SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Dontrike]

For my part, I'm committed to showing that post-birth care of children is better handled by the policies of the Right ... so much so that California had to go to lawfare against pregnancy centers in the state to hinder their success.

Well you're not doing a very good job of showing the right takes care of children better, mostly because you don't have that evidence and your belief being completely wrong if you look at reality for more than two minutes. Pregnancy mortality is higher in those states, abortion tends to be higher, education is in the shitter, and the right only liking children when they know they can fuck them.

I have a dark view of current political realities, but that doesn't change what I wish were the case and what I think would be a better direction for the country.

That "dark view" comes more from your view points usually being in the completely wrong category and not because you have a lack of hope.

[Endus]

Why do you believe this? Have you ever examined the actual reasons conservative voters say are behind their desire to outlaw abortion?

We have. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's full of premises that even they admit they do not actually believe, because they don't remain consistent on those points when the context shifts to any other circumstance. Those premises are falsehoods, used to cover up their truths.

There isn't another explanation. I guarantee you can't give me one. I welcome you making the effort, and letting me show you how it falls apart.

Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be the evil one, allowing and propagating what they see as murder?

This is one of those things they can't honestly argue they believe. This requires a belief that the fetus is a fully-fledged human being from conception (or whatever similar unreasonably-early point that's determined arbitrarily or religiously rather than any justifiable basis). If we assume that premise, then every single miscarriage is a potential homicide, and the woman who miscarried must be investigated for her involvement. If it starts at conception, this even applies to every case where a fertilized ovum fails to implant and is expelled, and no pregnancy even starts.

Worse, it doesn't even factor into the discussion about abortion in any way whatsoever, which is what makes it so egregious as an argument. Abortion rights are about an individual person's right to control the use of their own body, their bodily autonomy. It's why you can't be forced to donate blood or organs or other tissue, for instance, even after death; you'd need to have pre-signed an organ donor card or have your next of kin make that decision. There is literally no circumstance where the right to life of one human being is considered to overrule another human being's bodily autonomy. Literally, none. Except, in this argument, a pregnant woman who wants an abortion. They don't have an argument as to why this is uniquely special and the same premises that apply to every other instance don't apply here. They try and use the emotional argument you described to short-circuit the actual issue (women's rights to their bodies) to shoehorn in a dishonest half-truth that not even those zealots actually believe the full premises of, if you challenge them.

The whole argument's a lie. Every single individual making that argument is a liar. They don't believe it. Many of them will get super angry when you point this out to them, but they'll never be able to rationally defend that position. Because there is no rational defense; all they can do is get exasperated and call you names for "supporting murder".

At best, fetal personhood constitutes an argument about the methods to be used in abortion, to remove the fetus intact, not an argument against abortion rights.

I don't care if people like this think I'm "evil". Their arguments are inconsistent nonsense and always rooted in religion, not science and reason. And they don't hold up once you examine those premises. Other types of people like this think I'm "evil" for supporting my trans cousin's transition, and they can go fuck themselves with a cactus, to be utterly blunt.

And, again, do you really think that conservative voters are this big bloc of evil people twirling their mustaches at all the harm they are causing? Because every response to my statement seems to be implying that. Your opening statement in this quote is exactly that.

They are, at a minimum, stating that these kinds of hurtful and harmful views aren't deal-breakers to them. It's not like incredibly abusive movements can't get wide popular support. See the Nazis, and every fascist movement out there. Pearl-clutching over this is frickin' silly, dude. Why isn't it okay to judge individuals by the causes and ideologies they explicitly choose to endorse and support?

Sorry, but I know my mother and many other people and I know, categorically, that they are not evil. They just see things from a different perspective than me. They have very valid reasons for believing what they do and none of it comes down to "we want to punish women". And every time someone says that that's what their goal is, you drive them further away from any reasonable compromise and convince them that you are just "baby killers", which in turn pushes you further away from them.

They don't have "very valid reasons". Categorically reject that, and you'll never be able to explain such reasons, because they don't exist.

And I don't mean "things they believe". I mean "things that are sensible and reasonable and can be explained objectively in a way that anyone can understand the thinking on." I couldn't give less of a shit what they believe. The moment those beliefs start affecting other people, you'd better be able to justify those beliefs in some objectively determinable or explanatory sense.

Yes, there are both sides and both sides are fucking awful. Because they've convinced the lot of you to hate each other because you don't agree on something and push that to the point where "both sides" reflexively work against each and every thing the other party proposes simply because you've all convinced yourselves that everybody else is intentionally evil, and so they must be opposed.

You seem to think there's only two sides.

The Conservatives here in Canada aren't Republicans, and aren't pushing the same harmful rhetoric (for the most part). I disagree with them ideologically, but they're not evil. I'm ideologically more aligned with the NDP, but I'll vote Liberal or some other party if A> the individual candidate impresses me or B> I feel the need to vote strategically rather than ideologically, and I don't strategically vote for evil.

There's a hundred sides, a thousand. Picking out one particular viewpoint, like Republicans in America, and pointing out how they have fallen into evil and harmful views, that's just specific analysis, not some "everyone but those like me are evil" bullshit. That's projection, dude.

Is it any wonder that nothing improves in this country when all the most invested people, like those found in this thread, are all committed to the demonization of anyone that isn't in lockstep with their thinking? I've voted Democrat for twenty years now and every time I mention that I disagree with even the smallest portion of the orthodoxy people on this forum have accused me of worshipping Trump or providing cover for "evil". ffs, Endus does exactly that in the post right after yours.

"Orthodoxy"? I'm a liberal market socialist who wants to abolish global capitalism and bring about a new post-capitalist system. I'm an agnostic atheist who's nevertheless open to a wide range of supernatural hypothesizing, while holding it to Randi-an standards of proof. What "orthodoxy" do you imagine me to be a part of? And how much do you see me getting viciously attacked by people outside of the Republicans, here, for failing to fall in line with their "orthodoxy"?

Man, does this ever seem like you're just making shit up, and none of it holds water.

You directed this post at Ivanstone, originally, and I'm sure if they and I sat down and talked things through, we'd find we disagree on a whole lot of things. Maybe in matters of degree, maybe more directly, but we wouldn't both be cut from the same cloth. This "orthodoxy" you're making up is in your head, not in reality.

[Dezerte]

From an outside perspective it's pretty clear that the GOP are far worse than the Democrats are. Both sides may have people that hate each other, that lie and contort themselves and reality to fit their world views but the GOP seems to have far more of these people. We regularly see the GOP lie and spread conspiracy theories, or present false analogies and illogical statements - Democrats do it too, but far less.

I also don't believe in evil people, but I do believe in evil actions. And I believe most people believe that they are doing good, even if they aren't. I think the issue is letting feelings or the "idealogical blinders" stand in the way of reason and logic. People may even have been fooled into believing in a certain thing, and it tends to be far easier to fool someone than to convince someone they have been fooled. It's of course okay to disagree about things, I can understand (even if I disagree) why a rich person wants to pay less taxes. What I can't understand is following and spreading provable lies, which the GOP is very guilty of (and the people seem little interested in holding them accountable for this?). Other than ignorance, the inability (for whatever reason, be it intentional or a matter of capability) to see through the lies seems to be the only reason to me people believe what they believe. But I think that everyone can be taught to do so - to think critically, to be introspective and to be inquisitive. I think the education system has failed these people.

[LilSaihah]

it's only silly if you don't understand that is exactly why the entire US government was created. to enshrine white supremacy.

I thought it was so they didn't have to keep paying taxes to the british.

[Nymrohd]

From an outside perspective it's pretty clear that the GOP are far worse than the Democrats are. Both sides may have people that hate each other, that lie and contort themselves and reality to fit their world views but the GOP seems to have far more of these people. We regularly see the GOP lie and spread conspiracy theories, or present false analogies and illogical statements - Democrats do it too, but far less.

I also don't believe in evil people, but I do believe in evil actions. And I believe most people believe that they are doing good, even if they aren't. I think the issue is letting feelings or the "idealogical blinders" stand in the way of reason and logic. People may even have been fooled into believing in a certain thing, and it tends to be far easier to fool someone than to convince someone they have been fooled. It's of course okay to disagree about things, I can understand (even if I disagree) why a rich person wants to pay less taxes. What I can't understand is following and spreading provable lies, which the GOP is very guilty of (and the people seem little interested in holding them accountable for this?). Other than ignorance, the inability (for whatever reason, be it intentional or a matter of capability) to see through the lies seems to be the only reason to me people believe what they believe. But I think that everyone can be taught to do so - to think critically, to be introspective and to be inquisitive. I think the education system has failed these people.

If your morality qualifies harming others as a good action, you are evil. Many policies of the GOP seem engineered to cause harm to others and are judged by their base on how much harm is caused.

[Slant]

Thanks for providing a concrete example of the core dishonesty integral to the American creation myth.

Yes, they absolutely said that in the Declaration. While some of the drafters (Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston) were, themselves, active slaveowners, at the time. And the country the Founding Fathers established inherently was built upon that institution of slavery. So clearly, they did not mean "All men". They meant "White men". Since they clearly did not consider blacks to be their equals. We can debate whether this was because they thought blacks were subhuman livestock and thus not "men" at all, or just more immediately dishonest about their position, but the end result's the same either way; they clearly did not think all "men", in our modern understanding of the term, were created "equal".

We can also point out that it refers to "men", and only "men". Now, I think it's unfair to presume this was intentionally gendered, as "man" was commonly used to represent humanity at the time. But we need to recognize that women were also by no means treated equally to men, in general, at the time the Declaration was written. So if they did mean "men" to be interpreted as "human beings", they're also not actually making that case in practice under US law. They were not entitled to vote, federally at least, until 1920, among other legal restrictions.

Actions and conduct matter a whole lot more than empty words, and that's what statements like the preamble to the Declaration amount to; words that the Founding Fathers in general did not actually believe, or did so only through such an extremely racist and misogynistic point of view that the idea that blacks and women were their "equals" would have been something they found laughably stupid.

Ok, as always, one liners tend to not get the point across...

The US Government was not formed to enshrine white supremacy. That's someone's dipshit post-fact gender studies infused LSD dream.

The US Government was formed to organise colonies that have just ejected themselves from colonial status in a global British Empire.

Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.

Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.

[Ivanstone]

Why do you believe this? Have you ever examined the actual reasons conservative voters say are behind their desire to outlaw abortion? Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be the evil one, allowing and propagating what they see as murder?

And this is where we pivot to the actual evil that they do. First, most of the religious right was actually on board with abortion when RvW happened. What they were really pissed off about was school integration. That as a voting issue wasn't going to work so they moved onto something else.

Second, the GOP very much stands on the side of greed. Every action they take is to give more money to people who already have lots of it. Every GOP voter is complicit in that whether they realize it or not.

Yes, there are both sides and both sides are fucking awful. Because they've convinced the lot of you to hate each other because you don't agree on something and push that to the point where "both sides" reflexively work against each and every thing the other party proposes simply because you've all convinced yourselves that everybody else is intentionally evil, and so they must be opposed.

Again they're not the same. The Democrats aren't completely effective at what they do. You'll easily be able to find examples of them being corrupt and/or incompetent. But at least they don't actively pursue policies that are designed to hurt poor or middle class conservatives. And some of those policies reduce abortion rates, not increase them. The GOP on the other hand actively pursues policies that hurt specific groups of people because scaremongering is the only way they can get elected. I guarantee you giving a fat tax cut to the 1% won't give you an election.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.

Yes it exists to govern the people. And they were still a revolting pack of racist misogynists that were only marginally better than the people they rebelled against. A nicer group of people would've written a better constitution.

[Draco-Onis]

Ok, as always, one liners tend to not get the point across...

The US Government was not formed to enshrine white supremacy. That's someone's dipshit post-fact gender studies infused LSD dream.

The US Government was formed to organise colonies that have just ejected themselves from colonial status in a global British Empire.

Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.

Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.

The United States government was formed so that rich white colonists would not have to pay taxes to the crown. The independence part was the only way to get it so they had to spin it into that. If you look at historical records the founding founders were ridiculed the world over because of the high ideals they pronounced contradicted with a constitution that said only white men with land had rights and that black people were property.

[Shadowferal]

Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.
Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.

I agree with one big qualifier; the assumption that societal attitudes and stratification wouldn't change.

[Endus]

Ok, as always, one liners tend to not get the point across...

The US Government was not formed to enshrine white supremacy. That's someone's dipshit post-fact gender studies infused LSD dream.

And yet, it established a system fundamentally predicated on white supremacy, at the institutional and systemic level. Sure seems like a massive error if it wasn't the intent.

That the USA was white supremacist in its formation isn't really disputed by anyone. It literally endorsed and supported the enslavement of blacks from Day 1. There was a long legacy of abuses towards Native Americans that the new nation made no effort to ameliorate or repair, but heartily continued. These are just facts, much as you might not like them.

The US Government was formed to organise colonies that have just ejected themselves from colonial status in a global British Empire.

Said Empire was also white supremacist at the time, of course. Not really making your case.

Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.

Are you seriously arguing that white supremacy is as necessary to the function of a society as roads are?

Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.

And part of that "governing" was the dehumanization and abuse of black people, treating them as livestock.

Which is an expression of white supremacy.

[Attackrabbit]

Are you seriously arguing that white supremacy is as necessary to the function of a society as roads are?

Well he is German.....

[Milchshake]

Well he is German.....

It would blow his mind to learn that:
Ben Franklin .. .ya know one of the found fathers. Wanted to keep Swedes and Germans out of Pennsylvania. Franklin considered them to be "swarthy peoples that lacked the intellectual ability to participate in democracy". He didnt want them diluting his nice setup.

But he used the words of a Gentleman!

Or maybe Franklin had visiting the future, and was just air quoting Germans on their opinions of Turks and Romanians?

[Shadowferal]

It would blow his mind to learn that: Ben Franklin .. .ya know one of the found fathers. Wanted to keep Swedes and Germans out of Pennsylvania. Franklin considered them to be "swarthy peoples that lacked the intellectual ability to participate in democracy". He didnt want them diluting his nice setup. But he used the words of a Gentleman! Or maybe Franklin had visiting the future, and was just air quoting Germans on their opinions of Turks and Romanians?

Kinda the point. A lot of stuff we see as wrong now were assumed as factual then. Roles assumed by men and women was the way of the world. Nationalities were just as assumed to be known. And yes, it was readily assumed that the country would always be Christian.

[Nymrohd]

Kinda the point. A lot of stuff we see as wrong now were assumed as factual then. Roles assumed by men and women was the way of the world. Nationalities were just as assumed to be known. And yes, it was readily assumed that the country would always be Christian.

It does not mean that legislation and constitutions were not intentionally written to preserve the status quo.

[Endus]

Kinda the point. A lot of stuff we see as wrong now were assumed as factual then. Roles assumed by men and women was the way of the world. Nationalities were just as assumed to be known. And yes, it was readily assumed that the country would always be Christian.

That doesn't make them "not-white-supremacist". It means the default state of colonial society itself was, at the time, white supremacist, and that the new nation did not represent a significant shift in that approach.

Which isn't something that was being contested.

[Shadowferal]

It does not mean that legislation and constitutions were not intentionally written to preserve the status quo.

Joe Farmer wasn't interested in intention. He learned his reading and writing the way most did back then, from preachers teaching the Bible. Beyond doing his sums, and the "Good Book, that skillset ain't worth much to him. He's not interested in someone else's opinion because he's got his own, except he calls them "facts and truths." Stuff that "everybody knows."
Welcome to 18th century USA.

[Slant]

Yes it exists to govern the people. And they were still a revolting pack of racist misogynists that were only marginally better than the people they rebelled against. A nicer group of people would've written a better constitution.

By today's standards, not many countries in the world in the 18th century were very "nice".

[Endus]

By today's standards, not many countries in the world in the 18th century were very "nice".

Not sure why that's relevant to any points being made.

[Slant]

I agree with one big qualifier; the assumption that societal attitudes and stratification wouldn't change.

Times change, you're right. What irks me is not necessarily what they had in mind when they wrote it, although I'll concede what you guys are saying about the underlying motivation. But what gets me is that people think that still needs to hold true today. The declaration is "good enough" if we apply modern thinking to it. Yet somehow people are resigned into accepting the white supremacy in the US.

I mean, I say that... knowing what's going on over there. Nevermind, I guess? People love drama in the US. It would be too boring to just... stop being a uh, difficult nation?

- - - Updated - - -

Said Empire was also white supremacist at the time, of course. Not really making your case.

Thank you for exactly confirming my case. The declaration wasn't meant to fix the problems of the world, it was meant to declare a colony independent. You're so good at making my point for me, why don't I let you argue it for now.

Not sarcasm.

As for the roads... you made that argument in your head. What I was saying was the primary intent for the declaration wasn't to establish white supremacy, as that was the norm back then. Such as building roads was a pretty normal idea back then. Declaring yourself independent from England, that's the radical core idea in that declaration. And some yadda yadda about doing things better etc. pp.

- - - Updated - - -

Well he is German.....

Stick to shagging sheep instead of discussing history. You're probably better at that.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure why that's relevant to any points being made.

Historical context is the point.

[Ivanstone]

By today's standards, not many countries in the world in the 18th century were very "nice".

Europe had largely been moving away from slavery and serfdom well before the American revolution. The founders could’ve gotten rid of slavery if they wanted to but it’s one area where they were much less nice than most European nations.