SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Dezerte]

That was my initial thinking too but many countries actually have laws that reflect this reality. You don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street but you do get penalized if your actions leads to the end of life of someone. That doesn't mean that those laws are correct of course and for the sake of argument the personhood aspect of it is ignored. I just can't really think of a better argument than "that's just semantics". I'm having trouble with explaining why is it just semantics?

Well, there's the issue of bodily autonomy, and the fact that we can't even force dead people to donate their organs to save lives. There's also a difference between being pregnant and witnessing someone on the street dying - the former will affect your body to a far greater extent than the latter. And to go back what I said above - if not even dead people can have their bodily autonomy broken why should pregnant women's autonomy be? No harm or discomfort will come to that dead person, yet the woman should be made to suffer just because? The problem with analogies is that they often aren't 1:1, and when picked apart you will find differences between them. Even your original argument can be said to have this problem, and it all just depends on how nit-picky and semantic people want to be about it.

I think a lot of the problems with the discussion stems from differing views on what life is. At best you could try an argument that they have no right to force their beliefs, on when personhood begins, on another human being. "Pro-lifers" often derive their rationalization from religion, or traditionalism, sometimes even misandry. Life can be defined in many ways, and while the scientific definition of it would apply to a day old embryo it would also apply to your skin cells. "Pro-lifers" sometimes use this as an argument, that science says that this is life but then ignore the other implications of that fact or reframe it themselves as two unique DNA's combining into new life (making the scientific basis of their argument disappear).

[Marfrilau]

Well, there's the issue of bodily autonomy, and the fact that we can't even force dead people to donate their organs to save lives. There's also a difference between being pregnant and witnessing someone on the street dying - the former will affect your body to a far greater extent than the latter. And to go back what I said above - if not even dead people can have their bodily autonomy broken why should pregnant women's autonomy be? No harm or discomfort will come to that dead person, yet the woman should be made to suffer just because? The problem with analogies is that they often aren't 1:1, and when picked apart you will find differences between them. Even your original argument can be said to have this problem, and it all just depends on how nit-picky and semantic people want to be about it.

I think a lot of the problems with the discussion stems from differing views on what life is. At best you could try an argument that they have no right to force their beliefs, on when personhood begins, on another human being. "Pro-lifers" often derive their rationalization from religion, or traditionalism, sometimes even misandry. Life can be defined in many ways, and while the scientific definition of it would apply to a day old embryo it would also apply to your skin cells. "Pro-lifers" sometimes use this as an argument, that science says that this is life but then ignore the other implications of that fact or reframe it themselves as two unique DNA's combining into new life (making the scientific basis of their argument disappear).

I completely agree with everything you said. I even made the "we can't even force dead people to donate their organs to save lives" argument in the discussion. Funnily enough I have found out that what he said is actually wrong. In France (where the other person is from) anyone who fails to render assistance to a person in danger will be found liable before French Courts (civil and criminal liability). So it's not even true that you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street. Unless I assume doing so means harm to yourself. Which neatly just enforces the idea that it's all about bodily autonomy.

[Katchii]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

It's absolutely bullshit semantics...but it's not even semantics, it's inconsistent logic.

If the person is OK with letting the baby die seconds after birth because no one is legally required to save a life, but IS OK with forcing the woman carry that baby to term all the way up until that point, it was never about the baby/ saving a life, it's about controlling women.

[Mekh]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

Trivial: just cut the umbilical cord, wait until the fetus has died on its own, remove the dead tissue. That way all you did is end the forced blood donation. The life ended on its own.

[Fugus]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

Intellectually dishonest semantics.

A person is not required to save a life by donating blood.

A person is also not required to create another person against their will as that fetus has no consciousness or soul of its own at that point and also requires the constant work efforts of the host body to subsist at all at a state that is nothing but a glorified vaginal infection and is a stage where both science and the Bible agree and condone ending a pregnancy to prevent that life from being created.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The House is about to flip to GQP control - and they will spend their entire time Impeaching Biden. I would not be surprised if they go for at least three separate Impeachments, just to exceed Trump's number.

