What irritates me almost more than the ruling itself is that the recently confirmed justices literally said it was precedent. They straight up lied through their teeth, and bobblehead Susan Collins said she believed them, as well as Lisa M.
They didn’t lie. They were impressively conscientious about not saying anything that would turn out to be a lie. Go listen to the videos or actually read the transcript. SC justices are incredibly articulate and smart people with an intellectual conscience. Their conscience may not agree with yours, but they are way way more conscientious — like academics and scientists — than politicians.
Agree Collins was a dumbo for not recognizing standard issue scotus nominee lingo.
Absolutely they lied. They clearly mislead so they would get appointed. "I can't comment on how I would rule, but roe versus wade is established precedent and I am a strong believer is respecting precedent" (words to that effect)
The Supreme Court said that government has the right to make that decision for you. You have NO right to make that personal decision for yourself.
So you are the furthest thing from free on this subject.
It’s not a personal decision. There are at least three persons involved in the decision, or at least two of you insist on not considering a non-yet-breathing person as a person.
The government also has a right to make a decision that you are not allowed to kill yourself. Or enslave yourself via contract. You don’t have the bodily autonomy to make some types of decisions about your body because they have ramifications outside of your body.
They didn’t lie. They were impressively conscientious about not saying anything that would turn out to be a lie. Go listen to the videos or actually read the transcript. SC justices are incredibly articulate and smart people with an intellectual conscience. Their conscience may not agree with yours, but they are way way more conscientious — like academics and scientists — than politicians.
Agree Collins was a dumbo for not recognizing standard issue scotus nominee lingo.
Absolutely they lied. They clearly mislead so they would get appointed. "I can't comment on how I would rule, but roe versus wade is established precedent and I am a strong believer is respecting precedent" (words to that effect)
The highest court in the land has liars.
Why is that a lie? They respected precedent and respectfully overturned it with a long explanation of why it wrong in the first place. Segregation was similarly respectfully overturned with Brown.
Overturning precedent itself has plenty of precedent, which also the justices respected.
On the weekend of Roe v Wade being overturned, you think it's a good time to make the point that men have it hard too. You're only able to spot the injustice done to men? I mean I agree with you in some instances, but if you're so good at spotting the injustices men experience in the legal system, then surely you must be aware of the injustice of what just happened to women's rights to make reproductive choices, right?
Yes, I do think it’s a good time because it’s an important reason I personally stopped caring for Roe much. Some people think differently from you, you know?
And sure, I see the injustice to women too, but I don’t think the scotus ruling changes that much in practice. You are mostly talking about a scenario where a woman chooses to have unprotected sex and gets pregnant and happens to live in a state prohibiting abortions and she and her man can not afford to travel to a different state to get the abortion so badly wanted. Plus Congress can still protect that right federally if it really has the mandate and if it doesn’t, then people just don’t want it that badly.
I do support a woman’s right to an abortion if the sex wasn’t with her consent.
In any case, I don’t see an intellectually honest reading of the constitution’s 14th amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy and, more importantly, privacy having anything to do with the right to get an abortion. That never made sense. You can’t claim the right to privacy to purchase illegal drugs in order to inject it into “my body”. Bodily autonomy has always had limits.
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas still tries to prosecute you for an abortion out of state. That's the way the laws in these places are already heading. You don't seem to think a woman should have the right to choose in most cases, so you wouldn't understand how bad I feel for the women whose lives will be negatively effected by this outcome. You seem to care more about how it looks from a man's viewpoint, which to me is kinda like complaining about your broken arm when you have a friend dying of cancer.
Restoring legal doctrine and deciding if laws pass muster is the job of SCOTUS. So yeah, if the Dobbs case "restored proper legal doctrine" then job well done on their part. It's not their fault that the 1973 SCOTUS legislated from the bench and Obama didn't work on something concrete when he had a super majority.
Yeah who cares about the women, right? Not like we actually talk to them, let alone anything else. What really matters is rules of the court!
