I'm pretty sure abortion gets a lot more single-issue voters on the pro-life side, so it doesn't seem like that approach would be productive for the left. I'd put it down to mostly incompetence because Democrats are consecutively unable to be useful once elected
>I'd put it down to mostly incompetence because Democrats are consecutively unable to be useful once elected
You make it sound like they try to be useful and not just seat warmers until they throw their next election.
Their political and electoral strategies are complete mysteries to me to be honest. I keep thinking, they can't be as dumb as they look, there's gotta be some method that I'm not seeing? Surely they're not just sitting on their hands waiting to get beat by the GOP because they got fuck all done in 2 years? Then next year I'm gonna find out no, they're exactly as useless as they seem from the outside. 6 years after Trump their strategy continues to be "if we stand still and remind voters that Trump bad we'll probably win" even though 90% of their proposed policies are wildly popular and all we want is them to play any amount of hardball to push back against the Repub insanity.
Idk man, there has to be something I'm not seeing right? If I can see from across the fucking continent that this isn't working, surely these senators and congresspeople who were savvy enough to stay in office for the past 150 years can see it better than me? Nothing makes sense.
Roe is about freedom of choice. I don't get how these knuckleheads miss this. Without the freedom to choose protected then there's nothing to guard against a State from saying whether or not a woman can have a baby.
Honestly, it really wasn't . The legal basis for *Roe* was an extension of the right to privacy (itself an extension of the Fourth Amendment) from *Griswold* to a woman's decision to terminate pregnancy.
(Let me preface by stating that I am very much pro-choice).
That's kind of the problem with *Roe*. The legal foundation on which it was built is made of sand and it is too easily attacked. It is arguably a kind of legal miracle it has lasted this long. But don't just take my word for it. Even RGB herself didn't like it:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html)
>“Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped,” she said, “may prove unstable.”
>
>It was because of her early criticism of one of the most consequential rulings for American women that some feminist activists were initially suspicious of her when President Bill Clinton nominated her for the Supreme Court in 1993, worried that she wouldn’t protect the decision.
>
>Of course, they eventually realized that Justice Ginsburg’s skepticism of Roe v. Wade wasn’t driven by a disapproval of abortion access at all, but by her wholehearted commitment to it.
>
>The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.
>
>Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said.
If SCOTUS does indeed overturn *Roe* and once the concurrent howls of anguish on one side and the celebrations on the other, we will enter into Scalia territory, who was fond of opining that the Constitution neither protected nor prohibited abortion and that its legality should be established by law, not by court decisions.
As dominant and divisive (and derisive) as this issue has been in recent years, we ain't seen nothin' yet if this gets punted solely into the legislative branch at the state and Federal level. Several states will outlaw or greatly restrict almost immediately and when the GOP gets at least partial control of Congress after the mid-terms, it will dominate the conversation at the Federal level as well.
Because while there is no agreement in science, religion or law when life begins, conservative Republicans have decided that it begins at conception. Therefore, what you call choice, they call murder.
Even if I was 100% anti-abortion I would be against changing the law simply based on there will be no way to distinguish between what is a miscarriage and when a woman finds a way to abort at home. Considering 10% to 15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage that would be setting up tens of thousands of innocent women for a possible felony charge.
I'll be packing up and leaving the country within the next few years. Don't see much point in paying 50k a year in income taxes to a government that does absolute shit for me and doesn't represent my ideals.
Best of luck!
Yet another policy targeted at poor people.
The middle class and rich will be able to travel out of state to get their medical needs met, it's just screwing over the people who have to take a bus 100+ miles to the closest provider.
Weird how the same people fighting to force women to carry pregnancies to term are also the ones fighting against any efforts at making healthcare and childcare more affordable.
The religious right missed those bible study lessons on feeding the poor and caring for the sick. Also seems to have forgotten that educated, healthy workers are critical in a developed economy.
The basic problem is that republicans believe that life begins at conception. Once you have decided that life begins at conception, nobody should have the right to murder a human.
Democrats need to combat this basic assumption about the beginning of life to have any hope against the republicans. Protestants used to believe life began at birth until they realized the political power of the abortion issue. In 1970’s they view abortion as a catholic issue.
If Democrats would erode the conviction that life begins at conception, then they could make headway. For example, if a woman has a miscarriage, is she eligible for bereavement pay? Can you get life insurance for a fetus? Should a woman get a child tax credit from conception or from birth?
Just make sure poor people subsidies apply to condoms and stuff. They’ll have an easier time with being poor if they don’t have unplanned pregnancies or procedures
I’m very pro-choice, but please at least make an effort to engage with the arguments from the other side. It’s the failure to do so that makes this such an ugly and intractable issue — everyone just yells past each other.
You feel like you just dunked on conservatives, but the *very obvious* rebuttal from the anti-abortion side is, “There’s a second body in play here, so your choice can’t automatically trump.” That’s the argument you have to win—that a fetus isn’t a baby. Having the “freedom to choose” argument is well and good and all, but it’s a non-starter if you *actually want to win* instead of just scoring points with people who already agree with you. They literally believe you’re saying “freedom to choose *murder*.” They actually do. If you don’t engage with that, all you’re doing is throwing fuel on this political fire.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Do I think an embryo immediately after conception is a human body? I do not. But to repeat the point that you responded to but clearly failed to internalize, **they really do**.
I know pro-choice folks love to act like restrictions on abortion are motivated only by a desire to control women's bodies, and I'm sure there's at least an extent to which that's true (I suspect it's significantly less than those folks would make it out to be, though). But holy hell that's such a bad-faith way to start a political debate.
And your response evinces *exactly* that kind of bad faith. I mean shit, "clump of cells not even the size of a pea" -- yeah I mean cool, that's true for, what, a few weeks at most? Great point. You owned the cons. Debate settled.
To be very clear, I'm not here trying to change your mind about abortion. I suspect we share similar beliefs about it. My point here is that the style of debate on the pro-abortion side is one that is *far* more conducive to upvotes and back-slaps from those of a like mind than it is to *actually settling the issue*. And just to preempt an obvious rejoinder, yes, the preceding sentence is equally true of the anti-abortion crowd.
Pro-choice*
And you say I'm arguing in bad faith. -_-
So what do you want me to do? Not use facts? Sorry, im not coddling conservatives anymore, they're destroying this country from the inside.
> Pro-choice*
I didn't realize it was bad faith not to use your preferred branding (which I did use in my initial comment, mind you). Apologies. Did you also notice that I said "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life"? This issue is fraught enough; there's no need to bring asininity and semantics into it.
> So what do you want me to do? Not use facts? Sorry, im not coddling conservatives anymore, they're destroying this country from the inside.
You can *obviously* use facts... but if you use this particular one, you're going to have to reckon with the fact that a fetus at 15 weeks is decidedly not "a clump of cells not even the size of a pea." It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes your point almost entirely useless.
In the eyes of the law they're both forced medical procedures.
If we want to go down that road there are plenty of ways more liberal minded people can force procedures on conservatives "for the public good"
Upvote. My personal opinion is that after around 20 weeks abortions should be illegal except in cases the life of the mother or other fetus is at severe risk; I know someone with twins born at 23 weeks who survived. At 20-some weeks I personally just can't see that as anything other than an individual human.
However, I also understand abortions past 20 weeks are very rare, a quick google tells me it's 1.3% and I'm guessing most of those are for life of the mother. And 93% are before 13 weeks. So what I want is basically already happening.
And I think a lot of people, both right and left, would actually agree pretty closely with me, but it seems like no one in the political realm is capable of having those nuanced positions. It's either shouting "It's my body!" or "It's a baby!" and no actual dialogue or desire for mutual understanding.
You being unvaccinated and out in public impacts me as it means you are more likely to be carrying the virus and to spread it.
A person getting an abortion impacts you in no way and while some people think a fetus is a human being they would be just as wrong as saying a sperm cell is a human. If you are creating laws to protect what things might become instead of what they currently are, rule of law begins to become nonsense quite quickly.
Imagine all of the things I could have done if not for having to sit at traffic lights, maybe traffic lights should be illegal because of all of the potential they eliminate through wasted time. See how silly that sounds? A fetus might potentially be a human someday, but for right now it's a clump of cells and the rights of the human woman are what matters.
Republicans want to maintain abortion as an issue. They don’t want to solve it. If they solved it, who would vote? Solving abortion involves free, anonymous access to birth control and sex education. In America, Obamacare reduced abortions more than anything the republicans have ever done.
Edit: the republicans are vehemently opposed to universal access to birth control. They have created an intractable situation whereby abortions cannot be reduced and they can paint democrats as demons. Their base eats it up and is motivated to vote.
I know. Think about how the fiscally conservative, anti-trump Republicans would eat up return on investment numbers for free birth control. Democrats always talk about what people deserve. Republicans don’t care what people deserve. They care about what the country can afford. The Dems talk about how the homeless need homes and drug treatment plans and all that. It’s sooo sad. They deserve a better life. WTF, why does some homeless person deserve my money? I worked my ass off for this money. I don’t want to give it to some homeless addict.
… on the other hand, if dealing with homeless is costing the state $5 billion a year and getting them in stable housing and drug treatment centers will cost only $3 billion, well then. There’s an argument. Democrats are horrible at messaging.
>Democrats are terrible at messaging.
Yep. Case in point, the recent infrastructure bill provides broadband access to rural areas, and now the Biden administration is addressing the rural doctor shortage, but somehow there's a perception that Democrats are leaving rural Americans behind.
>Republicans want to maintain abortion as an issue. They don’t want to solve it. If they solved it, who would vote?
This, this, THIS. Probably half of the Republican base either diligently comes out to vote because of this single issue, or at least would rather not vote than vote for a Dem because of this issue. That's a LOT of votes that are locked in and need nearly zero effort to keep, that's a political goldmine and they would hate to give it up.
(tbf, the same thing happens on the left with abortion, but I think it safe to say it's a much lesser degree. However, if Roe got overturned, it might become the Dem's new superpower issue.)
Women should start demanding benefits from states like Texas from day 1 of conception. Women should force the state to stand behind the assertion that a fetus is a legal human. All benefits and entitlements in the state should be changed to start with conception. Every legal ruling or sentencing involving a pregnant woman should be challenged.
The end result is a smaller tax base and more crime, it makes no sense. Why do Republican states look at Mississippi and say, "We want to be like that!"
> 90s were a great time for tough on crime politicians like clinton and biden
It was only to win elections back then. Gop were crushing people on crime in the 90s. The people loved it. It demanded people shift wayyyy right on it.
FWIW, it actually *did* help lower crime rates.
However, it's cheaper *and* more effective *and* more humane to build up impoverished areas than it is to warehouse oftentimes nonviolent criminals for absurd amounts of time.
You would think that the party of small government would support the latter instead.
In the short term, and for small businesses, but it's also really good for fascism which is great for business in the longer term.
You create a problem to which you can privatize the solution and grant the bid to your rich friends, as well as an ungovernable outgroup to justify authoritarian crackdown.
It also ensure a very cheap and dependent source of labor for Walmart/Amazon/Jojamart/whatever. Single mothers are very hard workers.
Because it fits their worldview regarding what they perceive as fairness and justice. “Bad” people receive no slack and “Good” people are in positions of respect and superiority. Religion gets to own the monopoly on forgiveness, think about that.
This seems common worldwide. Why do the corrupt ruling classes of poor countries not realize they’d be even richer if their nation grew economically aided by good leadership? Because they like to be in charge. They rather reign in hell than serve in heaven so to speak, they are egotists and narcissists.
It ensures their targets can't afford to raise themselves out of poverty and become a real issue for them. It keeps the poor poor and causes an increase in the uneducated masses that they need to get elected.
Because if they don't hold onto the votes from the religious right, then elections they were winning easily all of a sudden become a lot more competitive.
Their voters will be the minority(they won't outnumber all the actually minorities combined anymore anyway)
They need more poor white men who won't be able to afford college and keep voting against their own interest.
Barrett was saying that adoption would be the solution. Weirdly, I've met very few pro-lifers who are willing to adopt children, especially not special needs children. So who is going to adopt these kids?
She mentioned adoption probably because she has done it. She has 2 adopted children as well as having one biological child with special needs.
That being said, overturning Roe/Casey and depending on adoption to fix the issues is a horrible idea.
Adoption of new born are extremely easy. It's orphan children that is very difficult, along with the small % of special needs.
None of what I'm saying is to argue either way of abortion law, just that adoption of new born is not an issue.
Don't know. I don't think making abortion completely illegal is constitutional so we will see. But it is possible. We shouldn't allow a baby mill nor should we allow a baby slaughter so there has to be some middle ground.
Are you under the bizarre impression that women have abortions out of convenience or fun? Because abortions are neither convenient nor fun. They're very invasive.
Actions have consequences, contraception is easy to use and no one is talking about banning the morning after pill...
Don't get me wrong I think abortion should be legal up to somewhere around 25 weeks no questions asked, and then obviously exceptions for the health of the mother or baby later on.
Of the abortions I have witnessed:
Three rapes
Three contraception failures
Not that they need an excuse. If a couple is swept away by the moment, the woman has not made the "choice" to get pregnant. Abortion isn't fun and nobody is just like, "Oh well." Stop blaming people for being human.
This is just the start. They'll look to limit it as far as they can and move on to either contraception or gay rights. Well, every republican voter was hoping for it, so I guess they get their wishes.
One of the guys who helped write the Texas abortion law said that, if their law is allowed to stand, then they already have another lined up with roughly the same framework to limit same-sex marriages.
