Roe no mo?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

S


seems a bit cartoonish no ? I don’t know one person opposing abortion who is even remotely represented by this. That’s akin to saying all people who are pro abortion are for it solely for the sick pleasure of creating then murdering babies. Come the fuck on lol, you’re smarter than this.

There are the laws that have been passed in a variety of states, though. I think she's closer to the truth then people claiming it's about "states rights" or "sanctity of life".

Plus she lives in Idaho.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

should be a protected medical procedure. I’m basically a dumb libertarian so I’m all for protection of personal choice and liberty. Most people who have abortions do not take the decision lightly and most do not use it as an excuse to be promiscuous (that’s why we have condoms birth control, etc). Also it’s expensive and painful, so I doubt there’s many women just having multiple abortions left and right.

“states rights” is kind of a joke. I prefer individual rights

 

[Virtual ghost]

There are the laws that have been passed though. I think she's closer to the truth then people claiming it's about "states rights" or "sanctity of life".

Plus she lives in Idaho.

States rights mean little on itself, since that means that about half of them will ban abortion. What then means there will be tens of millions of younger women that will be in evident legal insecurity if something goes wrong.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

should be a protected medical procedure. I’m basically a dumb libertarian so I’m all for protection of personal choice and liberty. Most people who have abortions do not take the decision lightly and most do not use it as an excuse to be promiscuous (that’s why we have condoms birth control, etc). Also it’s expensive and painful, so I doubt there’s many women just having multiple abortions left and right.

I did know one person who joked about having an abortion (my ex's sister from Texas) but she was a Trump voter and a psycho Nazi. (By "psycho" I mean the kind of person who travels across country, leaving small children behind, to visit their sister just to try and sabotage her relationship because of jealousy. I can provide examples of her exploits of need be).

Also a yoga instructor believe it or not.

But I would think she's not really representative of anything except maybe the Trump base. There's a basic lack of awareness where emotional desires trump all other concerns.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

States rights mean little on itself, since that means that about half of them will ban abortion. What then means there will be tens of millions of younger women that will be in evident legal insecurity if something goes wrong.

The relevant fact is that some of these states aren't making exceptions for rape, I believe, in the current moment ( before this ruling is even final). The fact that pro-life people seem ok with this kind of falls more in line with what Luminous is saying.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The relevant fact is that some of these states aren't making exceptions for rape, I believe, in the current moment ( before this ruling is even final). The fact that pro-life people seem ok with this kind of falls more in line with what Luminous is saying.

I know, this is exactly why I said what I said. States rights on their own say little about practical implications of all this.
Stereotypical example of ideology over strategy approach.

 

[Jonny]

Life undeniably begins at conception. But humans have a long history of valuing the lives of some more than others. We raise, slaughter, and eat countless living things. We take antibiotics and antivirals and antiparasitics. We have state-sanctioned killing of born humans, not only in war, but in times of peace via the death penalty. We justify killing in self-defense, or if a "reasonable person" would have killed in the same circumstances. In short, we have a long history of recognizing that ending a life is sometimes justified given the totality of circumstances, even though if viewed in isolation it would be viewed as morally objectionable.

Noam Chomsky has talked about how moral relativism is, in its most extreme form, incoherent. That is, the notion that "what is right or wrong is wholly relative to some cultural framework" is incoherent. He explains that, like the human system of language, our moral system is itself based on a narrow biological framework of meaning. And in his view, with the study of philosophy and innovations in technology, we humans have been on a slow march toward discovering our collective, biologically objective morality. Utilizing this line of reasoning, if I imagine a world where we have solved scarcity, where our control over reproduction is at its zenith and we can gestate humans without the need for a human host, I could believe that those people would see abortion as an abhorrent act. If woman laid eggs, and human offspring were self-dependent upon hatching, I could see smashing a fertilized egg as an abhorrent act. From this, it seems to me that the act of abortion, without regard to the totality of circumstances in which it is exercised, is inherently an immoral action.

But...

We do not live in some future free from scarcity. We aren't wholly in control of our reproduction. Women don't lay eggs. Humans don't hatch fully independent, without need for parental support. And so, like many other immoral acts, we must consider abortion against the alternatives. Namely, the consequences of enforcing its ban.

Multitudes of research show that abortion restrictions are not particularly effective at stopping abortions. Rather, they stop relatively safer abortions and increase pregnancy related injury and death via black market "coat hanger" abortions.

While choosing abstinence is near-100% effective at preventing pregnancy (rape being the exception), humans are biologically (and socially) compelled to have sex. And even with contraception there is still a risk of unwanted pregnancy. By denying a woman the right to choose to control whether she has children, we are subjugating her to function as a host for a developing fetus, exposing her to risk of injury or death and other life-altering consequences.

