SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

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.

I was raised Anglican, like "go to Church every Sunday, do Sunday School every week" Anglican. For a brief time after high school, I debated going to seminary rather than university; I still had faith at the time even if I'd become decidedly non-denominational in my approach, due to reading the Bible and exploring theological philosophy. I almost minored in theology at university; I was a half-credit short of meeting the requirements to officially declare it.

Like you, it's my study of theology and religious philosophy that led me down my path to secular humanism and atheism. I love debating theology, and not from a shitty-atheist lol-sky-daddy perspective. I just don't get the chance here, because of the ban on religious discussion. It's why I often react so negatively to shitty religious opinions; I know too much theology and Christian philosophy and know full well how completely ignorant some of those views are, even from the perspective of a believer, accepting the tenets of the faith as a given. Their arguments fail internal to their religion, not just from a secular point of view, though I generally can't get into why because again, no religious discussion.

There's a whole lot of us strong atheists who are atheists not because we're unread in religion, but because we're so well-read in religion. To a greater extent than the overwhelming majority of the faithful.

[s_bushido]

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.

What is this alternate reality where literally the only reason abortion is an issue ISN'T because of misogynistic theocrats and their desire to control women under the pretense of protecting babies?

The only "reeling" that has happened is everyone reeling from the instant implementation of shortsighted, ill-composed, and draconian laws the second said misogynistic theocrats had the ability to do so. And then reeling again when the actual citizens they're supposed to represent smacked that shit down whenever they had the ability to.

[Dontrike]

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.

The "counterpunches" of Republican majorities just say "fuck you, women, you get to suffer 'cause now it's illegal." There has been no success outside of them successfully harming women and young girls. If you think that is a success then you are a sick individual and I hope any female escapes you.

[tehdang]

What is this alternate reality where literally the only reason abortion is an issue ISN'T because of misogynistic theocrats and their desire to control women under the pretense of protecting babies?

And I hear that it's people like me have overly moralistic and simplistic good guys vs bad guys narratives.

The only "reeling" that has happened is everyone reeling from the instant implementation of shortsighted, ill-composed, and draconian laws the second said misogynistic theocrats had the ability to do so. And then reeling again when the actual citizens they're supposed to represent smacked that shit down whenever they had the ability to.

At least the ill-composed part will earn the pro-choice side some victories in the next couple years. I can't say you're 100% wrong on that count. But you're going to have to learn to argue the topic if you want every state to bend to new legislation.

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.

Cool endorsement. But if you'll get a bit closer to my remark (and not trying to open a theological debate, though I'm happy it benefitted someone in the forum), do you consider yourself atheistic or non-religious now? How close was I when I said it was atheistic/non-religious? Apostates can definitely instruct others in church teaching.

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.

You might even say the pro-choice side was left reeling by the Dobbs decision and a little rustiness in arguing the position and advancing the legislation. There was a little gap between pro-life legislation passed as law, and the pro-choice build-up. I never said you all were going to stay down when you got knocked off your feet. Hell, win a few fights where you campaign on the deficiencies in ambiguous pro-life provisions. Just don't expect people like me to forget what happened in 2022-early 2023.

[Gestopft]

At least the ill-composed part

You say "ill-composed" as though the notion that individual patients wouldn't have to test the legal system to see whether or not their particular condition was 'acceptable' or not was unforeseen by the legislators...

Cool endorsement. But if you'll get a bit closer to my remark (and not trying to open a theological debate, though I'm happy it benefitted someone in the forum), do you consider yourself atheistic or non-religious now?

As @Endus indicated, given the overall decline of religiosity in general, there is a significant part of the population that is currently non-religious yet was raised in a religious household and spent their childhood going to church and being fed theology. Heck, my dad went to seminary, not that one needs to have had a religious upbringing in order to criticize theology...