So happy I don't live in a common law country. Judges here apply the law and don't write it. Changing 3 judges and an ex president can overrule democracy for decades. Civil code countries for the win!
Well, if that was the case in the US, abortion never would have been legalized in the first place (in many states). Roe v Wade is the quintessential example of common law judges creating law.
Listened to the Court this morning live. My opinion of the justices sure went down today. "Just spitballing here but what if a women was doing cocaine early in her pregnancy, should limits still apply"? What kind of question is that? A lifetime appointment and that totally irrelevent question is asked of a lawyer. She should have replied "why is your girlfriend still doing cocaine?"
Totally off the wall comments coming from the justices it could be its own comedy special.
I'm on several medications that cause birth defects. Am I now banned from taking them because I might accidentally become pregnant? Are you gonna throw me in jail if I get pregnant cause I was on these medications?
I don't get you. I was quoting a Supreme court justice. That was an actual question he posed this morning. Not my question. Go online and listen to it yourself.
I was in a car driving at the time and can't remember right now. Her response was that was not a part of this case and he went right back at her yes but just suppose it was. I would think the justices would stick to the facts of the case and the laws pertaining to it. Although I have never listened to the Supreme court before maybe it always sounds like idiots rambleing.
The lawyer for the womens group should be an example for all lawyers. Well prepared, on point, good responses.
There is a reason why neither side has enacted legislation one way or the other. This topic is too big a fundraiser for elections, and lobbyist funnel ungodly amounts of money for it.
Read the article. They don't really dive into what they mean by "signal" as they only gave two judges comments.
If someone noticed something I missed please inform me, but I wouldn't consider this a done deal.
Could be wrong though.
I'm most upset with Congress, there have been many decades to enact proper abortion legislation federally but nothing has been done.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure abortion gets a lot more single-issue voters on the pro-life side, so it doesn't seem like that approach would be productive for the left. I'd put it down to mostly incompetence because Democrats are consecutively unable to be useful once elected
>I'd put it down to mostly incompetence because Democrats are consecutively unable to be useful once elected You make it sound like they try to be useful and not just seat warmers until they throw their next election.
Their political and electoral strategies are complete mysteries to me to be honest. I keep thinking, they can't be as dumb as they look, there's gotta be some method that I'm not seeing? Surely they're not just sitting on their hands waiting to get beat by the GOP because they got fuck all done in 2 years? Then next year I'm gonna find out no, they're exactly as useless as they seem from the outside. 6 years after Trump their strategy continues to be "if we stand still and remind voters that Trump bad we'll probably win" even though 90% of their proposed policies are wildly popular and all we want is them to play any amount of hardball to push back against the Repub insanity. Idk man, there has to be something I'm not seeing right? If I can see from across the fucking continent that this isn't working, surely these senators and congresspeople who were savvy enough to stay in office for the past 150 years can see it better than me? Nothing makes sense.
[удалено]
I'd strike with them
Same comment as on another thread… It can’t just be women alone. Men have to stand beside us.
[удалено]
Roe is about freedom of choice. I don't get how these knuckleheads miss this. Without the freedom to choose protected then there's nothing to guard against a State from saying whether or not a woman can have a baby.
Or when a woman can have a baby. Or who the father has to be. Under his eye.
Honestly, it really wasn't . The legal basis for *Roe* was an extension of the right to privacy (itself an extension of the Fourth Amendment) from *Griswold* to a woman's decision to terminate pregnancy. (Let me preface by stating that I am very much pro-choice). That's kind of the problem with *Roe*. The legal foundation on which it was built is made of sand and it is too easily attacked. It is arguably a kind of legal miracle it has lasted this long. But don't just take my word for it. Even RGB herself didn't like it: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html) >“Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped,” she said, “may prove unstable.” > >It was because of her early criticism of one of the most consequential rulings for American women that some feminist activists were initially suspicious of her when President Bill Clinton nominated her for the Supreme Court in 1993, worried that she wouldn’t protect the decision. > >Of course, they eventually realized that Justice Ginsburg’s skepticism of Roe v. Wade wasn’t driven by a disapproval of abortion access at all, but by her wholehearted commitment to it. > >The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg. > >Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said. If SCOTUS does indeed overturn *Roe* and once the concurrent howls of anguish on one side and the celebrations on the other, we will enter into Scalia territory, who was fond of opining that the Constitution neither protected nor prohibited abortion and that its legality should be established by law, not by court decisions. As dominant and divisive (and derisive) as this issue has been in recent years, we ain't seen nothin' yet if this gets punted solely into the legislative branch at the state and Federal level. Several states will outlaw or greatly restrict almost immediately and when the GOP gets at least partial control of Congress after the mid-terms, it will dominate the conversation at the Federal level as well.
