SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Breccia]

Yeah, I don't get why people think banning abortions is a good thing.

Admit it, yes you do. You just don't agree with it.

[Darththeo]

Admit it, yes you do. You just don't agree with it.

No, I really don't understand because it doesn't follow logically for me.
I don't see how someone being born unwanted is better than not being born at all. I cannot understand why someone would think that.
I don't see how banning something that will lead to someone having an unsafe version done is better than just allowing it legally.

[Edge-]

Yeah, I don't get why people think banning abortions is a good thing.

Because they don't care about bodily autonomy and think that women exist to be breeding stock, including teenage girls carrying the child of their rapist.

I mean, we don't have to mince words here. We can be very direct. Lots of dudes are still big-mad that women got the right to vote in a fluke (seriously, IIRC none of the elected officials actually expected it to pass) and have successfully convinced enough women of their side.

Same women that totes didn't believe the alt-right was filled with misogynists and created their own "female alt-right" groups only to cry about how all the dudes were, unsurprisingly, raging misogynists.

You either have a child born who is unwanted by at least one parent

"Just put the baby up for adoption!" they all say.

And when asked if they'll adopt the baby, the recoil in horror as if you've asked them a fairly insane proposition. Because it's "someone else's problem" if the child suffers or not, and their hands are morally clean because they "saved a baby" that they genuinely don't give a single fuck about once the baby is born.

[cubby]

Soon Gilead will have to put stricter controls on its northern border to prevent its breeding femoids from escaping.*

Once again....the Handmaid's Tale is a warning not an aspirational document.

If this SCOTUS holds, and is what we generally see in the leaked draft, then we are on our way. Goodbye right to privacy - which includes many of the corporate issues we see with selling personal data, etc. Goodbye women's rights - but also many marriage rights.

And, this isn't the worst to come. "Religious Freedom", used as a weapon vis a vis the First Amendment, to nullify other Constitutional rights. We've seen it already in smaller areas, but the GQP is about to come out swinging with it. And SCOTUS is ready to rule on it.

[Breccia]

No, I really don't understand because it doesn't follow logically for me.

It isn't logical.

[Darththeo]

"Just put the baby up for adoption!" they all say.

And when asked if they'll adopt the baby, the recoil in horror as if you've asked them a fairly insane proposition. Because it's "someone else's problem" if the child suffers or not, and their hands are morally clean because they "saved a baby" that they genuinely don't give a single fuck about once the baby is born.

And they bring up the list of people waiting to adopt, ignoring that once a kid reaches a certain age their chances of being adopted drop to zero.

And many adoption agencies will not allow a single person or a gay couple adopt a child regardless of their capability to raise said child.

My mother was raised by her birth mother and adoptive father. She did not know she was adopted by her adoptive father until her elementary school messed up and had her on the role under her birth name (her name had been changed when she was adopted by her adoptive father.) That cause scares on her mental health for her life and she was wanted by ALL her parents. (Her biological father passed before she was born.)

I cannot image what someone would feel if they found out they were adopted because their biological mother didn't want them and was forced to have them AND that their biological father raped their mother.

I hate saying this, but this is making me glad my mother didn't live to see a right she fought for taken away from the people.

[Jastall]

Yeah, I don't get why people think banning abortions is a good thing. No good comes out of it.

You either have a child born who is unwanted by at least one parent or you have a woman seeking whatever avenue is available to get an abortion.

If you want less abortions, the best path to that has been proper sex education, and strong social safety nets and programs.

The two reasons are either ideology and bigotry; note those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

It's more or less the same mindset that led to Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and numberless other such pointless bans over time and places. Blind moral outrages with no regards for practicality. "ban this sick filth" or "won't somebody think of the childrennn" repeated ad nauseum, when it's not just weaponized to bludgeon a demographic they don't like into submission. Unfortunately the people behind this tend to be highly motivated and able to play the long game, but can never seem to see past said bans, or comprehend the actual effects of them. That the thing is removed and the undesirables using it punished is the end of this process, not any actual betterment of society or otherwise positive result.

