The Supremes

[Bama Chick 28596]

More qualified to talk about being a teenage girl, yes. And he’s equally as qualified to talk about parenting one, which I assume neither of you have. 

I’ve been a teenage girl and I’m currently the parent of a teenage daughter.

He can fuck off.

[gmr548 16590]

26 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

For those of you that are dads of young women - a question:

If this plays out in Texas like it is in Louisiana, how are you going to support your daughter through any miscarriage hearings she may unfortunately have? Will you go to her trial? Will you help with any costs?

This is where we are heading. Miscarriages happen way more often than what’s discussed. They are being outlawed and any miscarriage will be reviewed.

This is why I can’t understand how anyone is a republicans or is even willing to just sit it out. These assholes are wanting to put women through hell for something that happens all the time. Medically, you can’t tell the difference between miscarriage in purpose or one that just happened.

Not a dad but at the age where if we decide to have a kid it is going to need to be in the next few years. It's definitely a reason we're looking to leave TX. The idea of navigating a pregnancy in a state so openly hostile to women, and the idea of raising any kid here with where the politics are going, but especially a daughter...

Pass.

[bonnieblue 542]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

You are a sad sad man. I hope you are able to heal the gaping void in your soul someday.

As the above so aptly demonstrates, some parents are bad people, and sometimes children of those bad people need the freedom to make decisions about their body/lives without notice or consent from those bad people.

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think most people have no idea how many pregnancies never come to term. It’s something people are reluctant to talk about. Religious conservatives want to declare that a microscopic speck of goo is a person when a significant percentage of them will never survive to childbirth. It’s a fact that if you don’t abort your fetus after six weeks then some of them will die anyway. I get it, Talibaptists, you think that’s okay because it’s “God’s will.” Grow up and get out of the Dark Ages. Please.

My ex-wife miscarried 3 times; it was a big contributor to our divorce.  The mental and emotional strain of going through this once was brutal; three times was unbearable.

If we'd have had to go to court each time to "prove her innocence", I'd might have gone on a murder spree.  All these right-wing cunts can go to hell. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

Speaking of unbearable.  You are one unbearable wretched cunt.  Cunt. 

[wildcat09 29359]

40 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

For those of you that are dads of young women - a question:

If this plays out in Texas like it is in Louisiana, how are you going to support your daughter through any miscarriage hearings she may unfortunately have? Will you go to her trial? Will you help with any costs?

This is where we are heading. Miscarriages happen way more often than what’s discussed. They are being outlawed and any miscarriage will be reviewed.

This is why I can’t understand how anyone is a republicans or is even willing to just sit it out. These assholes are wanting to put women through hell for something that happens all the time. Medically, you can’t tell the difference between miscarriage in purpose or one that just happened.

They assume it will probably never happen to them or anyone they know, and that if it does, the cops will magically know their wife/daughter/friend is a good person and won't investigate. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Speaking of unbearable.  You are one unbearable wretched cunt.  Cunt. 

That's not very nice.

[David Dennison 18940]

21 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

Yeah, but Dr. Rick has taught us that parents are fucking idiots.

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

That's not very nice.

It wasn't very nice but, sometimes, the truth isn't. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

21 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’ve been a teenage girl and I’m currently the parent of a teenage daughter.

He can fuck off.

And you are neither of the two he was being lectured by. And really, he can only half fuck off because he literally has as much to say raising a teen daughter as you do. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And you are neither of the two he was being lectured by. And really, he can only half fuck off because he literally has as much to say raising a teen daughter as you do. 

for someone who isn't religious, you sure do bow down like a bitch to all that is bat-shit-crazy Christian. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

It wasn't very nice but, sometimes, the truth isn't. 

You really do get to know someone well through message boards.

[workswithseed 2108]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

for someone who isn't religious, you sure do bow down like a bitch to all that is bat-shit-crazy Christian. 

Maybe it's because he can sympathize. I don't know about you, I will say sorry for your losses. That's terrible.

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

for someone who isn't religious, you sure do bow down like a bitch to all that is bat-shit-crazy Christian. 

Hows that?  

