SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[The Stormbringer]

Ooof. Misogynism at its worst. You should ask them what consequences the man who got her pregnant should face.

Well, unfortunately, he was also talking about how, "I know women who have gotten pregnant just so they can get child support/government assistance and not have to work." so something tells me he wouldn't exactly accept the man should have consequences too.

[Twdft]

Poke them about something in their own life until you get a "that's none of your goddamn business" and hit back with a "neither if some woman wants an abortion".

[D3thray]

Ooof. Misogynism at its worst. You should ask them what consequences the man who got her pregnant should face.

Clearly none. Her body, her choice, the man has no say. Thank third wave feminism for that one.

[Gestopft]

Clearly none. Her body, her choice, the man has no say. Thank third wave feminism for that one.

...but in a pro-life world, it isn't actually her choice, so this doesn't make sense...

[Captain N]

You're aware that a man's sperm is required for pregnancy, right? Women don't just get spontaneously pregnant. That man stuck his penis in her.

The fact that he even brought up feminism as some counter to being against abortion should pretty much tell you his argument is rooted in misogyny.

[Captain N]

The fact that he's confusing consequence with responsibility is the larger issue. Cause and effect is the natural order to things.

Oh there's no confusion. This is the vitriol spewed by the pro-life crowd that blames women for having sex that results in pregnancy. You're absolutely right there is a natural order of things, but for those like him it's never the man's fault.

[PosPosPos]

Clearly none. Her body, her choice, the man has no say. Thank third wave feminism for that one.

So, you are saying when men rape women, they don't have to take responsibility? I really shouldn't be surprised by hateful conservative narratives at this point.

[Sunseeker]

The issue I run into a lot is people who do have deeply religious beliefs, or beliefs that are founded in religion, and so they'll just take one look at abortion and say, "That's killing a baby!" and ignore every argument or explanation that might say otherwise. I have no idea how to approach people like that, and don't know if I even should try to talk to them about it.

Tell them to get bent. Their religion doesn't control other people and if they think it should, then they're a fascist twat and should be called on their desire to run a theocracy. They should be shamed into the ground for spitting on American ideals. Who cares if their reaction is to double down? Others have tried to educate them, they've had ample opportunity to educate themselves. They've chosen the path of suffering and oppression in the name of "god" so, fuck 'em.

[ringpriest]

You're aware that a man's sperm is required for pregnancy, right? Women don't just get spontaneously pregnant. That man stuck his penis in her.

Show me another scenario in life where 2 parties come together to create something, yet only one is responsible for creating it.

When you tell an author "hey, I had this cool idea" in passing conversation, and then the author spends countless hours writing a book that uses that idea.

[Elder Millennial]

Their religion doesn't control other people

Yes, but...those people are absolutely convinced that it should.

Who cares if their reaction is to double down?

We should, because if given an opportunity to impose their religious "values", they will.

Try to reason religious bigots out of their bigotry is a fascinatingly tall order. Like I've been keeping track of the whole debate currently ongoing inside the Catholic church around same sex couples and how they are retreated.

Being gay is still a sin, the only BIG PROGRESSIVE change the Pope is asking from the Church is that gay people not to be completely excluded from the Church and their "sin" to be treated like almost any other sin...Like technically a Catholic being married to a none Catholic is in a "sinful" marriage, or living with your partner unmarried is "sinful" but 99.99% of Churches won't kick anyone out because of that. That's literally the only thing the Pope is asking here...

The reaction of a segment of the Church, countless conservative Cardinals and Bishops etc is to fully and openly go against Rome over this, literally shitting on 1000 years of Catholic tradition regarding the role of Rome in determining dogma, just because the Pope dared ask them to be consistent about how they deal with "sin" and to keep their doors open to "all sinners" equally. Like they will literally fucking schism over this.

There's almost no argument you can make to ever talk people out of bigotry when its intertwined with religion.

[Sunseeker]

There's almost no argument you can make to ever talk people out of bigotry when its intertwined with religion.

Yes, that's my point. You don't talk try to convince them. You force them out into the open. You force them to wear their horrid views on their forehead. You can't change them but you can make other people, people whose minds can still be changed, see just how abhorrent and dangerous Christo-fascist ideologies are.

[Elder Millennial]

Excellent point, and it should be hammered home with the fact that Catholics see the Pope as the living version of God. They are literally against God as they themselves defined the existence of God on earth, and don't care, because gay people want the same things as other "sinners" do.

Whoa. No offense, but that's not how Catholics see the Pope or the function of the Pope. Catholics don't even believe that the Pope has a direct line of communication to God. (Not a Catholic here, but that statement is so heretical that the whole Spanish Inquisition turned in their graves in the urge to burn you at the stake.)

First of all...Papal infallibility is a relatively new concept (by Catholic standards). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_...20tradition%22.