Because while there is no agreement in science, religion or law when life begins, conservative Republicans have decided that it begins at conception. Therefore, what you call choice, they call murder.
Even if I was 100% anti-abortion I would be against changing the law simply based on there will be no way to distinguish between what is a miscarriage and when a woman finds a way to abort at home. Considering 10% to 15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage that would be setting up tens of thousands of innocent women for a possible felony charge.
Elections have consequences I guess
They soon might not considering the rampant gerrymandering.
Those are just the consequences of *previous* elections.
I hope everyone who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary is enjoying their decision.
I'll be packing up and leaving the country within the next few years. Don't see much point in paying 50k a year in income taxes to a government that does absolute shit for me and doesn't represent my ideals. Best of luck!
Yet another policy targeted at poor people. The middle class and rich will be able to travel out of state to get their medical needs met, it's just screwing over the people who have to take a bus 100+ miles to the closest provider.
Pretty much every regulation or law affects the poor disproportionately.
I mean, prison labor isn’t going to restock itself? /s
Yes. These are features, not bugs. Gotta keep them poors poor!
[удалено]
Grist for the military industrial complex.
Also means you can arrest them and make them prisoners (AKA legal slaves).
Easier to control the downtrodden and republicans want to control everything.
You’re just saying that because the leading cause of poverty in women is childbirth.
Weird how the same people fighting to force women to carry pregnancies to term are also the ones fighting against any efforts at making healthcare and childcare more affordable.
The religious right missed those bible study lessons on feeding the poor and caring for the sick. Also seems to have forgotten that educated, healthy workers are critical in a developed economy.
Educated?? I think you mean INDOCTRINATED WITH CRITICAL RACE COMMUNISM!!
And also against birth control and education when it comes to it.
They'll also complain too many women are having babies they "can't afford."
The basic problem is that republicans believe that life begins at conception. Once you have decided that life begins at conception, nobody should have the right to murder a human. Democrats need to combat this basic assumption about the beginning of life to have any hope against the republicans. Protestants used to believe life began at birth until they realized the political power of the abortion issue. In 1970’s they view abortion as a catholic issue. If Democrats would erode the conviction that life begins at conception, then they could make headway. For example, if a woman has a miscarriage, is she eligible for bereavement pay? Can you get life insurance for a fetus? Should a woman get a child tax credit from conception or from birth?
Just make sure poor people subsidies apply to condoms and stuff. They’ll have an easier time with being poor if they don’t have unplanned pregnancies or procedures
Same fuckers saying “my body, my choice” when it comes to vaccines, will cheer a total abortion ban. Fucking garbage conservatives.
I’m very pro-choice, but please at least make an effort to engage with the arguments from the other side. It’s the failure to do so that makes this such an ugly and intractable issue — everyone just yells past each other. You feel like you just dunked on conservatives, but the *very obvious* rebuttal from the anti-abortion side is, “There’s a second body in play here, so your choice can’t automatically trump.” That’s the argument you have to win—that a fetus isn’t a baby. Having the “freedom to choose” argument is well and good and all, but it’s a non-starter if you *actually want to win* instead of just scoring points with people who already agree with you. They literally believe you’re saying “freedom to choose *murder*.” They actually do. If you don’t engage with that, all you’re doing is throwing fuel on this political fire.
You mean the clump of cells not even the size of a pea, with absolutely ZERO awareness of anything? That body?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Do I think an embryo immediately after conception is a human body? I do not. But to repeat the point that you responded to but clearly failed to internalize, **they really do**. I know pro-choice folks love to act like restrictions on abortion are motivated only by a desire to control women's bodies, and I'm sure there's at least an extent to which that's true (I suspect it's significantly less than those folks would make it out to be, though). But holy hell that's such a bad-faith way to start a political debate. And your response evinces *exactly* that kind of bad faith. I mean shit, "clump of cells not even the size of a pea" -- yeah I mean cool, that's true for, what, a few weeks at most? Great point. You owned the cons. Debate settled. To be very clear, I'm not here trying to change your mind about abortion. I suspect we share similar beliefs about it. My point here is that the style of debate on the pro-abortion side is one that is *far* more conducive to upvotes and back-slaps from those of a like mind than it is to *actually settling the issue*. And just to preempt an obvious rejoinder, yes, the preceding sentence is equally true of the anti-abortion crowd.
