Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery


bad_teammate

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water. The frequent use of Pharisses as a pejorative in the New Testament kind of drives home the point. 

Generally speaking anything in the Old Testament is dismissed or cherry picked as one sees fit.

 

 

10 commandments.  Religion is all cherry picking by those with a fundamentalists brain.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the rabid pro-life movement, at least in the US, pretty much started gaining steam in the second half of the 20th century, and it was conceived as a more palatable rallying point than the true impetus behind the movement:  maintaining segregation, particularly in schools.  It was easier to get the masses going in one direction by being "pro-baby" than by being "pro-entrenched-racism".

I mean, the Southern Baptist Convention outlined and subsequently reaffirmed its hardly-conservative stance on abortion in the years before AND after Roe V Wade.

This is good advice. The Prolife movement within Protestant Christianity is about as old as most Millennials. It's a pretty new movement in Christianity outside of Catholicism. A big difference though is Catholicism is consistent with anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and pro social gospel. The Protestant movement is just anti-abortion.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, F250 said:

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water. The frequent use of Pharisses as a pejorative in the New Testament kind of drives home the point. 

Generally speaking anything in the Old Testament is dismissed or cherry picked as one sees fit.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Outlawing abortion relies on invoking fetal rights. While arguing about fetal “life” is more moot than persuasive (and I am a breath of life believer,) what Liberty does a fetus possess? 

I was leaning on the "Life" part of the phrase.  Again, I agree with you, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DDD Dad said:


Well they don’t have a majority in the senate even with Kamala so it’s academic.

I don't think that's accurate.  As much of a pain in the ass as Manchin and Sinema are, I'm pretty sure both are pretty reliably pro-choice.

I don't think there's any senator in the Democratic caucus who would be opposed to enshrining Roe/Casey in legislation (and anybody who did would put him-/herself in serious risk of a primary challenge).

But it requires busting the filibuster.  And as we've seen repeatedly with respect to voting rights, a Senate rule is more sacrosanct than the Constitution.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The deftness with which Anastasis flits back and forth between the reasonable-sounding "look I don't think pro-choice people are monsters and I agree that some restrictions on abortion that have been enacted are bad, but can't we all agree that we should try to reduce repeat abortions?" and "anyone who supports legal abortion is pro-holocaust" is really impressive. You almost forget he's doing it.

I’ve always said he is our most talented troll for a reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Some people think a ball of human fetus cells with the potential to become a birthed human child require the same protections as an actual birthed human child. 

Some people think that it is a women's right to choose to advance that ball of human fetal cells to the next stage since it requires a woman's commitment to keep said human ball of cells alive through proper nutrition. 

One of these groups wants the government involved to force all potential balls to become birthed children. 

There’s a reason we use the term “living, breathing human being.” The breathing part is kind of important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The deftness with which Anastasis flits back and forth between the reasonable-sounding "look I don't think pro-choice people are monsters and I agree that some restrictions on abortion that have been enacted are bad, but can't we all agree that we should try to reduce repeat abortions?" and "anyone who supports legal abortion is pro-holocaust" is really impressive. You almost forget he's doing it.

I mean if you agree that taking a human life is bad, then you should be able to acknowledge that an abortion past the point of viability is at a minimum morally problematic, even if you agree a woman has an absolute right to do it.

That is unless you think that a human’s physical location is a reasonable criterion to use to determine their right to life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

both abortion and forcing a woman at the end of a gun to carry a pregnancy to term are morally problematic, which is why this is a hard fucking question that shouldn't be left up to a bunch of old white men who've never had a moment of difficulty in their country club harvard law lives and instead should be made by the person closest to the matter.

Well, that plays into the notion that it should be a decision made by white men of various ages and reactionary women, dozens of them, in dozens of state legislatures nationwide. 😬😬

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that plays into the notion that it should be a decision made by white men of various ages and reactionary women, dozens of them, in dozens of state legislatures nationwide. 😬😬

nope, it's between the pregnant person, her doctor, whoever else she wants to consult, and her god. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Did anyone argue for abortion past viability?

Did anyone exclude it in their argument? It’s in the discussion. In fact for most people it is the discussion. 

Which is a problem in and of itself because it is getting earlier all the time

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think that's accurate.  As much of a pain in the ass as Manchin and Sinema are, I'm pretty sure both are pretty reliably pro-choice.

I don't think there's any senator in the Democratic caucus who would be opposed to enshrining Roe/Casey in legislation (and anybody who did would put him-/herself in serious risk of a primary challenge).

But it requires busting the filibuster.  And as we've seen repeatedly with respect to voting rights, a Senate rule is more sacrosanct than the Constitution.

It’s cute how you think those two wouldn’t take the R line on this issue to avoid getting voted out of office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. 

(Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

It’s cute how you think those two wouldn’t take the R line on this issue to avoid getting voted out of office. 

Let's take those two one at a time:

Sinema is a bought-and-paid for corporate shill.  She's going to vote to lower taxes on the rich.  But rich people don't give a shit about abortion, and anti-abortion constituencies aren't funding her gravy train.  So much like with other social issues, her vote isn't really in question.

Manchin is a much bigger question mark.  I think he might favor that legislation, so long as there is something in it that federal dollars will never support abortions.

But even if you lost Manchin, you could probably pick up a Republican vote or two (e.g., Collins or Murkowski).

But none of that does any good if they won't get rid of the filibuster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

15 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. 

(Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)

 

now we're really getting down to the important topics 🙄

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, formermav43 said:

You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. 

(Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)

 

53A770ED-9814-4DBB-9717-C9318A94AB21.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Let's take those two one at a time:

Sinema is a bought-and-paid for corporate shill.  She's going to vote to lower taxes on the rich.  But rich people don't give a shit about abortion, and anti-abortion constituencies aren't funding her gravy train.  So much like with other social issues, her vote isn't really in question.

Manchin is a much bigger question mark.  I think he might favor that legislation, so long as there is something in it that federal dollars will never support abortions.

But even if you lost Manchin, you could probably pick up a Republican vote or two (e.g., Collins or Murkowski).

But none of that does any good if they won't get rid of the filibuster.

Hey man, cut me some slack. I’ve been high on OxyContin all day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just getting to volokh.  

https://reason.com/volokh/

Worth the time.  

Below from David Post.

It's liberty your honor....

Spoiler

To put it differently: the Court must, if it is to overrule Roe and Casey, explain why, under the principles of stare decisis, it is discarding its own prior holding applying the principles of stare decisis to this constitutional right.

It's a little headache-inducing (could we get precedent^3? will the decision in this case be precedent for the use of precedent to determine the use of precedent? and so on) - but I do think framing the central question this way works considerably to Respondent's advantage. To do what Mississippi asks it to do, the Court will have to explain not only why and how Roe got it wrong (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies tossing it aside), but why and how Casey got it wrong when it held that the principles of stare decisis do not require overturning Roe (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies our tossing that holding aside as well). I don't think that's going to be too easy to do.

The second noteworthy moment came in a discussion of the source of the underlying constitutional right that the Respondents were asserting. Justice Thomas asked the question this way:

JUSTICE THOMAS: Back to my original question. I know your interest here is in abortion, I understand that, but, if I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion, is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What would it be? … What I'm trying to focus on is to lower the level of generality or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the Court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay? So I'm trying to get you to tell me, what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it?

I liked Ms. Rikelman's terse reply:

MS. RIKELMAN: It's liberty, Your Honor.

Basta cosi.  That line should appear on t-shirts in the near future.

She continued:

It's the textual protection in the Fourteenth Amendment that a state can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, and the Court has interpreted liberty to include the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy …

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathon Mitchell, the drafter of much of the legislation, has made it clear he is interested in pursuing birth control next; that if a women does not want to get pregnant that she should abstain from sex. Men's sexual health is taken for granted and they are free to do as they please, but a woman's is irrelevant since she has but one purpose in his view. He also is on the record as looking to overturn Obergefell.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Just getting to volokh.  

https://reason.com/volokh/

Worth the time.  

Below from David Post.

It's liberty your honor....

  Hide contents

To put it differently: the Court must, if it is to overrule Roe and Casey, explain why, under the principles of stare decisis, it is discarding its own prior holding applying the principles of stare decisis to this constitutional right.

It's a little headache-inducing (could we get precedent^3? will the decision in this case be precedent for the use of precedent to determine the use of precedent? and so on) - but I do think framing the central question this way works considerably to Respondent's advantage. To do what Mississippi asks it to do, the Court will have to explain not only why and how Roe got it wrong (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies tossing it aside), but why and how Casey got it wrong when it held that the principles of stare decisis do not require overturning Roe (and not just wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies our tossing that holding aside as well). I don't think that's going to be too easy to do.

The second noteworthy moment came in a discussion of the source of the underlying constitutional right that the Respondents were asserting. Justice Thomas asked the question this way:

JUSTICE THOMAS: Back to my original question. I know your interest here is in abortion, I understand that, but, if I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion, is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What would it be? … What I'm trying to focus on is to lower the level of generality or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the Court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay? So I'm trying to get you to tell me, what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it?

I liked Ms. Rikelman's terse reply:

MS. RIKELMAN: It's liberty, Your Honor.

Basta cosi.  That line should appear on t-shirts in the near future.

She continued:

It's the textual protection in the Fourteenth Amendment that a state can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, and the Court has interpreted liberty to include the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy …

 

08281148-c34c-440d-bede-6ed90c40aaab_tex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

A human egg is not a human jfc

Parsing between adjective and noun.  Obviously, you're correct, a human egg is missing the secret sauce (oh dear lord) that might allow a little human to appear.  Calling a human egg "human" is akin to calling a human kidney "human".  OK, so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Parsing between adjective and noun.  Obviously, you're correct, a human egg is missing the secret sauce (oh dear lord) that might allow a little human to appear.  Calling a human egg "human" is akin to calling a human kidney "human".  OK, so what?

Did you read the context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:


Talks about how the abortion issue was AstroTurfed by evangelical leaders in the 70s for fundraising purposes and subsequently used by Republicans to win elections.  

Great video, thank you... and it's well documented that the Schaeffers were "in the room where it happened". Tangentially, this is a really interesting book about the folks who were early on pressing for "social justice" issues (like abortion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Parsing between adjective and noun.  Obviously, you're correct, a human egg is missing the secret sauce (oh dear lord) that might allow a little human to appear.  Calling a human egg "human" is akin to calling a human kidney "human".  OK, so what?

 

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Did you read the context?

YARN | We're you listening to the dudes story | The Big Lebowski | Video  gifs by quotes | 8c020d9d | 紗

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...