Also, Republicans are quite often against sex education and social safety nets as a matter of course, and a good chunk hate contraception altogether, preferring to rely on abstinence as a measure which is only slightly less stupid than combating obesity by outlawing food altogether. They want women to have no credible ways to avoid pregnancy, no ways to terminate it whatsoever, and no state support for their children when born. It's madness that leads to no good result but such is the product of the ideology.

[Breccia]

"Religious Freedom", used as a weapon vis a vis the First Amendment, to nullify other Constitutional rights

The Republican Party has long since forgotten that your freedom to your religion does not allow you to remove rights from people who are not you.

[Darththeo]

It isn't logical.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to me.

There are times where I disagree with someone, but I can understand their thought process but the "It is better to be born than not" just doesn't click in my head because I know if I found out I was unwanted I wouldn't want to alive, I would have rather not been born at all.

[Fugus]

No, I really don't understand because it doesn't follow logically for me.
I don't see how someone being born unwanted is better than not being born at all. I cannot understand why someone would think that.
I don't see how banning something that will lead to someone having an unsafe version done is better than just allowing it legally.

I can understand it, but only because I know people like that. You won't be able to follow it logically because logic has little to no part in it.

These are people who think that homosexuality is a mental disorder (Their own words).
These are people who think people on welfare are moochers except for themselves at which point will explain why they are the special exception or become a pretzel trying to show how they aren't on welfare even though they are.
These are people who reject facts whenever it conflicts with their faith and feelings.

I have literally had one tell me that they weren't really bad people, they were just against gay marriage because legalizing it was forcing it on them because they didn't want to see it.

The main ones who are against abortion use the excuses that the lump of cells has as much right as a fully developed person and it doesn't matter if they have no consciousness or emotions or even if it doesn't even have a developed brain at all, that even as a single cell, it has a soul which is all that matters and won't think beyond that.

The level of logic these people follow are about the level of logic children use to believe the Easter Bunny, can't even say Santa Claus because you at least see them every Christmas in malls and such. Only much more selfish and self-centered and will actually take a silent pleasure on watching others suffer even if they don't openly admit it in public.

But these people aren't using logic for their views.

[Darththeo]

The Republican Party has long since forgotten that your freedom to your religion does not allow you to remove rights from people who are not you.

I have been told by Republicans that Religious Freedom does not apply to me because I lack a religion, that it means I must have one.

And that it must align with what they want.

[Fugus]

If this SCOTUS holds, and is what we generally see in the leaked draft, then we are on our way. Goodbye right to privacy - which includes many of the corporate issues we see with selling personal data, etc. Goodbye women's rights - but also many marriage rights.

And, this isn't the worst to come. "Religious Freedom", used as a weapon vis a vis the First Amendment, to nullify other Constitutional rights. We've seen it already in smaller areas, but the GQP is about to come out swinging with it. And SCOTUS is ready to rule on it.

If it goes that far, and the DNC don't fight back and they cheat their way to a strangle onto power, they might actually get to invite the war they claimed....

[Darththeo]

I can understand it, but only because I know people like that. You won't be able to follow it logically because logic has little to no part in it.

These are people who think that homosexuality is a mental disorder (Their own words).
These are people who think people on welfare are moochers except for themselves at which point will explain why they are the special exception or become a pretzel trying to show how they aren't on welfare even though they are.
These are people who reject facts whenever it conflicts with their faith and feelings.

I have literally had one tell me that they weren't really bad people, they were just against gay marriage because legalizing it was forcing it on them because they didn't want to see it.

The main ones who are against abortion use the excuses that the lump of cells has as much right as a fully developed person and it doesn't matter if they have no consciousness or emotions or even if it doesn't even have a developed brain at all, that even as a single cell, it has a soul which is all that matters and won't think beyond that.

