SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

I wonder who recently used the term "pro-abort" that our forum parrot is sqwaking about.

Knowing it's just shortened "pro-abortion" is obvious enough, at least. Quick search shows this to be a long-used term in right wing circles, just can't say I remember seeing this shortened version of it until recently. Not that it would change my response or anything, it's an equally balderdash, made up term without evidence to support its existence. Like "groomers", despite recent news reports related to fairly large-scale law enforcement operations or legal proceedings against individuals and organizations relating to child sexual abuse.

[diller]

Just an observation, but the term 'pro-life' annoys me it's such a loaded term and basically just a spin word that only American christian extremists could come up with it.

Normal people would just say 'anti-abortion' because that is what it is.

[Captain N]

Just an observation, but the term 'pro-life' annoys me it's such a loaded term and basically just a spin word that only American christian extremists could come up with it.

Normal people would just say 'anti-abortion' because that is what it is.

It's why a lot of the Choice crowd labels them as Pro-Fetus. It's more fitting since they don't give a damn about the life of the mother and they definitely don't give a shit about the kid once it's born.

[Endus]

Another reason why I say pro-abort, since they deign to contradict the pro-life label. Fair's fair.

No, it's not.

Pro-lifers legitimately don't give a shit about that "life". They know a zygote's not a person, and don't treat it as if it were one in any other way. They don't want to increase social spending to support kids and young parents in need, either, because they couldn't give a shit about that "life" once it's born. They're anti-abortion, and their goal is attacking women's basic human rights. That's it. That's the entire movement. Every single one of them.

And no pro-choice people are pro-abortion. Nobody is trying to encourage people who don't want an abortion to seek one. That's just 100% not part of the movement. Maybe you can dig up some radical crazy nobody who has no support who says crazy shit, but not anyone relevant, or any significant movement.

You're just being actively dishonest and malicious. Admitting that you're using "pro-abort" just to troll the thread.

[Rasulis]

So one or two in the sense of six or seven, representing 25% to 29% of states in the category I mentioned. I do expect both numbers to increase once the pro-aborts start to seek compromise in the middle in states where they can't realistically pass no abortion restrictions until third trimester and beyond. The field belongs to the furthest pro-life interests, because the pro-aborts got too lazy pointing to Roe vs Wade and not passing backup laws in the meantime. Also, the Democrats can seek and gain seats in states with 6-week bans simply because the pro-life side has not convinced people of the humanity of the unborn child and cruelty of the procedure at that early stage of life.

I am not seeing any attempts by legislators in abortion ban states to moderate their stance.

Florida Senate just passed 6-week abortion ban which DeSantis is expected to sign. The last oasis for legal abortion in the south will be gone soon.

The only reason there are still abortion providers in Utah is because ACLU/Planned Parenthood sued the law that ban abortion provider.

A bill introduced in Idaho's House of Representatives would criminalize the transportation of a minor within the state or across state lines to seek an abortion.

Louisianna and South Carolina lawmakers are trying to advance bills that seek to classify abortion as homicide and could result in death penalty for women who have abortions.

Culture warrior, Texas State Rep. Steve Toth, introduced a bill that would ban online access to abortion medication and information on abortion care.

Just not seeing it.

[Nymrohd]

It's why a lot of the Choice crowd labels them as Pro-Fetus. It's more fitting since they don't give a damn about the life of the mother and they definitely don't give a shit about the kid once it's born.

They don't give a shit about the fetus too. They force them to stick around until birth even when they are in pain and distress and will painfully die at or before birth. The only thing they are pro is pro-forced birth.

[Dontrike]

Let me know when that doesn't involve advocacy for less restrictions on abortion.

What a dumb fucking way to ignore facts because you like the idea of 10 year olds giving birth.

[Mekh]

What a dumb fucking way to ignore facts because you like the idea of 10 year olds giving birth.

Regularly scheduled reminder @tehdang 's avatar shows a sex offender and Putin friend.

[tehdang]

It involves telling people to mind their own fuckin business and make their own health care decisions without the state stepping in. That's it.

Thank you for agreeing that your position involves advocacy for less restrictions on abortion. You may classify it to yourself as just another health care issue if that really does something for you.

...and? That doesn't really help the girls and women who are objectively suffering under these policies now. I care more about that than the political score for one team or another.

The political score involved doing jack shit up until Roe was overturned. So you get a term of the pro-life proponents a little more extreme than me having full run in many states. This is the logical counterpoint to your previous "They keep getting their asses kicked whenever voters get any chance to weigh in on it." And in 2022 midterms, well, you rely on the gerrymandering arguments to supplement the populist arguments when the voters don't actually vote in pro-aborts.

No, because the "pro-life" side does so by their own very actions and arguments. I am referencing specific laws, specific inactions, specific policy initiatives for notable individuals and organizations (vs. just random Twitter person with colored hair and a podcast but actually no political influence).

Can you do that in arguing your "pro-abort" framing? I'd be very curious to read how you came to such a conclusion based off of rhetoric, policy pushes, and actions. This thread is a pretty good summary of quite a few citations supporting my assertion that "pro-life" is an inaccurate framing.