[Bama Chick 28596]

And you are neither of the two he was being lectured by. And really, he can only half fuck off because he literally has as much to say raising a teen daughter as you do. 

Jesus.

I bet your wife only listens to five percent of the blather that comes out of your mouth.

How about trying something new - let women have opinions about what happens to their bodies without feeling the need to bore everyone with your irrelevant opinion?

Give that a go. Shutting the fuck up is usually the best path for men who feel the need to spew their toxic “daddy knows best” horseshit.

[Anastasis 23480]

49 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Also hilarious that we're sitting here arguing about Spanish politics.

Relevant to this discussion in that the bill Shumer pushed forward would bar state laws requiring parental notification.

70% of Americans support parental notification when minors are involved.  Maybe conflating parental notification with rapist notification will be a persuasive argument to some of those people. Or maybe not.

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Jesus.

I bet your wife only listens to five percent of the blather that comes out of your mouth.

How about trying something new - let women have opinions about what happens to their bodies without feeling the need to bore everyone with your irrelevant opinion?

Give that a go. Shutting the fuck up is usually the best path for men who feel the need to spew their toxic “daddy knows best” horseshit.

You’re telling  a man @Anastasis that he doesn’t know shit about raising a teenage daughter, which he has. I invite you to shut the fuck up, with your toxic mommy knows best horseshit.  
 

Eta: don’t worry about how much my wife listens. We are able to stay married. You?

Edited May 12, 2022 by fattyflattie

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Maybe it's because he can sympathize. I don't know about you, I will say sorry for your losses. That's terrible.

Appreciate that but who is he sympathizing with?  Women whose lives are being destroyed by right wing puritans or the puritans who are destroying them?

[Poe It Up 126]

In the age of gender fluidity, we’re all teenage girls. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

You’re telling  a man [mention=179]Anastasis[/mention] that he doesn’t know shit about raising a teenage daughter, which he has. I invite you to shut the fuck up, with your toxic mommy knows best horseshit.  
 
Eta: don’t worry about how much my wife listens. We are able to stay married. You?

Nah I ditched my toxic husband.

Best wishes to your wife when she decides she’s had it with you.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19127]

23 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And you are neither of the two he was being lectured by. And really, he can only half fuck off because he literally has as much to say raising a teen daughter as you do. 

We were not lecturing.  Merely pointing out how flawed his argument is.  My mom, who was the mother to a teenage daughter, and a second mother to a lot of teenage girls 100% agrees with my take, FYI.  

[gmr548 16590]

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

Johnny Sack, trust fund baby of the people, ladies and gentlemen!

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

We were not lecturing.  Merely pointing out how flawed his argument is.  My mom, who was the mother to a teenage daughter, and a second mother to a lot of teenage girls 100% agrees with my take, FYI.  

I knew lecturing wasn’t the best word but I’m hungover and more brain dead than usual. I still think it lol funny to tell the father he doesn’t know shit. Could Ana make that same claim that she doesn’t know shit about her son?  That’s dumb af 

It’s the “you don’t understand NFL football, you’ve never played it” argument, but she’s making it with someone about his own child.  

Edited May 12, 2022 by fattyflattie

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Nah I ditched my toxic husband.

Best wishes to your wife when she decides she’s had it with you.

I bet. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19127]

53 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

I think the only person that is bitter is yourself.  I get the impression you don't like women very much, and it is very telling that when people call you on your bullshit, you revert to personal attacks.  It is ok, we don't like cunts like you either.

Edited May 12, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Keef 771]

What women need to do is invent a religion where abortion rights are an important tenant.  Because, as conservative america has taught me, as long as you say your opinion is derived from your religion (no matter how tenuous/unsupported your belief is in the actual religious texts), you can do whatever you want and skate a whole host of laws.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19127]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I knew lecturing wasn’t the best word but I’m hungover and more brain dead than usual. I still think it lol funny to tell the father he doesn’t know shit. Could Ana make that same claim that she doesn’t know shit about her son?  That’s dumb af 

I did not say he doesn't know shit.  I said that he is projecting his relationship on a lot larger population, and a lot of those girls are not going to have a relationship with a parent where they want them notified. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your take on what was being said and why is wrong.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19127]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Relevant to this discussion in that the bill Shumer pushed forward would bar state laws requiring parental notification.