The level of logic these people follow are about the level of logic children use to believe the Easter Bunny, can't even say Santa Claus because you at least see them every Christmas in malls and such. Only much more selfish and self-centered and will actually take a silent pleasure on watching others suffer even if they don't openly admit it in public.

But these people aren't using logic for their views.

I have encountered people like it, both personally and professionally. I still don't understand it. I have dealt with members of my rod and gun club who are like that as well as had people at my job tell me they aren't lazy and would never take money that isn't theirs as they are being investigated for unemployment insurance fraud.

Though, I do get pleasure when they tell me "Abortion is killing a human being" and going "I know." Most have not bothered to learn enough about the subject they formed an opinion on that they don't know what to do when someone agrees on a fact, but doesn't accept the same conclusion.

[Fugus]

I have encountered people like it, both personally and professionally. I still don't understand it. I have dealt with members of my rod and gun club who are like that as well as had people at my job tell me they aren't lazy and would never take money that isn't theirs as they are being investigated for unemployment insurance fraud.

Though, I do get pleasure when they tell me "Abortion is killing a human being" and going "I know." Most have not bothered to learn enough about the subject they formed an opinion on that they don't know what to do when someone agrees on a fact, but doesn't accept the same conclusion.

Yeah, I have them in my family unfortunately. I would have them mention some stupid fact that is technically correct but either be pointless or omit the important part and I would respond, "I know, and?" to watch them sit there mentally lost that that snippet was supposed to be something in and of itself.

Told people here how my brother in law after Biden won the election tried to tell me how the Democrats were going to pack the courts and when I pointed out how the GOP had literally done just that, his response to justify his double standard was to call the Democrats a bunch of Devil Worshiping Liberals who would burn in hell, beginning and end of his thought process there and then tried to fight at me when I laughed at it.

Have another friend I have known for years, when you told him something that agreed with his views, he would accept it implicitly, when you told him something that didn't, he would question it in every way, shape and direction into infinity beyond levels that could even remotely be considered reasonable and when I could actually follow him all the way down the rabbit hole and showed him verifiable evidence that was irrefutable, he would go silent and nod, it wasn't that he accepted it, he just mentally shut down and was waiting for it to pass to avoid processing it and then I would catch him repeating those same debunked lies a day or so later. I literally watched him do this when it came to Trump firing Comey where I had to show him where Trump confessed on camera to firing him to stop the Russia investigation. The hamster fell off the wheel rather thank risk processing facts that contradicting his faith.

You can't logically figure them out because you have the inherit requirement for your views to make sense. They don't, they just need them to make themselves feel good and reaffirm what they want to think.

I have been threatened multiple times from a few of them when I actually prove them wrong. And even with proof, they won't accept it, because their feelings are more real to them than any fact so when reality contradicts them, its reality that's wrong.

[Endus]

It isn't logical.

Well, no. It is logical. It's just that they're lying to your faces about the premises behind the logic.

Like "it's an unborn child, a human life, same as any other". Nobody actually believes that, not even the pro-lifers. Such a stance would oblige child support to be paid from conception. It would mean every miscarriage must be investigated as a possible homicide, due to the integral involvement of another person (the woman who's pregnant). This isn't a logical inconsistency, it's a demonstration that they never believed this premise to be true in the first place. If it were logical inconsistency, challenging them would get them to either abandon that premise, or adjust their reasoning to account for the new information you've given, and that does not happen.

Because that was never part of the actual reasoning. It's the deliberate lie they use to conceal their actual reasoning and motives, because they know those motives are awful. Humanity's actually pretty rational. It's just that the "reasoning" often boils down to "I'm super angry and hate a thing and want to hurt people associated with that thing because hurting those people makes me feel good". That's completely rational. Just evil.