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas still tries to prosecute you for an abortion out of state. That's the way the laws in these places are already heading. You don't seem to think a woman should have the right to choose in most cases, so you wouldn't understand how bad I feel for the women whose lives will be negatively effected by this outcome. You seem to care more about how it looks from a man's viewpoint, which to me is kinda like complaining about your broken arm when you have a friend dying of cancer.
These virtue signaling bloviations are vacuous. Most people agree most good things are good are good and bad things bad. It’s a question of ordering principles by priority and at which principle the buck stops, ie there is no other ulterior justification of it rather than a belief in the self evident truth of that principle itself.
For me that principle is democracy which comes way higher than most anything else in politics. So whatever *is* is almost always good because we got here democratically. The scotus ruling turning abortion to the states is just democracy working as expected.
Abortions are much brouhaha over something that is or should be rare anyway. If the people as a majority don’t want it, I don’t see why it should be legal. I indeed don’t feel as bad for the very small number of negatively affected women as you do. Just like I don’t feel as bad for the men and other groups who have it worse on some dimensions. They are just collateral damage.
And yes, you get it. You have to compel women to give birth to satisfy your desires. Pretty icky. I suggest talking to your sexual partners instead.
Look up maternal mortality rates before modern medicine before acting like pregnancy is no big deal. Modern pregnancies frequently encounter complications that would be life threatening without modern care. This risk earns women the bulk of fetal rights. It’s fairly straightforward logic.
Maternity mortality rates are very low in the US, and in case, the number doesn’t matter because maternity is part of normal female life.
What is clear to me is that you are closed to any moral or intellectual points of view other than your own, and your own moral or cost/benefit perceptions are “straightforward logic”. You have
- called the desire to claim paternal rights on the fetus’ life “icky” offering a non-starter solution when clearly the question of legal rights only matters in the event of a disagreement, however unlikely that may be.
- you prioritize labor pains over the life of an unborn child and the desire of the father to bring to life his fetus.
- you mock people who truly believe in the sanctity of life very strongly as simply being hoodwinked by crafty politicians.
No wonder you get shocked when a Trump comes to power or when scotus overturns a long standing presumedly settled law when it didn’t make common sense to half the country and even to some of the liberal justices and even to many women m, including liberal women, who are deeply conflicted about “choice”.
Maternity has killed countless women over the years. Just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean we get to discount the large risk it burdens women with. That’s ridiculous. We absolutely must weight women’s disproportionate share of the risk of reproduction when assigning control over the fetus. There is very clear philosophical and moral framework for women assuming the bulk of the rights you are arguing about. Very few people argue against this, for good reason. Paternal rights are quite strong after childbirth. Not really a fan of the repeated downplaying of the risks and burdens of pregnancy that you do, but it’s clear you’ve never really been close to a pregnancy so I’ll chalk it up to inexperience.
I’m not mocking anyone. I’m stating the historical facts. There are a small number of people who truly believe in sanctity of life. These people generally are very religious and don’t really adhere to the rest of the modern conservative platform. Most of the other pro-lifers parrot direct propaganda from conservative elites, rarely support other policies that directly improve the lives of young children children, etc, and generally show no evidence of a strict moral code that would make them feel so strongly about abortion. There plenty of history showing this class of pro-lifers was cultivated intentionally from the conservative base with propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, it’s how politics works, but it makes it easy to dismiss any sanctimonious moralizing from them. That’s all!
There are no grand “moral or intellectual points of view” to argue against here. It’s craft and successful politics and propaganda but there’s no semblance of a coherent conservative argument against abortion save “sanctity of life” which we’ve already established only pertains to a very small part of the base.
Are most pro-lifers low information hoodwinking victims? Yes. Am I mocking them? No?! Just stating facts.
Yes, I do think it’s a good time because it’s an important reason I personally stopped caring for Roe much. Some people think differently from you, you know?
