmyjazz 46471]

3 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

This insane stubbornness of keeping the filibuster is going to cost the Dems the House and Senate. Just like I predicted last year. 

The Dems should convert this to a graphic logo and get rid of the donkey:

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The deftness with which Anastasis flits back and forth between the reasonable-sounding "look I don't think pro-choice people are monsters and I agree that some restrictions on abortion that have been enacted are bad, but can't we all agree that we should try to reduce repeat abortions?" and "anyone who supports legal abortion is pro-holocaust" is really impressive. You almost forget he's doing it.

I’ve always said he is our most talented troll for a reason. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's going to cost us all American democracy.

If the Dems lose the senate in 2022 you might be right. 
 

If they keep it there’s a definite path forward. But if they lose it, it’s open season on democracy. 

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Some people think a ball of human fetus cells with the potential to become a birthed human child require the same protections as an actual birthed human child. 

Some people think that it is a women's right to choose to advance that ball of human fetal cells to the next stage since it requires a woman's commitment to keep said human ball of cells alive through proper nutrition. 

One of these groups wants the government involved to force all potential balls to become birthed children. 

There’s a reason we use the term “living, breathing human being.” The breathing part is kind of important. 

[CooterBrown 18089]

If the Dems lose the senate in 2022 you might be right. 
 
If they keep it there’s a definite path forward. But if they lose it, it’s open season on democracy. 

It’s already lost and they have the majority.

[Willfully Horn 8087]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was leaning on the "Life" part of the phrase.  Again, I agree with you, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Mis-hit my rep. Fixed.

[Sawbonz 27777]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The deftness with which Anastasis flits back and forth between the reasonable-sounding "look I don't think pro-choice people are monsters and I agree that some restrictions on abortion that have been enacted are bad, but can't we all agree that we should try to reduce repeat abortions?" and "anyone who supports legal abortion is pro-holocaust" is really impressive. You almost forget he's doing it.

I mean if you agree that taking a human life is bad, then you should be able to acknowledge that an abortion past the point of viability is at a minimum morally problematic, even if you agree a woman has an absolute right to do it.

That is unless you think that a human’s physical location is a reasonable criterion to use to determine their right to life

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water.

So that’s how Jesus walked on water!

[Neonmoon 38130]

Did anyone argue for abortion past viability?

[jimmyjazz 46471]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Did anyone argue for abortion past viability?

Unless you want to get incredibly specific about "trimester", no.

[elfenix 34385]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I mean if you agree that taking a human life is bad, then you should be able to acknowledge that an abortion past the point of viability is at a minimum morally problematic, even if you agree a woman has an absolute right to do it.

That is unless you think that a human’s physical location is a reasonable criterion to use to determine their right to life

both abortion and forcing a woman at the end of a gun to carry a pregnancy to term are morally problematic, which is why this is a hard fucking question that shouldn't be left up to a bunch of old white men who've never had a moment of difficulty in their country club harvard law lives and instead should be made by the person closest to the matter.

Edited December 3, 2021 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31679]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

both abortion and forcing a woman at the end of a gun to carry a pregnancy to term are morally problematic, which is why this is a hard fucking question that shouldn't be left up to a bunch of old white men who've never had a moment of difficulty in their country club harvard law lives and instead should be made by the person closest to the matter.

Well, that plays into the notion that it should be a decision made by white men of various ages and reactionary women, dozens of them, in dozens of state legislatures nationwide. 😬😬

[elfenix 34385]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that plays into the notion that it should be a decision made by white men of various ages and reactionary women, dozens of them, in dozens of state legislatures nationwide. 😬😬

nope, it's between the pregnant person, her doctor, whoever else she wants to consult, and her god. 

[Sawbonz 27777]

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Did anyone argue for abortion past viability?

Did anyone exclude it in their argument? It’s in the discussion. In fact for most people it is the discussion. 

Which is a problem in and of itself because it is getting earlier all the time

[elfenix 34385]

21 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Did anyone argue for abortion past viability?

alito tried to get rickelman to do so and she side stepped it. 

[tantric superman 4668]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water.

I think they can work together, as long as the Jews don't get too pushy.

 

[DDD Dad 14369]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think that's accurate.  As much of a pain in the ass as Manchin and Sinema are, I'm pretty sure both are pretty reliably pro-choice.