The Pope is the direct successor the Apostle Peter (famous for constantly fucking up) but who Jesus supposedly made chief among the apostles. Thus the idea of Papal Supremacy. As in the Papacy has priority interpreting and determining dogma. Basically Jesus (God) made the Pope brand manager.

But, in practical terms dogma is almost never directly dictated by the Pope. Instead the Pope calls for a Synod (big nerdy meeting, where Bishops, Cardinals etc and increasingly Lay people with background in theology etc) where they debate things out internally and kinda vote/agree on a consensus under the "guidance" of the Pope who then makes the whole thing "legally binding".

The Pope's influence on how these Synods go comes from his ability to appoint Bishops and Cardinals and fire others, also by determining who participates in the Synod (in the last Synod he invited a bunch of nuns and lay people too) so in a way stacking the vote in whichever direction he wants to take things.

Francis spent much of his time as Pope removing all the ultra-right lunatics the previous Pope, the Hitler Youth guy, appointed. Like the Hitler Youth guy horribly padded especially the US with absolutely nutty right wing TradCath bishops and cardinals.

The Catholic church is a really complicated thing, but this pope didn't just decide to dictate policy here. The Synod approved these measures, part based on theological consistency and part on looking at polling data, statistics and social trends and realizing that when half of like fucking Gen Z is bi or something something, if they wanna survive the 21st century they need bums in seats in Churches and this bigotry shit is just not working. Like this decision is very utilitarian, but also happens to make theological sense.

But again, you can't use reason or appeals to empathy with bigots. They just don't give a shit.

[tehdang]

the only BIG PROGRESSIVE change the Pope is asking from the Church is that gay people not to be completely excluded from the Church and their "sin" to be treated like almost any other sin

Excellent point, and it should be hammered home with the fact that Catholics see the Pope as the living version of God. They are literally against God as they themselves defined the existence of God on earth

Whoa. No offense, but that's not how Catholics see the Pope or the function of the Pope. Catholics don't even believe that the Pope has a direct line of communication to God.

If there was one thing I wasn't expecting to read in the abortion thread, it was several presumably atheistic or nonreligious people debating theology.

I'm not going to quote him because I prefer him on ignore, but the "compromise" is exactly what we had. A fairly restricted early-term abortion, with a few exceptions for late-term abortions in the case of deformity and danger to the mother. The 'cons took away compromise in favor of extremism.

We had judicial fiat. A bunch of men in robes decided that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. That wasn't compromise. The was policy imposition. You can criticize the legislation after the past-due correction, without gaslighting us about the past.

[Sunseeker]

We had judicial fiat. A bunch of men in robes decided that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. That wasn't compromise. The was policy imposition. You can criticize the legislation after the past-due correction, without gaslighting us about the past.

This is why you're on ignore. Because this conversation is a fucking joke. "Judicial fiat"? We have "judicial fiat" all over the fucking country, because the courts were designed to make rulings on laws. They're supposed to interpret things, they're supposed to provide clarification, they're supposed to tell us how the law works when people can't agree.

Acting like "judicial fiat" is some kind of bogus bullshit ignores centuries of common law precedence. Which is why in order to overturn this ruling, the "Justices" had to blatantly ignore that precedence, and reference some fuckwaffle from before the USA was even the USA.

It's always the same with your types, it's "judicial fiat" whenever you don't like it, and it's "the system working as intended" when it goes your way. So kindly, piss right the fuck off with that garbage.

[tehdang]

This is why you're on ignore. Because this conversation is a fucking joke. "Judicial fiat"? We have "judicial fiat" all over the fucking country, because the courts were designed to make rulings on laws. They're supposed to interpret things, they're supposed to provide clarification, they're supposed to tell us how the law works when people can't agree.

Acting like "judicial fiat" is some kind of bogus bullshit ignores centuries of common law precedence. Which is why in order to overturn this ruling, the "Justices" had to blatantly ignore that precedence, and reference some fuckwaffle from before the USA was even the USA.

It's always the same with your types, it's "judicial fiat" whenever you don't like it, and it's "the system working as intended" when it goes your way. So kindly, piss right the fuck off with that garbage.

Then I highly suggest you re-read the text of Dobbs. Every word of this, every attempt to appeal to compromise shows you are blatantly ignoring what Roe and Casey did and why. Roe was a disastrous decision and we're all reeling from 50 years of a neglected debate. Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates. You liked the fiat, you liked to pretend that the constitution excluded states from abortion, and that's all I'm reading here. I'm terribly sorry that you have to pass, debate, and challenge laws, but you'll have the same opportunity as everybody else now. Common law precedent on federal abortion--that's quite a big one even around here, I gotta say.

[Edge-]

Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates.

I'd challenge this. States with more "liberal" laws on reproductive health care and bodily autonomy haven't really run into any issues in the post-Roe world. A few have passed more explicit protections for access to that health care, and others have plans for legislation or ballot measures, but there hasn't really been much "reeling" beyond trying to figure out how to help folks in the states where they can no longer get the care they need.

And the debate has been, as evidenced, pretty disingenuous and awful since it's been over a year of women in states like Texas sharing horror stories of the suffering they endured because hospitals are concerned with legal liability - as was explicitly highlighted in the latest Kate Cox case which very much justified every fear of those hospitals.

There is no "both sides".

[Xyonai]

I'd challenge this. States with more "liberal" laws on reproductive health care and bodily autonomy haven't really run into any issues in the post-Roe world. A few have passed more explicit protections for access to that health care, and others have plans for legislation or ballot measures, but there hasn't really been much "reeling" beyond trying to figure out how to help folks in the states where they can no longer get the care they need.

And the debate has been, as evidenced, pretty disingenuous and awful since it's been over a year of women in states like Texas sharing horror stories of the suffering they endured because hospitals are concerned with legal liability - as was explicitly highlighted in the latest Kate Cox case which very much justified every fear of those hospitals.

There is no "both sides".

'Both sides are reeling' the same way someone dealing with a misbehaving toddler is upset that he keeps breaking shit on purpose. Sure both sides are nettled, but its incredibly clear its because of one side's actions.

It's the same with every other pet social issues Republicans cry about. They make a big deal about something, shove it into the political zeitgeist, then when people push back against their campaigning they act like it's a 'both sides!' issue that can only be solved with 'compromise'.

[tehdang]

I'd challenge this. States with more "liberal" laws on reproductive health care and bodily autonomy haven't really run into any issues in the post-Roe world. A few have passed more explicit protections for access to that health care, and others have plans for legislation or ballot measures, but there hasn't really been much "reeling" beyond trying to figure out how to help folks in the states where they can no longer get the care they need.

And the debate has been, as evidenced, pretty disingenuous and awful since it's been over a year of women in states like Texas sharing horror stories of the suffering they endured because hospitals are concerned with legal liability - as was explicitly highlighted in the latest Kate Cox case which very much justified every fear of those hospitals.

There is no "both sides".

States where huge majorities want "liberal" laws on abortion wouldn't be reeling. It's the campaigns in the other states that saw defeats. An entire year of mostly defeats. After they recovered their footing, the counterpunches are starting to bring successes.

[Endus]

Roe was a disastrous decision and we're all reeling from 50 years of a neglected debate.

Roe was "disastrous" because it was a chickenshit evasion, rather than a decision that respected women as human beings.

There is no "neglected debate". Pro-life advocates are religious extremists seeking to enforce their views on nonbelievers. Their views are not rooted in reason; there is no "debate" to be had with religious dogma one does not themselves believe in.

Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates.

The only "reeling" on the pro-choice side is how rapidly religious extremists leapt to attack women's basic personhood and self-ownership with the collapse of Roe v. Wade. But they don't have any control in the States where such laws are being passed in the first place, so it's not an imbalance based on being faced with a valid counter-argument, but the rapidity of fascistic abuses being implemented.

You liked the fiat, you liked to pretend that the constitution excluded states from abortion, and that's all I'm reading here.

You can stuff that "judicial fiat" bullshit back up whoever's asshole you picked it out from.

What's going on now is political fiat to attack innocent women, pursuant to religious extremist views. It's much like the Taliban attacking girl's education.

I'm terribly sorry that you have to pass, debate, and challenge laws, but you'll have the same opportunity as everybody else now. Common law precedent on federal abortion--that's quite a big one even around here, I gotta say.

Again, there is no "debate". Pro-life advocates can't defend their positions rationally without appealing to their personal religious views and their desire to force those views on the choices of non-believers. That's their entire "argument". If you had valid, secular, rational points, you'd use them, but no pro-lifers ever do. Because it's not a secularly comprehensible idea. It's like trying to say there's a "debate" around whether to force girls to undergo female genital mutilation. Same fuckin' difference, really; it's the same inherent malice and dehumanization behind both views.

[Elder Millennial]

If there was one thing I wasn't expecting to read in the abortion thread, it was several presumably atheistic or nonreligious people debating theology.

12 years in Jesuit Catholic schools, I got a pretty well rounded education in Catholic theology and theology in general. It was part of the curriculum. Nothing will be more effective at educating atheists than a actually going into theology beyond the surface level. Jesuits unlike many other "religious" schools actually take the whole business of critical thinking and education seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

States where huge majorities want "liberal" laws on abortion wouldn't be reeling. It's the campaigns in the other states that saw defeats. An entire year of mostly defeats. After they recovered their footing, the counterpunches are starting to bring successes.

What are you even talking about?

Protections for abortion rights are overwhelmingly popular even in otherwise very conservative states and they perform EXTREMELY well if brought up as a ballot initiative.

There's no both sides here. I'm pretty sure if abortion protections would be put on the ballot they'd win in 50 out of 50 states.