You might even say the pro-choice side was left reeling by the Dobbs decision and a little rustiness in arguing the position and advancing the legislation.

given the vigorous discussion that has been continually happening over the last several decades, I think 'a little rustiness in arguing the position' is an utterly ludicrous assertion. "Advancing the legislation," I suppose, but only in the same context that most legislators are pretty rusty on legislating the existence of the federal minimum wage, or social security, or something else that has been taken for granted.

[DarkTZeratul]

We had judicial fiat. A bunch of men in robes decided that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion.

So you don't actually understand Roe v. Wade at all, then. They didn't decide that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. They actually didn't decide it had anything to say about abortion. What they decided is that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, and that whether or not people were having abortions fell under that right.

In fact, invalidating Roe in its entirety is potentially a crushing blow to the notion that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, but it's funny how you don't seem at all concerned about that part of the ruling, or how Justice Thomas openly advocated for it possibly leading to the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia.

[Edge-]

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.

Wait, what reality are we talking about?

Defeats for rights advocates in states like TX or FL where those losses and rollbacks were expected? Because sure, there's disappointment but I'd hardly call a string of predicted laws being passed and being predictably upheld is called "reeling".

To the contrary, it's consistently been states like Kentucky and Ohio where the issue has been placed in front of a crowd that's generally pretty socially conservative and "pro-life" where Republicans have been reeling after voters decided that they'd rather not roll things back some decades/centuries on the topics.

I'm curious if you'll elaborate further on who exactly is "reeling", and how in terms of the "liberal" side. Because as far as my look back on the year and a half goes, it's been a consistently animating issue that's mobilized Democrats to get out and vote in surprising numbers, it's getting more liberal folks engaged in politics, "pro-choice" positions, or positions closer to "pro-choice" than the "pro-life" positions, are fairly consistently winning at the voting box, public sentiment is continuing to slowly shift as we're continuing to see horror stories about the suffering of women in Republican states where they choose not to update their laws around this etc.

Maybe this is just my existing bias coloring my view and you can help dispel that. I'd like to think I've at least given the impression that I'm open to new information and changing my opinion to reflect it.

[DarkTZeratul]

To the contrary, it's consistently been states like Kentucky and Ohio where the issue has been placed in front of a crowd that's generally pretty socially conservative and "pro-life" where Republicans have been reeling after voters decided that they'd rather not roll things back some decades/centuries on the topics.

Yeah, the only states that successfully passed abortion restrictions are those where said restrictions were imposed by the state legislature (or would you prefer I call it "legislative fiat"?). In every single instance where it was actually put to a vote of the people, they voted for fewer or no restrictions, and usually by a decisive margin.

[PosPosPos]

I think it's tragic, and I hope you find some happiness for yourself.

Yeah, it's tragic for the victims of conservatism, and no; I don't think anyone like tehdang who builds their happiness on the suffering of innocents should ever be happy, for the obvious reasons that there would be immensely more suffering to those who don't deserve it.

[D3thray]

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

Exactly so, maybe I was a bit too on the nose.

[tehdang]

It's this kind of drivel that confirms my ultimate suspicion about you tehdang.

You're an intelligent person, don't get me wrong. You had me fooled that you were a reasonable conservative that was willing to be enlightened on topics. But then I realized after the Texas woman(Cox) discussion in this thread, you're not pursuing knowledge to enlighten yourself and others. You're pursuing knowledge so that you can use it against people.

Regulars here like Breccia, Edge, Endus, Benggaul, Elder Millennial, and others I'm having trouble recalling, keep bringing me back to this forum. The fact that so many intelligent and wise people frequent this particular sub-forum is a wonder in itself, considering the intended use of this site. They're not using knowledge as a weapon. You are, like some sick game. About real topics. That affect real people. Your mom. Your sister. Your girlfriend. Your wife. Your niece.

I think it's tragic that you have all that knowledge and intelligence and you're still miserable.

Sorry, mods, for the derail, but I had to get that off my chest.