Fair's fair if you want to label your opponents, but dislike them labeling you. You can always switch to group self-identification if that makes thing better for you.

There's this "win political fights" thing. Why are Republicans and conservatives so seemingly obsessed with winning/losing rather than you know, good legislation that helps people?

Yes, if there's a long enough, concerted, bad-faith effort to weaponize the judiciary and bend the government to your will, backed by enough powerful and extremely wealthy people, you can accomplish a lot. That's not exactly a good argument to be making as a positive thing.

It's hardly about winning political fights. Remember, this legislation was enacted because the Democrats lost political fights. I don't accept this weird double-vision where if you win, it's because of principled stands and popular voice, but when you lose, it's a bad-faith effort and obsession with winning. Pro-life advocates love protecting the unborn baby. Yes, enacting protections where adoption and safe surrender are the humane options enforced by rule. You know, good legislation that helps people and protects the innocent. That's just the pro-life position. And now it's up to the people's representatives to decide, instead of nine justices clothed in black robes.

I am not seeing any attempts by legislators in abortion ban states to moderate their stance.

Florida Senate just passed 6-week abortion ban which DeSantis is expected to sign. The last oasis for legal abortion in the south will be gone soon.

The pro-abort side hasn't really shown the political power to push abortion restrictions back yet. I wager the rhetoric, where no nationally recognizable Democrat ever vocally supports restrictions based on weeks/months of pregnancy, will have to change in the local context and campaigns to actually swing the issue. It could last even longer if it's a choice between 6-week and woman-and-doctor-only restrictions.

I am noting the pendulum swing (past an equilibrium) and predict it will swing back hard in the other direction.

[Endus]

Fair's fair if you want to label your opponents, but dislike them labeling you. You can always switch to group self-identification if that makes thing better for you.

What you continue to misrepresent is that the issue isn't about labelling. It's about the honesty of that labelling.

Namely, that "pro-life" is inherently and deeply dishonest in its framing of the movement, as is "pro-abortion", whereas "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" are just plainly objectively accurate framings of the two positions.

I get that you don't care about facts and truth because they fall against your ideological preferences, but you're really just demanding the right to be dishonest and baity because you're annoyed people see what you're actually about.

[Edge-]

Thank you for agreeing that your position involves advocacy for less restrictions on abortion. You may classify it to yourself as just another health care issue if that really does something for you.

On reproductive health care*

As we've seen that it's far more than "just abortions", and that these vaguely written laws potentially criminalize much more than "just abortion", resulting in girls and women either needing to flee their state to access potentially life-saving care or they're forced to suffer needlessly because hospitals do not want to deal with the liability.

The political score involved doing jack shit up until Roe was overturned. So you get a term of the pro-life proponents a little more extreme than me having full run in many states. This is the logical counterpoint to your previous "They keep getting their asses kicked whenever voters get any chance to weigh in on it." And in 2022 midterms, well, you rely on the gerrymandering arguments to supplement the populist arguments when the voters don't actually vote in pro-aborts.

Because it was unnecessary. Because every Justice had gone up and many lied and said Roe was settled law. For a party that complains about unnecessary legislation, you sure seem to wish there was some unnecessary legislation.

I mean, gerrymandering does exist and is a problem. Also, most of the "pro aborts" as you call it win their races or win the ballot measure.

Fair's fair if you want to label your opponents, but dislike them labeling you. You can always switch to group self-identification if that makes thing better for you.

Not at all! Show your work to the class. We've shown our work, maybe you're hesitant to show yours because it's pure fiction?

Yeah, I'm thinking that's likely it given your fairly consistent reluctance to support your augments with evidence. I have no such hangup.

It's hardly about winning political fights. Remember, this legislation was enacted because the Democrats lost political fights. I don't accept this weird double-vision where if you win, it's because of principled stands and popular voice, but when you lose, it's a bad-faith effort and obsession with winning. Pro-life advocates love protecting the unborn baby. Yes, enacting protections where adoption and safe surrender are the humane options enforced by rule. You know, good legislation that helps people and protects the innocent. That's just the pro-life position. And now it's up to the people's representatives to decide, instead of nine justices clothed in black robes.

Weird that they hold these positions that they theoretically care about the girl/woman and the child after birth but like...never do anything to show that like pass legislation to that affect?

The pro-abort side hasn't really shown the political power to push abortion restrictions back yet. I wager the rhetoric, where no nationally recognizable Democrat ever vocally supports restrictions based on weeks/months of pregnancy, will have to change in the local context and campaigns to actually swing the issue. It could last even longer if it's a choice between 6-week and woman-and-doctor-only restrictions.

I am noting the pendulum swing (past an equilibrium) and predict it will swing back hard in the other direction.

Well yes, because political parties exist and Republican controlled states, despite being very upset that voters don't endorse their extremism on the issue, aren't going to suddenly flip their position.

Honestly, you've managed to pearl clutch and bat at strawman with a lot of words that say nothing, but as usual there's not really much to really discuss in your post. To adopt a phrase, it's all hat and no cattle.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Regularly scheduled reminder @tehdang 's avatar shows a sex offender and Putin friend.