70% of Americans support parental notification when minors are involved.  Maybe conflating parental notification with rapist notification will be a persuasive argument to some of those people. Or maybe not.

 

Schumer.  At least spell his name right.  

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

@Anastasis knows what it's like to raise his teenage daughter.  I know what it's like to raise two of them.  I don't know what it's like to raise his, or vice versa, although I'm sure there is substantial overlap, given our relatively similar economic backgrounds, schools, etc.  

I sure as shit don't know what it's like to be a single mom raising a teenage daughter, and hey, maybe that daughter is a mom herself, with everyone in low-income housing.

Snapshots aren't total perspective.  Some men struggle with that concept.

[lemonlime 5503]

What women need to do is invent a religion where abortion rights are an important tenant.  Because, as conservative america has taught me, as long as you say your opinion is derived from your religion (no matter how tenuous/unsupported your belief is in the actual religious texts), you can do whatever you want and skate a whole host of laws.

Nope. That only applies to white Christians. Conservative America has made it exceedingly clear that it will shit on people with other religious beliefs.

For that natter, the right to choose is a tenet of Judaism. Something the so called religious right has completely ignored for decades.

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Nope. That only applies to white Christians. Conservative America has made it exceedingly clear that it will shit on people with other religious beliefs.

For that natter, the right to choose is a tenet of Judaism. Something the so called religious right has completely ignored for decades.

This is correct.  Hell, if we could get "Christians" to follow the teachings and tenets of their own fucking Bible, we'd have the battle won.

[fattyflattie 4639]

11 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I did not say he doesn't know shit.

I know. 
 

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

I’ve been a teenage girl and I’m currently the parent of a teenage daughter.

He can fuck off.

 

[DDD Dad 14346]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

This sort of judgmental commentary is rich coming from you.

[DDD Dad 14346]

48 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You’re telling  a man @Anastasis that he doesn’t know shit about raising a teenage daughter, which he has. I invite you to shut the fuck up, with your toxic mommy knows best horseshit.  
 

Eta: don’t worry about how much my wife listens. We are able to stay married. You?

[DDD Dad 14346]

So...back to the topic of the thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/supreme-court-leak-roe-wade.html

Quote

A Leaky Supreme Court Starts to Resemble the Other Branches

The disclosure of a draft opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade, legal experts said, was evidence that the court is not much different from other Washington institutions.

By Adam Liptak

May 11, 2022

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court used to be a magisterial temple of silence, capable of guarding its secrets until it was ready to disclose them. It leaked less than intelligence agencies, old hands in Washington would say, in a tone of awe and envy.

Members of the court, too, took pride in running a very tight ship.

“Those who know don’t talk,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to say. “And those who talk don’t know.”

Now, as the court appears to be on the cusp of eliminating the constitutional right to abortion, it looks sparsely different from the other branches: Rival factions leak and spin sensitive information in the hope of gaining political advantage, at the cost of intense scrutiny of internal operations and questions about whether its decisions are the product of reason or power.

“The court is now no better than the other institutions of government,” said Sherry F. Colb, a law professor at Cornell.

 

 

The bare-knuckled partisan fights over recent Supreme Court confirmations appear to have followed the justices to their chambers. The disclosure of a draft opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade, along with related reports of the court’s internal workings, has transformed a decorous and guarded institution into one riven by politics.

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University, said the developments could only damage the court’s stature.

“The series of leaks violates the omertà that traditionally has shrouded the court’s deliberations,” she said. “To the public, this not only looks like the kind of maneuvering that we’ve come to expect from politicians, it also strips the court of the mystique it has generally enjoyed.”

The justices are scheduled to meet in a private conference Thursday morning, their first meeting since Politico published a draft opinion last week that would overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

As at all such conferences, no one else is allowed to enter the room. The idea is to do everything possible to shield the privacy of the justices’ deliberations.