I think it's a reasonable position that the pro-choice side was also left reeling from the Dobbs decision, seeing the initial legislation losses and news stories in 2022 and shortly after. You don't have to think it's even worth taking up as a serious point of contention, and I'm not forcing you to. Somebody quoted specifically that section.

Interact with whichever users you think reasonable, and ignore whichever users you prefer to ignore for being unreasonable or bad faith or ad hominem or whatever. Make that judgment in your own mind. I take that policy for myself, and don't deny it to you or others. I also know I'm advancing a marginal viewpoint, and am not likely to persuade the larger in-group that they should abandon many closely-held opinions (in your terms, they're not "willing to be enlightened" and are "using knowledge as a weapon.") But enough of the personal and emotional diagnosis stuff. Interact with whichever posters you choose, quote post whichever posts you want to take on.

Wait, what reality are we talking about?

Defeats for rights advocates in states like TX or FL where those losses and rollbacks were expected? Because sure, there's disappointment but I'd hardly call a string of predicted laws being passed and being predictably upheld is called "reeling".

To the contrary, it's consistently been states like Kentucky and Ohio where the issue has been placed in front of a crowd that's generally pretty socially conservative and "pro-life" where Republicans have been reeling after voters decided that they'd rather not roll things back some decades/centuries on the topics.

I'm curious if you'll elaborate further on who exactly is "reeling", and how in terms of the "liberal" side. Because as far as my look back on the year and a half goes, it's been a consistently animating issue that's mobilized Democrats to get out and vote in surprising numbers, it's getting more liberal folks engaged in politics, "pro-choice" positions, or positions closer to "pro-choice" than the "pro-life" positions, are fairly consistently winning at the voting box, public sentiment is continuing to slowly shift as we're continuing to see horror stories about the suffering of women in Republican states where they choose not to update their laws around this etc.

Maybe this is just my existing bias coloring my view and you can help dispel that. I'd like to think I've at least given the impression that I'm open to new information and changing my opinion to reflect it.

I formed that view looking at how many pro-life laws (however flawed) were passed in the months after Dobbs, and how weak and unorganized the contrary viewpoint was. I diagnose it as some unsteadiness from being out of practice arguing the benefits of contrary legislation, rather than just bashing the pro-life side and making absurd indictments of their motivations. It wasn't just four states. There were dozens.

Now, the money and activists and NGOs are in full swing helping laws pass state-by-state citing abortion law irregularities and the (alleged) danger that the entire enterprise will be banned. There's no more Roe to shelter behind, it has to be debated in the open and persuade voters to show up and vote on that side. I think it's also obvious that the pro-life side was strategically unprepared to temper its message for workable compromise positions in each state. I wrote more on that in this post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54344775

So you don't actually understand Roe v. Wade at all, then. They didn't decide that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. They actually didn't decide it had anything to say about abortion. What they decided is that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, and that whether or not people were having abortions fell under that right.

In fact, invalidating Roe in its entirety is potentially a crushing blow to the notion that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, but it's funny how you don't seem at all concerned about that part of the ruling, or how Justice Thomas openly advocated for it possibly leading to the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia.

The three-trimester scheme being found in some right to privacy was always absurd. And I don't fault you for immediately pivoting to Obergefell or Loving: Roe is hard to defend. Even the liberal-revered Ginsburg had to say it "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believed, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue" and disagreed with it. The Court can value the convenience of a pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life, as the Democratic-nominated Justice White wrote, but there was never any right to impose such priorities on the people or legislatures. Not in some right of privacy, or only subject to a compelling state interest standard, or any of it.

You say "ill-composed" as though the notion that individual patients wouldn't have to test the legal system to see whether or not their particular condition was 'acceptable' or not was unforeseen by the legislators...