I remember pointing this as well. Got some weaselly explanation.

I think then the Deprideau himself has become so insufferably dishonest that he had to move on from Putin's realm.

[Edge-]

What you continue to misrepresent is that the issue isn't about labelling. It's about the honesty of that labelling.

Namely, that "pro-life" is inherently and deeply dishonest in its framing of the movement, as is "pro-abortion", whereas "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" are just plainly objectively accurate framings of the two positions.

I get that you don't care about facts and truth because they fall against your ideological preferences, but you're really just demanding the right to be dishonest and baity because you're annoyed people see what you're actually about.

I specifically asked him to show evidence supporting his framing, as this thread largely exists to support our assertion that "pro-life" is anything but, with dozens of articles backing up that position.

It's weird that conservatives keep making these brash claims, refuse to provide evidence, and then complain about how unfair it is that they be expected to provide evidence when you've done so without argument.

[Sunseeker]

I continue to wonder why y'all endlessly engage with the clearly dishonest poster. Frankly, your endless quotes of his posts are more irritating than the little white bar that says "This user is on your ignore list".

[Endus]

I specifically asked him to show evidence supporting his framing, as this thread largely exists to support our assertion that "pro-life" is anything but, with dozens of articles backing up that position.

It's weird that conservatives keep making these brash claims, refuse to provide evidence, and then complain about how unfair it is that they be expected to provide evidence when you've done so without argument.

It's not really "weird". It's like most fundamentalist religions. They have a mythology they've built up about how they wish the world was, and are actively hostile and antagonistic towards any kind of evidence of reason that demonstrates their fantasy doesn't hold up; the heretics must burn, kill the non-believers, yadda yadda and so on.

They legitimately don't care about the facts. That's why it doesn't matter what evidence you bring up to debunk any point. That just proves you're a heretic and it's their job to burn you alive.

If they've told themselves that Democrats are MoleLizards from UnderEarth, it doesn't matter how many ways you show that the idea of skinsuits are fucking stupid, they're still gonna be hunting for the zippers they know are being hidden from sight. The best you can do is keep pointing out to everyone who hasn't bought into blind, unthinking belief in a crazy-ass nonsensical fantasyland mythology that their views are ridiculous delusions divorced from reality. You can't deconvert them unless they seek it. The best you can do is inform everyone else to keep the disease from spreading.

Emphasis again just to be safe that I'm talking about the extremist fundamentalist type of religious sects; the ones who deny evolution or push a flat Earth or think witches are invading their congregations and poisoning their followers. Not just regular folks who have faith but also understand that science is, like, actually real and shit. This isn't an anti-religion screed. It's about a particular ideological disease some sects, and now Republicans in general, have fallen into, and it's not really unique to religion itself; you see the same shit in North Korea or Nazi Germany or whatnot.

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...maryk-abortion

Good op-ed in The Guardian on the topic, and how Republican extremism will not be limited to the topic of reproductive health care services nor will it be limited to the state level.

Because it sure seems Republicans will not stop until the state and federal governments have complete oversight over the reproductive system of every girl and woman in the country, with only state-approved care provided.

And how these judges making these rulings are reaching back to the days where "alchemy" was a respected science and we still used leeches for curing ailments they don't cure, or in the case of the more recent mifepristone ruling based on the Victorian-era Comstock Act. It's weird how often Republicans and conservatives need to delve back into history to times when women and people of color were viewed as less than human and/or denied equal rights to justify their current rulings.

[Inuyaki]

Let me know when that doesn't involve advocacy for less restrictions on abortion.

So if you think that being for less restrictions on abortions means "pro-abortion", then it surely is okay if I call people that want less restrictions on gun ownership "pro-murder"?
And yes, your argument really is that stupid.

[s_bushido]

So if you think that being for less restrictions on abortions means "pro-abortion", then it surely is okay if I call people that want less restrictions on gun ownership "pro-murder"?
And yes, your argument really is that stupid.

"Aha! So you admit that abortion is murder! Checkmate, atheists!"

Don't give him any ideas.

[Inuyaki]

"Aha! So you admit that abortion is murder! Checkmate, atheists!"

Don't give him any ideas.

Except I never said that so he would be lying.

My point is: If less restrictions on abortions = pro-abortion, then less restriction on murder weapons = pro-murder

If he calls us pro-abortion (which we are not), I will just call him pro-murder then in the future.

[Rasulis]

The pro-abort side hasn't really shown the political power to push abortion restrictions back yet. I wager the rhetoric, where no nationally recognizable Democrat ever vocally supports restrictions based on weeks/months of pregnancy, will have to change in the local context and campaigns to actually swing the issue. It could last even longer if it's a choice between 6-week and woman-and-doctor-only restrictions.

I am noting the pendulum swing (past an equilibrium) and predict it will swing back hard in the other direction.

That won't be for a long time. GOP legislators are doing a fine job digging themselves deeper and deeper by passing one extreme bill after another. Why take the shovel away.