Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[Lursa]

We’ve been here already. That ruling imposed a single national standard using a flawed legal basis. The new standard—rational basis—is less strict on legislatures, which, if you believe in limited federal power like I do, is the proper one.

RvW was not a national standard...several states had some restrictions after 15 or 20 weeks and many after viability. The difference was, they werent investigating everytime a doctor performed such an abortion nor charged doctors with crimes for performing those abortions. The doctors were able to give women safer reproductive care as needed, with the threat of being arrested. Women received safer medical care. Since these would be mostly women that wanted to have a baby, it didnt regulate abortions They werent there for abortions.

But Dobbs did clarify that the unborn have no legal status to be protected and that's a good thing that came out of it.

Like I said, the object is not to punish. I mean, do you support “punitive” draft laws for men who did nothing wrong other than being men and U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents?

What matters is the practice and outcome of the laws. And mostly women that want babies are punished and so no abortions were sought to "regulate."

And I have posted previously that I dont support the draft but if we were to have it again, that women should be included.

You still refuse to explain why Americans should be denied bodily autonomy by being imprisoned for torturing animals. You see, I tend to think it’s because society thinks it’s wrong, just as most people think there comes a point at which they say abortion on demand is wrong, which you refuse to acknowledge. You view the draft as being acceptable since it can be seen as having a utilitarian purpose. We already have the draft example. @weaver2 made this useful utilitarian observation regarding regulation of abortion in the 3rd trimester:

I did explain it , you must have missed it:

So what is the justification for taking away women's right to consent to risking their lives?

Of course we can "protect" things by law for lots of reasons...but those laws are dependent on what state rights and federal/Const rights they may violate when they are enforced. Why dont any of the red states charge women with murder for having abortions, for example? Some sure want to. What's stopping them?

Telling me I can’t do what I want with my property is an erosion of my property rights. I mean, what if I want to have dog or **** fights? Race greyhounds? Kill a bull in an arena? Raise chickens in battery cages? I can be sent to jail for drowning my pet cat in a bathtub. I have rights to life, liberty, and property. My cat doesn’t.

You don’t see it because you don’t value human life if it isn’t born, just as a psychopath doesn’t value the life of an animal if it isn’t suffering. I mean, in a nutshell, that’s the deciding factor between my argument and yours.

Again...why do you lie? I have posted this more than once...it's sad you need to lower your posting to lies to try and "win" a debate.

I have written that I value the unborn but value all born people more. That you value the unborn more than women is your position "in a nutshell" and again, is no moral High Ground. (and since the born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law...if you disagree, provide a legal basis for your claim....that seems indeed to be your position. You choose to allow the govt to take that choice from women. )

 

[choiceone]

And why is that? Does it make you uncomfortable? Is it less easily justifiable to kill an embryo with a pill and flush it down a toilet? If it’s a fertilized egg, isn’t that what it is? I mean, we can have all manner of discussions about souls and movement and little hands and feet and all of that, but once egg meets sperm it becomes a member of species Homo sapiens, doesn’t it?

I don't like poor grammar because I spent much of my adult life teaching English as a second language and doing English editing for foreign academics. They didn't want to be so careless or disrespectful of linguistic grammar.

I do not think fertilization makes an ovum into a member of Homo s sapiens.

As I've pointed out numerous times on DP, the international scientific body that has the authority to decide whether a sample has membership in a species is the ICZN, the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. On its website, so far as I have found in its introduction and areas where I looked up anything, these people never say that any embryo or fetus is "a member" of a species. They do not use only genetic criteria to determine membership. They call it "an embryo" or "a fetus" of the species. My understanding is that, for membership, you have to be a separate entity, and no implanted embryo or fetus is that, and you have to be capable of separate life.

And in the case of conjoined twins, first, if there's only one body, then there's only one member of the species, even if there are different genetic codes. It's not unheard of for an apparently regular human body to have an organ with a different genetic code in it. It's still only one body. And with conjoined twins, if one head is fully functional but the other is a parasitic head, there is only one person.

That doesn’t give them a license to destroy—what? Un-humans? Non-people? Honestly, if it comes down to a debate between championing “Life” or “Death,” I know which side of the debate I want to be on. I’ll take the 10-stroke handicap.