Nor is it "faith", before anyone comes in here with that nugget. The number of people abiding by religious views they can not personally support* is a figure that trends towards zero over people's lifetimes. They might keep themselves safe while they're younger, but they'll generally escape that situation as soon as they can; the most obvious being cases of homophobic sects and the gay children that grow up within them, knowing that they're gay and not supporting their sect's venom. "Faith" is, almost always, just an excuse to do what you already wanted to do. If your faith rubbed against you the wrong way, you'd break with it, nearly always, given the opportunity (phrased this way because I do understand the threat some people are under and that they legitimately can't).


* "Support" as distinct from "abide by" or "go along with", because some people will, say, eat kosher even if they're not Jewish because their spouse is Jewish and it's just easier to go along than cook two different meals and maintain separate kitchens or whatnot. I'm talking "no, I can't support your religious views about honor killings" kind of stuff.

[Fugus]

@Endus

That is hit and miss, many of them are flat out liars. I agree, especially the more intelligent among them.

Many of I have dealt with in my life haven't been the brightest tool in the shed when you actually had a long conversation with them that wasn't about drugs, sex, cars or sports. They really were logically inconsistent and weren't willing to confront that and would rather die than actually have to and admit they were wrong about something they have believed for so long. I think of one of them as someone who is brave enough to fight his way out of everything because he is too scared to think his way through anything.

They will lie to you and themselves and have committed who they are to that idea so much that they would rather die than actually question it even when presented with evidence that can't logically be ignored.

[Breccia]

I have been told by Republicans that Religious Freedom does not apply to me because I lack a religion, that it means I must have one.

And that it must align with what they want.

It could be worse. Imagine if you picked the wrong one.

[Rasulis]

How will anti-abortion states outlaw abortion once Roe vs. Wade is overturned?

Unlike in the past, abortion will still be legal in at least half the states in the US. States like California are committed to provide abortion services to out of state patients.

There are companies that are committed to working with providers to provide free transportation across state lines.

We have online companies like Aid Access, founded by Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, who has been supplying abortion pills to US women. For free in cases of financial needs. Which accounts for over 70% of Aid Access clients. The company is based in EU and has volunteers througout EU and Asia that mailed the prescription to the US from different addresses.

How are anti-abortion states going to stop this? Prevent pregnant women from crossing state lines? Check points at state lines? Forced pregnancy tests? Check every single piece of mails for abortion pills?

Basically, turn themselves into police states. Come to think of it, that's probably the wet dreams of most anti-abortion supporters.

[Fugus]

How will anti-abortion states outlaw abortion once Roe vs. Wade is overturned?

Unlike in the past, abortion will still be legal in at least half the states in the US. States like California are committed to provide abortion services to out of state patients.

There are companies that are committed to working with providers to provide free transportation across state lines.

We have online companies like Aid Access, founded by Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, who has been supplying abortion pills to US women. For free in cases of financial needs. Which accounts for over 70% of Aid Access clients. The company is based in EU and has volunteers througout EU and Asia that mailed the prescription to the US from different addresses.

How are anti-abortion states going to stop this? Prevent pregnant women from crossing state lines? Check points at state lines? Forced pregnancy tests? Check every single piece of mails for abortion pills?

Basically, turn themselves into police states. Come to think of it, that's probably the wet dreams of most anti-abortion supporters.

Texas has already laid the framework for that and the Supreme Court refused to address how unconstitutional it was.

I am still wondering how long it will before the military starts moving its women and families out of these states before it impacts their readiness or companies because stuff they are pulling like with Disney in Citi Bank

[Rasulis]

Texas has already laid the framework for that and the Supreme Court refused to address how unconstitutional it was.

I am still wondering how long it will before the military starts moving its women and families out of these states before it impacts their readiness or companies because stuff they are pulling like with Disney in Citi Bank

There is a limit to Texas' bounty law reach.

How are they going to sue a company based in EU in Texas court?

Or abortion providers in California?

Are they going to sue Uber or Lyft drivers for providing transportation across state lines? Or airlines. Or Amtrak. How would they know that their passenger was going to get an abortion? Or even pregnant.