And sure, I see the injustice to women too, but I don’t think the scotus ruling changes that much in practice. You are mostly talking about a scenario where a woman chooses to have unprotected sex and gets pregnant and happens to live in a state prohibiting abortions and she and her man can not afford to travel to a different state to get the abortion so badly wanted. Plus Congress can still protect that right federally if it really has the mandate and if it doesn’t, then people just don’t want it that badly.
I do support a woman’s right to an abortion if the sex wasn’t with her consent.
In any case, I don’t see an intellectually honest reading of the constitution’s 14th amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy and, more importantly, privacy having anything to do with the right to get an abortion. That never made sense. You can’t claim the right to privacy to purchase illegal drugs in order to inject it into “my body”. Bodily autonomy has always had limits.
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas still tries to prosecute you for an abortion out of state. That's the way the laws in these places are already heading.
We shall see if these pro-lifers really mean it when they say abortion is murder of an infant. If they do truly believe that, these states will criminalize the procedure as murder and incarcerate those involved accordingly. Second degree murder in Texas is a minimum of five years in prison (and max of 99), and that would apply to both the pregnant woman and the medical team performing the abortion. Attempted second degree murder doesn't carry much less of a penalty.
Do pro-lifers have the courage of their alleged convictions? We shall see. If we don't see some second degree murder charges for women having abortions in certain states (Texas, Mississippi, etc.) in the next 6 months or so, we will know it was all political farce and foot stomping.
What irritates me almost more than the ruling itself is that the recently confirmed justices literally said it was precedent. They straight up lied through their teeth, and bobblehead Susan Collins said she believed them, as well as Lisa M.
You are confusing the words precedent with permanent. I know both start with the letter p but you really should learn the difference.
Maternity mortality rates are very low in the US, and in case, the number doesn’t matter because maternity is part of normal female life.
What is clear to me is that you are closed to any moral or intellectual points of view other than your own, and your own moral or cost/benefit perceptions are “straightforward logic”. You have
- called the desire to claim paternal rights on the fetus’ life “icky” offering a non-starter solution when clearly the question of legal rights only matters in the event of a disagreement, however unlikely that may be.
- you prioritize labor pains over the life of an unborn child and the desire of the father to bring to life his fetus.
- you mock people who truly believe in the sanctity of life very strongly as simply being hoodwinked by crafty politicians.
No wonder you get shocked when a Trump comes to power or when scotus overturns a long standing presumedly settled law when it didn’t make common sense to half the country and even to some of the liberal justices and even to many women m, including liberal women, who are deeply conflicted about “choice”.
Maternity has killed countless women over the years. Just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean we get to discount the large risk it burdens women with. That’s ridiculous. We absolutely must weight women’s disproportionate share of the risk of reproduction when assigning control over the fetus. There is very clear philosophical and moral framework for women assuming the bulk of the rights you are arguing about. Very few people argue against this, for good reason. Paternal rights are quite strong after childbirth. Not really a fan of the repeated downplaying of the risks and burdens of pregnancy that you do, but it’s clear you’ve never really been close to a pregnancy so I’ll chalk it up to inexperience.
I’m not mocking anyone. I’m stating the historical facts. There are a small number of people who truly believe in sanctity of life. These people generally are very religious and don’t really adhere to the rest of the modern conservative platform. Most of the other pro-lifers parrot direct propaganda from conservative elites, rarely support other policies that directly improve the lives of young children children, etc, and generally show no evidence of a strict moral code that would make them feel so strongly about abortion. There plenty of history showing this class of pro-lifers was cultivated intentionally from the conservative base with propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, it’s how politics works, but it makes it easy to dismiss any sanctimonious moralizing from them. That’s all!
There are no grand “moral or intellectual points of view” to argue against here. It’s craft and successful politics and propaganda but there’s no semblance of a coherent conservative argument against abortion save “sanctity of life” which we’ve already established only pertains to a very small part of the base.
Are most pro-lifers low information hoodwinking victims? Yes. Am I mocking them? No?! Just stating facts.
Your very first sentence is distorting what I said and building an edifice on top of that false foundation, so I’ll repeat, “Maternity mortality rates are very low in the US”. In the present tense. It’s not an important enough rate for me to worry about. I don’t care about the part because I live in the present.