It's easy for someone who has never and perhaps can never face the dilemma to say that unwanted pregnancy is simply the consequences of a woman's choices. But that denies the reality of the human desire to have sex. It also ignores the fact that women actually do posses the means to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and it is only by artificial restriction on choice that women would face any unavoidable consequences.

If, as some have said, this should be a matter for individual states, then any sort of ban would essentially function as a price hike on abortions. Those who could afford to travel to a state permitting them would do so. Any attempt to enforce such laws across state lines (and thus produce anything more than a de facto price hike) would require relatively extreme state involvement in people's private lives. It could also further erode relations between states with disparate views.

At the end of the day, though, we are still a country of laws. And, right or wrong, those laws are viewed through the prism of the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS. If SCOTUS does indeed overturn Roe, then it is reasonable to expect that some states will outlaw abortion. It is then up to those of us who support a woman's right to choose to elect representatives who are supportive of a right to choose. We could also work to fund charities aimed at reimbursing women for travel expenses and income lost as a result of crossing state lines to have abortions. We could become more active in state politics and fight for more reasonable restrictions on abortions, e.g. at least allowing the abortion pill, which terminates a pregnancy in 98% of cases up to 11 weeks, or allowing abortions after counseling and up to the end of the first trimester.

We cannot function as a society and tackle the many problems we face in the modern world if we are constantly at each other's throats. We must exercise empathy and understanding, and we must encourage others to do so as well, indirectly or directly. I am fairly confident that, given the right set of life circumstances, nearly every person who currently supports outlawing abortion could find themselves deciding to have an abortion. They are simply fortunate enough to have lived a life where they were never met with circumstances so dire that they needed to. And that's the crux of the issue. They recognize that ending a life is bad, and cannot understand the circumstances that could justify that bad action because they've never been in those circumstances, and have maybe even been conditioned to not entertain their possibility. But through honest dialogue, based in empathy and understanding, I think we can change minds and find a compromise.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't think I've seen the phrase "pro-birth" mentioned here yet, though it's used often (and it's far more accurate) to describe those who clearly aren't "pro-life" in any general capacity outside of being against abortion. That's all it really is.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

should be a protected medical procedure. I’m basically a dumb libertarian so I’m all for protection of personal choice and liberty. Most people who have abortions do not take the decision lightly and most do not use it as an excuse to be promiscuous (that’s why we have condoms birth control, etc). Also it’s expensive and painful, so I doubt there’s many women just having multiple abortions left and right.

“states rights” is kind of a joke. I prefer individual rights

Anyone who prioritizes states rights over individual rights is in fact in favor of controlling the lives of others.

The tyranny they rail against in this case, when you dig down, is almost always that the federal govenrment has told them they can't do that.


And so we if we dig enough, we can get to the engine driving the modern conservative project.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Here are representation numbers for mentioned Idaho.
The states like these will ban abortion before you blink if Roe truly falls.


Idaho

 

[Coriolis]

S


seems a bit cartoonish no ? I don’t know one person opposing abortion who is even remotely represented by this. That’s akin to saying all people who are pro abortion are for it solely for the sick pleasure of creating then murdering babies. Come the fuck on lol, you’re smarter than this.

I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion". That's like saying someone is pro-amputation. Both are extreme measures that should be available to people based on consultation with medical providers, family, and trusted others. I know lots of people who don't think the government should be involved in such decisions. That is the essence of "pro-choice".

should be a protected medical procedure. I’m basically a dumb libertarian so I’m all for protection of personal choice and liberty. Most people who have abortions do not take the decision lightly and most do not use it as an excuse to be promiscuous (that’s why we have condoms birth control, etc). Also it’s expensive and painful, so I doubt there’s many women just having multiple abortions left and right.

“states rights” is kind of a joke. I prefer individual rights

The places where women have frequent abortions (Russia has been one) generally have scarce or unreliable birth control, and cultures where it is hard for women, especially married ones, to say no.

States rights mean little on itself, since that means that about half of them will ban abortion. What then means there will be tens of millions of younger women that will be in evident legal insecurity if something goes wrong.

This is not an issue of federal vs. states's rights. It is one of individual rights vs. the right of government at any level. Only SCOTUS can defend individual rights against all forms of encroachment.

 

[Luminous]

Small side note that I don't live in Idaho, but do live in a state much like it, so the points above are still valid.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Small side note that I don't live in Idaho, but do live in a state much like it, so the points above are still valid.

Yeah, oops I made a mistake there.

 

[Lexicon]

I kinda saw this coming, and it still horrifies me.