Those embryos and fetuses are material in the process of being made into a human being, and they are not yet fully made human beings. Your problem is that you are mixing up the future potential and the actual present.

Playing devil’s advocate again, what is the state’s interest in preventing it? How does it affect society in any way? Did society in general care about chickens or pigs in tight cages or pens before PETA came along?

Chickens forced to live their lives in tight cages, bad hygienic conditions, and poor diets lay inferior eggs with inferior nutrition. Lots of people knew that before PETA. Get a grip.

 

[Ahlevah]

You haven't explained it. You only repeatedly deflected on it. What is the legal basis to restrict a person's rights or autonomy in favor of a non-person with no rights?

I’ve given you my answer. It hasn’t changed. It won’t. If you don’t accept it, that’s not my problem. A solid majority agrees with me:

A May 1-24, 2023, survey asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy and found about two-thirds of Americans saying it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose legal abortion in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.

Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion?

Most Americans favor abortion being legal to some degree, and a majority self-identify as "pro-choice."

news.gallup.com

Or to rephrase the question, why does the state care about the unborn over that of the woman?

For the same reason the state may care more about a woman’s pet cat than her liberty when she drowns it.

The state does not know if a woman is pregnant and does not care if she procreates or not. Neither is a woman required to report either intention or situation to the state.

The state does not know if a woman owns a cat and generally does not care what she does with it. But if she tortures it it’s likely a crime for which she can be fined (deprived of her property) or incarcerated (deprived of her liberty).

THen why have we had to pose the same questions to you multiple times?

You don’t have to. You can accept that that’s my answer and it won’t change—the state has an interest in preserving and protecting all human life—or not. Apparently, you’re like the Hare Krishnas who have one truth and that’s it. People aren’t permitted to disagree with them.

And the states cannot explain their interest in such matters or why abortion should be restricted.

Think cats. The states have explained it—in legislative history, debates, court petitions and rulings, amicus briefs…. If you’re really interested, you can peruse through the 140 amicus briefs filed in Dobbs and probably find some addressing this topic. Or you could read Mississippi’s petition in the case.

Abortion certainly minimizes risk to the woman. Is minimizing risks not a good thing? But by your logic, the unborn are at risk and have no guarantees either. After all, that's life and life comes with risk, according to you.

Family planning—birth control. Safer.

Merely your own opinion. But by your standard of a state regulating abortion, if abortion on demand and/or no restrictions is allowed, then you have no cause for compliant. After all, that's what the majority of people and the representatives want, correct?

Constitutionally, a state could repeal its murder statutes. That doesn’t mean I’d have to like it or agree with it.

 

[Ahlevah]

Stop trivializing what women do when they do continue pregnancies and childbirths.

Women do have choices to avoid pregnancy. They can abstain from sex, or they can use birth control. Beyond fleeing to Canada to avoid being prosecuted for draft evasion, the conscript often doesn’t have a choice. Neither does an aborted fetus.

I guess you don't know that the military draft has, in the 20th century, excluded guys who were married, too young or old, too tall or short, too skinny or fat, too mentally slow, being blind or deaf or even just having glasses too thick or a hearing problem, guys with too many allergies or various health problems.

Yeah, I know people got rejected or could get deferments. I also know hundreds of thousands of draftees are buried in American military and veterans cemeteries.

It also always allowed guys who were in college and got a decent enough GPA to defer service, and it allowed serious students to defer it during grad school until they aged out. It allowed rich people to use their congressmen to protect their sons from being sent into combat.

I have nothing against a draft for women as well as men, as long as no one sends our drafted troops to a war that isn't really defensive for ourselves or our democratic allies. If I were still young, I'd rather do my own service in that kind of environment than produce a kid to serve at a future date. I'm no f---ing Spartan.

My point remains: we live in a civil society with rules decided by the people. We can’t always get what we want. I wanted to live in a state where I could legally carry a loaded gun in my car or concealed on my person. Sometimes other interests come first—like how we treat animals or the unborn.

 

[Ahlevah]

I wrote "legal immigrants." So your post makes no sense.

My bad. I made my first unforced error.

What's wrong with "foreigners" that want to be here and work and contribute and if they're "fecund" why wouldnt that thrill the pro-life crowd?