Your gratuitously talking about me as opposed to the arguments on the table would be like me saying I’ll chalk it up to your idiocy and lack of good parenting. Or something random like that.
”We” never established sanctity of life pertains only to a small fraction of the base. You did. I just said that argument is not personally important to me. I respect those who say it is for them and blindly choose to take them at their word. In the name of democracy. If you don’t think they have free will and have been hoodwinked, go and educate them. You will probably fail with your tone and they will have their way like they did on this one.
Restoring legal doctrine and deciding if laws pass muster is the job of SCOTUS. So yeah, if the Dobbs case "restored proper legal doctrine" then job well done on their part. It's not their fault that the 1973 SCOTUS legislated from the bench and Obama didn't work on something concrete when he had a super majority.
Yeah who cares about the women, right? Not like we actually talk to them, let alone anything else. What really matters is rules of the court!
SCOTUS is concerned about the constitution. They stated that the court, and the constitution, are neutral regarding abortion; therefore, it’s sent back to the states. Stop trying to make a constitutional law decision into something emotional. You and I can care about women while simultaneously caring that SCOTUS makes constitutionally grounded decisions.
What irritates me almost more than the ruling itself is that the recently confirmed justices literally said it was precedent. They straight up lied through their teeth, and bobblehead Susan Collins said she believed them, as well as Lisa M.
You are confusing the words precedent with permanent. I know both start with the letter p but you really should learn the difference.
Ha, can’t believe I liked a post of Yawn’s. Oh well, something about an enemy of an enemy…
So much about abortion confuses me. But one idea that really confuses me is the ‘men controlling women’ arguments. I’m a man. Like most men I know, I’m fairly apathetic when it comes to baby stuff. When my wife was pregnant, I was excited, but I didn’t feel a connection to the baby in the womb the same way my wife did. So similarly, if I default to my natural lack of interest, I don’t really care about abortion. I don’t naturally think about being pregnant. Does any man? I have no reason to piss a bunch of people off and be against abortion. It’s a big hassle to be against abortion and I’m sure you get yelled at all the time and treated like the scum of the Earth.
But, if I really think long and hard about abortion, and analyze everything from both sides, I’m forced to wonder “maybe abortion isn’t that great, maybe I shouldn’t be so outraged at these people that are anti-abortion”. Selfishly, I don’t actually want to think this way, it’s way easier to just never think about it, go along with the pro-choice crowd, copy and paste a post on Instagram, and get some likes. But I feel some sort of moral obligation to throughly analyze it and it’s a tough topic.
Many, almost all, of the anti-abortion voices I hear are women. Never in my life have I been hanging out with my guy friends and we talk about restricting abortion to control women. We’ve never talked about abortion at all. But I hear passionate and moving points from women- such as black women discussing how abortion has significantly hurt their communities and family structures. Am I supposed to just ignore them??
I get that actual politicians are Men usually, but it seems the vast majority of lobbying for anti-abortion comes from women. So this notion of men controlling women in terms of abortion is weird to me, and quite frankly, seems flat out false.
So much about abortion confuses me. But one idea that really confuses me is the ‘men controlling women’ arguments. I’m a man. Like most men I know, I’m fairly apathetic when it comes to baby stuff. When my wife was pregnant, I was excited, but I didn’t feel a connection to the baby in the womb the same way my wife did. So similarly, if I default to my natural lack of interest, I don’t really care about abortion. I don’t naturally think about being pregnant. Does any man? I have no reason to piss a bunch of people off and be against abortion. It’s a big hassle to be against abortion and I’m sure you get yelled at all the time and treated like the scum of the Earth.
But, if I really think long and hard about abortion, and analyze everything from both sides, I’m forced to wonder “maybe abortion isn’t that great, maybe I shouldn’t be so outraged at these people that are anti-abortion”. Selfishly, I don’t actually want to think this way, it’s way easier to just never think about it, go along with the pro-choice crowd, copy and paste a post on Instagram, and get some likes. But I feel some sort of moral obligation to throughly analyze it and it’s a tough topic.