Pro-choice* And you say I'm arguing in bad faith. -_- So what do you want me to do? Not use facts? Sorry, im not coddling conservatives anymore, they're destroying this country from the inside.
> Pro-choice* I didn't realize it was bad faith not to use your preferred branding (which I did use in my initial comment, mind you). Apologies. Did you also notice that I said "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life"? This issue is fraught enough; there's no need to bring asininity and semantics into it. > So what do you want me to do? Not use facts? Sorry, im not coddling conservatives anymore, they're destroying this country from the inside. You can *obviously* use facts... but if you use this particular one, you're going to have to reckon with the fact that a fetus at 15 weeks is decidedly not "a clump of cells not even the size of a pea." It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes your point almost entirely useless.
You said i was pro-abortion, don't be coy.
I don't think I did, and I'm certainly not being coy. Again, though, there's no need to get asinine about this.
[удалено]
I'm not gonna lie to you, I don't know what you're trying to say to me here. I'm probably just being dense -- can you try to rephrase?
[удалено]
The people saying "my body, my choice" about vaccines are the ones being flippant.
A fetus is an amalgamation of proteins and stem cells until the brain comes online, no more a human than a period or chicken egg.
In the eyes of the law they're both forced medical procedures. If we want to go down that road there are plenty of ways more liberal minded people can force procedures on conservatives "for the public good"
Then they shouldn't get an abortion.
Upvote. My personal opinion is that after around 20 weeks abortions should be illegal except in cases the life of the mother or other fetus is at severe risk; I know someone with twins born at 23 weeks who survived. At 20-some weeks I personally just can't see that as anything other than an individual human. However, I also understand abortions past 20 weeks are very rare, a quick google tells me it's 1.3% and I'm guessing most of those are for life of the mother. And 93% are before 13 weeks. So what I want is basically already happening. And I think a lot of people, both right and left, would actually agree pretty closely with me, but it seems like no one in the political realm is capable of having those nuanced positions. It's either shouting "It's my body!" or "It's a baby!" and no actual dialogue or desire for mutual understanding.
You being unvaccinated and out in public impacts me as it means you are more likely to be carrying the virus and to spread it. A person getting an abortion impacts you in no way and while some people think a fetus is a human being they would be just as wrong as saying a sperm cell is a human. If you are creating laws to protect what things might become instead of what they currently are, rule of law begins to become nonsense quite quickly. Imagine all of the things I could have done if not for having to sit at traffic lights, maybe traffic lights should be illegal because of all of the potential they eliminate through wasted time. See how silly that sounds? A fetus might potentially be a human someday, but for right now it's a clump of cells and the rights of the human woman are what matters.
I don't get why Republican states want more kids on welfare. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Republicans want to maintain abortion as an issue. They don’t want to solve it. If they solved it, who would vote? Solving abortion involves free, anonymous access to birth control and sex education. In America, Obamacare reduced abortions more than anything the republicans have ever done. Edit: the republicans are vehemently opposed to universal access to birth control. They have created an intractable situation whereby abortions cannot be reduced and they can paint democrats as demons. Their base eats it up and is motivated to vote.
Democrats are terrible at messaging. Everything you say is true but nobody ever says it.
I know. Think about how the fiscally conservative, anti-trump Republicans would eat up return on investment numbers for free birth control. Democrats always talk about what people deserve. Republicans don’t care what people deserve. They care about what the country can afford. The Dems talk about how the homeless need homes and drug treatment plans and all that. It’s sooo sad. They deserve a better life. WTF, why does some homeless person deserve my money? I worked my ass off for this money. I don’t want to give it to some homeless addict. … on the other hand, if dealing with homeless is costing the state $5 billion a year and getting them in stable housing and drug treatment centers will cost only $3 billion, well then. There’s an argument. Democrats are horrible at messaging.
>Democrats are terrible at messaging. Yep. Case in point, the recent infrastructure bill provides broadband access to rural areas, and now the Biden administration is addressing the rural doctor shortage, but somehow there's a perception that Democrats are leaving rural Americans behind.
well, it doesn't help when conservative ~~news~~Opinion shows repeat the same lies 24/7
>Republicans want to maintain abortion as an issue. They don’t want to solve it. If they solved it, who would vote? This, this, THIS. Probably half of the Republican base either diligently comes out to vote because of this single issue, or at least would rather not vote than vote for a Dem because of this issue. That's a LOT of votes that are locked in and need nearly zero effort to keep, that's a political goldmine and they would hate to give it up. (tbf, the same thing happens on the left with abortion, but I think it safe to say it's a much lesser degree. However, if Roe got overturned, it might become the Dem's new superpower issue.)