Nothing. Fewer pro-abortion progressives and more socially-conservative Catholics from Latin America or Hindus from India? Looks like a win to me.

"More lives," right?

Correct.

 

[Ahlevah]

It isn't independent life if it can't support outside the womb.d

Is it independent immediately after it’s born? When the umbilical cord is still attached but before it’s lungs are cleared of fluid and it begins breathing on its own? Is it finally a human at that point when it wasn’t a few minutes before that, at least according to some crazy people? And how many babies have you found that can support themselves anyway? I mean, like milk cows and knit themselves booties?

 

[Bodi]

Is it independent immediately after it’s born?

Yes.

When the umbilical cord is still attached but before it’s lungs are cleared of fluid and it begins breathing on its own?

Yes. It is independent. The umbilical cord is unnecessary and the fact that it can drown makes it no less human than a person drowning while swimming.

Is it finally a human at that point when it wasn’t a few minutes before that, at least according to some crazy people?

It was always human. What it is not, prior to birth... is a person.

And how many babies have you found that can support themselves anyway?

Straw Man

I mean, like milk cows and knit themselves booties?

Silly.



d

 

[Ahlevah]

I can kill my cat another way and a woman can drive to another state and have her unborn killed So your deflection doesnt cover the fact that your attempt at that argument failed regarding "consent."

But the point of the “drowning your pet cat” example wasn’t that you can circumvent the intent of the law. Rather, the state has an interest in regulating animal cruelty even though it can’t point directly to what that interest is beyond a moral question of preserving and protecting the life of the animal. Then there is the issue of animal “rights” versus the rights of a person. The person can lose. Regarding abortion, the Court has listed multiple state interests, including regulating maternal and prenatal health though all stages of pregnancy. The question is where do the woman’s rights outweigh the state’s interest in preserving the life of her unborn baby?

 

[Lursa]

My bad. I made my first unforced error.

Nothing. Fewer pro-abortion progressives and more socially-conservative Catholics from Latin America or Hindus from India? Looks like a win to me.

You're just deflecting. And the Latin vote hasnt been holding us back so far in CA or OR or NM (their governor has been publishing incentives in the media to TX doctors to move their women's health clinics there) and Irish/Italian are deep in the Eastern blue states. Pretty sure the American majority supporting women's right to choose wont be going away.

It's the fundie white Christians that are holding us back...and they're dying out and Christianity is declining in the US.

 

[Lursa]

But the point of the “drowning your pet cat” example wasn’t that you can circumvent the intent of the law.

I never wrote or implied that. The law is that you can put your pet down. You can kill it or have a vet kill it. That is the law. There are laws against doing so in an inhumane manner however...but the law is not circumvented.

Rather, the state has an interest in regulating animal cruelty even though it can’t point directly to what that interest is beyond a moral question of preserving and protecting the life of the animal. Then there is the issue of animal “rights” versus the rights of a person. The person can lose. Regarding abortion, the Court has listed multiple state interests, including regulating maternal and prenatal health though all stages of pregnancy. The question is where do the woman’s rights outweigh the state’s interest in preserving the life of her unborn baby?

OK, here it is for the third time...

So what is the justification for taking away women's right to consent to risking their lives?

Of course we can "protect" things by law for lots of reasons...but those laws are dependent on what federal/Const rights they may violate when they are enforced. Why dont any of the red states charge women with murder for having abortions? Some sure want to. What's stopping them?

The court can list its "interests", but the difference is that the other laws re: animals you used dont violate the rights of someone else in enforcing them. The person can still kill the cat. THey cannot torture it and no one else can kill it. Animal cruelty laws dont violate anyone's rights...or please explain how they do?

The red states are clear that their interests are in banning abortion as much as possible...but they cant criminalize killing your own unborn because those law may not supersede state's rights (this has been an issue and some states have tried to change their state constitutions, or had to), or federal laws or her Constitutional rights.

For abortion, the woman can still kill her unborn but abortion practices must be humane (they are) and no one else can kill it without her consent.

To deny the woman a much safer medical procedure takes away her right to consent to her life...which you have not yet provided any legal justification for...and her rights to bodily autonomy, due process, etc. See the red above for an example of this restraining the red states. See Dobbs for not recognizing any legal protections or status federally for the unborn.