I don't think there's any senator in the Democratic caucus who would be opposed to enshrining Roe/Casey in legislation (and anybody who did would put him-/herself in serious risk of a primary challenge).

But it requires busting the filibuster.  And as we've seen repeatedly with respect to voting rights, a Senate rule is more sacrosanct than the Constitution.

It’s cute how you think those two wouldn’t take the R line on this issue to avoid getting voted out of office. 

[formermav43 4606]

You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. 

(Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)

[Ghost of LL 15604]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

It’s cute how you think those two wouldn’t take the R line on this issue to avoid getting voted out of office. 

Let's take those two one at a time:

Sinema is a bought-and-paid for corporate shill.  She's going to vote to lower taxes on the rich.  But rich people don't give a shit about abortion, and anti-abortion constituencies aren't funding her gravy train.  So much like with other social issues, her vote isn't really in question.

Manchin is a much bigger question mark.  I think he might favor that legislation, so long as there is something in it that federal dollars will never support abortions.

But even if you lost Manchin, you could probably pick up a Republican vote or two (e.g., Collins or Murkowski).

But none of that does any good if they won't get rid of the filibuster.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33917]

  

15 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. 

(Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)

 

now we're really getting down to the important topics 🙄

Edited December 3, 2021 by Longhorn_Fan68

[jimmyjazz 46471]

16 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

  now we're really getting down to the important topics 🙄

Adorbs.

[DDD Dad 14369]

5 hours ago, formermav43 said:

You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. 

(Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)

 

[DDD Dad 14369]

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Let's take those two one at a time:

Sinema is a bought-and-paid for corporate shill.  She's going to vote to lower taxes on the rich.  But rich people don't give a shit about abortion, and anti-abortion constituencies aren't funding her gravy train.  So much like with other social issues, her vote isn't really in question.

Manchin is a much bigger question mark.  I think he might favor that legislation, so long as there is something in it that federal dollars will never support abortions.

But even if you lost Manchin, you could probably pick up a Republican vote or two (e.g., Collins or Murkowski).

But none of that does any good if they won't get rid of the filibuster.

Hey man, cut me some slack. I’ve been high on OxyContin all day. 

[CooterBrown 18089]

Did anyone argue for abortion past viability?

There are plenty of adults I’d like to abort.

[Nivek 17036]

11 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Hey man, cut me some slack. I’ve been high on OxyContin all day. 

Dah-da-dah-da-da-da

[Poolflood 845]

Just getting to volokh.  

https://reason.com/volokh/

Worth the time.  

Below from David Post.

It's liberty your honor....

Spoiler

To put it differently: the Court must, if it is to overrule Roe and Casey, explain why, under the principles of stare decisis, it is discarding its own prior holding applying the principles of stare decisis to this constitutional right.

It's a little headache-inducing (could we get precedent^3? will the decision in this case be precedent for the use of precedent to determine the use of precedent? and so on) - but I do think framing the central question this way works considerably to Respondent's advantage. To do what Mississippi asks it to do, the Court will have to explain not only why and how Roe got it wrong (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies tossing it aside), but why and how Casey got it wrong when it held that the principles of stare decisis do not require overturning Roe (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies our tossing that holding aside as well). I don't think that's going to be too easy to do.

The second noteworthy moment came in a discussion of the source of the underlying constitutional right that the Respondents were asserting. Justice Thomas asked the question this way:

JUSTICE THOMAS: Back to my original question. I know your interest here is in abortion, I understand that, but, if I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion, is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What would it be? … What I'm trying to focus on is to lower the level of generality or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the Court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay? So I'm trying to get you to tell me, what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it?

I liked Ms. Rikelman's terse reply:

MS. RIKELMAN: It's liberty, Your Honor.

Basta cosi.  That line should appear on t-shirts in the near future.

She continued:

It's the textual protection in the Fourteenth Amendment that a state can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, and the Court has interpreted liberty to include the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy …

 

[Goofyboy 3305]

If they remove a woman’s ability to have an abortion, a corpse has more bodily autonomy than a living woman.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Jonathon Mitchell, the drafter of much of the legislation, has made it clear he is interested in pursuing birth control next; that if a women does not want to get pregnant that she should abstain from sex. Men's sexual health is taken for granted and they are free to do as they please, but a woman's is irrelevant since she has but one purpose in his view. He also is on the record as looking to overturn Obergefell.

