The Supremes

[tchookem 3919]

A lot of projected self loathing.  

Maybe, but it's the kind of self loathing that comes with realizing the bullshit you've been believing is actually bullshit.

[Pods 7587]

13 hours ago, StruggleBus said:

This is literally fucking retarded. And I'm pro-abortion. 

"we don't think what we are doing will work, therefore we are not breaking the law"

First of all, fuck you for using the word retarded as a bigoted slur. This is a University of Texas board, we have higher standards than that. 

Second, the law specifically mentions intent three times. Take it up with Congress.  

Third, the idea of intent is inherent in most criminal cases in our criminal justice system. Mens rea, look it up and learn something. 

Fourth, all Americans already know this, at least from watching TV, showing you to be an unbelievably low effort, stupid and/or poorly informed troll. 

Edited to add that literally no one on this board believes you are pro-choice. Either become a better liar, or save yourself the keystrokes next time. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Pods

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19171]

Just now, immamac said:

this thread is fucking crazy. I thought it was about the supreme court. There is so much going on here lol

Well, it is about the Supreme Court decision that is going to come down in June and completely take this country back to the 1600's as far as women's rights are concerned.  It is a scary time that a court filled with old men can decide the fate of a country that has a female majority, yet neither the law making bodies nor the Supreme Court, which are responsible for setting the laws of the land and interpreting those laws reflect the actual make up of the country.  Every woman of child bearing age who cares about her ability to be independent should be absolutely horrified and terrified at the same time.

[Sawbonz 27664]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Reasons for abortion:

Rape 1%

Incest 0.5%

The rest 98.5%. 

The vast majority of abortions are driven by other modifiable factors. A significant number of abortions are serial cases with intervention opportunities, and lets just be honest a significant number are convenience abortions. Although most reasonable people agree with Clinton's framework, it is just rhetoric in the contemporary dialog. 

Most of the information space is occupied by talking about the low incidence scenarios. Because that is where the political hay is made. 

Nobody is really looking for outcomes oriented solutions that balance the many very complex issues at play. Just rhetoric and talking points. 

 

 

And yet none of these new laws make exceptions 

[Sawbonz 27664]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A lot of projected self loathing.  

Not self-loathing just plain old loathing. Plenty to loathe on the right these days

[Anastasis 23473]

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

And yet none of these new laws make exceptions 

 

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Nobody is really looking for outcomes oriented solutions that balance the many very complex issues at play. Just rhetoric and talking points

 

 

[SizzleChest 8284]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Not self-loathing just plain old loathing. Plenty to loathe on the right these days

The "self-loathing" bit is just more rhetorical garbage designed to redirect all of the frustration and anger expressed about the leaked opinion and reduce it all to a mental or emotional problem with the people feeling the frustration and anger.  It's popular as a talking point throughout conservative media and it's the dictionary definition of gaslighting.

[wildcat09 29439]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Reasons for abortion:

Rape 1%

Incest 0.5%

The rest 98.5%. 

The vast majority of abortions are driven by other modifiable factors. A significant number of abortions are serial cases with intervention opportunities, and lets just be honest a significant number are convenience abortions. Although most reasonable people agree with Clinton's framework, it is just rhetoric in the contemporary dialog. 

Most of the information space is occupied by talking about the low incidence scenarios. Because that is where the political hay is made. 

Nobody is really looking for outcomes oriented solutions that balance the many very complex issues at play. Just rhetoric and talking points. 

 

 

You’re quite talented at talking around all of the issues related to abortion without ever seriously engaging in any discussion with anyone who has a different take than you. You’d prefer to remain at a distance, pretending to be the only informed person here and the only one who is above letting emotion influence their thinking. But we all see through your charade. We see your immense insecurity, your need to feel like women are lesser and need your control so you can feel better about yourself.

All your rhetorical evasions aren’t evidence of your superior intellect, they’re evidence of your extreme cowardice.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19171]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You’re quite talented at talking around all of the issues related to abortion without ever seriously engaging in any discussion with anyone who has a different take than you. You’d prefer to remain at a distance, pretending to be the only informed person here and the only one who is above letting emotion influence their thinking. But we all see through your charade. We see your immense insecurity., your need to feel like women are lesser and need your control so you can feel better about yourself.

All your rhetorical evasions aren’t evidence of your superior intellect, they’re evidence of your extreme cowardice.

FIFY.  This is Ana's MO for EVERYTHING.

[Sawbonz 27664]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

 

Only one side is trying to outlaw condoms. Only one side is trying to make aborting an embryo murder. 
 

