1. #3121
    Waiting now to see the global fallout from this and how it may embolden forced birth proponents in other countries to reopen the issue. Just consider in how many developed countries abortion was legalized quite recently. In the same way that electing Trump and to an extent Brexit galvanized the conservative/nationalist right, this may well be a rallying cry for the religious right across the world. An issue they felt they had lost is now again open for discussion.
    Quite a lot of developed countries do NOT allow full access to abortion with restriction on On Request abortion to 10-14 weeks (well before fetal viability). I will add that in most cases the law is not really upheld (no one is going to come for women or OBGYNs that abort later and good luck taking someone to court especially when there is a separate limit for socioeconomic reasons). But this certainly will allow the religious right to renew their efforts in those countries.

    And ofc this will certainly make life harder for pro-choice activists where on request abortion is not legal who seek to expand reproductive rights in their countries.

  2. #3122
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Not sure about the other states. Texas laws exclude women who perform self-induced abortion from both civil and criminal penalties. Michigan also.

    Here is one way not to worry about abortion.

    SCOTUS abortion decision prompts increase in requests for vasectomies, getting tubes tied in Central Texas
    Getting a vasectomy can be difficult, getting your tubes tubes tied can be very very difficult unless you already have like 2 kids or whatnot.

  3. #3123
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It really shouldn't.

    Here's why it's a nonsense argument, from the secular perspective (since any religious arguments can be summarily dismissed and thrown out);

    1> The fact that something is "alive" does not confer it rights. The dandelions in my lawn are "alive" but I can still dig them out or use weedkiller on 'em.

    2> Life does not "begin". The "beginning" of life was the trigger point of abiogenesis, some billions of years ago. Since then, it's been a continuation of life. In the human context, our gametes (ova and sperm) are created by living individuals, and are, themselves, alive, and combine to form a new, still-living, fertilized zygote. There was never a point where anything in that cycle was "not alive", and no "life" was created.

    3> If you mean "a life", rather than the processes of life itself, then you're making a personhood argument, or a religious argument. If the latter, toss it away. If the former, we'll come back to that. If you mean anything but those two, you're making something up and it's weird and not relevant.

    4> Whether something is "human" has the same issue. If you mean "human", you are referring to anything produced by a human body. Human excrement. Human sweat. Human hair. Human tissue. Of course a zygote or fetus is "human". So's the snot I dug out of my nose. Does my snot have rights?

    5> If you mean "a human", we're talking about personhood or a religious argument, again. See #3.

    6> Now, personhood. This is a legal term. It's fundamentally arbitrary, though can be justified on objectively-determinable grounds. The current definition in the USA is "at birth, you become a person". Anyone pushing anything else is just wrong. It's also a completely irrelevant question, as we're about to get into; anyone talking about "personhood" (or "a life", or "a" human", see #s 3 and 5) is willfully trying to distract you with irrelevancies, attacking a straw man because they know they can't make their case on the relevant facts and principles.

    7> Why is personhood irrelevant? Because bodily autonomy trumps right to life. There is no circumstance where one person can be forced to donate tissue or be forcibly hooked up to another human being as a mobile dialysis unit (say). Even the suggestion is gross as hell. But that's because it violates one person's right to bodily autonomy, to protect another person's right to life. There is no circumstance where right to life is deemed to overrule bodily autonomy; if you're the only possible match to someone who needs a new liver, even though livers regrow and you'll face very little long-term consequence or risk (less than carrying a pregnancy to term), you cannot be forced to donate part of your liver. So, even if we consider the fetus "a human", or "a life", it isn't relevant; the bodily autonomy of the one pregnant overrules any right to life a fetus even hypothetically might have. Which it doesn't, to be clear. But even if it did, still not an argument against freedom of choice.