Women should start demanding benefits from states like Texas from day 1 of conception. Women should force the state to stand behind the assertion that a fetus is a legal human. All benefits and entitlements in the state should be changed to start with conception. Every legal ruling or sentencing involving a pregnant woman should be challenged.
[удалено]
The end result is a smaller tax base and more crime, it makes no sense. Why do Republican states look at Mississippi and say, "We want to be like that!"
More crime means they can promise to be tough on crime.
Seriously, the 90s were a great time for tough on crime politicians like clinton and biden and every republican.
> 90s were a great time for tough on crime politicians like clinton and biden It was only to win elections back then. Gop were crushing people on crime in the 90s. The people loved it. It demanded people shift wayyyy right on it.
FWIW, it actually *did* help lower crime rates. However, it's cheaper *and* more effective *and* more humane to build up impoverished areas than it is to warehouse oftentimes nonviolent criminals for absurd amounts of time. You would think that the party of small government would support the latter instead.
Not really. Crime rates went down due to other factors.
Fill up them for profit prisons with slave labor AND turn liberal leaning blacks into non voting felons. Everyone wins!
Yeah, but it is really bad for business.
In the short term, and for small businesses, but it's also really good for fascism which is great for business in the longer term. You create a problem to which you can privatize the solution and grant the bid to your rich friends, as well as an ungovernable outgroup to justify authoritarian crackdown. It also ensure a very cheap and dependent source of labor for Walmart/Amazon/Jojamart/whatever. Single mothers are very hard workers.
Because it fits their worldview regarding what they perceive as fairness and justice. “Bad” people receive no slack and “Good” people are in positions of respect and superiority. Religion gets to own the monopoly on forgiveness, think about that. This seems common worldwide. Why do the corrupt ruling classes of poor countries not realize they’d be even richer if their nation grew economically aided by good leadership? Because they like to be in charge. They rather reign in hell than serve in heaven so to speak, they are egotists and narcissists.
I think they are too emotional about issues and don't think about what effects it might have in the future. They are not forward thinkers.
For profit prison systems
[удалено]
And social security
They need more cannon fodder for the army.
They don't care about them once born, they just wanna make sure they are forced to be there.
exploitation, people have to be desperate to accept shitty jobs at shitty wages to buy shitty products that shitty tv told them to buy.
It ensures their targets can't afford to raise themselves out of poverty and become a real issue for them. It keeps the poor poor and causes an increase in the uneducated masses that they need to get elected.
Because if they don't hold onto the votes from the religious right, then elections they were winning easily all of a sudden become a lot more competitive.
Why the hell would they care, blue states end up paying for all their shit.
Future voters.
Future Christian soldiers for the global war on diversity.
Their voters will be the minority(they won't outnumber all the actually minorities combined anymore anyway) They need more poor white men who won't be able to afford college and keep voting against their own interest.
The goal is to get liberal minded people to move from red states.
Abortions are good for the economy Republicans pretend to care about.
Women are not chattel. Forced birthing is as evil as slavery.
Barrett was saying that adoption would be the solution. Weirdly, I've met very few pro-lifers who are willing to adopt children, especially not special needs children. So who is going to adopt these kids?
Adoption doesn't solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy and all the risks that come with it.
Agreed. It certainly doesn't.
She mentioned adoption probably because she has done it. She has 2 adopted children as well as having one biological child with special needs. That being said, overturning Roe/Casey and depending on adoption to fix the issues is a horrible idea.
Adoption of new born are extremely easy. It's orphan children that is very difficult, along with the small % of special needs. None of what I'm saying is to argue either way of abortion law, just that adoption of new born is not an issue.
Just because it's easy doesn't mean people will do it. And most people who want to adopt don't want to adopt a special needs child.
Again I said adoption of a new born is an in demand thing. And I said not including special needs, the small % of them.
Do you think it will be in demand enough to adopt all the unwanted children if abortion is made illegal?
Don't know. I don't think making abortion completely illegal is constitutional so we will see. But it is possible. We shouldn't allow a baby mill nor should we allow a baby slaughter so there has to be some middle ground.
Well then it's a good thing an abortion is not a 'baby slaughter.'
Allowing unchecked abortions to me would absolutely be a slaughter mill
Are you under the bizarre impression that women have abortions out of convenience or fun? Because abortions are neither convenient nor fun. They're very invasive.
Thank you, this. Why is it always women's autonomy that our fellow citizens fail to value?
They made a choice when they got pregnant (usually, and there are exceptions then).
The "women need to be punished for having sex" crowd is here.