Most abortions happen because of lack of access to or failure of birth control methods. When one side is actively trying to outlaw birth control one cannot engage in a serious debate about abortion with that side

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Anastasis 23473]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You’re quite talented at talking around all of the issues related to abortion without ever seriously engaging in any discussion with anyone who has a different take than you.

Find a mirror in your world. Sorry if you don't like the statistics produced by Guttmacher. You are not an honest poster, but I know that most of the posters here will let you slide. 

[mchookem 16415]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You’re quite talented at talking around all of the issues related to abortion without ever seriously engaging in any discussion with anyone who has a different take than you. You’d prefer to remain at a distance, pretending to be the only informed person here and the only one who is above letting emotion influence their thinking. But we all see through your charade. We see your immense insecurity, your need to feel like women are lesser and need your control so you can feel better about yourself.

All your rhetorical evasions aren’t evidence of your superior intellect, they’re evidence of your extreme cowardice.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by mchookem
wrong gif lol

[Anastasis 23473]

I do think that it is funny that posting statistics from Guttmacher, a pro-abortion research institute with the tag line Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research, is getting negged in the CR. Good talk guys. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2852]

I want someone to perfect implantation of zygotes into men and then I want the mother to have the right to transfer the fetus into the genetic father's body in the third trimester.

[Sawbonz 27664]

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I want someone to perfect implantation of zygotes into men and then I want the mother to have the right to transfer the fetus into the genetic father's body in the third trimester.

[SizzleChest 8284]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Find a mirror in your world. Sorry if you don't like the statistics produced by Guttmacher. You are not an honest poster, but I know that most of the posters here will let you slide. 

@immamac is right that this thread is off the rails, so why is it that when this happens, your first instinct is to insert charts and graphs from Fuckmacher or whoever?  Just to play gotcha?  What does that contribute or accomplish when people are throwing tables and chairs at each other?  It’s abortion - you’re not going to find a more divisive issue at this time.  And so you read the room and decide to roll up to WWE Raw with a PowerPoint?  It’s comical.

Edited May 10, 2022 by SizzleChest

[cactusflinthead 27609]

 

[Covri 6253]

44 minutes ago, immamac said:

this thread is fucking crazy. I thought it was about the supreme court. There is so much going on here lol

[DDD Dad 14364]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Reasons for abortion:

Rape 1%

Incest 0.5%

The rest 98.5%. 

The vast majority of abortions are driven by other modifiable factors. A significant number of abortions are serial cases with intervention opportunities, and lets just be honest a significant number are convenience abortions. Although most reasonable people agree with Clinton's framework, it is just rhetoric in the contemporary dialog. 

Most of the information space is occupied by talking about the low incidence scenarios. Because that is where the political hay is made. 

Nobody is really looking for outcomes oriented solutions that balance the many very complex issues at play. Just rhetoric and talking points. 

 

 

How about a woman’s autonomy over her body?  Shouldn’t that be the driving focus here?

I don’t give a shit about exceptions for rape and incest. They’re just used as arguments to try to sway evangelicals against total bans. It’s a waste of time, if you’ve been paying attention. They don’t care. They want total bans. 

[sidis 9832]

2 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Oh yeah.  All 6 or so of us...then the 30+ attacks start and we get posts like sidis (hey you didn't address my post) when I would need 3 people responding to keep up.

But yeah...you're right.  My turn in the trenches.  So you realize that it's very few of us and shit tons of you.

Peace my brother!

You have addressed basically all of them except mine including engaging in a bunch of pissy, non-productive slap fights. I find that conspicuous. 

[DDD Dad 14364]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I do think that it is funny that posting statistics from Guttmacher, a pro-abortion research institute with the tag line Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research, is getting negged in the CR. Good talk guys. 

Oh look, Ana is here to make this thread about him. 
 

you have a lot more in common with Derka than you’d care to admit. 

[Anastasis 23473]

The only thing funnier than watching the surly lawyer contingent flail about over the products of the legal system is watching them act like they understand the application of biomedical ethical principles. 

[bonnieblue 542]

I’m convinced about 75% of forced-birthers are just insufferable assholes whose actions prompted their mothers to frequently declare that they wish they had aborted instead.

That’s why they’re so sensitive about it.

 

[sidis 9832]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

 

Nobody is really looking for outcomes oriented solutions that balance the many very complex issues at play. Just rhetoric and talking points. 