Many, almost all, of the anti-abortion voices I hear are women. Never in my life have I been hanging out with my guy friends and we talk about restricting abortion to control women. We’ve never talked about abortion at all. But I hear passionate and moving points from women- such as black women discussing how abortion has significantly hurt their communities and family structures. Am I supposed to just ignore them??
I get that actual politicians are Men usually, but it seems the vast majority of lobbying for anti-abortion comes from women. So this notion of men controlling women in terms of abortion is weird to me, and quite frankly, seems flat out false.
Some group controlling some other group is just liberal virtue signaling when democracy doesn’t produce the outcomes they want.
I’m with you in that I too don’t get why so many men care so strongly about abortion when it doesn’t directly affect them. Men on both sides.
Maternity has killed countless women over the years. Just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean we get to discount the large risk it burdens women with. That’s ridiculous. We absolutely must weight women’s disproportionate share of the risk of reproduction when assigning control over the fetus. There is very clear philosophical and moral framework for women assuming the bulk of the rights you are arguing about. Very few people argue against this, for good reason. Paternal rights are quite strong after childbirth. Not really a fan of the repeated downplaying of the risks and burdens of pregnancy that you do, but it’s clear you’ve never really been close to a pregnancy so I’ll chalk it up to inexperience.
I’m not mocking anyone. I’m stating the historical facts. There are a small number of people who truly believe in sanctity of life. These people generally are very religious and don’t really adhere to the rest of the modern conservative platform. Most of the other pro-lifers parrot direct propaganda from conservative elites, rarely support other policies that directly improve the lives of young children children, etc, and generally show no evidence of a strict moral code that would make them feel so strongly about abortion. There plenty of history showing this class of pro-lifers was cultivated intentionally from the conservative base with propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, it’s how politics works, but it makes it easy to dismiss any sanctimonious moralizing from them. That’s all!
There are no grand “moral or intellectual points of view” to argue against here. It’s craft and successful politics and propaganda but there’s no semblance of a coherent conservative argument against abortion save “sanctity of life” which we’ve already established only pertains to a very small part of the base.
Are most pro-lifers low information hoodwinking victims? Yes. Am I mocking them? No?! Just stating facts.
Your very first sentence is distorting what I said and building an edifice on top of that false foundation, so I’ll repeat, “Maternity mortality rates are very low in the US”. In the present tense. It’s not an important enough rate for me to worry about. I don’t care about the part because I live in the present.
Your gratuitously talking about me as opposed to the arguments on the table would be like me saying I’ll chalk it up to your idiocy and lack of good parenting. Or something random like that.
”We” never established sanctity of life pertains only to a small fraction of the base. You did. I just said that argument is not personally important to me. I respect those who say it is for them and blindly choose to take them at their word. In the name of democracy. If you don’t think they have free will and have been hoodwinked, go and educate them. You will probably fail with your tone and they will have their way like they did on this one.
You are dismissing the obvious burdens that pregnancy places on women. Modern medicine has brought maternal mortality way down -- a massive achievement -- but that doesn't mean that pregnancy is easy, extremely disruptive to modern careers/lifestyles/etc, painless. And just because women aren't dying doesn't mean many aren't hospitalized for weeks around birth. That's not fun!
It's clear that you're just going to repeatedly discount the cost of pregnancy to women. I can't convince you to be more empathetic but if you every have loved one go through pregnancy, god forbid a difficult one, I am confident you'll look back on your positions now with embarrassment.
There's plenty of evidence that 'sanctity of life' is not an actually important argument. Neither of us think it's important. Religiousness is at an all time low, let alone the kind of church-three-times-a-week that gives on the pious cred to take such a position.
I'm not saying these hoodwinkees don't have free will! They chose to be pawns in the conservative political apparatus. That's a choice we all must live with, but these people didn't win. When you choose to be a pawn you don't win or lose. Gotta at least be a minor piece.