I say ill-composed because it's obvious that some of these laws introduce vague standards that State AG and hospitals and doctors can't see the same way. I don't place in legislators some heightened knowledge of how the law would look vague to lawyers, and what added language would make things more airtight to challenges from the attorneys general, the people (private right of action), the pregnant mother, or the doctors and hospital org performing the abortion.

As @Endus indicated, given the overall decline of religiosity in general, there is a significant part of the population that is currently non-religious yet was raised in a religious household and spent their childhood going to church and being fed theology. Heck, my dad went to seminary, not that one needs to have had a religious upbringing in order to criticize theology...

I remarked upon the theology debate occurring between apostates or non-religious in this abortion thread. The juxtaposition caught my attention. For the larger point, I try to seek out people that really believe things because they personally think it's true, right, or just, instead of always asking (for example) a pro-life person who used to be pro-choice about what pro-choice people think. I'll also remark that religious discussion is specifically banned in thread rules, so I don't want to go further.

given the vigorous discussion that has been continually happening over the last several decades, I think 'a little rustiness in arguing the position' is an utterly ludicrous assertion. "Advancing the legislation," I suppose, but only in the same context that most legislators are pretty rusty on legislating the existence of the federal minimum wage, or social security, or something else that has been taken for granted.

Oh yeah, I observed the discussion. And how much it revolved around the "law of the land" and "Roe vs Wade" and "stare decisis." Abortion was just a question you sent to supreme court nominees in their infrequent replacement. The polls on majorities favoring restrictions in the second trimester were just ignored. The pro-choice side, in my view, over-relied on having won the judicial shortcut to the political process.

Social security and the minimum wage were laws passed by legislators, not created by judges. They may be repealed in the same way they were initially passed. And getting back to my greater point, they have the benefit of the political process in passage and repeal. Laws passed in state and Congress can be traced back to the political representatives that voted on it, and form a local debate over whether they should remain in office or not.

[Endus]

I also know I'm advancing a marginal viewpoint, and am not likely to persuade the larger in-group that they should abandon many closely-held opinions (in your terms, they're not "willing to be enlightened" and are "using knowledge as a weapon.")

If your arguments aren't persuasive and we keep pointing to glaring logical inconsistencies and unjustifiable premises as the reasons, maybe take some responsibility for the invalidity of your arguments rather than trying to claim it's the rest of us who are the problem.

I've repeatedly asked for explanations that stand up to scrutiny that justify a pro-life position. I really want to see the best you've got. It's just that everything I've been presented with is so inherently dishonest and malicious that I have no legitimate option but to condemn the movement accordingly, until/unless someone can demonstrate that there's anything else to it. I keep asking. I keep getting nothing. That's how critical analysis works, not to mention things like the scientific method.

If I keep asking a creationist to explain why they don't accept evolutionary theory and they keep being dishonest and irrational about those reasons, I have every reasons to dismiss creationism as a valid argument. Same difference here.

I formed that view looking at how many pro-life laws (however flawed) were passed in the months after Dobbs, and how weak and unorganized the contrary viewpoint was. I diagnose it as some unsteadiness from being out of practice arguing the benefits of contrary legislation, rather than just bashing the pro-life side and making absurd indictments of their motivations. It wasn't just four states. There were dozens.

And did you check the political imbalances in those states and draw a correlation?
https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/s...-do-so-roundup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...in_U.S._states

To the surprise of no one, those States are universally Republican-leaning. Without exception. Not all Republican-led States, but no Democrat-leaning States.

You're mistaking "having the political heft and organization to ram these decisions through despite opposition voices" with the pro-choice side "reeling". It isn't an argument that makes sense.

[Edge-]

I formed that view looking at how many pro-life laws (however flawed) were passed in the months after Dobbs, and how weak and unorganized the contrary viewpoint was. I diagnose it as some unsteadiness from being out of practice arguing the benefits of contrary legislation, rather than just bashing the pro-life side and making absurd indictments of their motivations. It wasn't just four states. There were dozens.