    It's all a distraction. Bullshit, from day 1, pushing a pseudo-religious misogyny. A lie, perpetrated to harm and marginalize women.
    We all know that the whole "Life starts at conception" or whenever an egg is fertilized thing is rooted in the idea that a soul is suddenly "Created", which is itself rooted in religion. The only people whom I have seen on these forums that argue life begins at conception are also those I have seen admitting to ascribing to some kind of American branch of Protestant Evangelism. Including the poster you're responding to.

    They will make a bunch of arguments as to why "life" "Starts at" conception, arguments that basically originate from conservative news media and are then regurgitated ad inifinitum because they know people don't care about their religious BS, and they need a better argument. What they don't know is we see past their uninspired opinions and bad arguments.

    And of course, we all know for bonus irony, these are usually the people who call for the deaths of those they don't agree with, or otherwise just don't give a shit about taking care of children that are born. They will do things like suggest putting kids up for adoption, and themselves have never and will never consider adopting a kid themselves.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    That's not a very strong explanation though because it doesn't explain why so many spiritual women are still against abortion. I bet you that religion is a stronger predictor of a person's view on abortion compared to gender-based reasons.
    The majority of women against abortion are affluent, religious, and had the luxury of being able to plan out when and how they wanted to have a family. The majority of them will make some flaccid comment like "Children are a blessing" because they got to grow up not having to worry about procuring the resources to raise a child.

    If you want to take away women's rights to abortion, you better be willing to pay the taxes to raise every unwanted child in a loving home, or you're full of shit calling yourself "pro life".
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  4. #3124
    At the same time looking at the global standard among developed countries, a blanker permit on On request abortion is VERY rare. It's just Canada, China and South Korea? Heck even fetal viability is rare as a cutoff, it's mostly on the 10-14 weeks area. So while I don't agree on any limit because autonomy trumps right of life which to me is the clear cut argument, I expect the majority of US states that will limit abortion will only do so within the limits common in most of the developed world. Which was very scary to realize.

    The difference ofc will not be in the law but rather in enforcement and the serious threat of life towards abortion providers. Forced birth proponents have repeatedly committed acts of domestic terrorism not just in the US but elsewhere and continuously harass abortion providers as well as vulnerable women. In the US they are protected to a large extent by the extremely generous interpretation of free speech and right to protest. Meanwhile while in my country on request abortion is only legal until the 12th week, I don't think I've ever heard of a case brought to court making its way to the media in the last several decades (and I think the medical standard after a point is induced birth rather than abortion).

    I'm also less critical of Democrats. I really felt there was legislative cowardice and unwillingness to risk votes when they've repeatedly failed to codify rights affirmed by SCOTUS decisions but seems many countries have done the exact same, keeping a very poor standard on reproductive rights that is not really challenged simply because of lack of enforcement.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2022-06-27 at 07:51 AM.

  5. #3125
    Quote Originally Posted by Hansworst View Post
    To have at least two kids; breed for 'Murica. And that last one sounds like a rule made up in the fucking dark ages.
    So it's in line with American conservatives' views about most things, then.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2022-06-27 at 08:35 AM.

  6. #3126
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    Yeah, good luck to all the women trying to get their tubes tied in the US. To have mine done I had to be 25, have at least 2 kids already, and needed my husbands’ approval. Women don’t even have medical freedom when it comes to that.
    A friend of mine had trouble after her first pregnancy nearly killed her. Her parents were asked (as she was not married) if they wanted the doctors to focus on saving her or her child. Even afterward, they were like "But, what if you want to have more kids?"

    My sister with 4 kids was asked that too. It isn't as simple as people think it is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    So it's in line with American conservatives' views about most things, then.
    I hate that they view having kids as "breeding" ... I only ever use that when talking about the farm animals I used to raise.
    Saying that concept is basically confirming to me the speaker views woman as less than human.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  7. #3127
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,409
    Uhm, could women make a claim for self-defense considering pregnancy can lead to death?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  8. #3128
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Uhm, could women make a claim for self-defense considering pregnancy can lead to death?
    Are you serious or is this some kind of jest ?