 

That idea has been undermined by a series of disclosures that appear to be happening in almost real time.

They started in a carefully couched and conditional but nonetheless knowing editorial on April 26 in The Wall Street Journal. It expressed concern that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was trying to persuade Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to join him in upholding a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks but to stop short of overruling Roe outright.

“Our guess,” the editorial said, was that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. would be assigned the majority opinion if the chief justice did not gain an ally. Good guess.

The Politico bombshell followed six days later. In addition to posting the draft opinion, which was dated Feb. 10, Politico reported that five members of the court — Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — had voted to overturn Roe shortly after the challenge to it was argued in December.

“That lineup remains unchanged as of this week,” Politico reported last week. On Wednesday, it provided an update: “None of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes.”

 

 

Times

 

Politico added that Justice Alito has not circulated a revised version of his draft and that no other justice has circulated a concurring or dissenting opinion.

 

The court issued an unusual statement the day after the disclosure of the draft opinion.

“Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the court’s confidential deliberative work,” the statement said. “Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

The court’s deliberations mostly happen in writing, through the exchange and refinement of succeeding drafts of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. If that process breaks down, the quality of the court’s work can only fall.

“The justices are supposed to reason to outcomes together and defend positions in writing on the assumption that minds can change and logic can be refined in the process,” said Allison Orr Larsen, a law professor at William & Mary.

“That special brand of collective decision making requires internal trust — trust to change one’s mind, trust to adopt and circulate tentative conclusions and trust that your colleagues are genuinely engaging with you,” she said. “There is no doubt in my mind that this trust has taken a serious and damaging blow over the past week.”

The fact of the leak is less important, of course, than what the court will ultimately do in the coming weeks.

“The legal world — judges, law professors, lawyers, other court watchers — are fascinated and disturbed by the leak of the draft opinion and subsequent revelations,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Alabama. “But I think the general public is likely to care far more about what the court actually decides.”

Those two things are hard to disentangle, though, in thinking about the future of the court.

“To leak an entire opinion is to act as if norms and rules no longer matter,” Professor Colb said. “Outcomes are everything, precedent be damned. In a way, leaking a confidential document is a perfect metaphor for the court’s disregard for privacy.”

 

Professor Grove said the disclosures will diminish the court’s standing and its ability to function.

“The leak poses a long-term legitimacy problem, even with respect to the general public,” she said. “Deliberation among the justices is one of the most important parts of the Supreme Court’s work.”

She added: “To the extent that this leak undermines that deliberative process — by making the justices less inclined to have that exchange, share drafts, etc. — that could lead, in the long run, to less careful and perhaps less moderate decision making at the court.”

The court has long benefited from a sense of mystery, Professor Murray said, recalling a remark from Walter Bagehot, the Victorian political essayist, about the British monarchy.

“We must not let in daylight upon magic,” Bagehot said.

The court has in the past weeks been flooded by daylight, making it look disturbingly ordinary.

 

[F250 28802]

God damn, this thread. 

[Brisketexan 105177]

God damn, this thread. 

This is America, 2022….that ship sailed long ago…and then got blown the fuck up like a Russian flagship. Cruelty, pain, control, and liberal tears are the only currency we trade in now.
Psychopathic moose out front shoulda told ya.

[Bama Chick 28596]

What women need to do is invent a religion where abortion rights are an important tenant.  Because, as conservative america has taught me, as long as you say your opinion is derived from your religion (no matter how tenuous/unsupported your belief is in the actual religious texts), you can do whatever you want and skate a whole host of laws.

Can I introduce you to Judaism?

[pyrohornIII 4817]

So a 16 yo can be tried for murder as an adult, but can't make a decision about having an abortion without parental involvement?    

Yeah, it's not about helping the kid make a hard decision, it's about controlling them.   This whole argument about parents and parenting hinges on everyone's individual definition of parenting.  I know mine is much different than the one held by the parents who raised me.  

[wildcat09 29359]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Can I introduce you to Judaism?