There are already states that ban abortions at just 6 weeks (before most women even know they’re pregnant). No exceptions for fatal birth defects, rape, incest, or if the person is a minor.

If an 11 or 12 yr old past menarche were raped, and conceived in one of those states, they’d be forced to carry the product of that rape to term. Menstrual cycles can be unpredictable in early adolescence. Kid may not fully even know what happened or that she’s pregnant until well past 6 weeks. Trauma can affect cycles. Hell, even adults can have wonky cycles or disassociate from an assault for a time. The law takes none of that into account. Destroy one child’s life and body for the sake of a potential child. Some kids haven’t even been exposed to any form of sex ed at that age. They wouldn’t even have the language for what happened to them.


Incidentally, my roommate’s 12 yr old daughter only just learned the word “rape” & its definition earlier this week.

 

[Coriolis]

I kinda saw this coming, and it still horrifies me.

There are already states that ban abortions at just 6 weeks (before most women even know they’re pregnant). No exceptions for fatal birth defects, rape, incest, or if the person is a minor.

If an 11 or 12 yr old past menarche were raped, and conceived in one of those states, they’d be forced to carry the product of that rape to term. Menstrual cycles can be unpredictable in early adolescence. Kid may not fully even know what happened or that she’s pregnant until well past 6 weeks. Trauma can affect cycles. Hell, even adults can have wonky cycles or disassociate from an assault for a time. The law takes none of that into account. Destroy one child’s life and body for the sake of a potential child. Some kids haven’t even been exposed to any form of sex ed at that age. They wouldn’t even have the language for what happened to them.


Incidentally, my roommate’s 12 yr old daughter only just learned the word “rape” & its definition earlier this week.

It should be obvious that the people pushing these restrictions are not acting out of compassion for anyone, but rather out of self-righteousness. They don't care how much damage they cause, trying to do something they think is good. This is why we have courts: to prevent this sort of harm. It would be nice if we could rely on them to do their job.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It should be obvious that the people pushing these restrictions are not acting out of compassion for anyone, but rather out of self-righteousness. They don't care how much damage they cause, trying to do something they think is good. This is why we have courts: to prevent this sort of harm. It would be nice if we could rely on them to do their job.

This seems a bit generous. Sure, for some I think it is probably based in morality, however misguided, but for others it isn't really about this and it's more about feeling power over others.

And it's not power for any particular purpose towards some end. It's more about gaining or holding on to a sense of superiority and worth that would otherwise feel threatened.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is not an issue of federal vs. states's rights. It is one of individual rights vs. the right of government at any level. Only SCOTUS can defend individual rights against all forms of encroachment.

But that means that the other branches of the government potentially can't protect you from that court. What in my understanding isn't the case.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I keep wondering why people (not here, I mean *gestures all over*) are stuck on "conception is beginning of life" vs "abortion is healthcare," as if either argument is so inherently persuasive that it simply hasn't been repeated enough times. The conversation should be about how to fairly resolve the issue in a democracy, right? It shouldn't matter how strong righteous conviction is (or if it is moral conviction vs patriarchal control, etc) in the minority, right?

(And I'm not saying people here shouldn't be discussing these things, I'm just frustrated that there isn't more discussion about this all over. People can beat each other over the head with their convictions forever, it's not going to persuade the other side. But it seems to me like the democracy argument IS something that the minority has to concede to.)

 

[Virtual ghost]

I keep wondering why people (not here, I mean *gestures all over*) are stuck on "conception is beginning of life" vs "abortion is healthcare," as if either argument is so inherently persuasive that it simply hasn't been repeated enough times. The conversation should be about how to fairly resolve the issue in a democracy, right? It shouldn't matter how strong righteous conviction is (or if it is moral conviction vs patriarchal control, etc) in the minority, right?

(And I'm not saying people here shouldn't be discussing these things, I'm just frustrated that there isn't more discussion about this all over. People can beat each other over the head with their convictions forever, it's not going to persuade the other side. But it seems to me like the democracy argument IS something that the minority has to concede to.)

Well, democracy means that things have to be addressed through talk and diplomacy. However if that fails the majority should have a say, although they should implement the conclusions in most painless way possible way. However here we are coming to the actual problem that is the messy political system in US and mentality that you should always get what you want (in combination with generally poor public education). Therefore all of this is basically the outcome of the two party system since in such system basically the only way how to campaign is to polarize. Plus since it isn't fully clear which level is responsible for what you get a salad as the result every time. What results in mass of people not voting and that leads into even poorer representation than just two parties. What then means that in this case democracy is kinda broken in the start.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The contrast:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522044847254872064