 

[Ahlevah]

Yes.

No, you’re wrong. When a baby is first born, until it receives its first breath, it is still receiving oxygen and nutrients from the mother through her placenta. It is still attached to the umbilical cord. It is not independent other than in the sense that it is no longer physically located inside of her body.

Yes. It is independent. The umbilical cord is unnecessary and the fact that it can drown makes it no less human than a person drowning while swimming.

No, it can’t drown until it begins using its lungs. We’re likely talking about seconds here, but it’s still an important distinction. There isn’t much practical difference between a “fetus” and a “person” at that point, other than one is breathing air and the other isn’t, and they’re separated by a cervix and a vagina.

It was always human. What it is not, prior to birth... is a person.

Okay. Can you tell @Gordy327, @Lursa, and @choiceone that? And the “person” thing is being challenged. That doesn’t mean I agree with people who want to legally define a fetus as a “person.” (Obviously, for purposes of federal law, it definitely is not.)

Straw Man

Well, it’s not if you think that legal distinction means one human is worth saving but the other isn’t. If the pros can’t understand that then they shouldn’t be surprised when the antis try to change the legal definition of “person.” By that point it should be imprinted on their collective consciousness.

Silly.

Yeah, kind of, but it helped make the point: they’re both likely dead without someone helping them survive. They’re not that different.

 

[Bodi]

No, you’re wrong. When a baby is first born, until it receives its first breath, it is still receiving oxygen and nutrients from the mother through her placenta. It is still attached to the umbilical cord. It is not independent other than in the sense that it is no longer physically located inside of her body.

That is arbitrary. It is out of her body and can survive on its own even if it is still connected for a few seconds.

No, it can’t drown until it begins using its lungs.

You said "cleared of fluids". At that point it is trying to use its own lungs.

We’re likely talking about seconds here, but it’s still an important distinction. There isn’t much practical difference between a “fetus” and a “person” at that point,

It is a person at that point.

Okay. Can you tell @Gordy327, @Lursa, and @choiceone that?

I doubt that those three have ever said that the fetus is not human. What else would it be... Sabre Tooth?

Well, it’s not if you think that legal distinction means one human is worth saving but the other isn’t.

It is a Straw Man.

 

[choiceone]

Women do have choices to avoid pregnancy. They can abstain from sex, or they can use birth control. Beyond fleeing to Canada to avoid being prosecuted for draft evasion, the conscript often doesn’t have a choice. Neither does an aborted fetus.

Not all women have choices. If, for example, they are raped. If they are extorted - think threat to cause a father who recently had a heart attack to die, something not at all difficult to do, or threaten sexual abuse of a child - so what they do to you can't be called rape. If they are subjected to bigamy as the supposed second wife. Etc. Sure, one could abstain and live with the consequences, but that is a form of rape.

There is only one case of conscription consequences equal to this. The Manchurian Candidate provides the example - an enemy controlling a person's mind so that their body commits treason or kills against their own conscience over which they have ceased to have control

Yeah, I know people got rejected or could get deferments. I also know hundreds of thousands of draftees are buried in American military and veterans cemeteries.

You clearly think it's worse to die than to lose your capacity to control your body, your liberty, so that the body acts against your conscience even when you will it not to. I disagree and believe you haven't ever really thought through the most serious of philosophical problems.

My point remains: we live in a civil society with rules decided by the people. We can’t always get what we want. I wanted to live in a state where I could legally carry a loaded gun in my car or concealed on my person. Sometimes other interests come first—like how we treat animals or the unborn.

 

[choiceone]

Is it independent immediately after it’s born? When the umbilical cord is still attached but before it’s lungs are cleared of fluid and it begins breathing on its own? Is it finally a human at that point when it wasn’t a few minutes before that, at least according to some crazy people? And how many babies have you found that can support themselves anyway? I mean, like milk cows and knit themselves booties?

Yes upon birth when it is in a position to breathe oxygen itself, even if an incubator is necessary. When it isn't biologically dependent upon the woman's body, because it can be cared for by other people.