And the Senate will slap it down every time, even if it passes the house. Because they need a super majority to actually indict. We know they'll try to impeach him over shitty reasons, just like the 20 times they attempted to impeach Obama for wearing a beige suit or for ordering fancy mustard.

[Edge-]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/08/...ouncil-member/

Salt Lake County council member Dave Alvord says fetuses are not part of a mother’s body because the umbilical cord and placenta do not connect directly to the woman.

That isn’t true, but Alvord is standing by his comments in the wake of the social media pile-on he’s faced after airing those views on Twitter, in response to a tweet by Vice President Kamala Harris.

...

“The baby is not part of the body of a woman,” Alvord responded in a tweet. “The umbilical cord and placenta do not directly connect to the woman. The baby floats inside the woman. It is not about the woman’s body, it’s to kill then remove the baby’s body. It is done in greater proportion to black babies.”

This is a fantastic, stunning example of why men should be required to pass a basic biology test before attempting to legislate girl's and women's bodies. And yes, he's a very conservative Republican. How do we know this?



https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...t-lake-county/

Because that's a real, since deleted, post from his Facebook account. A bit low-res, but you can find the higher res image and a few other examples of Dave Alvord's amazing hot-takes on people caring about world issues, the war in Ukraine, race (as shown above), gender equality, and as the first story was about, female biology.

https://lowersjtaxes.com/

And yes, that's his former campaign site that he didn't renew that was purchased by someone else, instead.

Republicans somehow don't understand the most basic reproductive functions they try to take state control of.

He's building himself quite the national profile to fast-track his way to Republican leadership.

[Ghost of Cow]

This is a fantastic, stunning example of why men should be required to pass a basic biology test before attempting to legislate girl's and women's bodies. And yes, he's a very conservative Republican. How do we know this?

I'm still (mostly) sure that they know all this and they just say random weird shit to keep the fight going.

Mostly because I really believe that - if the facts were just on the table and the party tribalism were removed from the picture - the vast majority of people are actually pro-choice.

That doesn't suit the GOP, though. So they just constantly muddy the waters and put out dishonest arguments and weird "facts" to keep stirring and stirring.

[Edge-]

I'm still (mostly) sure that they know all this and they just say random weird shit to keep the fight going.

Given how consistently wrong they are...I'm skeptical.

Mostly because I really believe that - if the facts were just on the table and the party tribalism were removed from the picture - the vast majority of people are actually pro-choice.

I mean, this is the reality of polling. It's consistently true, as we saw in Kansas with the recent vote on the issue.

That doesn't suit the GOP, though. So they just constantly muddy the waters and put out dishonest arguments and weird "facts" to keep stirring and stirring.

No, these people are just that ignorant.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tim-s...b0c550161c79ba

Tim Scott thinks pregnancies last a full year.

[Ghost of Cow]

No, these people are just that ignorant.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tim-s...b0c550161c79ba

Tim Scott thinks pregnancies last a full year.

Well, there's also a mother of four quoted in that article saying something stupid. Surely she has to have had some education on the topic!

Like I said, I'm pretty sure they do it to stir the pot and/or win GOP primaries where the voting base is the craziest.

[Edge-]

Like I said, I'm pretty sure they do it to stir the pot and/or win GOP primaries where the voting base is the craziest.

And based off the long history of Republicans not understanding biology, and we can go back to their comments on rape and how women's bodies "know if it's rape and have a way of shutting down a pregnancy" for yet more evidence that they don't understand basic biology at all.

I don't buy that they all actually understand it but are just being willfully stupid. I mean, I don't deny that it's probably happening, but I think that's more the minority here.

[cubby]

And the Senate will slap it down every time, even if it passes the house. Because they need a super majority to actually indict. We know they'll try to impeach him over shitty reasons, just like the 20 times they attempted to impeach Obama for wearing a beige suit or for ordering fancy mustard.