Remarkable that you've written so many words that say absolutely nothing. Just extremely vague generalities that could mean anything you so choose.

Getting actual examples of you instead of just empty rhetoric is like trying to pull teeth in the old blacksmith's shop, my dude. Give us some actual examples.

Now, the money and activists and NGOs are in full swing helping laws pass state-by-state citing abortion law irregularities and the (alleged) danger that the entire enterprise will be banned.

How are states working to codify those protections quickly "reeling"? I thought most of the legislation was just simply passed and that was mostly it? What states do you think are a good example of this?

There's no more Roe to shelter behind, it has to be debated in the open and persuade voters to show up and vote on that side.

You love leaning on this, "We need to have a debate." line and like, my dude the debate has happened.

Again, look at every Republican leaning state where the issue has appeared as a ballot measure: The people keep repeating the same answer and Republicans continue to pretend that we just need more time to talk about this.

What. "Liberal". States. Are. Reeling. And. How?

[Endus]

You love leaning on this, "We need to have a debate." line and like, my dude the debate has happened.

Again, look at every Republican leaning state where the issue has appeared as a ballot measure: The people keep repeating the same answer and Republicans continue to pretend that we just need more time to talk about this.

Frankly, I think the "we need more debate on <insert subject here>" from conservatives largely just boils down to actually meaning "we want our unfounded and poorly justified opinions and dogma to be treated as equally valid with well-reasoned and -supported positions on the other side, without any actual criticism being directed our way at all".

Which, y'know, isn't what debate looks like. They "want a debate", to shut down criticism, because all they get right now is that condemnation and criticism. Because of how poorly their arguments hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

I can't take it as a honestly-intended request.

[SoulForge]

Frankly, I think the "we need more debate on <insert subject here>" from conservatives largely just boils down to actually meaning "we want our unfounded and poorly justified opinions and dogma to be treated as equally valid with well-reasoned and -supported positions on the other side, without any actual criticism being directed our way at all".

Which, y'know, isn't what debate looks like. They "want a debate", to shut down criticism, because all they get right now is that condemnation and criticism. Because of how poorly their arguments hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

I can't take it as a honestly-intended request.

Do conservatives ever really debate? A vast majority of Conservative arguments are more attacking the opposite side rather than the facts or message they present.

[Edge-]

Do conservatives ever really debate? A vast majority of Conservative arguments are more attacking the opposite side rather than the facts or message they present.

Argue, yes. Debate, less so. See: The House, where arguments are plenty but actual constructive, productively debate is seemingly nonexistent. Hence why you hear them complaining about how nobody wants to work together or compromise or get anything done in their conference. Often from members who are unaware they are describing their own behavior in their speech about others in their party.

[Captain N]

Do conservatives ever really debate? A vast majority of Conservative arguments are more attacking the opposite side rather than the facts or message they present.

Unless you consider debate the gish gallop that Ben Shapiro uses or the Steven Crowder approach of trying to get them to change his mind from his already deeply entrenched bigotries or the unending whataboutism from our resident Conservatives here....the answer is a resounding No.

[Rasulis]

Now, the money and activists and NGOs are in full swing helping laws pass state-by-state citing abortion law irregularities and the (alleged) danger that the entire enterprise will be banned. There's no more Roe to shelter behind, it has to be debated in the open and persuade voters to show up and vote on that side. I think it's also obvious that the pro-life side was strategically unprepared to temper its message for workable compromise positions in each state. I wrote more on that in this post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54344775

There is no compromise. Anti-choice groups have lost every single ballot amendment since Dobbs. As many as 12 states will have abortion amendments on the ballots in 2024. All the polls showed that all of them have a good chance of passing. Even in Florida which requires 60% referendum. The last poll showed 62% supported the amendment.

GOP state legislatures did the only thing they could. Try to keep them off the ballots.

First rule of the anti-abortion playbook: Don’t let the public vote on abortion.

