Export thread

Roe v. Wade

#1

Dave

Dave


Yes, I know this is political in nature, but I think it deserves to be in General.


#2

CrimsonSoul

CrimsonSoul

Oh wow


#3

figmentPez

figmentPez

The "leak" was very clearly planned.



#4

PatrThom

PatrThom

Here we go again!

--Patrick


#5

PatrThom

PatrThom

The "leak" was very clearly planned.


...just sayin'.

--Patrick


#6

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe



...just sayin'.

--Patrick
Far as I can find, those barricades have been up for a week, ever since a climate activist self immolated on the supreme court steps and just didn't get much coverage


Not to say this isn't still bad and wrong


#7

Dirona

Dirona

The "leak" was very clearly planned.

Didn't y'alls Supreme Court decide, like a decade ago that 'safety zones' around clinics infringed on the rights of protesters? Or something like that?

[Aside - I don't even live in the US, and this leak has me in all sort of livid and nauseous knots, fucking hell.]


#8

figmentPez

figmentPez

President Biden's statement:


Link

What a weak statement.


#9

Dave

Dave

Next up, same sex marriage, contraception, and even interracial marriage - which have been cited as falling under the same category as RvW.

Republicans wanted a theocratic rule with white nationalist underpinnings and the democrats are too stupid and milquetoast to put up any fight. As long as their corporate overlords are happy what do they care.


#10

Bubble181

Bubble181

Fact is that's tied hand and feet. As long as Sinema and Manchin block every progressive move and protect the filibuster, Biden might as well have a hostile Senate.


#11

PatrThom

PatrThom

Far as I can find, those barricades have been up for a week, ever since a climate activist self immolated on the supreme court steps and just didn't get much coverage
I don't feel like that changes the message it is sending, though.

--Patrick


#12

Bubble181

Bubble181

Next up, same sex marriage, contraception, and even interracial marriage - which have been cited as falling under the same category as RvW.

Republicans wanted a theocratic rule with white nationalist underpinnings and the democrats are too stupid and milquetoast to put up any fight. As long as their corporate overlords are happy what do they care.
Sheesh, and here I was trying to choose my words carefully since this isn't the Politics subforum :-P


#13

figmentPez

figmentPez

The draft has been confirmed to be authentic:


Link


#14

GasBandit

GasBandit

Cockroach demands investigation to find who turned on the kitchen light.


#15

figmentPez

figmentPez

In regards to all the people trying to distract from the issue by making it all about the leak:


Link


#16

figmentPez

figmentPez

Related:

Link

This is both directly and indirectly why the fall of Roe v. Wade is important. Privacy matters.


#17

Bubble181

Bubble181

Gotta love Big Data.


#18

chris

chris

It will be easier for law enforcers and bounty hunters to find woman who had an abortion that way.


#19

GasBandit

GasBandit



#20

figmentPez

figmentPez

They're not stopping at abortion:



If you're not rich, white, and male, they want to enslave or destroy you.


#21

Cheesy1

Cheesy1

"You have to have that kid, but 'fuck you and it' once you pop it out!"


#22

GasBandit

GasBandit

Sound



#23

Bubble181

Bubble181

"their right to govern"?
I can imagine quite a few men having the idea that they have the right to govern, but it's not a right guarantee in any ancient document written by a bunch of middle aged and elderly white men.


#24

GasBandit

GasBandit

"their right to govern"?
I can imagine quite a few men having the idea that they have the right to govern, but it's not a right guarantee in any ancient document written by a bunch of middle aged and elderly white men.
A lot of them think they have the right to rule.


#25

PatrThom

PatrThom

YouTube link in case imgur is a steaming pile of bits for you.

--Patrick


#26

figmentPez

figmentPez

Louisiana is now debating legislation that would criminalize abortion, some forms of birth control, in vitro fertilizatoin, and even miscarriage.



Seems a good time to note that scientific studies suggest that the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage (though most of these the mother is unaware of). Even of just known pregnancies, as much as a quarter result in miscarriage.

"But surely they'll only use this law to charge women who did it on purpose". Yeah, we all know that's bullshit. They'll use it to charge any woman they want to punish. They'll use it to threaten women into complying with whatever else they want.


#27

chris

chris

How long until they outlaw sex and you need a licence to have a child?


#28

chris

chris

"But surely they'll only use this law to charge women who did it on purpose". Yeah, we all know that's bullshit. They'll use it to charge any woman they want to punish. They'll use it to threaten women into complying with whatever else they want.
I'm sure a woman was already arrested for a miscarriage after a nurse informed the police.


#29

figmentPez

figmentPez

I'm sure a woman was already arrested for a miscarriage after a nurse informed the police.
Not just arrested, but convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. From the BBC: US women are being jailed for having miscarriages

Very clearly a test case to establish precedent. A minority who was using illegal drugs that might have led to the miscarriage is the perfect victim. Conservatives can say "Well, she shouldn't have been doing drugs. She knew what she was doing. It'll be easy for good women to avoid this, they just have to not do illegal things while pregnant. Do you want women to be doing drugs while pregnant?"

The problem with that reasoning is that "grandpa's record collection" and "computer power cable" very easily become "hazardous materials with known abortifacient properties" when filing negligent homicide charges. And "she knew what she was doing" can very easily be stretched to any sort of exposure to a variety of chemicals, physical forces (car rides, exercise, etc). "Don't do illegal things" applies to "don't have a miscarriage" when miscarriages are illegal. "Do you want women exposing themselves to harmful chemicals while pregnant?"

But everyone here knows all that, and I'm just ranting to the choir.

EDIT: Here are more cases Women are being jailed for losing their pregnancies. The US’s post-Roe v Wade reality is already here

Article includes Marshae Jones, who was indicted on manslaughter charges after being shot and losing her pregnancy, Keysheonna Reed, who was charged with abuse of a corpse after having a stillbirth, and a link to a paywalled NYT article about five women in Arkansas who have been arrested for stillbirths or miscarriages.

The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) has documented 1,254 cases where women were arrested, detained, or otherwise deprived of liberty "in which being pregnant was a necessary element of the crime or a 'but for' reason for the coercive or punitive action taken."

It's a lot more common than I realized for women to be harassed using their pregnancy as a pretense.


#30

PatrThom

PatrThom

How long until they outlaw sex and you need a licence to have a child?
This is not a goal. They will tell you that you can have all the sex you want, so long as it is procreative sex.

--Patrick


#31

mikerc

mikerc

This is not a goal. They will tell you that you can have all the sex you want, so long as it is procreative sex.

--Patrick
No, this is the goal. They would love to outlaw sex without a license & then the license would be awarded only for procreative sex and only to white couples.


#32

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

It's what it's always been about, power. The red states will enact the laws against abortion, resulting in more births and more poverty. The gifted in those states will leave to blue states for more rights and more money. But it doesn't matter, the states will become more and more and more entrenched in how they vote, but when State XY has 400,000 voters and State XX has 400,000,000 they each get only 2 Senators. Power maintained.


#33

Bubble181

Bubble181

No, this is the goal. They would love to outlaw sex without a license & then the license would be awarded only for procreative sex and only to white couples.
Hey now, hey now. I think they'd also be willing to give out training certificates for girls who may be too young for procreation. Some of them, certainly.


#34

jwhouk

jwhouk

How long until they outlaw sex and you need a licence to have a child?
...that's not necessarily a bad thing.


#35

phil

phil

No, this is the goal. They would love to outlaw sex without a license & then the license would be awarded only for procreative sex and only to white couples.
Also taking people who are pro abortion out of the voting pool by charging them with a felony if they have one.


#36

klew

klew

"It wasn't abortion, I felt my life was in danger and I was standing my ground."


#37

figmentPez

figmentPez

"Domestic supply of infants"


Link


#38

figmentPez

figmentPez

Says the man whose wife was heavily involved in the Jan 6th insurrection which tried to use violent force to change the outcome of a free election.


Link

About half of the SCOTUS needs to be impeached, immediately. I don't care if there's no precedent, having court members involved in insurrection and committing perjury is not acceptable.


#39

Celt Z

Celt Z

Does this fucker think we forgot Anita Hill and the bullshit of how he got his job? He should never have been seated in the first place.



#41

figmentPez

figmentPez

Anti-choice conservatives are faking vandalism.


Link


#42

GasBandit

GasBandit



#43

figmentPez

figmentPez

I absolutely hate the fucking bonkers takes that conservatives are pulling out right now to try to slander pro-choice:

Bad Arguments on Twitter 2022-05-09 222350.png


This is a strawman. Plain and simple. Maybe there's some idiot out there who actually believes that women who miscarry are delusional, but that's NOT the stance of the majority of pro-choice people, and it is NOT the logical conclusion of believing that an embryo is not a fully fledged human being with all rights and privileges thereof. Embryos don't have to have legal rights for a miscarriage to be an emotional event. You can grieve the lost of a potential future without denying the rights of other women to control their own lives.

I have no idea if this is a fake account spreading propaganda, or a real person who is severely lacking in logical reasoning skills, or someone who is just caught up in grief and is not thinking about the consequences of her words. Whatever the case, I really hate that there are going to be people who get sucked in by emotional arguments like this, and think we have to define a fertilized egg as a human being, just because some pregnancies are wanted.


#44

GasBandit

GasBandit

I absolutely hate the fucking bonkers takes that conservatives are pulling out right now to try to slander pro-choice:

View attachment 41435

This is a strawman. Plain and simple. Maybe there's some idiot out there who actually believes that women who miscarry are delusional, but that's NOT the stance of the majority of pro-choice people, and it is NOT the logical conclusion of believing that an embryo is not a fully fledged human being with all rights and privileges thereof. Embryos don't have to have legal rights for a miscarriage to be an emotional event. You can grieve the lost of a potential future without denying the rights of other women to control their own lives.

I have no idea if this is a fake account spreading propaganda, or a real person who is severely lacking in logical reasoning skills, or someone who is just caught up in grief and is not thinking about the consequences of her words. Whatever the case, I really hate that there are going to be people who get sucked in by emotional arguments like this, and think we have to define a fertilized egg as a human being, just because some pregnancies are wanted.
Remind that bot that, under the law the anti-abortion crowd wants, she'd be sent to prison for that miscarriage.


#45

GasBandit

GasBandit



#46

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

If a women is guilty of murder for miscarrying, is the man guilty of manslaughter.


#47

Tress

Tress

If a women is guilty of murder for miscarrying, is the man guilty of manslaughter.
What a stupid question. Obviously the answer is “no, unless he’s not white. And then yes, definitely.”


#48

figmentPez

figmentPez



#49

GasBandit

GasBandit



#50

phil

phil

Mental health services will be provided
Well that's where ya lost me.


#51

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Well that's where ya lost me.
Really? You can't see a giant pharmaceutical company getting sole supplier rights to the American Incarceration Industry?


#52

figmentPez

figmentPez

Well that's where ya lost me.
"Mental health services" is code for "reeducation camp", which is code for "abusive prison for political opponents"


#53

figmentPez

figmentPez

Representative Lucy McBath asked congress, “After which failed pregnancy should I have been imprisoned? Would it have been after the first miscarriage, after doctors used what would be an illegal drug to abort the lost fetus? I ask because the same medicine used to treat my failed pregnancies is the same medicine states like Texas would make illegal. I ask because if Alabama makes abortion murder, does it make miscarriage manslaughter?”


#54

figmentPez

figmentPez



There is logic in what he says.


#55

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

But I can't get $10,000 for reporting a revenge killing...


#56

figmentPez

figmentPez



Doctors in Alabama are reportedly already afraid of treating women having miscarriages.


#57

Far

Far

Soon the only legal way to have an abortion will be when a cop beats a woman and causes her to lose it cause you know they aren't getting charged with murder under these rules in that case.


#58

PatrThom

PatrThom

Soon the only legal way to have an abortion will be when a cop beats a woman and causes her to lose it cause you know they aren't getting charged with murder under these rules in that case.
The woman will be charged with resisting arrest by throwing her baby at him in an attempt to get away. You know, like a quokka.

--Patrick


#59

Far

Far

Sorry, I meant the cops won't be. Thought I'd wrote provide, not have. My bad.



#61

jwhouk

jwhouk

How appropriate, right in the middle of Juneteenth. </sarcasm>


#62

Dave

Dave

Amazing how fast congress works to protect those in power and not, you know, the people.


#63

figmentPez

figmentPez



#64

PatrThom

PatrThom

Ooo, this is a good one.
I can't wait for it to be spun as yet another conspiracy perpetrated by "The Jews."

--Patrick


#65

PatrThom

PatrThom



#66

Sara_2814

Sara_2814

Since we're throwing Separation of Church & State out the window, then it's time for churches to pay taxes. If they actually do charitable work rather than just fleecing elderly people out of money to pay for private jets, they can file for 501(3)(c) status and be treated like any other tax-exempt charitable organization (and be held accountable to the rules).


#67

Tress

Tress

Since we're throwing Separation of Church & State out the window, then it's time for churches to pay taxes. If they actually do charitable work rather than just fleecing elderly people out of money to pay for private jets, they can file for 501(3)(c) status and be treated like any other tax-exempt charitable organization (and be held accountable to the rules).
I guarantee this Supreme Court would support taxing synagogues, temples, and mosques while continuing to give Christian churches a pass.

“Just like the founders intended.”


#68

Krisken

Krisken

Darn, I was hoping it was revealed Ginny Thomas is the leaker.


#69

GasBandit

GasBandit

It's officially gone.



#70

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

And it's just the beginning.



#71

chris

chris

And then interracial relationships.


#72

@Li3n

@Li3n

Why wait, the dems should bring cases against it to the court themselves.


#73

Celt Z

Celt Z

Fuck them all to hell.


#74

Krisken

Krisken

Just heartbreaking watching the country destroy itself.


#75

Dave

Dave

Your gun is federally protected, but your sex life is up to the states.


#76

PatrThom

PatrThom

Just heartbreaking watching the country destroy itself.
Well, that's it, then. There is no turning this back any longer, it has gained too much momentum.

States will continue to divide themselves now on abortion, then later on civil rights or property/income taxes or "obscenity" or some other excuse to more solidly codify their respective position(s), further dividing what happens on either side of their border(s) and effectively choosing sides until we inexorably arrive at some sort of tipping threshold between permissive states and restrictive ones. And, at that nebulous (and approaching far too rapidly!) point, we will cross over into full civil warfare. It may not be blatant, and this time it may not (entirely) be fought with guns nor cannon, and (thanks to modern technology) the division might not be as geographically obvious as it was the last time, but it definitely will come with too much suffering and death of The People.

All I can say is that it might be a good time to go over your job, your situation, and your possessions, and be ready to pick up and move if it becomes obvious that your state's ideals are shifting in a direction where they no longer match your own.
Your gun is federally protected, but your sex life is up to the states.
Here's hoping that many of the newly-packing experience premature emasculation due to an unexpected discharge.

--Patrick


#77

blotsfan

blotsfan

I don’t like this ruling. Not one bit.


#78

figmentPez

figmentPez

Just heartbreaking watching the country destroy itself.
Seems like it's only a matter of time until an American version of Kristallnacht.


#79

PatrThom

PatrThom

Seems like it's only a matter of time until an American version of Kristallnacht.

I said elsewhere that, up ‘til now, they’ve wanted to get that ball rolling, but they were just preparing the ball, lining up the ball, making sure it was all ready to go. Now, however, they have started pushing the ball. They have started trying to make it roll.

—Patrick


#80

Sara_2814

Sara_2814

Seems like it's only a matter of time until an American version of Kristallnacht.
They've got the Kinder, Küche, Kirche in place now. Intimidation and de-humanizing of LGBT people has had a few hiccups, but they're working on it. Looks like they're mostly on schedule.


#81

figmentPez

figmentPez



#82

chris

chris


I said elsewhere that, up ‘til now, they’ve wanted to get that ball rolling, but they were just preparing the ball, lining up the ball, making sure it was all ready to go. Now, however, they have started pushing the ball. They have started trying to make it roll.

—Patrick
Looks like the Suprime Court is turning your country step by step into a fascist police state.


#83

figmentPez

figmentPez



#84

Bubble181

Bubble181

The saddest thing about this is that despite the majority of Americans being in favor of the right to abortion (depending on terms and regulations etc you get different numbers but the majority opinion is clear), the democrats will still lose the midterms badly.
The only person I can imagine keeping Trump from reelection is DeSantis, which would not be an improvement.


#85

Tress

Tress

The saddest thing about this is that despite the majority of Americans being in favor of the right to abortion (depending on terms and regulations etc you get different numbers but the majority opinion is clear), the democrats will still lose the midterms badly.
Surveys say that a lot people basically think, “Yeah, women should be able to get abortions, but… it doesn’t directly affect ME. And I don’t like the current inflation, so I’m voting out Democrats because it’s all their fault.”


#86

figmentPez

figmentPez



#87

PatrThom

PatrThom

…because he doesn’t expect the leopards to eat his face, you mean.

—Patrick


#88

figmentPez

figmentPez

Thread:


#89

Bubble181

Bubble181

And the left is already infighting and blaming it on RGB for not retiring, Clinton being force in as an u populair candidate, anti Clinton protest votes, Obama,... FFS.
All true in some ways but holy crap that's nog going to help anyone.


#90

Celt Z

Celt Z

It's really easy to point fingers after the fact ...*cough*..., but the real discussion, the only one that matters, is HOW ARE WE/THEY GOING TO FIX THIS.


#91

blotsfan

blotsfan

And the left is already infighting and blaming it on RGB for not retiring, Clinton being force in as an u populair candidate, anti Clinton protest votes, Obama,... FFS.
All true in some ways but holy crap that's nog going to help anyone.
Spoiler: nothing is going to work.


#92

GasBandit

GasBandit

I hate to say it, but I think Pat is right. This was the Rubicon being crossed. There's no way out that doesn't involve violence at this point.


#93

figmentPez

figmentPez



#94

Bubble181

Bubble181

Argh good lord the bots and/or idiots hard at work there.
They're trying to claim Belgium, Netherlands, etc don't allow abortion after 12 weeks.
To be clear: in Belgium (as an example) abortion WITHOUT CAUSE is legal until 12 weeks.
Medical, psychological or a number of other reasons (rape, incest etc) allow abortion up until viability (and in very specific cases even after, though... That I can understand people feel squicky about)


#95

PatrThom

PatrThom

in very specific cases even after
This makes me wonder exactly what the legal distinction might be between "abortion" and "cesarean."

--Patrick


#96

Bubble181

Bubble181

This makes me wonder exactly what the legal distinction might be between "abortion" and "cesarean."

--Patrick
One has the intention to have both involved survive, the other not so much


#97

Bubble181

Bubble181

Though I think that's only in cases where the baby cannot survive die to serious deformation and such (harlequin babies etc)


#98

MindDetective

MindDetective

I hate to say it, but I think Pat is right. This was the Rubicon being crossed. There's no way out that doesn't involve violence at this point.
This was a concerted effort by Republicans that took 50 years of gerrymandering, psyops, and targeted election wins. It can be overturned in precisely the same way, and possibly faster since public opinion and old farts dying off is on the Dems side. It will take a level of cohesion and organization that the Dems are not well known for, though.


#99

figmentPez

figmentPez


I said elsewhere that, up ‘til now, they’ve wanted to get that ball rolling, but they were just preparing the ball, lining up the ball, making sure it was all ready to go. Now, however, they have started pushing the ball. They have started trying to make it roll.

—Patrick
John Cornyn wants to segregate schools.jpg


EDIT: And he's trying to walk back this racist bullshit by claiming he's just showing an example of a SCOTUS ruling that overturned a previous court decision. Never mind that Brown v. Board of Education was an actual case, and there was no case that the SCOTUS was ruling on when they overturned Roe. Plessy vs Ferguson was technically never overturned.


#100

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

roevwade.jpg


#101

GasBandit

GasBandit

This was a concerted effort by Republicans that took 50 years of gerrymandering, psyops, and targeted election wins. It can be overturned in precisely the same way, and possibly faster since public opinion and old farts dying off is on the Dems side. It will take a level of cohesion and organization that the Dems are not well known for, though.
The fascists will not give up their gains without resorting to violence. Your scenario assumes two sides playing by the same rules, with good faith. The GOP is already making sure democracy is no longer a factor, and plenty of young people are being indoctrinated into hate.


#102

MindDetective

MindDetective

The fascists will not give up their gains without resorting to violence. Your scenario assumes two sides playing by the same rules, with good faith. The GOP is already making sure democracy is no longer a factor, and plenty of young people are being indoctrinated into hate.
I guess I'm not convinced that is certain at this point.


#103

Vrii

Vrii

I guess I'm not convinced that is certain at this point.
The literal attempted coup wasn't evidence enough for you?


#104

MindDetective

MindDetective

The literal attempted coup wasn't evidence enough for you?
It was pretty pathetic as far as coups go. It was also not about abortion or SC decisions. But no, I don't think if the SC reversed direction again it would result in violence. That's not to say I would be surprised if violence came to pass.


#105

figmentPez

figmentPez

It was also not about abortion or SC decisions.
It's all about White Nationalism. The coup, abortion restrictions, the current state of SCOTUS, anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda, they're all done with the same end goal.

They're literally saying it out loud:


"The victory of white life in the Supreme Court"



This is about racist, rich, white assholes who want to stay in power, and they absolutely will incite violence in order to keep that power. They will do anything and everything they can to achieve their goals.

EDIT: And, in case you were tempted to think "oh, she just misspoke", here is Mary Miller, on January 5th, praising Hitler for being right about the need to control the youth of a country in order to control it's future.



It's White Nationalism. ALL of it. Everything the Republican party is doing right now is because of White Nationalism. They're modern-day Nazis who idolize Hitler and want to create a fascist state so that (specific) white people can stay in power.


#106

MindDetective

MindDetective

I don't disagree. But I don't believe that means certainty of violence. A 50 year plan to get here was done strategically, politically. Trump brought out the blatant white supremacists, to be certain. But I don't think the entire party seeks to defend their beliefs with violence because they chose a different path to get here than that.


#107

Tress

Tress

It's all about White Nationalism. The coup, abortion restrictions, the current state of SCOTUS, anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda, they're all done with the same end goal.

They're literally saying it out loud:


"The victory of white life in the Supreme Court"



This is about racist, rich, white assholes who want to stay in power, and they absolutely will incite violence in order to keep that power. They will do anything and everything they can to achieve their goals.

EDIT: And, in case you were tempted to think "oh, she just misspoke", here is Mary Miller, on January 5th, praising Hitler for being right about the need to control the youth of a country in order to control it's future.



It's White Nationalism. ALL of it. Everything the Republican party is doing right now is because of White Nationalism. They're modern-day Nazis who idolize Hitler and want to create a fascist state so that (specific) white people can stay in power.
Hey now, her campaign just says she “misspoke” while reading off a written speech.

Who hasn’t started talking about the importance of racial purity when they meant to comment on the sanctity of life, amirite? Happens to all of us.


#108

figmentPez

figmentPez

Sure are a lot of Republican politicians "accidentally" saying things that sound super fucking racist, and then quietly retracting them.

Golly, I wonder what could possibly caus.... Dog whistles. They're fucking dog whistles. They're signaling their White Nationalist base while still trying to fly below the radar of undecided voters. Anyone with half-a-brain can see what they're doing. It happens way too often to just be a mistake.


#109

Bubble181

Bubble181

I don't disagree. But I don't believe that means certainty of violence. A 50 year plan to get here was done strategically, politically. Trump brought out the blatant white supremacists, to be certain. But I don't think the entire party seeks to defend their beliefs with violence because they chose a different path to get here than that.
The entire party doesn't need to be willing to resort to violence. If even a fairly small group - say 5% of Republican voters - are willing to take up arms to "defend" their rights, that is more than enough to set off chain reactions. And a far, far greater group would be willing to stand by and allow it, because they genuinely believe these are freedom fighters.
See: literally every other militant terrorist group or fascist/nationalist coup, from Hitler through Erdogan over the Taliban to the Sovjets in 1917.


#110

PatrThom

PatrThom

“You go to any diner in America, and nobody’s talking about this,” said Dave Carney, a national Republican strategist based in New Hampshire. “That’s not what’s driving the conversation. Real people, working people, people who vote, are talking about the incompetence of the president, and then they go down the list of six or seven things,” including the rising price of goods and the recent baby formula shortage.
...what diners are you going into, Dave? More importantly, what diners aren't you going into?
Because it doesn't matter where _I_ go...diner, store, gas station, work, even the parking lot, you name it--you better believe people are talking about it.

--Patrick


#111

Bubble181

Bubble181


...what diners are you going into, Dave? More importantly, what diners aren't you going into?
Because it doesn't matter where _I_ go...diner, store, gas station, work, even the parking lot, you name it--you better believe people are talking about it.

--Patrick
I'm currently on vacation in very Catholic and rural Tenerife and people here are talking about it. :confused:


#112

MindDetective

MindDetective

The entire party doesn't need to be willing to resort to violence. If even a fairly small group - say 5% of Republican voters - are willing to take up arms to "defend" their rights, that is more than enough to set off chain reactions. And a far, far greater group would be willing to stand by and allow it, because they genuinely believe these are freedom fighters.
See: literally every other militant terrorist group or fascist/nationalist coup, from Hitler through Erdogan over the Taliban to the Sovjets in 1917.
A slippery slope argument is not going to convince me that violence is a certainty.


#113

Bubble181

Bubble181

I'm not the one saying is a certainty.
But I would be absolutely unsurprised if the US has a Kristallnacht-like moment between now and 2025, with gay/trans/etc people's houses and shops getting destroyed in some areas.


#114

MindDetective

MindDetective

I'm not the one saying is a certainty.
But I would be absolutely unsurprised if the US has a Kristallnacht-like moment between now and 2025, with gay/trans/etc people's houses and shops getting destroyed in some areas.
I already said I wouldn't be surprised too.


#115

figmentPez

figmentPez

I don't disagree. But I don't believe that means certainty of violence. A 50 year plan to get here was done strategically, politically. Trump brought out the blatant white supremacists, to be certain. But I don't think the entire party seeks to defend their beliefs with violence because they chose a different path to get here than that.
They didn't choose a different path. The plan includes violence. Just like the Nazis' plans included violence. They know that to achieve a fascist state that they will have to become violent, and they are fully prepared for that violence. They are doing pretty much all the same things that the Nazis did in the past. How do you think this is going to play out if it doesn't result in christofascists trying to gain power by violent force? They've been grooming angry young men specifically for the purpose of having a gun-toting group of violent hotheads who believe that they have to use violence to save the nation.

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument. It's an argument from the history that Republicans are blatantly telling you they are trying to reenact.


#116

Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

I'm not the one saying is a certainty.
But I would be absolutely unsurprised if the US has a Kristallnacht-like moment between now and 2025, with gay/trans/etc people's houses and shops getting destroyed in some areas.
I already said I wouldn't be surprised too.
Which is a reason why there's been a rise in membership of organizations like the Pink Pistols, groups like Liberal Gun Owners, and minority groups owning guns. I came out as bi on Facebook 7 years ago. Even though things were looking decent for acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community at the time, history has shown that things can sometimes turn on a dime. I was aware of the risk at the time I did it. Anyone wanting to raid my home in the middle of the night better hope they're a better shot than I am, because I absolutely will thin that crowd before I'm taken out.


#117

Bubble181

Bubble181

Which is a reason why there's been a rise in membership of organizations like the Pink Pistols, groups like Liberal Gun Owners, and minority groups owning guns. I came out as bi on Facebook 7 years ago. Even though things were looking decent for acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community at the time, history has shown that things can sometimes turn on a dime. I was aware of the risk at the time I did it. Anyone wanting to raid my home in the middle of the night better hope they're a better shot than I am, because I absolutely will thin that crowd before I'm taken out.
I sincerely hope you will never have to.


#118

PatrThom

PatrThom

A slippery slope argument is not going to convince me that violence is a certainty.
For years now, they have been like a dog in an unfenced yard which strains at the limit of its leash to bark aggressively at everyone who passes by, and which has already bitten a few who did not know how far the leash would reach. Saying that "violence is not a certainty" is like saying, "That leash looks sturdy enough."

This is not a slippery slope argument where the reason they are not being (overtly and/or widely) violent is because they have not been pushed/oppressed far enough to start their violence engines. Those engines are already running. Their exhausts are already snarling. The tires are spinning and we can audibly hear them squealing eagerly on the pavement. The only tether still holding them at the starting line is the knowledge/threat that public sentiment/decency is such that somebody out there will still seek to hold them responsible and try to prosecute if their actions are too public and too blatantly "not an accident." But once that last tether is gone (either due to policy/law changes or due to the confidence of sufficient numbers), you can 100% bet they are going to instantly leap over that line because the only thing they're going to care about is doing whatever it takes to win the Race.

--Patrick


#119

GasBandit

GasBandit

^ This. I think about this all the time, as I meet people in my line of work (some are clients, or work for clients, or work for the same company I do) that are not the least bit ashamed to say things unprompted like:

"I was in the marines but I got out because it didn't look like they were going to have a war for me to fight in." This mid-20s guy's primary reason for leaving the marines was because it did not satisfy his professional need to kill people.

"I'm tired of the barrage of trans/gay stuff in every form of media I consume. You just can't get away from it. It's exhausting. Can't we just go back to being normal again? I'm tired of humoring the mentally ill. My 11 year old daughter has decided she's a lesbian because it's what the cool kids at school have decided is cool."

"Trump had some issues, sure, but he was the only thing stopping the democrats from completely ruining the country. We need him back pronto."

In their mind, violence was always an option, and not even of last resort. We only begrudgingly failed to stomp out the "domestic enemies of America" because we didn't want to put up with the hassle of being cancelled on twitter. Furthermore, trans and gay people don't deserve protection. In fact, we should beat the shit out of them until they're normal again. If they die during that, well, not like anything of value was lost. We've just tolerated them because we're nice, but that patience is about worn out. Can't say it out loud, but man, wouldn't everything just be better if all these LGBTQ people just went away? The Leopards-eating-faces party needs to hurry up and eat faces faster. Naturally, not OUR faces.

No amount of facts or reason sways them from this (they may even agree to your points and then promptly forget them overnight). They have a narrative in their head and it's what they stick with. It's kind of a political corollary to Planck's Principle: Nobody above a certain age actually changes their mind. They just die out and are replaced by younger people who may (or may not, in our case) have already decided something else is what's normal.


#120

Frank

Frank

I hope I'm already dead before the death throes of your country tears mine apart too.


#121

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

I hope I'm already dead before the death throes of your country tears mine apart too.
Don't worry, I've already started putting signs up along the border that say Welcome to Mexico. That's keep em out for a few more hundred years or spiraling public education.


#122

MindDetective

MindDetective

^ This. I think about this all the time, as I meet people in my line of work (some are clients, or work for clients, or work for the same company I do) that are not the least bit ashamed to say things unprompted like:

"I was in the marines but I got out because it didn't look like they were going to have a war for me to fight in." This mid-20s guy's primary reason for leaving the marines was because it did not satisfy his professional need to kill people.

"I'm tired of the barrage of trans/gay stuff in every form of media I consume. You just can't get away from it. It's exhausting. Can't we just go back to being normal again? I'm tired of humoring the mentally ill. My 11 year old daughter has decided she's a lesbian because it's what the cool kids at school have decided is cool."

"Trump had some issues, sure, but he was the only thing stopping the democrats from completely ruining the country. We need him back pronto."

In their mind, violence was always an option, and not even of last resort. We only begrudgingly failed to stomp out the "domestic enemies of America" because we didn't want to put up with the hassle of being cancelled on twitter. Furthermore, trans and gay people don't deserve protection. In fact, we should beat the shit out of them until they're normal again. If they die during that, well, not like anything of value was lost. We've just tolerated them because we're nice, but that patience is about worn out. Can't say it out loud, but man, wouldn't everything just be better if all these LGBTQ people just went away? The Leopards-eating-faces party needs to hurry up and eat faces faster. Naturally, not OUR faces.

No amount of facts or reason sways them from this (they may even agree to your points and then promptly forget them overnight). They have a narrative in their head and it's what they stick with. It's kind of a political corollary to Planck's Principle: Nobody above a certain age actually changes their mind. They just die out and are replaced by younger people who may (or may not, in our case) have already decided something else is what's normal.
That is certainly the reality now. I definitely do not agree that this was the plan through the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000s.


#123

@Li3n

@Li3n

I definitely do not agree that this was the plan through the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000s.
Nah, this was always the plan, because the actual reason why the pro-life movement got started was because it was a more palpable rallying cry then the losing fight against desegregation: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

And those people had resorting to violence as their 1st response (which is what eventually turned the public against them, which is also why they're downplaying it nowadays... lone wolves and antifa false flags etc).


#124

MindDetective

MindDetective

Nah, this was always the plan, because the actual reason why the pro-life movement got started was because it was a more palpable rallying cry then the losing fight against desegregation: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

And those people had resorting to violence as their 1st response (which is what eventually turned the public against them, which is also why they're downplaying it nowadays... lone wolves and antifa false flags etc).
Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people. I don't agree but it is not an attitude of violence those particular conservatives are espousing.

And if we are sticking parties with their historical policies, Democrats are as, if not more, racist than Republicans. So that doesn't seem like a fruitful path of discussion.


#125

figmentPez

figmentPez

Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people. I don't agree but it is not an attitude of violence those particular conservatives are espousing.
As always, their accusations say more about their own beliefs than their opponent's. Do you remember hearing the term "domestic supply of infants" recently? Republicans are decrying the lack of babies for good Christian couples to adopt. What they really want is white babies to adopt, and they're bothered because white people have abortions at higher rates than minorities. This is a two-fold fear for them. First, because they're afraid that white people will decline into being a numerical minority because of population decline, but also because adoption is a very lucrative industry, and they want to secure a "domestic supply of infants" to keep the adoption industry alive.

They jump on the "abortion is genocide" argument because they think their opponents will be as afraid of the idea as they are.

It ALL goes back to White Nationalism with Republicans, and a fascist belief system like that inevitably leads to violence.

And if we are sticking parties with their historical policies, Democrats are as, if not more, racist than Republicans. So that doesn't seem like a fruitful path of discussion.
Are you really going to go ahead with that bullshit? Just going to ignore "the big switch"? And that the Democratic party of a century ago is not the same party as the one called Democrats today?


#126

MindDetective

MindDetective

Are you really going to go ahead with that bullshit? Just going to ignore "the big switch"? And that the Democratic party of a century ago is not the same party as the one called Democrats today?
That is entirely my point. The republican party of today is not the same as the one of 50 years ago either. If you say otherwise, then ignoring the sins of the democrats is just hypocritical.


#127

MindDetective

MindDetective

As always, their accusations say more about their own beliefs than their opponent's. Do you remember hearing the term "domestic supply of infants" recently? Republicans are decrying the lack of babies for good Christian couples to adopt. What they really want is white babies to adopt, and they're bothered because white people have abortions at higher rates than minorities. This is a two-fold fear for them. First, because they're afraid that white people will decline into being a numerical minority because of population decline, but also because adoption is a very lucrative industry, and they want to secure a "domestic supply of infants" to keep the adoption industry alive.

They jump on the "abortion is genocide" argument because they think their opponents will be as afraid of the idea as they are.

It ALL goes back to White Nationalism with Republicans, and a fascist belief system like that inevitably leads to violence.
As for this part, you are giving people like my cousin in law far too much credit in his deviousness on this issue.

Edit to clarify:I think he genuinely believes it is a crime against black people and not some way of tricking white people into having more babies.

Second edit: a quick Google search shows black Americans account for more abortions than white Americans, something like 38% vs. 33%


#128

figmentPez

figmentPez

That is entirely my point. The republican party of today is not the same as the one of 50 years ago either. If you say otherwise, then ignoring the sins of the democrats is just hypocritical.
I haven't said shit about the Republican party of 50 years ago. I am solely talking about the present Republican party.


#129

figmentPez

figmentPez

As for this part, you are giving people like my cousin in law far too much credit in his deviousness on this issue.

Edit to clarify:I think he genuinely believes it is a crime against black people and not some way of tricking white people into having more babies.
Wow, you mean a dumb-ass Republican is just repeating talking points he heard from propaganda? That never happens. *eyeroll* </MASSIVE SARCASM>


#130

MindDetective

MindDetective

I haven't said shit about the Republican party of 50 years ago. I am solely talking about the present Republican party.
I have. Because my point hinges on the fight for overturning Roe being a 50-year concerted effort that was not first planned with violence in mind. It was a purely political and strategic one. It was NOT the "plan all along".
Post automatically merged:

Wow, you mean a dumb-ass Republican is just repeating talking points he heard from propaganda? That never happens. *eyeroll* </MASSIVE SARCASM>
Those...are the people in the Republican party. And they have beliefs...just as you do.


#131

figmentPez

figmentPez

I have. Because my point hinges on the fight for overturning Roe being a 50-year concerted effort that was not first planned with violence in mind. It was a purely political and strategic one. It was NOT the "plan all along".
You can't have it both ways. Either there was a 50-year concerted effort by a continuous leadership, and the party is the same party. Or there was no 50-year plan, what's going on now is without a plan stretching back that far, and the party is not the same.

Which is it? Is what's going on now the result of the same Republican party that was around 50 years ago? Or is there a different Republican party in control, and the plan is irrelevant?

Those...are the people in the Republican party. And they have beliefs...just as you do.
Parroting propaganda isn't the same as having an informed opinion.


#132

MindDetective

MindDetective

You can't have it both ways. Either there was a 50-year concerted effort by a continuous leadership, and the party is the same party. Or there was no 50-year plan, what's going on now is without a plan stretching back that far, and the party is not the same.

Which is it? Is what's going on now the result of the same Republican party that was around 50 years ago? Or is there a different Republican party in control, and the plan is irrelevant?
It is actually the first, although there has obviously been retirements and deaths and replacements in the party in that time. But what I don't believe is that the entire party had been replaced and that there are genuine ties to the original plans put forth 50 years ago within the party. Basically, I see fractures within the GOP.


#133

GasBandit

GasBandit

I don't think there's any pre-Southern Strategy republicans left. They're pretty much entirely onboard with nationalist white supremacy. Yes, there are undercurrents of racism left in the Democrat party, but it's the far softer racism of lowered expectations. The "you can't take care of yourself or make your own decisions" kind.

But in a contest of the White Man's Burden vs The Final Solution, it's a pretty easy call which is more abhorrent... which one is addressable through civil methods, and which probably isn't.

As for Roe, it's been a dividing lynchpin since it was first handed down, as is often the case with legislation from the bench. The whole weakness of RvW was that it was not passed as law, it was decided by the supreme court. This is how democrats get policy enacted that they know won't actually make it through congress (it's also their primary method of trying to undermine the 2nd amendment without repealing it, because they know they have never had the votes), and they're learning that this is a sword that cuts both ways now that ultraconservatives control the supreme court. Every waking moment has been one side seeking to enshrine RvW, with the other endlessly attempting to undermine it. Even I used to joke 20-25 years ago how "No democrat will confirm any judge who doesn't perform a partial-birth abortion live on the Senate Floor." Somewhere they seemed to stop sticking to that particular set of guns.

I tend to think the Obama era made them complacent, while it galvanized and radicalized the reactionaries. The democrats, high off the heady scent of a black president, thought they'd "finally won," and could relax and take their victory lap. Meanwhile the republicans decided it was the point at which the mask of civility could be completely discarded and that never again would they engage in parliamentary democracy in good faith until all opposition to their supremacy had been eradicated.

And like I said before... aside from young firebrands like AOC and the rest of "The Squad," they will continue to hold meetings and breakout sessions where they were make points of order and issue statements of disappointment and denunciation until the boots are in the hall outside the door. After all, not only would it be uncouth, every democrat politician of any influence and standing is still too uncomfortable with the idea of those in power being held accountable for their actions to really put the energy behind saving the republic that is required. They would rather hope everything will work itself out than upset the apple cart, and possibly bring their own sins to light - and have them used against them.

Jan 6th was practice. It was our beer hall putsch. It did not fail, it was merely practice. Nobody of consequence has been held accountable for it, and when the midterms swing massively away from the democrats in 5 short months, that will be the end of it. Not only will republicans be untethered, all their street-level thugs and cultists will be emboldened to violence as never before.


#134

MindDetective

MindDetective

I don't think there's any pre-Southern Strategy republicans left.
No, but I think there are some mentees of that generation still. I've heard there are some people VERY uncomfortable with the direction the party has turned.


#135

GasBandit

GasBandit

No, but I think there are some mentees of that generation still. I've heard there are some people VERY uncomfortable with the direction the party has turned.
Not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it.


#136

MindDetective

MindDetective

Not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it.
Not publicly, at least. I'm not sure you or I would know about such things being handled privately. I see Pence as coming from the old school GOP, for example. My understanding is that Pence is no fan of Trump at all.


#137

Cheesy1

Cheesy1

Privately, most of them have been quoted as hating Trump. But they had absolutely no qualms about riding his Tea Party cow-towing coattails to maintain and gain more power and money.
And Democrats are doing the same with the wingnuts on their end of the spectrum in order to keep their elite status.

And neither side is willing to piss off their overly-loud extremists in order to meet in the middle and actually get shit done like fucking adults. And the ones who do try are labeled "traitors" for doing so.
Party over people.


#138

PatrThom

PatrThom

My understanding is that Pence is no fan of Trump at all.
I don't think any of them are a fan of Trump, honestly. They only see him as a biddable figurehead, an easily manipulated stooge. A corpulent man-child who can be distracted with boobies and golf and told to sign ze papers or else the boobies and golf will all go away and wouldn't that be a shame? Here's a pen.

--Patrick


#139

@Li3n

@Li3n

Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people.
I swear, i posted this image here dozens of times:



But i'm sure this time they totally mean it, you guys.


#140

MindDetective

MindDetective

I swear, i posted this image here dozens of times:



But i'm sure this time they totally mean it, you guys.
Already answered on the sincerity bit.


#141

@Li3n

@Li3n

Already answered on the sincerity bit.
By saying some actually do drink the kool-aid?

Yeah, i'm sure some slave owners though that black people where better off being "directed" by the "superior" race. Do you think many of them stopped any lynchings?

Show your cousin the data about maternal mortality difference between races, and i'm sure he'll then totally support more maternal care for them, right?


#142

MindDetective

MindDetective

By saying some actually do drink the kool-aid?

Yeah, i'm sure some slave owners though that black people where better off being "directed" by the "superior" race. Do you think many of them stopped any lynchings?

Show your cousin the data about maternal mortality difference between races, and i'm sure he'll then totally support more maternal care for them, right?
He genuinely believes abortion is murder. With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him). It is easy to call the opposition sheep but they really aren't an "other", nor are they (all) prone to violence. It is why I don't see violence as a certainty. Because the followers of the faith, of the GOP in particular, are not necessarily prone to using that tactic.


#143

Celt Z

Celt Z

He genuinely believes abortion is murder. With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him). It is easy to call the opposition sheep but they really aren't an "other", nor are they (all) prone to violence. It is why I don't see violence as a certainty. Because the followers of the faith, of the GOP in particular, are not necessarily prone to using that tactic.
I sometimes wonder how people with this stance wrap their brains around IVF. Because more than double the amount of embryos are disposed of than embryos/fetuses removed by abortion. If "life begins at conception", are we removing IVF services as well? I find myself thinking about this more often than I'd like because the Catholic church next to our house has been flying a "pray for the 63 million aborted babies" banner for some time (which makes me wretch for a number of reasons), and according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?

(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)


#144

@Li3n

@Li3n

He genuinely believes abortion is murder.
I wasn't talking about ppl dying without it, but just that he's consistent about preventing deaths through gov action, just with helping pregnant women of colour so that they don't die more often from complications then white women (or, you know, other women on colour in developed places outside the US).

With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him).
Yeah, that is incredibly stupid. If he's against abortion in all cases, then 100% of the time people will die when there's no chance for the foetus to live.

And i bet the same math wouldn't fly for banning guns, right...


according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?

(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
Don't worry, i'm sure they'll just say it's only God's will if the embryo get implanted... while also trying to ban Plan B.


#145

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

I sometimes wonder how people with this stance wrap their brains around IVF. Because more than double the amount of embryos are disposed of than embryos/fetuses removed by abortion. If "life begins at conception", are we removing IVF services as well? I find myself thinking about this more often than I'd like because the Catholic church next to our house has been flying a "pray for the 63 million aborted babies" banner for some time (which makes me wretch for a number of reasons), and according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?

(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
If you're really curious, I would bet that in general it isn't known to the church who was conceived and how, but a) all Catholics are sinners, so the idea that these parishioners are sinners is a given b) yes, IVF causes deaths the same way abortion does, so they should repent of the sin. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. As we can see with Pelosi, Biden, and PM Trudeau, many Catholics do not adhere to the doctrine of the Church and consider themselves faithful Catholics. They sort of pick-and-choose what parts to follow and what not to, often in line with cultural norms and values. As for the teaching of the Church on the children, there is nothing unnatural about the children, they are not illegitimate (I know you didn't say this but it is sometimes brought up. The Church believes illegitimacy is a legal construction, not spiritual. No children are illegitimate spiritually, that is matter for the laws of the land), and they are made in the image of God and inherently valuable human beings who are loved, whose sins are paid for with Christ's death and resurrection, just like all of us. If the parents did tell the church that they conceived via IVF, that wouldn't impede the child's baptism, admission into schools, etc. The parents have sinned, but not the child. The Church's dogma is not to reject children born of IVF, or any method. If we one day grow a child in a vat, it will be as human as we are now, with all the attendant divine image.

Whether or not the Church excommunicates such parents is much more fraught territory. Typically these days excommunication is rare (for a high profile recent example see: Pelosi, and even then only in her home parish). Usually excommunication will involve 3 traits: the person is in a continuous and unrepentant state of grave (mortal) sin, the person has refused pastoral counsel, and the person is of some public standing. This last point is important because we believe in the sin of 'scandal'. As a sin, scandal is when your behaviour seems to permit others to do this behaviour too. So if I happen to know a parishioner got IVF, but they're just someone at my church and it's not something they brag about and hype up, it isn't scandalous. It is something they did - I have done many sins in my past too. Their repentance is their business. But if they were a community leader and they advised other couples to try IVF, they might be excommunicated until they repent, as they are leading other Catholics to believe it is okay to do.

Just like much of culture there are more liberal and conservative elements within the Church clergy, too. A priest might be much more open to the idea of IVF than the Church teaches, and therefore not likely to admonish let alone excommunicate someone who has had it.


#146

GasBandit

GasBandit

It's like I told my gramma, if Jesus died for our sins, we gotta sin or he died for nothing. We can always ask forgiveness later, and as long as we really really mean it, it doesn't matter what we did.


#147

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

It's like I told my gramma, if Jesus died for our sins, we gotta sin or he died for nothing. We can always ask forgiveness later, and as long as we really really mean it, it doesn't matter what we did.
Jesus didn't die for your sins. He died for mine.


#148

GasBandit

GasBandit

Jesus didn't die for your sins. He died for mine.
Let's be real... he was dead, what, three days? Jesus gave up his weekend for your sins.


#149

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

The parents have sinned, but not the child.
Man, tell that to Adam and Eve's children. They fucked up so bad a guy had to get nailed to a cross several thousand years later


#150

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Man, tell that to Adam and Eve's children. They fucked up so bad a guy had to get nailed to a cross several thousand years later
I know you're being sarcastic, but we draw a distinction between Original Sin and particular sin (the sins we commit as individuals). However, if there's one thing I definitely flirt with heresy on, it's whether I accept the Church's full teaching on Original Sin, so I sympathize with your point to an extent.


#151

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

I know you're being sarcastic, but we draw a distinction between Original Sin and particular sin (the sins we commit as individuals). However, if there's one thing I definitely flirt with heresy on, it's whether I accept the Church's full teaching on Original Sin, so I sympathize with your point to an extent.
So, I'm not religious, so obviously I also don't believe in original sin, but I do like the stories and myths of religions (note: it's organized religion I don't like, and to be honest human organized anything I'm pretty skeptical of).

And one such story is the story of Prometheus. In Greek myth (or at least one of them, there's multiple variations) Prometheus is a titan and a bit of a trouble maker among the gods. All of these different animals had been created, but among them were humans, who didn't have fur to protect them from cold or claws to fend off predators. So Prometheus decides he's going to steal fire from Mt Olympus and give it to the humans. But much more than fire, he gifts them the knowledge of the forge and metalworking, the gift of technology. Through this, humans expand their knowledge and start to grow more powerful, of which Zeus is upset, fearful that man may become as the gods, and so punishes Prometheus by chaining him to a rock and having an eagle eat his liver every day.

Obviously this story is good for humans, the trickster Prometheus is a hero to mankind, and in the Greek tradition was revered as an advocate for mankind's independence.

So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent, and the knowledge of fire to the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... all I'm saying is in Greece they would have built statues to snakes.




While, as said before, I'm not religious, I am a Jew, both ethnically and once in spiritual practice, and in most Jewish doctrine the idea of original sin is kinda bonkers. (Most) Christian belief is that mankind is completely lost and held captive in sin, and completely powerless to change from that on their own. -Only- through the belief in Christ and acceptance of him as a savior can any individual person overcome this. Mankind is totally and wholly depraved and unable to enact any kind of salvation from this, or any hope of free will, without Jesus. And frankly, to a Jew, that's nuts. The Torah teaches the exact opposite, that man is responsible for his own salvation. In Deuteronomy, Moses holds a sermon for his people who are claiming that salvation is too difficult on their own.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 said:
For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
It is not in heaven that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?
Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?
Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
(note: I don't know anything about the chabad movement, this isn't an endorsement, they're just the first website that came up when googling for Torah chapters)

Sorry, this is all a tangent, and in the end I don't believe any of it anyway so I really have no horse in this race, I just find the concept of original sin kinda insulting. To me, it reads as a form of control, like when the church doctrine was being formed they had a sudden realization that if people could reach salvation on their own, then why would they need the church? And so they quickly had to solve that problem and force people into dependency on them.


#152

PatrThom

PatrThom

So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent
Or maybe even with a guy named "Lucifer."

--Patrick


#153

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

So, I'm not religious, so obviously I also don't believe in original sin, but I do like the stories and myths of religions (note: it's organized religion I don't like, and to be honest human organized anything I'm pretty skeptical of).

And one such story is the story of Prometheus. In Greek myth (or at least one of them, there's multiple variations) Prometheus is a titan and a bit of a trouble maker among the gods. All of these different animals had been created, but among them were humans, who didn't have fur to protect them from cold or claws to fend off predators. So Prometheus decides he's going to steal fire from Mt Olympus and give it to the humans. But much more than fire, he gifts them the knowledge of the forge and metalworking, the gift of technology. Through this, humans expand their knowledge and start to grow more powerful, of which Zeus is upset, fearful that man may become as the gods, and so punishes Prometheus by chaining him to a rock and having an eagle eat his liver every day.

Obviously this story is good for humans, the trickster Prometheus is a hero to mankind, and in the Greek tradition was revered as an advocate for mankind's independence.

So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent, and the knowledge of fire to the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... all I'm saying is in Greece they would have built statues to snakes.




While, as said before, I'm not religious, I am a Jew, both ethnically and once in spiritual practice, and in most Jewish doctrine the idea of original sin is kinda bonkers. (Most) Christian belief is that mankind is completely lost and held captive in sin, and completely powerless to change from that on their own. -Only- through the belief in Christ and acceptance of him as a savior can any individual person overcome this. Mankind is totally and wholly depraved and unable to enact any kind of salvation from this, or any hope of free will, without Jesus. And frankly, to a Jew, that's nuts. The Torah teaches the exact opposite, that man is responsible for his own salvation. In Deuteronomy, Moses holds a sermon for his people who are claiming that salvation is too difficult on their own.



(note: I don't know anything about the chabad movement, this isn't an endorsement, they're just the first website that came up when googling for Torah chapters)

Sorry, this is all a tangent, and in the end I don't believe any of it anyway so I really have no horse in this race, I just find the concept of original sin kinda insulting. To me, it reads as a form of control, like when the church doctrine was being formed they had a sudden realization that if people could reach salvation on their own, then why would they need the church? And so they quickly had to solve that problem and force people into dependency on them.
I mean, this is basically exactly where my 'heretical' thoughts on Original Sin as Christian/Church doctrine come from. If we affirm that the Tanakh is true, which we do, then how can we leave out not just the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy which says the law is close and not hard to fulfill (Paul arguably misquotes/misuses this passage in one of his letters), but other passages where God says all that is necessary for repentance is to turn to Him and repent, or Ezekiel where God says he wishes for the wicked to repent. I tend to read Jonah too as a lesson about how non-believers can be more 'righteous' in their lives and repentance than believers, which is basically anathema to Christian doctrine.

I think Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular has done a disservice to itself with its zeal to distance itself from Judaism. I feel that we (Christians) owe a special duty to listen to Jewish people and their criticisms of Christianity, and answer them, in a way that we maybe don't owe to atheists or other religions (not that we shouldn't answer those criticisms too), but instead it's been persecution at the worst of times and dismissal at the best. And the Jewish criticism I truly cannot answer is Original Sin. It isn't a Jewish idea, and obviously Christians believe in doctrinal development, it doesn't seem to be sustained by the Bible.

There are things I love about the Church, and I don't see it as a form of control, of course, I wouldn't have re-converted if I did, but I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.


#154

PatrThom

PatrThom

I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living? And I know the usual answer is something along the lines of, "To allow sufficient time to grow closer to God and allow yourself to be saved by accepting Him into your heart," but to me that just sounds like a glorified version of, "It's Yahweh or the highway."

--Patrick


#155

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

I mean, this is basically exactly where my 'heretical' thoughts on Original Sin as Christian/Church doctrine come from. If we affirm that the Tanakh is true, which we do, then how can we leave out not just the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy which says the law is close and not hard to fulfill (Paul arguably misquotes/misuses this passage in one of his letters), but other passages where God says all that is necessary for repentance is to turn to Him and repent, or Ezekiel where God says he wishes for the wicked to repent. I tend to read Jonah too as a lesson about how non-believers can be more 'righteous' in their lives and repentance than believers, which is basically anathema to Christian doctrine.

I think Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular has done a disservice to itself with its zeal to distance itself from Judaism. I feel that we (Christians) owe a special duty to listen to Jewish people and their criticisms of Christianity, and answer them, in a way that we maybe don't owe to atheists or other religions (not that we shouldn't answer those criticisms too), but instead it's been persecution at the worst of times and dismissal at the best. And the Jewish criticism I truly cannot answer is Original Sin. It isn't a Jewish idea, and obviously Christians believe in doctrinal development, it doesn't seem to be sustained by the Bible.

There are things I love about the Church, and I don't see it as a form of control, of course, I wouldn't have re-converted if I did, but I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
Were you not criticising the likes of Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau for being pro choice and still calling themselves Catholic? Is this not also picking and choosing? Or did I misread your intent in that statement?


#156

@Li3n

@Li3n

For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living?
You know, i looked it up for Catholics just to be sure it was the same as here (i was pretty sure it was, because that's not one of the few things that have become slightly different over teh year beside the Pope's role), and, yeah, baptism is supposed to cleat up OS.

But as i was looking it struck me how much the convo is about Adam's sin, and how that it's the origin of mankind's loss of innocence etc... even though he was actually the 2nd ever human to sin.


#157

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Were you not criticising the likes of Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau for being pro choice and still calling themselves Catholic? Is this not also picking and choosing? Or did I misread your intent in that statement?
I am critical of it, but I meant to be more neutral-sounding in as much as "There are Catholics like this," which is just, well, true. I guess it came across as critical anyway.

As to the picking-and-choosing, I would say the difference is that while I struggle with the teaching on Original Sin, and am not sure it is right, I defer to the teaching in as much as I practise what the Church teaches on it. It's like "I don't know how you got to that answer, but there's a large number of things I do see how you got, and you seem wise, so I will follow this while I investigate it, because I trust you." If someone struggles with IVF or abortion or a number of other Church teachings, but thinks everything else (or a lot of) that the Church teaches is right, I would probably advise them to follow the Church's teaching during their struggle.

To be clear, when I say I am critical, I don't mean to say that "They are bad Catholics and should be excommunicated/not call themselves Catholic." I am critical of their position as it contradicts teaching (and I do think the teaching on abortion is more clear than the teaching on Original Sin) and they don't seem willing to consider their faith's instruction even if they personally disagree. If sinning or disagreeing with the Church makes someone a bad Catholic, then every Catholic is a bad one. That 'bad' Catholics can struggle, repent, and struggle again is of great comfort to me, and hopefully to them as well.
For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living? And I know the usual answer is something along the lines of, "To allow sufficient time to grow closer to God and allow yourself to be saved by accepting Him into your heart," but to me that just sounds like a glorified version of, "It's Yahweh or the highway."

--Patrick
I mean, obviously I struggle with the doctrine, so I am not a great person to defend it, but the numbers thing/loan analogy is not quite right. It's more like, "Given the ability to pursue the good or wicked ends, you will naturally incline yourself to wickedness." To what degree this is the case varies on denomination. Calvinists believe in something called Total Depravity - 'no good without God,' or the idea that Original Sin has made it impossible for humans to choose good other than what God allows them to choose. This is very antithetical to free will.

Catholics have more schools of thought on the matter, but the important thing for us is free will exists absolutely, and while all good is for the glory of God, Original Sin has not removed from us the ability to choose good ourselves. To me, the part of the doctrine I do understand is that Original Sin has created this sort of brokenness that can never be fixed by the works of man. Like a child destroying a masterpiece painting. We didn't even know what we broke when we broke it, and we don't have the skill to fix it. There's just this... damage to the world that is bad and present and it has something, I'm not sure what exactly, to do with that first sin.


#158

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

You know, i looked it up for Catholics just to be sure it was the same as here (i was pretty sure it was, because that's not one of the few things that have become slightly different over teh year beside the Pope's role), and, yeah, baptism is supposed to cleat up OS.

But as i was looking it struck me how much the convo is about Adam's sin, and how that it's the origin of mankind's loss of innocence etc... even though he was actually the 2nd ever human to sin.
Well yeah, I don't even know about this one. I think about why it's called the Sin of Adam. I suppose it's because he was made first, but the Original Sin was a joint effort. I've heard people say semi-seriously that the 'real' Original Sin wasn't eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, but Adam saying 'She made me do it!' when caught.


#159

Shakey

Shakey

That’s all fine, but there’s a difference between having personal religious beliefs and trying to force those beliefs on others through legislation. Justify it through your beliefs all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that those religious beliefs are being forced on others.


#160

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

That’s all fine, but there’s a difference between having personal religious beliefs and trying to force those beliefs on others through legislation. Justify it through your beliefs all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that those religious beliefs are being forced on others.
The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."

I believe in secular democracy. I don't think that Christianity should be enshrined as law, or that something like gay marriage should be illegal, or theocracy will usher in some golden age. I think democracy is a good thing for the freedom of religion.

But on this issue, if one really believes that it is another human being, then I have to believe the law should protect that human life. I agree there should be medical/life-of-the-mother exceptions, because now there's two lives at stake, and there is a far more likely chance of losing both or saving the mother than of saving both. That's tragic, but I would say the abortion is a side-effect of saving the mother's life, not the goal of the procedure, and the death of the unborn child is to be mourned, but it is no one's fault anymore than a miscarriage is. We have to triage patients in disasters, we have to deal with the consequences of cancer, these are difficult and sad but no one's fault.


#161

Shakey

Shakey

The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."
That’s a bullshit comparison and you know it. It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?


#162

PatrThom

PatrThom

It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?
More a philosophical one, I think, and not universal to "religion."

--Patrick


#163

Shakey

Shakey

More a philosophical one, I think, and not universal to "religion."

--Patrick
That could be said of almost any religious belief.


#164

GasBandit

GasBandit

Therein lies the rub. The definition of when someone is alive is always a religious debate even if religion isn't involved. Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at the first brainwave? Does it end at brain death? Or is it true that you're not really dead until you're dead AND warm, as the saying goes?


#165

figmentPez

figmentPez

The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."
Doesn't matter if you think a life is at stake. Do you have both kidneys? There are people on transplant lists who will die if you don't donate one. Should the government be able to force you to donate one to keep from killing someone by their inaction?

Bodily autonomy supersedes any considerations of if an embryo is a life. A fertilized egg, an embryo, even a fetus, none of these have the right to use someone else's body without their permission. Doesn't matter if a life is at stake, people have control over their own bodies. If you don't own your own body, you don't own anything, you don't have freedom, you don't have liberty. Bodily autonomy is a very basic right, and the only reason it's not considered fundamental to law in this country is because the US was founded by racist slave holders who thought they needed to be able own people.

You can argue about how long it takes before a woman has de facto made the decision to allow a pregnancy, and that she can't revoke use of her uterus after letting a fetus grow for 6 months or whatever, but during the early stages of pregnancy? The woman's body is hers, and the cells growing inside her have no claim over it.

Furthermore, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you think that laws that are written specifically to ban abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy are about preserving life. Because there's no medical way to make an ectopic pregnancy viable. The only reason to specifically codify against terminating an ectopic pregnancy is to have control over women, because without medical intervention to end an ectopic pregnancy, both the woman and fetus die. It's either save the life of the mother, or lose both. There is no option to save the "life" of an ectopic pregnancy. Yet I don't see any pro-life Republicans making a stand against the states that are enacting laws meant to control women to the point of sentencing them to death. That alone should be reason to denounce the SCOTUS ruling, because of the horrors it unleashed.

Also, it's really only been recently that Christians started believing that life begins at conception. There's a long history of Judeochristian belief holding that life begins at first breath. So you should really reconsider if your belief is as well founded as you think it is.


#166

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.


#167

PatrThom

PatrThom

It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.
There, maybe. But here?

--Patrick


#168

figmentPez

figmentPez

ALSO, let me note that it's never possible to satisfy every possible person's belief on medical matters. There are pacifists who think that any act of violence is unacceptable, always, yet we don't cater our entire country's laws to make killing someone in self-defense the same charge as murder. They don't get to insist that everyone else give up their lives in the face of violence, just because their pacifism says that it's better to die than use violence.

Quiverfull christians believe that any use of contraception, even the rhythm method, is against God's will. Should we force all married couples to have as many babies as they can, just because some fringe group thinks that God commands it?

Some christians believe that "spilling seed" is equivalent to murder. Should we ban masturbation because of the babies not born from jizz in a sock?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. If there were 6 Jehovah's Witnesses on the SCOTUS, should they be allowed to ban all blood transfusions because they think they're morally required to do so by their faith?

And why should we stop at people's physical lives? If SCOTUS can make a ruling based on Christian beliefs about when life begins, regardless of any science or objective reality, then why shouldn't they be able to make rulings based on the state of people's immortal souls? Should they be able to require everyone attend church on Sundays? Require people take communion? Can they ban witchcraft because of the harm they claim it does to a person's soul?


#169

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

That’s a bullshit comparison and you know it. It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?
Even if it is, and I do think there's some scientific basis for the belief, my hypothetical isn't supposed to be a direct comparison, but rather... I can't pretend it's just an abstraction. Objectively, I think it's a human life.

if I really believe it's a human life, then I can't risk being wrong. Like, if I'm right, people are being killed. We would definitely agree it's bad. If I'm right about pre-marital sex, and you don't agree, no one dies. But if I'm right about this and you don't agree, people are dying.

Doesn't matter if you think a life is at stake. Do you have both kidneys? There are people on transplant lists who will die if you don't donate one. Should the government be able to force you to donate one to keep from killing someone by their inaction?

Bodily autonomy supersedes any considerations of if an embryo is a life. A fertilized egg, an embryo, even a fetus, none of these have the right to use someone else's body without their permission. Doesn't matter if a life is at stake, people have control over their own bodies. If you don't own your own body, you don't own anything, you don't have freedom, you don't have liberty. Bodily autonomy is a very basic right, and the only reason it's not considered fundamental to law in this country is because the US was founded by racist slave holders who thought they needed to be able own people.

You can argue about how long it takes before a woman has de facto made the decision to allow a pregnancy, and that she can't revoke use of her uterus after letting a fetus grow for 6 months or whatever, but during the early stages of pregnancy? The woman's body is hers, and the cells growing inside her have no claim over it.

Furthermore, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you think that laws that are written specifically to ban abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy are about preserving life. Because there's no medical way to make an ectopic pregnancy viable. The only reason to specifically codify against terminating an ectopic pregnancy is to have control over women, because without medical intervention to end an ectopic pregnancy, both the woman and fetus die. It's either save the life of the mother, or lose both. There is no option to save the "life" of an ectopic pregnancy. Yet I don't see any pro-life Republicans making a stand against the states that are enacting laws meant to control women to the point of sentencing them to death. That alone should be reason to denounce the SCOTUS ruling, because of the horrors it unleashed.

Also, it's really only been recently that Christians started believing that life begins at conception. There's a long history of Judeochristian belief holding that life begins at first breath. So you should really reconsider if your belief is as well founded as you think it is.
I'm opposed to laws that forbid treating ectopic pregnancy, as I said. There should be exemptions. I mean, the procedure is 'an abortion' but as I said, the fact of the matter is that we either jeopardize two lives, or save one, and saving the one is the right choice.

The kidney example is good, but I think it's incomplete. The difference is in a couple of ways. One is that it's tragic but no one's fault if my kidneys fail. In fact, if a baby is born and needs blood and mom's a match, and the mother refuses to give her blood, I don't think she is morally bound to do it. An induced abortion is not like kidney failure. The other thing is that the womb is the only organ that is for sustaining another life. A human life dependent on a kidney transplant is tragedy. A human life dependent on another's womb is normal.

Finally, I never said this belief is founded on it being old. I think it is true. Very early in our history, Augustine said that at three months an infant had a soul and before that a pregnancy could be terminated, but that was never Church teaching, which, although slow and careful, does change on some matters as knowledge increases. I would say this is a matter where science has taught us a lot about how life starts in the last 200 years, and the fact that almost immediately upon insemination, this little cell and then cluster of cells has its own unique DNA, and it starts replicating and consuming energy, are good indicators that life starts right away.
It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.
The law isn't the only thing that matters. How people want to count censuses, give tax credits, etc, is a legal construction. It's like borders. Canada and the US are legal constructions, our border isn't a real thing that exist in a vacuum, but the land is. In this case, the government may not count the unborn, but the fact is that they are human lives. And when people say we should give child tax credits to pregnant women, I am for that. It makes sense. But that's not going to tell us whether or not this is a human being. It just tells us how to govern.


#170

Shakey

Shakey

There, maybe. But here?

--Patrick
Well, our government doesn’t consider them citizens until they’re born, have a birth certificate, and have an SSN right? Otherwise I should have been able to claim my unborn child as a dependent.


#171

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

ALSO, let me note that it's never possible to satisfy every possible person's belief on medical matters. There are pacifists who think that any act of violence is unacceptable, always, yet we don't cater our entire country's laws to make killing someone in self-defense the same charge as murder. They don't get to insist that everyone else give up their lives in the face of violence, just because their pacifism says that it's better to die than use violence.

Quiverfull christians believe that any use of contraception, even the rhythm method, is against God's will. Should we force all married couples to have as many babies as they can, just because some fringe group thinks that God commands it?

Some christians believe that "spilling seed" is equivalent to murder. Should we ban masturbation because of the babies not born from jizz in a sock?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. If there were 6 Jehovah's Witnesses on the SCOTUS, should they be allowed to ban all blood transfusions because they think they're morally required to do so by their faith?

And why should we stop at people's physical lives? If SCOTUS can make a ruling based on Christian beliefs about when life begins, regardless of any science or objective reality, then why shouldn't they be able to make rulings based on the state of people's immortal souls? Should they be able to require everyone attend church on Sundays? Require people take communion? Can they ban witchcraft because of the harm they claim it does to a person's soul?
No, as I said, I think secular democracy is a good thing.

This is a case where I think there is both scientific and philosophical reason to regard this as a human life. A fertilize egg will implant and grow into a person, barring natural abortion like a miscarriage, or unnatural abortion. It is the latter that concerns me. Semen on its own won't do anything. When it comes to blood transfusions or gay marriage, I think the advice 'If you don't want to get gay married, don't.' works, and is a compatible way for religious and secular society to get along. The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.


#172

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Without the consent of the woman, can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fetus is alive?


#173

Shakey

Shakey

No, as I said, I think secular democracy is a good thing.

This is a case where I think there is both scientific and philosophical reason to regard this as a human life. A fertilize egg will implant and grow into a person, barring natural abortion like a miscarriage, or unnatural abortion. It is the latter that concerns me. Semen on its own won't do anything. When it comes to blood transfusions or gay marriage, I think the advice 'If you don't want to get gay married, don't.' works, and is a compatible way for religious and secular society to get along. The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.


#174

figmentPez

figmentPez

The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.

No matter what you think abortion laws should be like, overruling Roe v. Wade and allowing unchecked absurdity when it comes to states making whatever crazy laws they want about the issue is horribly harmful. To the point of being unconscionable. You're not arguing in favor of saving the unborn, you're arguing in favor of punishing women.

Moreover, you're arguing in favor of ALL the losses that will will come, losing access to birth control, losing LGBTQ+ rights, losing interracial marriage, etc. etc.

This is not an issue that exists in a vaccuum. If you want to deny bodily autonomy just because you think that life begins at a fertilized egg, then you've got to accept all the bullshit that follows. Because everyone is going to lose a lot of rights if people don't have a right to their own bodies.


#175

Bubble181

Bubble181

The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.


#176

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.
I opposed abortion when I was an atheist, too. It seems to me that it is alive, and we shouldn't kill people.

The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.

No matter what you think abortion laws should be like, overruling Roe v. Wade and allowing unchecked absurdity when it comes to states making whatever crazy laws they want about the issue is horribly harmful. To the point of being unconscionable. You're not arguing in favor of saving the unborn, you're arguing in favor of punishing women.

Moreover, you're arguing in favor of ALL the losses that will will come, losing access to birth control, losing LGBTQ+ rights, losing interracial marriage, etc. etc.

This is not an issue that exists in a vaccuum. If you want to deny bodily autonomy just because you think that life begins at a fertilized egg, then you've got to accept all the bullshit that follows. Because everyone is going to lose a lot of rights if people don't have a right to their own bodies.
Just because odious people agree with me on something does not mean that I support them in general. I don't. If Donald Trump loves mozza sticks, well, me too, I still think he's a jerk and I wouldn't vote for him if I were American. There are odious politicians looking for angles on all sides and about all issues.

I believe this issue is preserving the bodily autonomy of the child. That's whose autonomy I worry about.

The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
To take your example of 'let the fetus survive on its own if it can' - you wouldn't say this about a baby. A baby requires many people to support it in order to live. I don't think it is meaningfully different when the baby is exceptionally dependent on one person. In the case that the baby needs an organ, I agree. You can't force someone to give blood, a kidney, whatever. But if the mom vanished one night and the baby was left at a hospital, we certainly wouldn't say it's okay for staff to just go "Well I don't have to feed it, or notify anyone about this." There are certain things we would demand be done to take care of it, and we would consider it beyond negligence if they didn't.

You say I'm advocating for 'forcing' a woman to alter her body, I say you're advocating for 'forcing' a human life to die.

I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe in helping mothers, etc. But saying "People should not be killed in the womb," and "Mothers should receive mat leave" are more than just degrees of difference. One is clearly more pressing and dangerous.


#177

MindDetective

MindDetective

The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
The act of killing vs. doing nothing, resulting in a death, are arguably different things. I say that while in agreement with you.


#178

figmentPez

figmentPez

I believe this issue is preserving the bodily autonomy of the child. That's whose autonomy I worry about.
No one is stopping a fetus from controlling it's own body.


#179

GasBandit

GasBandit



#180

blotsfan

blotsfan

Nope.

- Dave


#181

figmentPez

figmentPez

Very early in our history, Augustine said that at three months an infant had a soul
Augustine also thought that a fetus started out with a plant-like soul, then evolved an animal-like soul, before finally having a human soul. So I'm really disinclined to agree with him about anything on the matter of souls and abortion.

Just the sheer number of fertilized eggs that end in miscarriage makes me disregard any concerns about the "babies" involved. A least 10 - 25% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion, but that's just known pregnancies. Recent scientific studies suggest that it may be 50% or more of all fertilized, implanted eggs that end up miscarrying, with a majority of those never even recognized as a pregnancy. When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.


#182

@Li3n

@Li3n

The act of killing vs. doing nothing, resulting in a death, are arguably different things.
So you'd be fine with an abortion caused by the pregnant woman going on a hunger strike until the foetus becomes unviable ?


#183

@Li3n

@Li3n

When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
But that's God... it's ok when He kills... women, children, every animal but 2 of each etc.


#184

MindDetective

MindDetective

So you'd be fine with an abortion caused by the pregnant woman going on a hunger strike until the foetus becomes unviable ?
Why would I be fine with that? What I said wasn't about me or my opinion until you made it about that. I only stated what others have argued.


#185

PatrThom

PatrThom

Well, our government doesn’t consider them citizens until they’re born, have a birth certificate, and have an SSN right? Otherwise I should have been able to claim my unborn child as a dependent.
Questions of fœtal "life" v. "!life" aside, it does seem like being born is a requirement to decide some things, like faction. Or at least to give them a starting point. Prior to that moment, some of the baby's stats are still empty. And I don't mean "undecided" or "N/A," I mean more like "protean."

--Patrick


#186

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Augustine also thought that a fetus started out with a plant-like soul, then evolved an animal-like soul, before finally having a human soul. So I'm really disinclined to agree with him about anything on the matter of souls and abortion.

Just the sheer number of fertilized eggs that end in miscarriage makes me disregard any concerns about the "babies" involved. A least 10 - 25% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion, but that's just known pregnancies. Recent scientific studies suggest that it may be 50% or more of all fertilized, implanted eggs that end up miscarrying, with a majority of those never even recognized as a pregnancy. When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
That's what I'm trying to get at with Augustine. I think he was wrong, too.

As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.


#187

Shakey

Shakey

That's what I'm trying to get at with Augustine. I think he was wrong, too.

As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
A case could be made for castle doctrine in that situation. If a sick person comes near me, and there would be a 50% chance of me dying because of it, they’re getting shot.


#188

figmentPez

figmentPez

As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
I damn well would argue that it should be illegal to force someone to risk their own health to care for a person who had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, even if it meant that person would surely die.


#189

Krisken

Krisken

Every time someone calls a fetus a child I'm a little sad for the state of education.
I damn well would argue that it should be illegal to force someone to risk their own health to care for a person who had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, even if it meant that person would surely die.
In fact, that is true. It's why organ donations are voluntary and not required, even if you are dead. Thus, the "murder" argument holds no water

I'd also point out that a woman's own body sees a fetus as an invading force and takes steps to remove it.


#190

GasBandit

GasBandit

Coming soon to America - checkpoints at state borders to make sure you're not pregnant.



#191

PatrThom

PatrThom

This will be useless unless those borders become more form(idab)al.
Oh!
Ohhh...

--Patrick


#192

Tress

Tress

I can’t wait to see what happens when a person from a “bounty” state (citizens can sue a person for $10k for getting an abortion) gets an abortion in a state like California, which just passed a law saying that residents cannot be sued by people outside of California for getting, performing, or assisting with abortions.

How will SCOTUS justify fucking over states’ rights to let conservatives sue California doctors?


#193

Krisken

Krisken

They don't need to justify it. Their current justifications are so thin you can't help but see theough it.


#194

figmentPez

figmentPez

Once again: This is designed to start a war. They are aiming for violence.


#195

PatrThom

PatrThom

Once again: This is designed to start a war. They are aiming for violence.
Yes, but they are trying hard to make it look like it's the other guy's fault. They are pushing and pushing in order to make this into an "I was minding my own business when suddenly he hit me for no reason!" sort of thing.

--Patrick


#196

MindDetective

MindDetective

Don't take this as praise for all of Google but I'm pleased with their decision to auto-delete location data identified with sensitive health-related locations such as abortion clinics.


#197

PatrThom

PatrThom

I mean, that’s just going to make authorities think that any long periods of “data missing” while near any abortion clinic means you must’ve stopped there.


—Patrick


#198

figmentPez

figmentPez

Once again: This is designed to start a war. They are aiming for violence.
I'm not the only one that thinks the plan is to cause violence:



#199

D

Dubyamn

I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe in helping mothers, etc. But saying "People should not be killed in the womb," and "Mothers should receive mat leave" are more than just degrees of difference. One is clearly more pressing and dangerous.
No one is not more pressing and dangerous. You are advocating for women to die who didn’t need to die. Forcing women to care their pregnancies to term against their will is going to kill some because they die due to complications during childbirth. Sure you say you want an exception in case of the health of the mother but due to the fact that there will be laws against it doctors will choose to not risk their licenses over a 10% chance or a 5% chance and women will die because of it. Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
To say that supporting mother’s isn’t pressing and dangerous is utter nonsense. And let’s not forget this is America where not only will these women die because they are forced to carry their pregnancy to term but their families will have to pay thousands for the privilege.


#200

Celt Z

Celt Z

Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
We just sadly had another one of those this week. A 20-yr-old woman was shot in the face and killed while her 3-month-old baby was with her, by the baby's father. They were out to meet with the father because he said he had things to give the baby. There had previously been domestic charges filed.

...But hey, NY is still a pro-choice state, so let's see how "protecting those babies" is going in the rest of the country! Well, a 10-yr-old Ohio girl was forced to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion because she was past the 6 weeks deadline. So, a 5th grader, who on top of the trauma of being sexuality assaulted, now has to be shipped to another state just to receive appropriate medical attention. She lost her right to her body, her privacy, and she's not even out of elementary school yet!

Which babies are we protecting again? The ones that might become babies someday? Because we're not protecting the ones that are already here.


#201

mikerc

mikerc

No one is not more pressing and dangerous. You are advocating for women to die who didn’t need to die. Forcing women to care their pregnancies to term against their will is going to kill some because they die due to complications during childbirth. Sure you say you want an exception in case of the health of the mother but due to the fact that there will be laws against it doctors will choose to not risk their licenses over a 10% chance or a 5% chance and women will die because of it. Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
To say that supporting mother’s isn’t pressing and dangerous is utter nonsense. And let’s not forget this is America where not only will these women die because they are forced to carry their pregnancy to term but their families will have to pay thousands for the privilege.
Women dying needlessly is not the only cruelty these laws cause. Miscarriages will still happen and in places which have the strictest anti-abortion laws, time and again women who are going through that will also have to deal with being investigated for murder. Some of them will be convicted and forced to go to jail.


#202

Frank

Frank

Cops are going to need a 15% funding boost to keep up with the need for womb inspectors.


#203

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Hold up, so with that civil forfeiture bullshit, they don't need to prove anything to take your stuff.

So with abortions being illegal, cops could suspect a woman driving a car of going somewhere to get an abortion, giving them probable cause to seize her car as an instrument of crime!?


#204

D

Dubyamn

Women dying needlessly is not the only cruelty these laws cause. Miscarriages will still happen and in places which have the strictest anti-abortion laws, time and again women who are going through that will also have to deal with being investigated for murder. Some of them will be convicted and forced to go to jail.
Oh I don't think there's any bottom to the fucked up stuff that's coming down the pike because of these laws. Just found that going into more detail was just going to make my point that supporting mother’s is absolutely pressing and dangerous more bloated than I liked.


#205

Celt Z

Celt Z

Hold up, so with that civil forfeiture bullshit, they don't need to prove anything to take your stuff.

So with abortions being illegal, cops could suspect a woman driving a car of going somewhere to get an abortion, giving them probable cause to seize her car as an instrument of crime!?
In Texas, yeah. And probably other places soon.


#206

Frank

Frank



#207

GasBandit

GasBandit

This sums it up pretty well



#208

figmentPez

figmentPez



I'm too depressed to go searching for confirmation of this, but I really hope doctors have some plan to deal with ectopic pregnancies in Texas.


#209

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Christ, methotrexate is used for so much more. They may as well ban saline because that is also used in abortions.


#210

chris

chris



I'm too depressed to go searching for confirmation of this, but I really hope doctors have some plan to deal with ectopic pregnancies in Texas.
I guess the plan is to stand behind the hospitals' lawyer and wait.


#211

Mathias

Mathias

I'm looking forward to all the legal clusters regarding cross-state abortions, and legalities regarding a fetus having people rights in one state versus not in another state. Didn't we literally have a Civil War over similar issues regarding the rights of black people varying from state to state?


#212

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Well Biden just signed an executive order today to protect abortion rights. It's not a long term solution but it's a start.


#213

figmentPez

figmentPez

The hypocrisy of conservatives is annoying, as usual. "Any president who makes such unlawful executive orders should be imprisoned!" It's useless to try to call them out on it, though. They just do not care.


#214

Mathias

Mathias

The hypocrisy of conservatives is annoying, as usual. "Any president who makes such unlawful executive orders should be imprisoned!" It's useless to try to call them out on it, though. They just do not care.
Exactly, they don't care about being called hypocrites. Machiavellian to the core. Their ends always justify whatever means.


#215

Tress

Tress

I really do hate that executive orders are being used this way (and have been for the better part of a decade). It’s not supposed to be how the federal government is run. And I blame McConnell for being such an obstructionist piece of shit. If he actually had a shred of decency and worked with his political opponents, no one would feel the need to do an end-around the Constitution with E.O.’s like this.


#216

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

I really do hate that executive orders are being used this way (and have been for the better part of a decade). It’s not supposed to be how the federal government is run. And I blame McConnell for being such an obstructionist piece of shit. If he actually had a shred of decency and worked with his political opponents, no one would feel the need to do an end-around the Constitution with E.O.’s like this.
It's already been proven, again and again, that the constitution doesn't really matter, they're just words on paper that no one actually follows.


#217

PatrThom

PatrThom



I'm too depressed to go searching for confirmation of this, but I really hope doctors have some plan to deal with ectopic pregnancies in Texas.
Tweet blocked. Anyone capture it?

Also some women are "taking the bull by the horns," so to speak:
It's not lost on me that the article title is "pregnant people."

--Patrick


#218

figmentPez

figmentPez

Tweet blocked. Anyone capture it?
The tweet was, allegedly, passing on the story of a woman who had called her doctor asking about what would happen if she had an ectopic pregnancy. Her doctor assured her that she would still get treatment, but they weren't sure what that would be, since they can no longer get methotrexate.

I don't know if this is true, but there's a LOT of people on social media saying they've been blocked from refilling their methotrexate prescription for things like lupus and other auto-immune diseases.


#219

figmentPez

figmentPez



#220

Squidleybits

Squidleybits

I took methotrexate as an anti rejection drug related to my biologic. Are they seriously going to deny a whole bunch of AS and RA patients methotrexate?!

Yes, it is used in abortions. Many things are. What the actual F.


#221

figmentPez

figmentPez

I took methotrexate as an anti rejection drug related to my biologic. Are they seriously going to deny a whole bunch of AS and RA patients methotrexate?!

Yes, it is used in abortions. Many things are. What the actual F.
Apparently, yes, access to methotrexate is being restricted:

Why Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Are Having Trouble Getting Their Meds Post-Roe

Methotrexate, used on autoimmune diseases, can induce abortion. Some patients can't get it


#222

Squidleybits

Squidleybits

That’s insane! They are effectively crippling these people.


#223

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

That’s insane! They are effectively crippling these people.
As long as they are the right people... /s
Post automatically merged:

The answer should be take it up with the FDA.


#224

PatrThom

PatrThom

Yes, [Methotrexate] is used in abortions. Many things are.
Alcohol and Nicotine are also supposed to be abortifascients. But will they be restricted? Ha!

--Patrick


#225

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Alcohol and Nicotine are also supposed to be abortifascients. But will they be restricted? Ha!

--Patrick
Yes, they will. Everything is up for grabs.


#226

Bubble181

Bubble181

Yes, they will. Everything is up for grabs.
Well, for women of course. No chance of us getting our faces eaten, right folks? Hahah


#227

Squidleybits

Squidleybits

You are correct. Evidently methotrexate is only being blocked for fertile women. Or women that they think are of child bearing age.

I had certain meds not even offered to me as a young adult for similar reasons…in the 90s. I really thought we as a society were better now.


#228

PatrThom

PatrThom

Well, for women of course. No chance of us getting our faces eaten, right folks? Hahah
There is actually a case going right now in TX where a pregnant woman is fighting a ticket for being in the HOV lane, claiming the fetus counted as a second person inside the car at the time.

—Patrick


#229

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

There is actually a case going right now in TX where a pregnant woman is fighting a ticket for being in the HOV lane, claiming the fetus counted as a second person inside the car at the time.

—Patrick
Well pregnant women have no rights but fetuses do, so looks like that baby was driving without a license.


#230

Mathias

Mathias

I'm looking forward to all the legal clusters regarding cross-state abortions, and legalities regarding a fetus having people rights in one state versus not in another state. Didn't we literally have a Civil War over similar issues regarding the rights of black people varying from state to state?

Lol Boom!



#231

PatrThom

PatrThom

Yep there it is.
I wasn't going to dig it up on mobile.
I look forward to the mental gymnastics competition AZ, TX, and FL are going to have over this kind of stuff.

--Patrick


#232

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

And now the state can argue that if she wants to count as two people, two people can't be in the drivers seat . So pregnant women can no longer drive. And all the morons will happily agree...


#233

PatrThom

PatrThom

I mean, that’s just going to make authorities think that any long periods of “data missing” while near any abortion clinic means you must’ve stopped there.

In semi-related news:
godwinianblur.png


--Patrick


#234

figmentPez

figmentPez



A 27 year-old man raped a 10 year-old girl, and not only are people debating if she should have control over her own body, but major news outlets are trying to deny that she even exists.

This country is a shithole.


#235

figmentPez

figmentPez

“I have gotten some reports where children have been denied methotrexate for their juvenile arthritis until they’ve proven they’re not pregnant,” said Dr. Cuoghi Edens, an assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at University of Chicago Medicine and a rheumatology expert who treats adults and children.

In one case, a pharmacist initially refused to dispense methotrexate to an 8-year-old girl in Texas. In a note the child’s doctor shared with Edens, the pharmacist wrote, “Females of possible child bearing potential have to have diagnosis on hard copy with state abortion laws.”

Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug


#236

Frank

Frank



A 27 year-old man raped a 10 year-old girl, and not only are people debating if she should have control over her own body, but major news outlets are trying to deny that she even exists.

This country is a shithole.
Now that it's been proven to be 100% real, they've pivoted to trying to make it about immigration.


#237

@Li3n

@Li3n

of possible child bearing potential
So anyone 5 and up then?


#238

figmentPez

figmentPez



#239

Frank

Frank



#240

figmentPez

figmentPez



#241

figmentPez

figmentPez

Texas sues to block Biden from requiring doctors to provide abortions in medical emergencies

Republicans want to kill women. There's no two ways about it. Republicans demand control over women to the point that they are willing to kill women as demonstration of their power.


#242

Dave

Dave

In Missouri if you're pregnant, you can not file for divorce.


#243

Krisken

Krisken

Who the fuck agrees with this shit? I'm so baffled the entire country isn't losing their fucking minds that the christo-fascists are trying to dictate laws for everyone.


#244

PatrThom

PatrThom

I don't know how they're getting away with it, either.
I suspect it is because there are enough CFSympathizers in the positions that could do something about it yet just choose not to.

--Patrick


#245

Shakey

Shakey

Who the fuck agrees with this shit? I'm so baffled the entire country isn't losing their fucking minds that the christo-fascists are trying to dictate laws for everyone.
It doesn’t affect them directly yet, so it’s easy to ignore.


#246

Bubble181

Bubble181

Leopards need food, after all, it's important for conservation and stuff that they survive, and whose faces better to eat than theirs instead of mine?


#247

PatrThom

PatrThom

Did someone neglect to consider the future ramifications of their actions? It would appear so.
In the three weeks since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe...
Three weeks? It's only been three weeks??? It seems like it's been forever.

--Patrick


#248

Squidleybits

Squidleybits

“I have gotten some reports where children have been denied methotrexate for their juvenile arthritis until they’ve proven they’re not pregnant,” said Dr. Cuoghi Edens, an assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at University of Chicago Medicine and a rheumatology expert who treats adults and children.

In one case, a pharmacist initially refused to dispense methotrexate to an 8-year-old girl in Texas. In a note the child’s doctor shared with Edens, the pharmacist wrote, “Females of possible child bearing potential have to have diagnosis on hard copy with state abortion laws.”

Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug
No one takes methotrexate because they want to. My hair fell out and I spent days vomiting after my self injections weekly. We take it because we want to be able to walk. I know you all understand this, but it’s not negotiable for certain patients.

Denying the medication to an 8 year old sentences her to a lifetime of pain and mobility issues. I am having a hard time fathoming this. The way to treat these diseases is aggressively before the damage is done.


#249

GasBandit

GasBandit

No one takes methotrexate because they want to. My hair fell out and I spent days vomiting after my self injections weekly. We take it because we want to be able to walk. I know you all understand this, but it’s not negotiable for certain patients.

Denying the medication to an 8 year old sentences her to a lifetime of pain and mobility issues. I am having a hard time fathoming this. The way to treat these diseases is aggressively before the damage is done.
Yes, but don't you see, this is a small price that white republican men are willing to pay for the greater goal of stripping all women of personhood and reducing them to chattel as G*D intended.


#250

Celt Z

Celt Z

Did someone neglect to consider the future ramifications of their actions? It would appear so.


#251

PatrThom

PatrThom

I'm reminded of all the times some consumer product company has proclaimed something like, "After receiving thousands of angry letters about Feature X, we've decided to change it" only to then start receiving millions of angry letters from all the people who liked Feature X exactly the way it was and question what they were thinking.

--Patrick


#252

figmentPez

figmentPez

Texas hospitals delaying care over abortion law, letter says

"Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state’s abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week.
....
"In one case, a central Texas hospital reportedly told a physician not to treat an ectopic pregnancy until it ruptured, the letter said."

This is not about life, this is about controlling women.


#253

GasBandit

GasBandit



#254

Celt Z

Celt Z

I'm PREEEETTTTYYY sure since the late 80's we've established HIV isn't just a homosexual disease, but yeah, sure, Texas*. You're batting 1.000 lately when it comes to good decisions. :rolleyes:


*Apologies to Texas residents who aren't complete morons.
**Tangently related, my new phone, which autocorrects EVERYTHING, doesn't recognize the word "homosexual". WTF?


#255

PatrThom

PatrThom

An analysis this week by The Columbus Dispatch found 50 reports of rape or sexual abuse toward girls 15 years old or younger in Columbus, Ohio, since May of this year.
Fifty reports.
Since May.
...and this is just counting the ones within Columbus' city limits.
:eek::eek::eek:

For the record, as of today (July 15th), "since May" only encompasses 45 days.
That means the number of REPORTED cases of rape or sexual abuse towards girls 15 years of age or under is more than once per day. And again, this is just in Columbus, OH, a city with a population of just under a million people. The total number (if you add in the UNreported cases) is going to be more.

--Patrick


#256

figmentPez

figmentPez



Republicans are torturing women to demonstrate their power.

Link to the story without paywall


#257

figmentPez

figmentPez

Mustache-twirling levels of evil from Republicans:



#258

PatrThom

PatrThom

Men rush to get vasectomies after Roe ruling
...before Friday, he received four or five vasectomy requests a day. Since the court’s decision was announced, that number has spiked to 12 to 18 requests per day.
...won't someone think of the children???

You know, I thought the inevitable birth rate decline was going to be because of A.I. sexbots and/or Huxleyesque over-saturation, and not because lawmakers decided to make having children so onerous that nobody would want to do it any more.

--Patrick


#259

GasBandit

GasBandit



#260

GasBandit

GasBandit



#261

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

The white woman using "black preborn lives matter" as a motto is especially vile


#262

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

Wait wait wait. Is the wording actually "seeking" women, not women who had an abortion? Thus killing the woman AND the baby?

Jesus fucking Christ.


#263

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Wait wait wait. Is the wording actually "seeking" women, not women who had an abortion? Thus killing the woman AND the baby?

Jesus fucking Christ.
So "Pro-Life" they circled around to Pro-Death.


#264

Bubble181

Bubble181

Wait wait wait. Is the wording actually "seeking" women, not women who had an abortion? Thus killing the woman AND the baby?

Jesus fucking Christ.
Well no, obviously you'll first force them into pens to whelp, and only get rid of the unwanted vessel afterwards.


#265

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

This sounds like it'd be an interesting dystopia novel if it wasn't so freaking scary.

"The year is 2096. The nation is held in the grip of The Birthers, who believe when a child is conceived that it inherits the life of it's mother, leaving the woman nothing but a temporary vessel from which the soul resides till birth. This is the story of Margaret, trying desperately to escape the country before her due date, in which the babies "souless" vessel is discarded."

Almost writes itself.


#266

PatrThom

PatrThom

"The year is 2096. The nation is held in the grip of The Birthers, who believe when a child is conceived that it inherits the life of it's mother, leaving the woman nothing but a temporary vessel from which the soul resides till birth. This is the story of Margaret, trying desperately to escape the country before her due date, in which the babies "souless" vessel is discarded."
This idea was lightly touched on in John Sladek's Mechasm (aka The Reproductive System - 1968), where children are allowed to sue their parents for everything that goes wrong with their lives and/or every crime they commit because it was obviously their parents' fault that they turned out that way.

--Patrick


#267

Denbrought

Denbrought

This ruling (Thomas' concurrence in particular) caused my roommates to get in touch with an estate lawyer, get their passports renewed, and start groundwork for a move to a blue state or abroad in case GA decides to nullify their marriage for shits and giggles.


#268

GasBandit

GasBandit

I definitely recommend anybody in the bible belt who isn't white AND male AND hetero AND Cisgendered to definitely be thinking about an exit strategy.

I'm mulling one myself, but I'm worried about finding work in NM/CO.


#269

figmentPez

figmentPez

I definitely recommend anybody in the bible belt who isn't white AND male AND hetero AND Cisgendered to definitely be thinking about an exit strategy.
I'm a hetero, white, cis-male and I'm still wondering if I need an exit strategy because of my mental illness.


#270

GasBandit

GasBandit

I'm a hetero, white, cis-male and I'm still wondering if I need an exit strategy because of my mental illness.
I think under the new normal, it qualifies you for high office.


#271

figmentPez

figmentPez

I think under the new normal, it qualifies you for high office.
Nah, I've got the wrong kind. Mine makes me emotional and physically weak. It doesn't make me aggressive and unaware of my stupidity.


#272

Tress

Tress

I think under the new normal, it qualifies you for high office.
Only certain mental conditions, like narcissism.


#273

Denbrought

Denbrought

Democrats including Pressley, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib arrested at abortion rights rally outside Supreme Court | The Hill
Multiple Democratic lawmakers were arrested at an abortion rights rally near the Capitol on Tuesday, less than one month after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade.
Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jackie Speier (Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Katherine Clark (Mass.), Andy Levin (Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Alma Adams (N.C.), Veronica Escobar (Texas) and Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) were among those apprehended at the demonstration, which included a march from the Capitol to the Supreme Court.
At 1:20 p.m., the U.S. Capitol Police wrote on Twitter that it began arresting activists blocking First Street NE. Authorities said they gave their traditional three warnings before taking protesters into custody.
As of 1:35 p.m. the demonstration was clear, according to Capitol Police, which reported that 17 lawmakers were arrested in total. Authorities arrested 35 people overall for crowding, obstructing or incommoding.


#274

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy



#275

PatrThom

PatrThom

It's okay, though, because nothing happens to lawmakers who get arrested. No trial or anything, just a shaking of heads and a promise to do better next time, and they'll be out in no time at all, right?

--Patrick


#276

figmentPez

figmentPez

I'm surprised that's not all over my timeline on Twitter. This feels like it should ge bigger news?
It showed up in my sidebar as trending... because a lot of Republicans and bots were claiming that AOC "faked" being arrested.


#277

figmentPez

figmentPez



#278

figmentPez

figmentPez

Yet again, Republicans show that this is NOT about life, it's about punishing women. West Virginia lawmakers want to end child support payments, so that men won't pressure women to get an abortion.



Yeah, that'll make a woman really want to keep the child, knowing that she won't get any monetary support. This is blatantly evil, and would only serve to harm the children who are born into such a broken system.


#279

Squidleybits

Squidleybits

I have no words. Not even rude ones.


#280

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

This is the most stupid argument I have ever heard.

Men are sometimes pressuring women into getting abortions, so the solution is to... make it so the father never has to invest in the child's future? Yes that will do it you piece of shit.

It's pretty fucking funny (NOT) that when a woman thinks about getting an abortion she's treated like a criminal but a man attempts to coerce a woman into an abortion and the goal shifts to clear them of any responsibility for anything involving the process.


#281

GasBandit

GasBandit



#282

Celt Z

Celt Z

What. The actual. Fuck.

...oh, it's that Pinson bitch again. I've seen other articles about her in the past. She really is Satan's Little Handmaid.


#283

Squidleybits

Squidleybits

I couldn’t finish the article. Omg.


#284

mikerc

mikerc

Wait, do we have actual good news for this thread?! Kansas votes overwhelmingly to protect abortion rights.


#285

GasBandit

GasBandit

Wait, do we have actual good news for this thread?! Kansas votes overwhelmingly to protect abortion rights.
Trump won Kansas by 15 points just 2 years ago. Oh how the turntables.... turn....



#286

GasBandit

GasBandit

There's a reason they call them DMs now and not PMs... you have no privacy online. None.



#287

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

As glaring as the violation of privacy is, I am more upset that it was a DIY abortion. The risk to her life would be huge.


#288

PatrThom

PatrThom

Just gonna drive people to use Signal or other, more secure means of communication.

--Patrick


#289

GasBandit

GasBandit



#290

Celt Z

Celt Z

Are we supposed to draw his eyebrows on, like Wooly Willy? Should we give him angry, villain brows, or "shocked!...that I got caught" brows?


#291

Far

Far

1661473315387.png


#292

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

ToiletPaperUSA?


#293

D

Dubyamn

In what is no doubt a great sign for the effect of banning abortion Texas delays report on maternal death till after the midterms. Yeah surely this indicates that banning abortions hasn’t resulted in killing women.


#294

figmentPez

figmentPez

Indiana judge blocks abortion ban

"An Indiana judge on Thursday blocked the state from enforcing its new law banning most abortions while Planned Parenthood and other healthcare providers challenge it in court.

"Circuit Court Judge Kelsey Hanlon ruled that Planned Parenthood and the other providers had shown a 'reasonable likelihood' that the law's 'significant restriction of personal autonomy' violates the Indiana constitution."


Top