  9. #3129
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Are you serious or is this some kind of jest ?
    Can pregnancy lead to the woman's death?

  10. #3130
    I've been hunting for it, but I must have missed @tehdang responding to @Endus highlighting his ignorance regarding the mechanics of late-term abortion (last post on page 157 as of now). Thanks for that Endus, very informative. I think we should all remind tehdang to read, digest, and hopefully apologise for his lack of understanding on this aspect. I'm sure he'll be adjusting his beliefs any minute now based on this new information.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  11. #3131
    Is that map correct about "time limit" for abortion ?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/late...19-5?r=US&IR=T

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Can pregnancy lead to the woman's death?
    Obviously and so is walking.

  12. #3132
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's such a gross way to frame it. "So there has to be SOME common-sense limitations to women's freedom, right? They can't just actually have bodily autonomy, we can't have that. So let's come to some compromise about how we can subjugate and dehumanize women, together! That's just common sense."
    I think it needs a reframing. The issue of fetal viability is still a valid one - but it should be framed in a way along the lines of "yeah the woman still has a right to have this unwanted entity removed but we will use a different process (birth induction vs abortion) if the fetus is viable."

    Assuming, of course, the procedure isn't being done due to medical issues that would dictate a certain approach.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  13. #3133
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I think it needs a reframing.
    For whose benefit?

    Because right now, we're fighting for the right to basic bodily autonomy for women, at all. Reframing it as you say is a concession, and one that should not be made, as those opposing such basic rights do not deserve to have their concerns or complaints heard or addressed in any way. They deserve derision and ostracization and condemnation, and nothing more.

    Once the issue of "if" is settled properly, we can start discussing questions on "how?"

    The issue of fetal viability is still a valid one - but it should be framed in a way along the lines of "yeah the woman still has a right to have this unwanted entity removed but we will use a different process (birth induction vs abortion) if the fetus is viable."
    Putting the pregnant person at significantly more risk, in a multitude of ways. Also, "viability" isn't really concretely identifiable. Pre-term births, particularly at 22-24 weeks, have very low chances of survival. Single percentage points. It's up to about 30% by 25 weeks.

    Why don't we just leave that as a medical decision between the doctor and their patient? Why even involve the government?


  14. #3134
    Estimates are predicting the number of foster children in the US to increase by 5x in the relatively near-term as a result of this ruling. There are currently over 400k unplaced foster children in the US. If that does increase 5x, that may mean a sad return to the days of orphanages in the US that haven't existed since the 1950's. A step back of 70 years.

  15. #3135
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Biglog View Post
    Estimates are predicting the number of foster children in the US to increase by 5x in the relatively near-term as a result of this ruling. There are currently over 400k unplaced foster children in the US. If that does increase 5x, that may mean a sad return to the days of orphanages in the US that haven't existed since the 1950's. A step back of 70 years.
    Not to mention unwanted infants left in dumpsters or thrown into the river, or smothered in their cribs, or any number of other horrors by desperate women who were denied ownership over their own bodies and forced to birth an unwanted child against their wills.


  16. #3136
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    18,331
    Has anyone seen any calls for organization and protest?

    From my social media feeds, I see people ranting about this, but I haven't seen anything come across my feeds as to a date and location for a gathering to protest this.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  17. #3137
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    Has anyone seen any calls for organization and protest?

    From my social media feeds, I see people ranting about this, but I haven't seen anything come across my feeds as to a date and location for a gathering to protest this.
    I know a lot of Pride events have focused on protesting instead.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I think it needs a reframing. The issue of fetal viability is still a valid one - but it should be framed in a way along the lines of "yeah the woman still has a right to have this unwanted entity removed but we will use a different process (birth induction vs abortion) if the fetus is viable."

    Assuming, of course, the procedure isn't being done due to medical issues that would dictate a certain approach.
    I was under the impression that by the time the fetus is viable, it's large enough in size to make inducing birth the safer procedure anyway.