Now more and more voters have come to the realization, if they want women to keep their bodily autonomy, state constitutional amendments are not enough. They need to vote the anti-choice politicians out. In 2022 election, abortion was an important factor in voting, but it was secondary to the economy and cost of living. Multiple polls showed this year that abortion is now foremost in the mind of woman voters. Well ahead of the economy and cost of living.

Why? The article below needs no explanation.

Men impacted by abortion restrictions share their stories

Stephen Anaya remembers watching his wife, with a high fever and shaking uncontrollably, as she lay in the hospital.

"She's begging me to like cover her. And I'm like, 'I can't -- you can only have a sheet, nurses and doctors said your temperature is too high,'" Anaya said.

"We put an ice pack on her and not even like 5 - 10 minutes later, it's melted. All over her body, I had her wrapped in the ice packs," Anaya said.

Anaya said he felt angry that the laws were keeping his wife from being able to get the help that she needed.

"I have to step up and be here for her because I could lose her. And what does this mean? And then [I was] pissed in a way because we were there for help, and we can't get it even though I know the doctor wanted to, I could feel it -- [the doctor] was stuck and her hands were tied," Anaya said.

[Edge-]

Why? The article below needs no explanation.

Men impacted by abortion restrictions share their stories

I'll note that these kinds of stories have been increasingly common in conservatives states in the post-Roe world. And while a part of that is surely that these kinds of stories are getting more attention by media, we're also see the contours of these stories follow very similar arcs: A functionally terminal diagnosis for the fetus accompanied by significant personal suffering for the individual, the individual seeks care and there is a treatment path available given the diagnosis for the fetus, the current condition of the individual, and the prognosis if care is not provided, the hospital is unable to provide that care out of concern for the legal liability due to laws they've complained are too vague for over a year, individual pointlessly suffers waiting until their life is in actual imminent danger for the hospital to be able to provide the treatment they've known was necessary all along, often with consequences for waiting that include significantly increasing the risks associated with subsequent pregnancies. The specifics are each a bit different, but this is the general thrust of these stories time and time again, and they're often told by women who consider themselves "pro-life" and very much would like to have more children.

Conversely: I'm unsure of any real uptick in horror stories of individuals suffering in states that have codified protections for abortion care or really any analogous stories at all showing adverse outcomes for anyone. I'm not saying these don't exist, but if they do I surely haven't seen them.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the spouse in those situations, to feel totally helpless watching their loved one suffer when there's a treatment path available but that the hospital can't pursue that treatment path until their loved one is literally dying.

[Rasulis]

I'll note that these kinds of stories have been increasingly common in conservatives states in the post-Roe world. And while a part of that is surely that these kinds of stories are getting more attention by media, we're also see the contours of these stories follow very similar arcs: A functionally terminal diagnosis for the fetus accompanied by significant personal suffering for the individual, the individual seeks care and there is a treatment path available given the diagnosis for the fetus, the current condition of the individual, and the prognosis if care is not provided, the hospital is unable to provide that care out of concern for the legal liability due to laws they've complained are too vague for over a year, individual pointlessly suffers waiting until their life is in actual imminent danger for the hospital to be able to provide the treatment they've known was necessary all along, often with consequences for waiting that include significantly increasing the risks associated with subsequent pregnancies. The specifics are each a bit different, but this is the general thrust of these stories time and time again, and they're often told by women who consider themselves "pro-life" and very much would like to have more children.

Conversely: I'm unsure of any real uptick in horror stories of individuals suffering in states that have codified protections for abortion care or really any analogous stories at all showing adverse outcomes for anyone. I'm not saying these don't exist, but if they do I surely haven't seen them.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the spouse in those situations, to feel totally helpless watching their loved one suffer when there's a treatment path available but that the hospital can't pursue that treatment path until their loved one is literally dying.

What happened to them was horrible. However, the lack of compassion shown by the states' GOP legislature is even more horrifying.