 

[choiceone]

But the point of the “drowning your pet cat” example wasn’t that you can circumvent the intent of the law. Rather, the state has an interest in regulating animal cruelty even though it can’t point directly to what that interest is beyond a moral question of preserving and protecting the life of the animal. Then there is the issue of animal “rights” versus the rights of a person. The person can lose. Regarding abortion, the Court has listed multiple state interests, including regulating maternal and prenatal health though all stages of pregnancy. The question is where do the woman’s rights outweigh the state’s interest in preserving the life of her unborn baby?

No person has the right to use another person's body and blood and organs, not even to save his/her own life, not even the person's own children, without the consent of that person. Because our laws prevent that misuse in all other cases, they also should prevent it in this one.

It is not that the embryo or fetus is a person. It is that the state that makes an anti-abortion law says agents of the state, who are persons, have the right to use the woman's body, blood, and organs to gestate the embryo/fetus without that woman's consent. And if we claimed the embryo/fetus were a person, such a law would say the embryo/fetus has that right.

But this is a true violation of a fundamental right. It isn't about abortion killing the unborn. It's about the state misusing the woman's body, blood, and organs.

 

[choiceone]

No, you’re wrong. When a baby is first born, until it receives its first breath, it is still receiving oxygen and nutrients from the mother through her placenta. It is still attached to the umbilical cord. It is not independent other than in the sense that it is no longer physically located inside of her body.



No, it can’t drown until it begins using its lungs. We’re likely talking about seconds here, but it’s still an important distinction. There isn’t much practical difference between a “fetus” and a “person” at that point, other than one is breathing air and the other isn’t, and they’re separated by a cervix and a vagina.



Okay. Can you tell @Gordy327, @Lursa, and @choiceone that? And the “person” thing is being challenged. That doesn’t mean I agree with people who want to legally define a fetus as a “person.” (Obviously, for purposes of federal law, it definitely is not.)

I never, ever said that a human embryo wasn't human. Of course it is. But human is not equivalent to person. A human cell, a human organ, a human limb are all human. But they aren't persons, either. An embryo can't be "a" human until it is sufficiently biologically separated from the woman's body. I don't see why, if the umbilical cord isn't cut yet, it isn't separate enough, because at that point, it can in fact be induced to breathe precisely because it is out of her body.

Well, it’s not if you think that legal distinction means one human is worth saving but the other isn’t. If the pros can’t understand that then they shouldn’t be surprised when the antis try to change the legal definition of “person.” By that point it should be imprinted on their collective consciousness.



Yeah, kind of, but it helped make the point: they’re both likely dead without someone helping them survive. They’re not that different.

 

[Bodi]

Women do have choices to avoid pregnancy. They can abstain from sex, or they can use birth contro

When you have sex on ONLY the occasion that you want a child let us know... until then your opinion is hypocritical bullshit.





y

\\

 

[JoeB131]

Excellent! Now consider how dramatic you get over your imagined women aborting healthy, viable fetuses with out you providing any data at all. Any very rare cases then would be, according to you, "incredibly insignificant."

Please keep this in mind, in your own words, and dont bother bringing up the false and emotionally manipulative need for abortions restrictions in the 3rd term.

That they happen at all is the problem. If you agree that they are "Stastically insignfigant", you should have no problem banning them.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Gordy327]

That they happen at all is the problem. If you agree that they are "Stastically insignfigant", you should have no problem banning them.

Seems reasonable to me.

How is it a problem exactly? And why should they be banned?

 

[JoeB131]

No. The 2.1 rate is required to replication the size of the existing population. But an overpopulated country doesn't have a healthy population level. Once Baby Boomers pass away, the problem of the social pension trust funds being bankrupt will be completely ended, and society will just be smaller. So what?

Um, first, we aren't overpopulated.

Secondly, if you have immigrants who refuse to assimilate, you don't have a country anymore.

If you are anything but 100% First American in ethnicity, you are a product of immigration and, therefore, have caused your own problems by your own admission.

Okay, let's look at that. Leaving aside my 1/8th Cherokee Ancestry, my predominant ancestry is my German father who immigrated here as a baby.

The thing is, my grandparents did so LEGALLY. They assimilated. They learned English. When WW2 rolled around, my father was conscripted into the US Army to fight against- wait for it - Germany! Heck, the way we even pronounce the family name now was Americanized.