 

 

I would love some outcome oriented solutions that balance the issues at play. What do you propose? You have already simplified one of the complexities of why millions of women have had abortions in your post, referring to them as “convenience abortions.” So let’s address the rest…see if we can continue to simplify the complexities in a rational way and reach an outcome oriented solution. What, in light of the Supreme Court’s determination that women do not have a protected constitutional right to any type of abortion intervention that can be imposed upon states at a federal level, is your proposal to achieve your desired outcome? Genuinely interested. 

[lemonlime 5503]

22 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

How about a woman’s autonomy over her body?  Shouldn’t that be the driving focus here?

I don’t give a shit about exceptions for rape and incest. They’re just used as arguments to try to sway evangelicals against total bans. It’s a waste of time, if you’ve been paying attention. They don’t care. They want total bans. 

Bingo.  They also just reinforce the idea that a woman can only have control of her own body after someone  has violated her.

[bolverk 29738]

50 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I do think that it is funny that posting statistics from Guttmacher, a pro-abortion research institute with the tag line Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research, is getting negged in the CR. Good talk guys. 

Here's some more recent and relevant data:

In 2019, 79% of abortions in Texas occurred during the first 9 weeks when still just an embryo (not yet even a fetus). Another 14% occur in the next three weeks. If you're counting, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester.

I'm sorry to offend anyone by saying that I have zero problem for a woman to terminate a first trimester pregnancy for any reason she wishes. If we feel like those need to be reduced, then let's promote robust sex education courses in the public schools and ensure universal access to the myriad means of birth control.

Edit: I'm not going to engage in any meaningful discussion with anyone who is opposed to abortion during that first trimester, because I believe that opposition is likely rooted in mysticism and/or religious belief. It's simply an imposition of your religion on others.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by bolverk

[Satchel 6949]

I think it’s time to admit that there are a whole lot of men of like kitty but don’t like women.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19171]

36 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The only thing funnier than watching the surly lawyer contingent flail about over the products of the legal system is watching them act like they understand the application of biomedical ethical principles. 

There goes Ana again.  How about you address the fact that NO birth control is 100% effective?  How about you address the fact that, while studies are not definitive, use of birth control can lead to increased risk of heart disease, especially later in life?  How about the fact that pregnancy is absolutely dangerous and can result in death?  Of course you don't want to address that because at the end of the day, the best person to decide what is right is the woman and her physician.

You bleat about "biomedical ethical principles" but completely miss the fucking point.  Since you do not have a uterus, your say is meaningless unless you were the sperm donor, and only then if she wants you to be involved in the decision.

Edited May 10, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Gil Bang 26058]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There goes Ana again.  How about you address the fact that NO birth control is 100% effective?  How about you address the fact that, while studies are not definitive, use of birth control can lead to increased risk of heart disease, especially later in life?  How about the fact that pregnancy is absolutely dangerous and can result in death?  Of course you don't want to address that because at the end of the day, the best person to decide what is right is the woman and her physician.

You bleat about "biomedical ethical principles" but completely miss the fucking point.  Since you do not have a uterus, your say is meaningless unless you were the sperm donor, and only then if she wants you to be involved in the decision.

The only this asshole a sperm donor is if "she" is a kleenex. 

[Anastasis 23473]

4 minutes ago, sidis said:

I would love some outcome oriented solutions that balance the issues at play. What do you propose? You have already simplified one of the complexities of why millions of women have had abortions in your post, referring to them as “convenience abortions.” So let’s address the rest…see if we can continue to simplify the complexities in a rational way and reach an outcome oriented solution. What, in light of the Supreme Court’s determination that women do not have a protected constitutional right to any type of abortion intervention that can be imposed upon states at a federal level, is your proposal to achieve your desired outcome? Genuinely interested. 

The "abortion issue" will not and cannot be solved with "legal solutions". Legal solutions are not really solutions for most things, abortion included, and most will only take us backwards. I don't think that Roe was a good ruling, but I don't think that overturning Roe fixes anything and will only make the entire environment more toxic. A significant number of abortions, ~ 100k per year per CDC, are serial cases where the women involved had 2+ prior abortions. Start there in terms of building some common ground, and work outwards. These are situations where the psychological and medical ramifications are pretty obvious. We can't and should not count on the government, but if people on both sides of the issue could disengage from the politics and focus on some actual real world praxis, we maybe could get somewhere.  Picture an MLF type organization focused on addressing abortion in the same way and context that they address homelessness.  

[Sawbonz 27664]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The "abortion issue" will not and cannot be solved with "legal solutions". Legal solutions are not really solutions for most things, abortion included, and most will only take us backwards. I don't think that Roe was a good ruling, but I don't think that overturning Roe fixes anything and will only make the entire environment more toxic. A significant number of abortions, ~ 100k per year per CDC, are serial cases where the women involved had 2+ prior abortions. Start there in terms of building some common ground, and work outwards. These are situations where the psychological and medical ramifications are pretty obvious. We can't and should not count on the government, but if people on both sides of the issue could disengage from the politics and focus on some actual real world praxis, we maybe could get somewhere.  Picture an MLF type organization focused on addressing abortion in the same way and context that they address homelessness.  

You have to get one side to stop trying to criminalize contraception first. 

[Anastasis 23473]

52 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You have to get one side to stop trying to criminalize contraception first. 

I think that maybe your more pressing concern as a medical professional should be the people telling you and others that hormonal contraception increases risk for heart disease. 

[Sawbonz 27664]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that maybe your more pressing concern as a medical professional should be the people telling you and others that hormonal contraception increases risk for heart disease. 

Why?

[Anastasis 23473]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Why?

Seems like it would be easy disinformation to shoot down. Or otherwise, something that the medical system should address instead of the legal system. 

[Sawbonz 27664]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Seems like it would be easy disinformation to shoot down. Or otherwise, something that the medical system should address instead of the legal system. 

So you think cardiac risk from ocp is more important than a party attempting to criminalize birth control?

[Anastasis 23473]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So you think cardiac risk from ocp is more important than a party attempting to criminalize birth control?

I don't think that ocp should be illegal, but I am also not the one telling people here that it increases cardiac risk as a smoke screen for aborting fetuses. 

[Sawbonz 27664]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that ocp should be illegal, but I am also not the one telling people here that it increases cardiac risk as a smoke screen for aborting fetuses. 

Who is?

 

edit and please answer my previous question directly yes or no

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Anastasis 23473]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Who is?

Who is on third. 

[Sawbonz 27664]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Who is on third. 

This is bullshit. Answer the question 

[Sawbonz 27664]

Link the poster saying abortion is a better alternative than ocp 

[Anastasis 23473]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is bullshit. Answer the question 

Ask the poster that asserted that "birth control can lead to increased risk of heart disease" what the estimates of excess CV related morality are?  And maybe to contrast them with the excess morbidity and mortality related to serial abortions? 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Anastasis

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19171]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Link the poster saying abortion is a better alternative than ocp 

Ana is trying to catch me out because I said that while there are no definitive studies, there are a number of studies out there that show using oral contraceptives can lead to increased risk of blot clots, heart attacks, and strokes.  I point blank have said that a woman and her doctor therefore should be the ones making decisions about her health and choices, not a bunch of old white men in Washington. Ana is being disingenuous and trying to play coy like he always does.  He just comes off as stupid.

I also notice he does not address that NO birth control is 100% effective, because of course he doesn't.  We know Ana is against a woman's right to choose.  We know Ana is anti-woman and anti-American, and if you do not believe that based on his abortion beliefs, then you definitely would know that for how much he carries water for Russia.

Ana is gaslighting.  

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[SKJ 1311]

11 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

But, it's not a complete and total ban.  It's like what we have now with guns - Texas says hell yes and California says no unless you jump through these 76 hoops that make it really difficult (those "reasonable restrictions")

If this comes to fruition, it's Texas says no after a heartbeat and California says yes until just before they exit the birth canal. BTW, I disagree it falls under a right to "privacy" though.  If I wanted to kill my 2 day old child and just bury it in my back yard because I didn't want it, I don't think that would fall under any "privacy" rights.  Why should 2 days before it's born be different?  or replace 2 days with 8 months...

As to the other legislation that's being drawn up, that's no different than Representatives from various states proposing anti gun laws...ok.  Just because they propose them doesn't mean they can pass OR be constitutional.

And again...I'm abortion agnostic.  But, I REALLY hate when people try to rationalize away the fact that they're terminating a human life just to mitigate the guilt they'd feel for doing that.  Accept it.  OWN it.

 

Hell, even RBG thought the reasoning behind RvW was a little suspect.

Firstly,  you have the problem with stare decisis and what's considered "settled law." 

Next,  you have the problem with all cases considered as precedent as being open to be overturned because one ideology thought the precedent was decided incorrectly.  

So what were actually looking at is,  and this is not hyperbole,  but we're looking at a new set of rulings- not the first wave,  by any means - of cases decided under the commerce clause all being overturned. Say,  heart of atlanta.

Not to mention all cases decided with a right to privacy being able to be attacked because now, let's just say,  due process only has to do with being charged with a crime.  This would open up all cases under any sort of extended due process since roe was decided using that logic.

Then you have all other amendments to the constitution becoming targeted since,  you know,  they didn't exist in the originalist interpretation of the framers' ideas and they have gone too far...

All of the decisions of the court are deeply suspect,  especially when you consider that stare decisis is now just a formality.  The Supreme Court has literally just opened itself up to not having any real authority because,  since it is more highly politicized more than ever before,  marbury is now open for debate as the framework of the founders never codified that bullshit.

The court is a horribly,  stupid, and disingenuous thing.  It has been for decades,  ever since the deeply, most fucked up politicization of legal interpretation has been a feature,  not a bug. So now,  politics is the whole shebang,  and every interpretation from hence forth is just political,  without any clear  or actual reasoning. 

The funniest part about it is the right has long been bitching about "activist" judges,  but has,  for decades,  been breeding the project of creating a court so activist that there is no actual law,  just what they want. Every accusation and all...

If the court fucks with loving, I can promise you,  if they try to inull my kids' 'rights' to marry interracially, especially since they're of mixed race,  I promise you,  there will be a sudden need to replace the entire majority within a week.

The court is, and for a long time has been, a sham.  Hell, if you support the court in this iteration,  especially lauding originalism and textualism, then you've already decided that this court is a sham. See Marbury v Madison.  The rogue activist judges in that case granted them any actual power,  which is not enumerated. 

So quit being a political cheerleader for the right wing court and realize the bullshit you're fellating in order to be okay with this decision. 

The right has opened up pandora's box by overly politicizing the court.  If the dems had any balls,  they'd show you why.  

I fucking hate this country so fucking much.  Fucking hate it. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by SKJ

[The Original Greaser Bob 2852]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The only thing funnier than watching the surly lawyer contingent flail about over the products of the legal system is watching them act like they understand the application of biomedical ethical principles. 

I don't think I'm flailing so much as not addressing irrelevant points.

What's your overriding position on this issue Anastasis?  The state should have the right to determine whether a woman takes the child to term?  

[Neonmoon 38130]

93% of abortions happen in first trimester

we should start with addressing the harlots having 2+ abortions. That’s the real problem. 

eye roll 

[SKJ 1311]

11 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

So...you think there can't be any restrictions on assembly?

Or speech?

Or guns?

Because some restrictions are legal.  California has tons of them on guns.  Ok...I wouldn't live there, but let them do them.  Speech is the same.  As is assembly.

No one is saying there can't be restrictions... how many people are? Shit,  even Casey is a fucked up law  but you don't see anyone arguing that Casey was a bridge too far... 

11 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

A non-fertilized egg?  Yep.

A fertilized egg?  Nope.

No one is saying that having a period is killing a child.  It's a non-fertilized egg.

And yet they're attacking IVF, and "morning after" pills,  which aren't actually killing a fetus. Why is that?  The reasoning is that they don't want sex unless it's for having a child,  and to punish those that have sex for pleasure and don't want a child

[gmr548 16617]

And yet they're attacking IVF, and "morning after" pills,  which aren't actually killing a fetus. Why is that?  The reasoning is that they don't want sex unless it's for having a child,  and to punish those that have sex for pleasure and don't want a child

The reason is to subjugate women, specifically. They’re going after abortion, IUD, IVF, Plan B… AKA things that don’t involve men at all. It’s about ensuring women are second class citizens.

[SKJ 1311]

11 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

The reason is to subjugate women, specifically. They’re going after abortion, IUD, IVF, Plan B… AKA things that don’t involve men at all. It’s about ensuring women are second class citizens.

Or,  like had been already stated in the decision,  they want baby mills

[gmr548 16617]

3 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Or,  like had been already stated in the decision,  they want baby mills

One in the same. The gender pay gap has essentially ben eliminated... until a woman has kids. There's nothing that hamstrings a woman's socioeconomic mobility like having children. If you succeed in bringing women back to 1950, then the overton window moves and you can work on bringing women back to 1850.

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2852]

12 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

If I wanted to kill my 2 day old child and just bury it in my back yard because I didn't want it, I don't think that would fall under any "privacy" rights.  Why should 2 days before it's born be different?  or replace 2 days with 8 months...

If you are in the realm of privacy rights under the constitution, that's a terrible argument because the constitution protects persons who are born.  I'm okay with you popping off about moral arguments, but if we are talking about legal "rights" this is a terrible take.

Every privacy analysis would conclude that once the baby is born, there are no more privacy rights related to intimacy and reproduction. So in terms of privacy, one day before is very different than one day after.