  18. #3138
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Are you serious or is this some kind of jest ?
    Of course, in stand-your-ground states the fear of death alone should be enough to make a reasonable claim for self-defense.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  19. #3139
    Quote Originally Posted by Biglog View Post
    Estimates are predicting the number of foster children in the US to increase by 5x in the relatively near-term as a result of this ruling. There are currently over 400k unplaced foster children in the US. If that does increase 5x, that may mean a sad return to the days of orphanages in the US that haven't existed since the 1950's. A step back of 70 years.
    They don’t care. They want a "domestic supply of infants".
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  20. #3140
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    You always bristle whenever anyone brings up slavery in the context of American history and legality but it seems you're allowed to bring it out of left field in some attempt to make an asinine gotcha. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
    It's a good example of moral wrong whose correction does not depend on personal involvement. The topic itself is hard to defend as anything but a moral wrong.

    Eugenics, segregation, the draft prior to the ability to vote ... these can be substituted as examples if necessary.

    Where people go amiss is using it as a means to smear a different topic as related to racism and the desire to put someone back in chains. That's the problem with either making something the fruit of slavery, a legacy of slavery, and/or modern slavery itself.

    I understood the context perfectly, and for the record and I don't entirely disagree with RobertoCarlos. It's not as simple as the fetus being a disposable clump of cells. That being said, this truth does not mean I believe the mother's right do not supercede the fetus's. The idea of a golden mean is fallacious in this context, much like in the context of slavery that you decided to bring to the table.
    Ok. I tend to think it's only the extreme end of early pregnancy when the mother's can be thought to supersede the unborn baby's. I'd favor laws like 15 weeks and would vote that way.

    To your point, I see the radical adherence to nothing but one-sided bodily autonomy (the other body has rights akin to a nondescript clump of cells) as being too extreme of a position to do anyone good. That argument doesn't end at viability, and in the seconds up to actual birth. In fact, I see quite a few examples of pro-choice politicians directly contesting any limits whatsoever being necessary. But I've probably said enough on the subject to give any good-faith listener the chance to understand the position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    Is this supposed to be a gotcha? It's like you didn't even read the next thing you quoted...
    More of a reminder that the rails of the debate here don't resemble the state-level debate across most of America.

    As to why they don't speak about restrictions? They aren't needed. Abortions past viability are already incredibly rare.
    Mass shootings are also very rare. That doesn't go to show nothing should be done on the issue. Suffice it to say that if you can't support any restrictions whatsoever, I'm going to continue to say the very hours before birth is an appropriate time to seek and obtain an abortion in your worldview. "Except for medical emergencies" is equal to "I support restrictions in the final days/hours/minutes."

    Because Conservatives have been frothing at the mouth and calling Democrats "baby killers" for too long to understand that "let's intentionally end the life of a viable fetus that could otherwise lead a normal life" isn't really a position that people hold. I've also never heard any politician explicitly endorse the existence of stop signs. Kinda figure they don't really need to though. They usually don't say things that are that obvious.
    Same answer as before. I pointed out that pro-choice politicians can't get their act together to join in compromise on later stage abortions. I am unpersuaded by attempts to say that conservative pro-lifers have been so mean on the issue that the pro-choice side can't endorse meaningful restrictions like life of the mother. You don't favor them. You give unrestricted rights to abortion up to the moment of birth. That is enough.

    Or maybe pro-life advocates could stop telling bold faces lies and spreading ignorance about what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality?
    I think the Pages 149-150-151-152-153 stand up pretty well even if you quibble about how myself and others describe the pro-choice and pro-life positions. I don't think the people interacting were coerced into misrepresenting their respective sides. (I do level the same back at you, if you were wondering: you're trying to escape what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality. Unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks, easily seen when anybody prominent is asked about restrictions they favor. No changes for early delivery, nor allowances only entertained if the life of the mother is threatened.)
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •