1. #6301
    Please define me in perfectly scientific terms what "threat to the mother's life is". And obviously on a state level since if it was to be defined on a federal level the states would dismiss it. And it cannot be "doctor's judgment" cause the doctor's judgment will be challenged in court which means that every abortion is a lawsuit waiting to happen no matter the level of medical emergency, costing money to the hospital not to mention depriving the public of a doctor's services for all the time they will have to be in court.

    I'll just wait. How close to dying do you want the woman to be?

  2. #6302
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,434
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    No one really predicted the amount and sustained throughput of disinformation over the laws, but that's becoming the locus of opposition as we speak.
    The grapes must be hella sour, huh?

    You know, you can cut the bullshit at any time and just admit you didn't anticipate how unpopular your positions on abortion are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  3. #6303
    What a law says matters far less than how it is enforceable. And that very much is true of all laws.
    If the difference between what a first reading presents and how it can be enforced is significant, at the very kindest you can ascribe it to incompetence which is inexcusable in matters of public health in particular. And in a litigious culture a law will be enforced in the manner that the most risk averse actors will choose to enforce it.

    Keep in mind many Western countries do not have blanket access to abortion. They often cap it and then allow extension by exceptions with on request abortion at about 12 weeks and no limit for risk to health or life.
    But the main difference is on how those exceptions are enforced. No one is hounding doctors for making those decisions. In the US you have had domestic terrorist attacks against clinics that offer abortion services, significant campaigns hounding doctors who offer the service and women who receive it. The level of rigor in how these things are defined ought to be vastly higher given the reality. At the very least you would have to allow doctors to make that call when they offer abortion services and not allow their call to be challenged by a third party.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2023-04-12 at 08:53 AM.

  4. #6304
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,877
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It really sounds like you have deep problems with people using their speech to suggest the advantages of one choice over another.

    Mothers looking for an abortion and no other option are tricked into being guilt tripped. If you googled where to find McDonald's, found a location, arrived, and then they accosted you to try and preach at you about the evils of McDonald's and why you should buy Wendy's, that goes beyond a "free speech" level and starts breaking into law-breaking territory. It's why the California case was justified. The pregnancy crisis centers are a scam. They don't offer anything for mothers who do come and already want to keep the pregnancy. They send those people away, not offering any kind of pregnancy assistance. Their entire reason for existing is to try and guilt trip people into carrying pregnancies to term, as well as yes, accosting people from abortion clinics to do that very same guilt tripping.




    I will say, your obsession over a Democrat leaving out a single detail (which turned out to be irrelevant even then) is pretty funny when faced with the fact that the law is overall draconian and will most likely tie the hands of anyone who wishes to help the child out of a rape or incest pregnancy that the parents are forcing them to have.


    We call Republicans the "pro-birth" party for a reason. Because they don't care about life. When people die, it's their fault. When people suffer, it's their fault. When they go hungry, fuck em. When pregnant women need help, fuck em. But when they want to have an abortion? OH NO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THAT FETUS HOW DARE YOU.

    Their own actions make their priorities clear. They don't care about life. They want to control women, and if they can fuck them over in the process.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  5. #6305
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm uninterested in indulging in semantics arguments over how justified you feel attacking pro-lifers for calling themselves pro-life. The entire topic of calling your political opponents not-truly-[POSITION] with other political arguments is foolhardy. The Democrats can't really be called pro-choice, because they're only interested in maximizing one choice, and they diminish and insult the other. The Republicans can't really be called pro-second-amendment since they ignore the militia text. The Democrats can't truly be pro-Democracy, since they openly support riotous disruption of lawmaking bodies and ignoring court decisions. The Republicans can't truly be for economic prosperity for the average Americans, since they support tax cuts for the rich and corporate loopholes.

    It reduces to dumb arguments about semantics. It's a stand-in for ordinary policy disputes, basically identical to "I think my way of doing things is the best way, and his way of doing things is the worst way." I'm happy to adjust to group self-identity like pro-life and pro-choice, provided the courtesy is returned. I'm happy to call it an anything-goes exercise, with "pro-life" "pro-death" "pro-choice" "anti-choice" flying here and there and all around. But arguing over terms is just a proxy for the real disagreements. I don't see the use.
    I won't give anyone who calls themselves "pro-life" the benefit of the doubt about them until they also support:
    Universal health care
    Free for the family and not district funded schools
    Free school lunch
    Guaranteed housing

    At a minimum. Until that they are only pro birth, suffering, and control.
    - Lars

  6. #6306
    >Girls and women suffer under intentionally vague laws limiting access to reproductive health care
    >Hospitals shutter maternity wards and decline to offer many reproductive health care services citing the vague laws and the fact that they're doctors and not lawyers and don't always have time to consult with legal before making a health care decision
    >This is all reported in the news
    >Republicans who passed those laws take literally no action to more clearly define the legislation, allowing girls and women to receive crucial care and hospitals to provide it without the fear of legal consequences or losing licenses
    >The suffering continues

    Clearly, this is all the fault of Democrats for not protecting abortion when it remained legal. Not the fault of Republicans who have passed these bills and then failed to follow up and clarify them.

    Apparently this is conservative reality?

  7. #6307
    In the past GOP used abortion to drive turnout. The anti-abortion supporters made up a small segment of the eligible voter population. However, they have near 100% turnout rate at the voting polls.

    The shoe is on the other foot now. It is Democrats turn to use abortion to drive turnout, and it worked in Wisconsin. Protasiewicz won the major metro areas by 73% which was 3% higher than Biden victory. Her biggest gains were in medium-sized metropolitan areas (Madison, Green Bay, and Duluth, Minnesota, whose metro area has one county in Wisconsin). In those metros, she performed 7% better than Biden in 2020. She garnered 45% of the rural vote in the election which was 5% better than Biden in 2020 and the U.S. Senate race in 2022.

    The issue still drives the anti-abortion supporters. Kelly actually received 200,000 more votes than when he ran against Karofsky in 2020. He would have won if this was still 2020. Unfortunately for him, Protasiewicz received around 400,000 more votes than Karofsky.

    Younger voters and suburban voters showed up big time. The vote totals out of suburban-heavy Dane County was impressive. It's the state's second most populated county behind Milwaukee - but it produced more votes for Protasiewicz than Milwaukee, 240,000 vs. 233,000.

    She did significantly better than Biden in 2020 and Barnes in 2022 in all parts of Wisconsin, from major metropolitan areas to rural counties. She almost won ruby red Ozaukee county.

    That Texas judge did not do the GOP any favor with his decision. Hence the muted response.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-04-12 at 05:37 PM.

  8. #6308
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    I won't give anyone who calls themselves "pro-life" the benefit of the doubt about them until they also support:
    Universal health care
    Free for the family and not district funded schools
    Free school lunch
    Guaranteed housing

    At a minimum. Until that they are only pro birth, suffering, and control.
    This!

    It's hilarious to claim to be pro-life and then even be against stuff like healthcare, protecting children or even basic stuff like parental leave (for both, mother AND father)

  9. #6309
    https://www.daytondailynews.com/loca...CYM2DSV2P7SHU/

    Two Republican-backed bills making their way through the Ohio Statehouse would together pose a major threat to ongoing efforts to protect abortion access through the Ohio Constitution — though neither bill makes any mention of abortion.

    They would do this by creating an August special election — months after Ohio lawmakers got rid of most August elections saying they were a waste of money — and putting a constitutional amendment before voters making it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution in the future, such as when the abortion-rights amendment would go before voters in November.

    The bills have received scorn from state Democrats and groups like Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom and Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, who are leading the initiative to codify legal abortion into the state constitution. The bills also have fanned the flames of factional feuds within the House GOP.

    A lot is riding on the future of these two pieces of legislation between now and November, but it’s unclear how it will play out. This quick explainer will help you get up to date on House Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 92 before it all unfolds possibly in the coming weeks.
    Reminder of how Republicans continue to weaponize government to their own ends because they're terrified of voters actually having a say and making it clear that yes, they support access to reproductive health care and do not support the parties extremist position on the matter, even if they still vote for the party.

    These laws aren't about access to reproductive health care specifically, but this seems to largely be one of the many tactics Republicans engage in in their attempts to consolidate minority power: Changing the rules of the game to benefit their current positions.

  10. #6310
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    >Girls and women suffer under intentionally vague laws limiting access to reproductive health care
    >Hospitals shutter maternity wards and decline to offer many reproductive health care services citing the vague laws and the fact that they're doctors and not lawyers and don't always have time to consult with legal before making a health care decision
    >This is all reported in the news
    >Republicans who passed those laws take literally no action to more clearly define the legislation, allowing girls and women to receive crucial care and hospitals to provide it without the fear of legal consequences or losing licenses
    >The suffering continues

    Clearly, this is all the fault of Democrats for not protecting abortion when it remained legal. Not the fault of Republicans who have passed these bills and then failed to follow up and clarify them.

    Apparently this is conservative reality?
    Sums it up. ALL THE DEMS FAULT! In some twisted fucked up reality of people who love to proudly advertise their political bias.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  11. #6311
    https://www.vice.com/en/article/3akq...acement-theory

    As Nebraska Republicans moved to ban most abortions in their state on Wednesday, one used arguments straight from the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory to push for the bill’s passage.

    Nebraska Sen. Steve Erdman argued that abortion had caused slow population growth in the state over the last half-century—and argued that it had hurt Nebraska economically.

    Our state population has not grown except by those foreigners who have moved here or refugees who have been placed here. Why is that? It’s because we’ve killed 200,000 people. These are people we’ve killed,” Erdman said during debate, after lamenting that if abortion had been illegal that would have resulted in more people who “could be working and filling some of those positions that we have vacancies.”
    Ah yes, the racist as fuck "Great Replacement" theory.

    Shocking that there's considerable overlap between the crowd of racist shitlords who believe this shit and the crowd that wants the government to have control over girls and women's bodily autonomy.

  12. #6312
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.vice.com/en/article/3akq...acement-theory

    Ah yes, the racist as fuck "Great Replacement" theory.

    Shocking that there's considerable overlap between the crowd of racist shitlords who believe this shit and the crowd that wants the government to have control over girls and women's bodily autonomy.
    Not to mention the very next sentence, which is whining that if they had more desperate people, they'd have more unemployment and thus it'd be easier to find people to take shitty-ass abusive and exploitative jobs that nobody actually wants to take, which is essentially waxing poetic about the virtues of wage slavery.


  13. #6313
    Indeed. If we force people to have children, we will have more faces to press to the grindstone. A perfect plan!

  14. #6314
    Justice Department to take abortion pill fight to Supreme Court: Garland

    The federal appeals court late Wednesday partially blocked an unprecedented ruling by a single federal judge in Texas last week would reverse the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone.

    The appeals court granted the Justice Department's emergency request to put on hold U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's decision to suspend the FDA's initial authorization of mifepristone back in 2000, citing the the statute of limitations.

    However, the three-judge panel determined that other parts of Kacsmaryk's ruling, which suspends changes the FDA later made to mifepristone's approved use and halts distribution of the drug by mail, could still go into effect at the end of the day Friday.

    The Justice Department on Thursday said it would take the fight over an abortion pill to the Supreme Court after an appeals court ruling that would restrict access to the widely-used abortion pill mifepristone.

    The appeals court ruling was set to take effect early Saturday morning.

    "The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Fifth Circuit's decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA to deny in part our request for a stay pending appeal. We will be seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court to defend the FDA's scientific judgment and protect Americans' access to safe and effective reproductive care," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.


    We also still have the Eastern Washington court order that the U.S. authorities not to make any changes that would restrict access to the abortion medication mifepristone in 17 Democratic-led states plus D.C. that sued over the issue. It's not getting any coverage in the news, but it is there.

    Meanwhile, GOP politicians at national level and in swing states are running scared. Unfortunately, those in states with 70% GOP voters don't give a shit about them and kept pushing for more restrictive bans.