Christians are about to start acting like they've never heard the phrase "Judeo-Christian" in their lives. Sam Alito will end up writing a 5-4 opinion that Judaism is more an ethnicity than a religion so Jews can't avail themselves of the protections against religious discrimination. The opinion will also include a paragraph speculating that Jews are behind the great replacement/white genocide conspiracy.

Edited May 12, 2022 by wildcat09

[RomaVicta 29948]

18 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

It goes well beyond Roe and Casey.  You may like that.  But you don't get to pretend it does not.  It was stupid political move.  The smart move would be to advance a bill that codified Roe and Casey.

Now the GOP gets to run ads that every democrat in Congress besides Cuellar and Manchin just voted for a bill that would preclude the parental notification and consent laws that 36 states have.  Those type of laws are largely very popular among voters.

So were slavery laws in many states. You keep coming back to Rasmussen polls or general statements about popularity. You also often argue about the political stupidity of moves that may cost a politician votes. In short, it's the politics as football yay team! level of concern. Political decisions and positions are akin to the NFL draft. You want your team to get the best players even if you have to clear out Death Row to get them.

Parental notification and consent laws are oppressive tricks to get around Roe v Wade not augment it. They're the lynch mob's toe in the doorway that currently blocks them from raining hate and cruelty on women with unwanted pregnancy. The zombies want into the doctor's office where they can eat or at least imprison a pregnant woman and her doctor from deciding what they want to do.

It's the shameless mob pouring shame on the vulnerable, the few in number, and anyone siding with either. "We out number you, so we can do what we want! We want to excerise our inalienable right to demonize fellow citizens. That leads to tyranny over them. That leads to a nice sweet hit on the good stuff: cruelty.

I won't ever be for jailing women or medical professionals for abortion decisions. I don't care when it occurs. I might find the extremely rare case of a late term abortion revolting, but jail is not the answer. Law enforcement is not the answer. Try persuasion. Try offering alternatives. Try compassion. Accept that tolerance is a key foundation stone for our crumbling republic.

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

22 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

For the pro choice people on this thread, is there any point during pregnancy where you think the state has the right to prohibit abortions not otherwise necessary to save the mother from death or serious risk of injury or do you support no restrictions up until birth?

Can you list all the states where it is currently legal for a healthy woman to electively abort a healthy fetus that would be viable outside the womb?

[RomaVicta 29948]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Especially from the bitter childless single women on this thread.  They have mainstream views and really have their finger on the pulse of what parents think.

Negged for unsupported characterization and acute chronic irony-deafness.

[sidis 9832]

classic sidis longcat bullshit incoming...the preceding pages are a great case study in the anatomy of why some of these discussions devolve so badly both here in the cloak room message board environment and in the national dialogue...as well as why the abortion issue is such a prickly, difficult one for our society to navigate in the political sphere.

the jumping off point was a discussion of the details in schumer's bill.  right there, you have to determine the framework in which you are discussing the proposed law...in a political and practical sense for its potential political weaponry...or from a what you want to achieve as an actual law.  both are worth considering because political operative motivations are now squarely in play as the democrats are trying to figure out how to use the ussc's (terrible in my opinion) decision to their advantage in stemming the likelihood of something that has historically been inevitable...a changing of the house majority in the first midterm of a president who is themselves a change from the preceding president's party.  happens every single time but the democrats think they may be able to defeat that if they play this correctly.

however, if you put that to the side and focus on a practical perspective of getting something done and voted on with any chance to be popular...the details matter.  a single detail of parental notification was flagged as a political issue that will have huge potential influence over the proposed bill's favorability...parental notification.  anastasis proffered his opinion - inherently informed by his experience and perspective - that the outlawing of parental notification requirements by the states would likely undermine its favorability among a number of less motivated, moderate perspective voters "in the middle."  he's not wrong about that and it is not a particularly controversial opinion regardless of the underlying merit of the notification debate.  as a side note, before i get accused of constantly being an anastasis apologist, i don't deny that i believe anastasis is generally a very good poster on this site (particularly in food board) and is the type of conservative voice that is helpful in a dialogue to understand other disagreeing perspectives and where bridges/compromises can be made.  i have seen him take things more interpersonally over the last few years which has unfortunately impacted his posting a lot...and i seriously have no idea wtf the deal is with his constant and inexplicable russia apologist/interference shit that is just plain weird and seems alternatively motivated...but i'd much rather get his perspective and debate merits with someone that i disagree with like him than with worthless voices like trevor the simpleton or just plain, terrible people like you know who. 