[Biff Tannen 45763]

2 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Just getting to volokh.  

https://reason.com/volokh/

Worth the time.  

Below from David Post.

It's liberty your honor....

  Hide contents

To put it differently: the Court must, if it is to overrule Roe and Casey, explain why, under the principles of stare decisis, it is discarding its own prior holding applying the principles of stare decisis to this constitutional right.

It's a little headache-inducing (could we get precedent^3? will the decision in this case be precedent for the use of precedent to determine the use of precedent? and so on) - but I do think framing the central question this way works considerably to Respondent's advantage. To do what Mississippi asks it to do, the Court will have to explain not only why and how Roe got it wrong (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies tossing it aside), but why and how Casey got it wrong when it held that the principles of stare decisis do not require overturning Roe (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies our tossing that holding aside as well). I don't think that's going to be too easy to do.

The second noteworthy moment came in a discussion of the source of the underlying constitutional right that the Respondents were asserting. Justice Thomas asked the question this way:

JUSTICE THOMAS: Back to my original question. I know your interest here is in abortion, I understand that, but, if I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion, is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What would it be? … What I'm trying to focus on is to lower the level of generality or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the Court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay? So I'm trying to get you to tell me, what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it?

I liked Ms. Rikelman's terse reply:

MS. RIKELMAN: It's liberty, Your Honor.

Basta cosi.  That line should appear on t-shirts in the near future.

She continued:

It's the textual protection in the Fourteenth Amendment that a state can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, and the Court has interpreted liberty to include the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy …

 

[Ghost of LL 15604]

On 12/3/2021 at 10:35 PM, DDD Dad said:

Hey man, cut me some slack. I’ve been high on OxyContin all day. 

Well, I missed this fucking story.  You doing ok?

[DDD Dad 14369]

Well, I missed this fucking story.  You doing ok?

Rotator cuff surgery on Friday. Still pretty drugged up.

[Biff Tannen 45763]

32 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Rotator cuff surgery on Friday. Still pretty drugged up.

[Ghost of LL 15604]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Rotator cuff surgery on Friday. Still pretty drugged up.

Ouch--hope you're feeling better soon.

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Rotator cuff surgery on Friday. Still pretty drugged up.

Hope you get your slider back by Spring.  Save me some pills.

[NWBuck 8590]

4 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Rotator cuff surgery on Friday. Still pretty drugged up.

Feel better, man. 

Hopefully it wasn't your "romancing" arm... 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33917]

15 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Feel better, man. 

Hopefully it wasn't your "romancing" arm... 

how do you think he injured it in the first place?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Talks about how the abortion issue was AstroTurfed by evangelical leaders in the 70s for fundraising purposes and subsequently used by Republicans to win elections.  

[DDD Dad 14369]

27 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how do you think he injured it in the first place?

 

[Sawbonz 27777]

On 12/2/2021 at 8:30 PM, tantric superman said:

There are all humans.  An human egg is human.

 

A human egg is not a human jfc

[jimmyjazz 46471]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

A human egg is not a human jfc

Parsing between adjective and noun.  Obviously, you're correct, a human egg is missing the secret sauce (oh dear lord) that might allow a little human to appear.  Calling a human egg "human" is akin to calling a human kidney "human".  OK, so what?

[Sawbonz 27777]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Parsing between adjective and noun.  Obviously, you're correct, a human egg is missing the secret sauce (oh dear lord) that might allow a little human to appear.  Calling a human egg "human" is akin to calling a human kidney "human".  OK, so what?

Did you read the context?

[NWBuck 8590]

50 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Talks about how the abortion issue was AstroTurfed by evangelical leaders in the 70s for fundraising purposes and subsequently used by Republicans to win elections.  

Great video, thank you... and it's well documented that the Schaeffers were "in the room where it happened". Tangentially, this is a really interesting book about the folks who were early on pressing for "social justice" issues (like abortion).

[Neonmoon 38130]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Parsing between adjective and noun.  Obviously, you're correct, a human egg is missing the secret sauce (oh dear lord) that might allow a little human to appear.  Calling a human egg "human" is akin to calling a human kidney "human".  OK, so what?

 

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Did you read the context?