    How scared? James Caan level of scared when Kathy Bates was going to break his legs in Misery.

    Tim Scott says he would ‘definitely’ support 20-week abortion ban

    Which would cover almost 99% of the abortion cases in the US.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-04-13 at 05:22 PM.

  15. #6315
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post

    Tim Scott says he would ‘definitely’ support 20-week abortion ban

    Which would cover almost 99% of the abortion cases in the US.
    The thing that drives me crazy is that the extremely few people who have late term abortions (which in the majority of this 1% of cases means late in the second trimester and is by no means "late term") almost always have them because certain diseases are only diagnosed fairly late in a pregnancy. A late abortion is quite likely because the fetus is not viable and will either die soon after birth or live a very limited life while being an enormous emotional and financial drain to its parents (and on a pragmatic level, to society at large since that child will not produce much utility for society while taking out much of the productivity of two adults with it). Or more often there is a significant threat to the life of the mother and abortion is in most cases much safer than delivering a child that has no chance of survival. These are not people who want to have an abortion; they are people who are forced by tragedy to have one.
    Or much more rarely they have them because their circumstances in life have suddenly changed dramatically and they no longer feel they can support a child. And more specifically in the US they may well have a later abortion simply because they struggled to find a provider and/or their financial situation made it hard for them to move to the providers' location at an earlier point. I think the smaller percentage is just people who are just not competent to make the decision early on (because they are far too young and have been hiding it out of panic, because of heavy substance abuse or because they live in a violent household and are terrified of their partner/spouse).

    But hey, lets bring them to life so they can suffer.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2023-04-13 at 05:31 PM.

  16. #6316
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    But hey, lets bring them to life so they can suffer.
    It's an Evangelical thing. Birth them, baptize them, let them die to add them to God's army. That's all that counts.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  17. #6317
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    It's an Evangelical thing. Birth them, baptize them, let them die to add them to God's army. That's all that counts.
    See the evangelicals are only a minority among the people who virulently oppose abortion. I think for many it is just misogyny; they want people to suffer through an unwanted pregnancy as punishment for having sex. For some it is probably just blind partisanship. And for others it is just that they were raised that way and were swayed by the extremely emotional propaganda and imagery.

  18. #6318
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I think for many it is just misogyny; they want people to suffer through an unwanted pregnancy as punishment for having sex.
    Not sure that makes sense though, because those late term abortions due to genetic defects and such almost exclusively happen with women who -want- those children, probably already had a name picked and everything.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  19. #6319
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    Not sure that makes sense though, because those late term abortions due to genetic defects and such almost exclusively happen with women who -want- those children, probably already had a name picked and everything.
    Two points
    a) they don't really care. Targetting the show called late term abortions seems like an easier win with independent voters that lets them both claim to be pro-forced birth and suggest they are "Reasonable" because they have managed to create this idea of people having abortions right before birth. It is very much about political posturing
    b) in states with no abortion providers even people who may have decided on an abortion fairly early will still struggle to get one within a reasonable time frame. Someone that is low income and lives paycheck to paycheck can barely afford to take a sick day in order to travel to a neighbouring state so they can have an abortion. This may significantly delay when they have it until they save up or find other financial support and find a provider out of state. That can easily push someone from an abortion at the 10th week to the 20th week.

  20. #6320
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Two points
    a) they don't really care. Targetting the show called late term abortions seems like an easier win with independent voters that lets them both claim to be pro-forced birth and suggest they are "Reasonable" because they have managed to create this idea of people having abortions right before birth. It is very much about political posturing
    b) in states with no abortion providers even people who may have decided on an abortion fairly early will still struggle to get one within a reasonable time frame. Someone that is low income and lives paycheck to paycheck can barely afford to take a sick day in order to travel to a neighbouring state so they can have an abortion. This may significantly delay when they have it until they save up or find other financial support and find a provider out of state. That can easily push someone from an abortion at the 10th week to the 20th week.
    I mean, probably you are right and I'm wrong for trying to see a logical flaw in their policy, though deep down we all know there is no logic to begin with.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

Posting Permissions

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