however, his post, which simply expressed the POLITICAL reality of the prospects and general favorability of the proposed law (which is impactful to both is usefulness as a political weapon in the midterms as well as any actual chance of getting passed) was immediately seized upon by many as him expressing that notification categorically was the only moral outcome possible which was breathing more into it than was there.  that then unfailrly devolves into the merit of his right to express that projected opinion (which wasn't even the point that was being made) given life station/experience, which then brought the shitposters posting mysoginistic troll crap, which then brought out the worst in other posters here to the point where people are making hostile posts about each other's failed marriages and personal relationships.  it is completely understandable to me that, especially in this moment, some women would feel like men should have very little to offer on the topic unless they are an outright ally to their beliefs.  and i am pretty tired of hearing men's voices (other than my own solipsism) on the issue but there is a political reality at play here and in order to get anything done in a political sphere, popularity and favorability are legitimate concerns.  that can be discussed and even debated without it devolving into flinging shit.

for what it's worth (not much) on the topic of notification, i personally believe that the parental notification issue probably has a best outcome that is somewhere in the middle of the extreme binary choice.  i don't believe that it should be required in all cases of "minors" as there are lot, lot of individualized factual inquiries there (that one goes out to your class action lawyers) and i have experienced some of them with friends i helped in high school where notification is not just unnecessary, but preferred.  parental notification in some cases can be outright dangerous for those involved.  that said, i think as the age goes down (probably below 15 from my perspective), there are likely other factors at play that make it more complicated.  also, if it is a serial action for a minor, that may be a consideration as well.  but my own experience and listening to others as well certainly makes me realize that notification (despite having two daughters myself) is not categorically correct one way or the other.  but at the end of the day, that doesn't negate that outright outlawing it won't have an impact on the bill's popularity...and thus, its prospect of success as either codifying federal rights...or as political opportunism.

this post is too long so fuck me.

[workswithseed 2108]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Appreciate that but who is he sympathizing with?  Women whose lives are being destroyed by right wing puritans or the puritans who are destroying them?

In this case, parents and thier responsibility for children. Parents should know what's going on with thier children. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to know as you are thier caretaker. 

[wildcat09 29359]

6 minutes ago, sidis said:

classic sidis longcat bullshit incoming...the preceding pages are a great case study in the anatomy of why some of these discussions devolve so badly both here in the cloak room message board environment and in the national dialogue...as well as why the abortion issue is such a prickly, difficult one for our society to navigate in the political sphere.

the jumping off point was a discussion of the details in schumer's bill.  right there, you have to determine the framework in which you are discussing the proposed law...in a political and practical sense for its potential political weaponry...or from a what you want to achieve as an actual law.  both are worth considering because political operative motivations are now squarely in play as the democrats are trying to figure out how to use the ussc's (terrible in my opinion) decision to their advantage in stemming the likelihood of something that has historically been inevitable...a changing of the house majority in the first midterm of a president who is themselves a change from the preceding president's party.  happens every single time but the democrats think they may be able to defeat that if they play this correctly.

however, if you put that to the side and focus on a practical perspective of getting something done and voted on with any chance to be popular...the details matter.  a single detail of parental notification was flagged as a political issue that will have huge potential influence over the proposed bill's favorability...parental notification.  anastasis proffered his opinion - inherently informed by his experience and perspective - that the outlawing of parental notification requirements by the states would likely undermine its favorability among a number of less motivated, moderate perspective voters "in the middle."  he's not wrong about that and it is not a particularly controversial opinion regardless of the underlying merit of the notification debate.  as a side note, before i get accused of constantly being an anastasis apologist, i don't deny that i believe anastasis is generally a very good poster on this site (particularly in food board) and is the type of conservative voice that is helpful in a dialogue to understand other disagreeing perspectives and where bridges/compromises can be made.  i have seen him take things more interpersonally over the last few years which has unfortunately impacted his posting a lot...and i seriously have no idea wtf the deal is with his constant and inexplicable russia apologist/interference shit that is just plain weird and seems alternatively motivated...but i'd much rather get his perspective and debate merits with someone that i disagree with like him than with worthless voices like trevor the simpleton or just plain, terrible people like you know who. 