But a GQP controlled House will still do it - Impeach Biden over and over again - remember, Trump is a twice-Impeached Resident. You don't have to be tried by the Senate to be Impeached. That's the second phase in the process.

However, you are right, the Senate would never let it go to trial.

However however, the mere act of Impeaching Biden over and over again will be horrible the country for dozens of reasons. And it looks like most everyone thinks the House will flip.

[Rasulis]

Kansas to recount abortion vote by hand, despite big margin

Sore losers.

[Captain N]

Kansas to recount abortion vote by hand, despite big margin

Sore losers.

Does this surprise you at all? The next step is to simply hand wave the vote away, and enforce a total ban on abortion including cases of rape and incest. If Florida's voting laws with felons is the benchmark -- we already know that Republican legislatures don't give a rats ass about what the people want.

[Edge-]

Kansas to recount abortion vote by hand, despite big margin

Sore losers.

I would feel bad for the election workers inconvenienced with this shit but there is a bit of a silver lining -

Kansas law requires Leavitt to post a bond to cover the entire cost of the recount.

...

Caskey said the work won’t begin without a guarantee that Leavitt can cover the cost.

So she'll have to cover the costs up-front before anyone wastes time. So at least taxpayers on the hook for something like a multi-million dollar investigation headed by a guy who openly admits he understands nothing about what he's investigating.

[Fugus]

I would feel bad for the election workers inconvenienced with this shit but there is a bit of a silver lining -



So she'll have to cover the costs up-front before anyone wastes time. So at least taxpayers on the hook for something like a multi-million dollar investigation headed by a guy who openly admits he understands nothing about what he's investigating.

Really hope there is some oversight on this to make sure they don’t start strategically miscount ballots.

[Nymrohd]

Does this surprise you at all? The next step is to simply hand wave the vote away, and enforce a total ban on abortion including cases of rape and incest. If Florida's voting laws with felons is the benchmark -- we already know that Republican legislatures don't give a rats ass about what the people want.

Realistically speaking, the end result will probably be a slightly bigger margin since we know which side is more likely to have questionably marked votes that on further examination should not be counted.

[Captain N]

Realistically speaking, the end result will probably be a slightly bigger margin since we know which side is more likely to have questionably marked votes that on further examination should not be counted.

Oh I completely expect for more voters to have actually supported Pro-Choice, but we already have precedent of Republicans disregarding the votes of the people for their own agendas.

[Kaleredar]

Realistically speaking, the end result will probably be a slightly bigger margin since we know which side is more likely to have questionably marked votes that on further examination should not be counted.

I think they meant that Kansas will tally the votes, find more people supported pro-choice, and then the lawmakers will ignore it and unilaterally pass a law outlawing abortion.

[cubby]

Does this surprise you at all? The next step is to simply hand wave the vote away, and enforce a total ban on abortion including cases of rape and incest. If Florida's voting laws with felons is the benchmark -- we already know that Republican legislatures don't give a rats ass about what the people want.

They can't do that with this piece (I know you know that, just stating it for others), but many GQP-held states (yes, essentially enemy controlled at this point) have passed or are passing legislation that can effectively override the votes for Presidential Elections (citing "fraud" or "uncertainty" in the count, or similar).

Also, for those that had any hope of a national vote replacing the Electoral College, that's basically over. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which was close to having enough states pass it to effectively make the national Presidential election a popular vote (because enough states had passed it, and the Compact states that, if passed by states with enough electoral votes to meet or pass 270, that all of the state's votes would go to the Presidential candidate with the most votes nationally), would almost certainly die in SCOTUS review.

So, 2024 will once again be "interesting", for any number of reasons.

Praised Be.

- - - Updated - - -

I think they meant that Kansas will tally the votes, find more people supported pro-choice, and then the lawmakers will ignore it and unilaterally pass a law outlawing abortion.

Kansas is oddly more blue than people realize. I was shocked when they elected their last governor.