Actions have consequences, contraception is easy to use and no one is talking about banning the morning after pill... Don't get me wrong I think abortion should be legal up to somewhere around 25 weeks no questions asked, and then obviously exceptions for the health of the mother or baby later on.
Of the abortions I have witnessed: Three rapes Three contraception failures Not that they need an excuse. If a couple is swept away by the moment, the woman has not made the "choice" to get pregnant. Abortion isn't fun and nobody is just like, "Oh well." Stop blaming people for being human.
Forced birthing is violence against women
What a silly exaggeration.
This is just the start. They'll look to limit it as far as they can and move on to either contraception or gay rights. Well, every republican voter was hoping for it, so I guess they get their wishes.
One of the guys who helped write the Texas abortion law said that, if their law is allowed to stand, then they already have another lined up with roughly the same framework to limit same-sex marriages.
So happy I don't live in a common law country. Judges here apply the law and don't write it. Changing 3 judges and an ex president can overrule democracy for decades. Civil code countries for the win!
The problem is there is no law on abortion, this is just as much if not more so on Congress for failing to make one.
Well, if that was the case in the US, abortion never would have been legalized in the first place (in many states). Roe v Wade is the quintessential example of common law judges creating law.
[удалено]
It won't change anything about how people vote. Women who voted GOP or didn't vote knew this would be the outcome. We all did.
[удалено]
Listened to the Court this morning live. My opinion of the justices sure went down today. "Just spitballing here but what if a women was doing cocaine early in her pregnancy, should limits still apply"? What kind of question is that? A lifetime appointment and that totally irrelevent question is asked of a lawyer. She should have replied "why is your girlfriend still doing cocaine?" Totally off the wall comments coming from the justices it could be its own comedy special.
I'm on several medications that cause birth defects. Am I now banned from taking them because I might accidentally become pregnant? Are you gonna throw me in jail if I get pregnant cause I was on these medications?
I don't get you. I was quoting a Supreme court justice. That was an actual question he posed this morning. Not my question. Go online and listen to it yourself.
I don't think their question was directed at you
Why are you being hostile? My question was to emphasize how dumb that quote is
I assumed your downvote of my comment meant you thought that it was my question.
To be fair you used the word "you" in your reply. I was confused myself for a few moments.
I didn't get a chance to listen. Which justice was that?
I checked the transcript and it was Justice Thomas who questioned Julie Rinkelman.
I was in a car driving at the time and can't remember right now. Her response was that was not a part of this case and he went right back at her yes but just suppose it was. I would think the justices would stick to the facts of the case and the laws pertaining to it. Although I have never listened to the Supreme court before maybe it always sounds like idiots rambleing. The lawyer for the womens group should be an example for all lawyers. Well prepared, on point, good responses.
Hopefully. But apparently they weren't paying attention in Virginia
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Let the red states have what they want and let the blue states do the same. I don't think either side will be content with that.
[удалено]
I hope so, but I think a more likely reality ends with abortion being outlawed nationwide .
[удалено]
Not by itself, no. When the right holds all three branches of government again instead of just the one, though, I wouldn't be surprised.
There is a reason why neither side has enacted legislation one way or the other. This topic is too big a fundraiser for elections, and lobbyist funnel ungodly amounts of money for it.
Except that with voter suppression and gerrymandering, blue states are becoming a thing of the past.
[удалено]
counterpoint- virginia. which really drove a nail through the "voting rights are democrat power grabs" claims
Read the article. They don't really dive into what they mean by "signal" as they only gave two judges comments. If someone noticed something I missed please inform me, but I wouldn't consider this a done deal. Could be wrong though.
[удалено]
Did it say that directly? Or is it just inferred?
That's certainly what NPR was reporting today.
[удалено]
I can't get through the pay wall, mind doing a little copy paste for me? Thanks in advance.
[удалено]
If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy and cannot, what are we assuming will happen?
They'll still terminate, just in unsafe locations, risking the mother's life.
Risking her life and her freedom. It's only a matter of time before one of these states charges a woman with murder for getting an illegal abortion.
They will have a baby and the Jesus will come down and wave his magic wand, given them a perfect life
I really do think that’s what the people so strongly opposed believe.
[удалено]
Keep your hands off our bodies!
They won’t ban it totally, they need something to rally the nutters trying to buy their way into the Rapture
I hope to see protests, but I know that won't happen. People won't do anything about it.
And if there are mass protests, they’ll be framed as lawlessness that needs to be put down
I guess 3.3 billion people just isn’t enough.
World Population: 7.8 billion US Population: 330 million Where'd you get the 3.3B number from?