however, his post, which simply expressed the POLITICAL reality of the prospects and general favorability of the proposed law (which is impactful to both is usefulness as a political weapon in the midterms as well as any actual chance of getting passed) was immediately seized upon by many as him expressing that notification categorically was the only moral outcome possible which was breathing more into it than was there.  that then unfailrly devolves into the merit of his right to express that projected opinion (which wasn't even the point that was being made) given life station/experience, which then brought the shitposters posting mysoginistic troll crap, which then brought out the worst in other posters here to the point where people are making hostile posts about each other's failed marriages and personal relationships.  it is completely understandable to me that, especially in this moment, some women would feel like men should have very little to offer on the topic unless they are an outright ally to their beliefs.  and i am pretty tired of hearing men's voices (other than my own solipsism) on the issue but there is a political reality at play here and in order to get anything done in a political sphere, popularity and favorability are legitimate concerns.  that can be discussed and even debated without it devolving into flinging shit.

for what it's worth (not much) on the topic of notification, i personally believe that the parental notification issue probably has a best outcome that is somewhere in the middle of the extreme binary choice.  i don't believe that it should be required in all cases of "minors" as there are lot, lot of individualized factual inquiries there (that one goes out to your class action lawyers) and i have experienced some of them with friends i helped in high school where notification is not just unnecessary, but preferred.  parental notification in some cases can be outright dangerous for those involved.  that said, i think as the age goes down (probably below 15 from my perspective), there are likely other factors at play that make it more complicated.  also, if it is a serial action for a minor, that may be a consideration as well.  but my own experience and listening to others as well certainly makes me realize that notification (despite having two daughters myself) is not categorically correct one way or the other.  but at the end of the day, that doesn't negate that outright outlawing it won't have an impact on the bill's popularity...and thus, its prospect of success as either codifying federal rights...or as political opportunism.

this post is too long so fuck me.

This is a good post and the type of critique that could be fairly leveled at like 99% of internet discourse, but Ana has a history of trolling when it comes to abortion debates here so I think the not-quite-on-point reactions are understandable. 

[royiv 9332]

7 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

In this case, parents and thier responsibility for children. Parents should know what's going on with thier children. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to know as you are thier caretaker. 

You misspelled "their" not once, but three times in a three sentence post. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Can you list all the states where it is currently legal for a healthy woman to electively abort a healthy fetus that would be viable outside the womb?

Oregon, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Alaska, and Colorado.

Plenty of others have de facto abortion on demand up until birth.  Just go to a doctor (or nurse practitioner in many states through things) and claim emotional distress.  In many states you can do this through telemedicine with a doctor or nurse practitioner you've never even seen.  Similar to getting a prescription for medical marijuana -- just check the box and collect your prescription.

So that would be states that allow post-viability abortions for "health" instead of those that limit the exception for "physical health" or "life".  These states include New York, California, AZ, CT, DE, Hawaii, IL, Maine, MD, MA, Minnesota, Nevada, VA, and Washington.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[CooterBrown 18015]

I think most people have no idea how many pregnancies never come to term. It’s something people are reluctant to talk about. Religious conservatives want to declare that a microscopic speck of goo is a person when a significant percentage of them will never survive to childbirth. It’s a fact that if you don’t abort your fetus after six weeks then some of them will die anyway. I get it, Talibaptists, you think that’s okay because it’s “God’s will.” Grow up and get out of the Dark Ages. Please.

10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. It’s estimated almost 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

There is no way many doctors will refuse care for a woman who miscarries.  It's just completely counter to their oath and their ethical standards.

The simulation has entered a positive feedback loop.  It's stunning.  I have hope that the courts won't uphold such a bizarre and primitive law, but hope fucks me over often these days.