But here's the thing. At the time, they were starting to put the clamps on immigration because they knew we had taken in too many at that point. The percent of foreign born topped out at 14% in 1890, only to decline to a low of 4.7% by 1970.

Then we got stupid, and today that percentage is up to an unworkable 15.6% and is projected to increase to 23% by 2040.

No, you are assuming that sex is only for making babies just because pregnancy statistically occurs for every 22.5 separate acts of sex, but intimacy can occur with every act. Sex is part of courtship in huge numbers of societies, not just ours, and it serves both purposes. There are people who marry and never have kids, and in any case, marriage can outlast raising kids by 40 years. Why should reproduction be placed above intimacy as the important function?

But the risk of pregnancy is there, that's the point. You assume the risk, you should accept the consequences, and that should not be sucking a baby into sink. Or at least, that should never become something that is accepted as okay.

I left that man because he was not someone I would willingly have married because I couldn't trust him with my life, health, and well being. The way I grew up, children, though they deserve the love of their parents, are not more important than one's spouse, so a man who can't put a woman first even in the courtship phase is really bad husband material. He grew up with the Catholic value that children are more important than your spouse and women are looking for a meal ticket. We were completely incompatible.

I guess so. I grew up in such a household, and I'm fine. The thing about marriage is that it isn't courtship all the time. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices.

The fact that sex serves multiple purposes and is not always used to make a baby is your big problem.

Not my problem at all... except the taxes I have to pay for all the people who think Government is an acceptable daddy.

This isn't about what you imply. It's about responsible women realizing that, unless they make enough at their work, they really can't afford kids, but that doesn't mean they can't afford intimacy.

Then get their tubes tied or buy a vibrator. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of irresponsible people trying to pin their irresponsibility on someone else.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, really. If people don't want to reproduce, but they want affectionate intimacy, and they scrupulously use contraception, any pregnancy that results is an accident. If a man rapes a woman and doesn't intend to use knocking her up as additional physical cruelty and degradation, then even for the rapist it's an accident.

Ah, here we go again.... whenever a pro-abortion person is losing an argument, they drag out the R-word.

How many domestically abused women say, "But I love him," and "But he apologizes afterward and it's not all the time"?

Too many. I stopped getting involved after the first few women tried to use me as an emotional toxic waste dump. I'm not your priest, I'm not your therapist, and if you suck at picking men, that's on you.

No, you don't eliminate consequences.

At a minimum, even a woman who has no doubts about having an abortion has to arrange doctor visits at least twice, pay for them and also the treatment - here in NY the cheapest abortion costs $500 and it doesn't include all appointments, There is often a need for transportation and sometimes an overnight stay to plan and finance. Then she has to endure the painful and uncomfortable result, which can also interfere with her work and cause a temporary loss of income.

$500 buck to kill a baby isn't a consequence.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't really agree. Biden had had a cold or the flu before the debate, apparently from an exceedingly busy schedule. His advisors should have had him not busy for the week before or should have been honest about the cold/flu and postponed the debate. Not long after the disaster, while recovered, rested, and sitting down, Biden was interviewed and there wasn't anything wrong with him.

Oh, please. That guy was senile for years. Probably when he ran in 2020. The problem was in 2020, they were able to limit his exposure due to Covid.

Did he have a good day a few days later. Um, sure. The problem with people suffering congative issues that they have good days and bad days. But we have a whole stream of reports coming out now of how out of it Biden was, and these are coming from Democrats. Someone SHOULD have invoked the 25th Amendment or otherwise compelled him to resign for health reasons. They didn't, and now we are at where we are at.

So whenever a hear a Democrat whine about Trump, I say, "We did this to ourselves."

I actually don't think political ruthlessness makes an effective president.

Sure it does. Weak presidents get rolled over by Congress and foreign leaders. That was the problem with Carter.

I actually don't think he was abusive. The Flowers woman was just a voluntary prostitute and that other woman, whom the GOP paid lots of money to, was utterly lacking credibility in her accusations.

Which "other woman" do you mean? Paula Jones? Kathleen Willey? Juanita Brodderick? If your wife can't trust you, why should I? (And I apply this to Trump as well as Clinton.)

But you're also right. Those of us who are pro-choice are remarkably tolerant of people who respect women's rights to their own bodies, and are ready for war with those who don't.

Um, okay... that was hyperbolic.

He did not let hippies run things. You actually have a definitional problem, because hippie doesn't mean what you think it does. And FYI, the far right, when it took over, was so inexperienced and idiotic that it was pitiful.

Were they? You see, I had little problem with Reagan, he acted like a president. Dubya Bush made mistakes, but he was still an effective president in dealing with the war on terror.

 

[JoeB131]

No, I don't go for it. This country is split just about 50/50 between the right and left, and the right doesn't care if he was a convicted felon or tried to overthrow the government and insulted everyone or was impeached, etc. We have now on each side made a commitment to certain things and against others, and the right-wing side made its highly unconstitutional and vulgar choice.

I think you fail to realize why Trump is popular with the right. It's because while Reagan or Bush were too willing to compromise with Democrats, Trump will fight them. Bush was willing to grant another amnesty for illegals with McCain-Kennedy. Trump is rounding them up and throwing them out.

There's something lovely about the irony that red states may well be more adversely affected by the tariffs and reduced social services than the blue ones. Sorry I have no sympathy for anyone who cut Trump slack.

I guess, if you think that wanting people to suffer for not agreeing with you is a good thing. But if that were the case, Trump wouldn't have ever made a comeback.

The worst thing about the Democrats is that, for years, they neglected the state governments, so that the GOP gerrymandered them to the extent possible. Without correcting that problem, danger lies ahead anyway. But the dumbest thing thing they did to oppose Trump was select anyone female, black, or gay to run. If they don't pick someone male, white, and straight next time, it's unlikely we'll be able to fix it. The 50% on the other side is not ready.

No, the worst thing they did was tell hard working middle-class white folks like my relatives that they all had white privilege and had to feel guilty about it. That's why those state governments went GOP in droves.

Of course you do. But in fact, the issue of choice was a very important one in that election, and wherever it was directly on the ballot, it won except for Florida and had been doing that since Dobbs. But Harris's mistake was overemphasizing what could be done by Congress, since she had no control over who would be elected there. She should have emphasized only the things she would do and support. And the social safety net, support for Ukraine and our allies, a continuation of policies that had been making inflation go down, addressing the housing crisis, and continuing to push down the illegal border crossings would have been enough.

Most of the places it "won' were blue states. Ohio and Kansas were exceptions, but only because their laws were too draconian to start with.

I don't care. If you want men ever to have sex with women and ever want women to continue any pregnancies, then you don't spend all your effort blaming women for sometimes choosing to get unpregnant. Because that autonomy is the price you have to pay if you can't virtually enslave women by refusing them equal educational and employment opportunities and equal pay. Those things would allow them ultimately to refuse ever to have any sex again, and if you think men are dogs now, just wait.

Wow, being a bit overdramatic, aren't you? I'm all for women not having sex if they aren't ready to start families. You know, like they used to do when we had morals and standards.

 

[Gordy327]

9No, it’s not stupid. You said morality is subjective, so we shouldn’t try to regulate it. So both you and @Lursa have pummeled me to state why society might want to regulate abortion, and I said because it values prenatal life, or, more accurately, there comes a point at which it values prenatal life more than the pregnant woman’s right to bodily autonomy, privacy, or any right other than preserving her own life that she may wish to

Emotionalistic rhetoric. What is the "value" of life? Where is this value defined or quantified? "Value" is nothing more than a personal judgement call and not a legal basis for anything. Especially since there is no legal justification or reconciliation in putting "value" in a non person over an actual person.

Animal cruelty laws are a clear example of a case where society made a choice to regulate morality. I mean, what is the societal interest here if it isn’t morality? Tell me. I’m all ears.

And yet, people can still have their pets put down without issue. So under your comparison, a woman can "put down" her embryo/fetus without issue too.

Actually, no, it’s not that clear. There will be more fighting over whether a fertilized human embryo is property or a person.

it's not a person. Simple legal fact.

I assume blue states will say it’s property, while red ones will call it a “person.” Who knows what the federal courts will ultimately say. Hopefully, little to nothing. Let the states do what they want.

Personhood is also a federal issue. There is no way to separate the states from the feds in that regard.

Fetal Personhood Legal Landscape | Pregnancy Justice

www.pregnancyjusticeus.org

So we can put you in the “I favor cat drowning” column, correct?

That does not add4ess my statement.

The point is society can place limits on what is “moral.” Distributing videos for profit of cats being crushed to death is a federal felony. Before the relevant law was enacted, it wasn’t.

No one is distributing videos of abortions for profit either.

No, society has placed limits on what Mommy can teach her rugrats. For example, it is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 842(p) for her to teach her kids how to make bombs if it’s done with the intent to actually make bombs and blow shit up. If she simply wants to educate them that’s technically permissible, but she should probably advise them not to tell their teachers, unless they want a home welfare check from Child Protective Services.

The distinction there is a matter of public safety. Abortion poses no threat whatsoever to other, the public, or society in general.

Read Dobbs. They’re still in there. They haven’t moved.

Dobbs allows a woman to have an abortion without due process too.

Does it matter to the public if an animal owner drowns his cat? It must, because it’s a federal felony.

No, it does not matter. But the issue there is one of causing undue suffering or cruelty. There's none in an abortion.

There are limits on choice. If she walks into a general surgeon’s office and says, “Doc, I identify as quadruple-amputee. So I would like you to cut off my arms and legs,” he would probably refer her to an inpatient mental facility for a 72-hour hold and psych evaluation.

A doctor can refuse to perform a procedure. A person can still mutilate themselves if they wish.

Like I said, read the opinion.

As i suspected, you can't answer the question.

 

[choiceone]

Um, first, we aren't overpopulated.

Secondly, if you have immigrants who refuse to assimilate, you don't have a country anymore.

There has always been a problem of immigrants not assimilating in the first generation. The second generation is a mediator generation, which translates between languages and customs for parents. In NYC and Chicago, even in the sixties, there were ethnic communities all over. It takes till at least the third generation.

Okay, let's look at that. Leaving aside my 1/8th Cherokee Ancestry, my predominant ancestry is my German father who immigrated here as a baby.

The thing is, my grandparents did so LEGALLY. They assimilated. They learned English. When WW2 rolled around, my father was conscripted into the US Army to fight against- wait for it - Germany! Heck, the way we even pronounce the family name now was Americanized.

Everyone's name was Americanized in pronunciation. And FYI, the draft helped people to assimilate with the universal draft. Once we had a small professional army, the military couldn't do that in a big way.

But here's the thing. At the time, they were starting to put the clamps on immigration because they knew we had taken in too many at that point. The percent of foreign born topped out at 14% in 1890, only to decline to a low of 4.7% by 1970.

Then we got stupid, and today that percentage is up to an unworkable 15.6% and is projected to increase to 23% by 2040.

View attachment 67569442

I'm not against lowering legal immigration again, but look at Trump welcoming all the white South Africans.

But the risk of pregnancy is there, that's the point. You assume the risk, you should accept the consequences, and that should not be sucking a baby into sink. Or at least, that should never become something that is accepted as okay.

I don't get this. When you help people with viral diseases, or you go mountain climbing, if there are consequences the state allows you to seek medical treatment to end bad consequences. I just don't get why people want to punish women with pregnancy and childbirth.

I guess so. I grew up in such a household, and I'm fine. The thing about marriage is that it isn't courtship all the time. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices.

I don't think having six kids should be part of making sacrifices. In my gramma's day, it wasn't odd to have lots of pregnancies because everyone assumed that, out of six, at least two would probably die. In my mom's day, it wasn't odd to have three or four, because one or two would die. People just accepted that. But when the death rate for infants and small kids is as low as today, one or two kids is perfectly okay, because they don't die. I don't think that a woman who gets married should be treated as someone who has to continue a pregnancy as an unwanted sacrifice, because that defines children as inherently harmful.

Not my problem at all... except the taxes I have to pay for all the people who think Government is an acceptable daddy.

If people are poor or a kid is disabled, welfare isn't about government as daddy - it's about a community caring for the people who live in it. Of course, we could always just stop protecting the atomization of capitalist private property. Then, the community would be recognized as a community.

Then get their tubes tied or buy a vibrator. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of irresponsible people trying to pin their irresponsibility on someone else.

I would assume, then, that if women just quietly didn't give birth to as many kids, you'd be delighted.