The Abortion Thread

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by thoreau » 17 May 2019, 15:24

Kolohe wrote:
17 May 2019, 15:13
I think they would argue that Roe & Casey are flawed and the fetus has some inalienable 14th amendment protections. I sort of agree with twitter that this probably won't fly (I think - I do think Trump being able to replace someone from the RBG wing would make it a very close call).

Otherwise they've tied themselves in knots between precedent and federalism grounds (i.e. trying to prosecute people that go out of state for the procedure).
Sounds like there are enough issues in play that nobody is just going to concede that precedent decides the whole thing and it's time to go to SCOTUS.

And the next SCOTUS retirement will almost certainly be Ginsburg or Breyer, just based on age. I doubt either of them is planning to leave the court under Trump, but Scalia wasn't planning to leave under Obama. So on the timing side, either some sort of bad medical luck results in a liberal Justice being replaced by a Trump nominee or else nothing changes. (Either because nobody leaves the Court anytime soon or because a Blue wins in 2020 and replaces Ginsburg or Breyer with another reliable vote to uphold Roe.) Delaying the argument before SCOTUS can only help Alabama and Georgia, not hurt them.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15878
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Aresen » 17 May 2019, 15:51

thoreau wrote:
17 May 2019, 15:01
But would Alabama or Georgia or whatever other state stipulate that they are in violation of Roe vs. Wade and subsequent abortion cases? At the very least, they might want to argue that some particular provision within the law is consistent with some subsequent ruling that upheld some regulation or restriction. And do they REALLY want this to go to SCOTUS before November 2020?
I don't think the Blues want this in front of SCOTUS before Jan 21, 2021. The best chance of defeating the Alabama challenge and defending Roe v Wade is dependent on several contingencies:
1) Trump does not win re-election. (I've discussed why I think Trump won't win elsewhere.)
2) The Blues win control of the Senate Nov 3, 2020. [Unlike the 2018 mid-terms, it is Team Red that has most to lose in 2020, with 22 seats up for re-election vs 12 Blues. Of the 22, 9 are first termers from the 2014 election. McCain's former seat is also up and Arizona elected a Blue to replace Flake in 2018.]
3) The Blues successfully going after one of the conservative judges. Kavanaugh is their most likely choice, but you can be sure the Blue researchers are looking at every possible peccadillo in the conservative justices' histories.
4) Breyer and Ginsburg hang on long enough that Trump doesn't get to pick their replacement. That would have to be after Jan 3rd, 2021 at best and assuming 2) above. I fully expect McConnell as a lame-duck senate majority leader would push through any Trump nomination made after Nov 3, 2020.

Of course, if Breyer or Ginsburg leave sooner and Trump picks the replacement, the pro-choice side is screwed.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by thoreau » 17 May 2019, 15:55

If the Blues won't impeach Trump there's no way in hell they'll impeach Kavanaugh.

Their best argument for impeaching Kavanaugh would be that he perjured himself in discussing some of his work on torture issues when he worked in the administration of Bush The Lesser. But they paid zero attention to that during the hearings, instead betting everything on allegations that would be almost impossible to prove.

No way in hell they impeach over that.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15878
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Aresen » 17 May 2019, 16:15

thoreau wrote:
17 May 2019, 15:55
If the Blues won't impeach Trump there's no way in hell they'll impeach Kavanaugh.
The main reason the Blues won't impeach Trump is he is too useful as a 'get out the vote' motivator on their side. Trump in the White House in 2020 is worth 100,000 campaign volunteers from the Blue POV. Trump's moral failings are an order of magnitude less important.
Their best argument for impeaching Kavanaugh would be that he perjured himself in discussing some of his work on torture issues when he worked in the administration of Bush The Lesser. But they paid zero attention to that during the hearings, instead betting everything on allegations that would be almost impossible to prove.

No way in hell they impeach over that.
Unlike Trump, Kavanaugh is there for life. Impeachment is the only way to be rid of him.
...an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970)
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 18 May 2019, 15:33

Just in case anyone needed more evidence that "abortion bans" have fuck-all to do with concern for babeez:

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-aborti ... w3A6vmmJJc
Alabama’s Senate approved legislation on Tuesday that would ban nearly all abortions in the state at every stage of pregancy, but refused to consider amendments that would take provide health care for the mothers who were denied abortions.

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law. Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.

“The sin to me is bringing a child into this world and not taking care of them,” Coleman-Madison said. "The sin for me is that this state does not provide adequate care. We don’t provide education. And then when the child is born and we know that mother is indigent and she cannot take care of that child, we don’t provide any support systems for that mother.” .... The new abortion laws do not grant exceptions for cases of rape or incest and doctors who perform abortions in-state would face up to 99 years in prison.
If you didn't want to bear a rapist's baby to term and then be on the hook for the cost of raising it, you shouldn't have been sexy enough to be raped, you stupid entitled slut.

Another bill before the Alabama state house says that if a man is accused of rape and found not-guilty, his accuser is on the hook for his legal costs.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 19 May 2019, 22:49

[Texas State] Senate Passes Severe Fetal Disability Abortion Ban
Women would be forced to give birth to non-viable fetuses
Sen. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, doesn't think women should have the option to choose abortion after 20 weeks even if their fetuses will die shortly after birth. And the GOP-dominated Senate agree. (Photo by John Anderson)

The Texas Senate is just fine with forcing women to carry a fetus – likely to die shortly after birth – through a pregnancy, regardless of what a woman chooses for herself.

SB 1033 by Sen. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, would do away with an exception in the state’s 20-week abortion ban that currently allows pregnant women facing severe fetal disease or disability – an already traumatic event – to undergo abortion. In an attempt to show concern for women’s mental health, Hancock’s bill would also require women to be informed of “perinatal palliative care” programs.

“Your intention is, in fact, to force the woman to carry a fetus that has no chance of survival,” said state Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, pointing to irreversible, fatal, or terminal conditions, including lack of brain growth and organs growing outside body cavities. “It is sheer cruelty to deny this woman her constitutional choice.” ...
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2019, 15:20

Ever since I first learned of the existence of self-described libertarians who want to outlaw abortion (QUITE a different animal from those who say "I personally disapprove, but don't think the government should get involved"), I always ask "Okay, then, how do you propose outlawing abortion without violating the rights of women and girls of childbearing age?" and they never, ever offer an answer--at best they ignore the question, at worst they get huffy and say it's somehow an unfair question (though of course they never bother to explain why).

Today the "Association of Libertarian Feminists" made a post criticizing self-described libertarian Justin Amash for throwing women under the bus via his stated opposition to abortion (IIRC after three days into the pregnancy).

EDIT: Attempt to hyperlink failed; adding address instead.



Naturally, someone responded "Being feminist and libertarian doesn't mean [you] must be pro-choice," so I asked:
I have heard libertarians say this before, yet they never can explain: how, precisely, do you propose crafting an anti-abortion law that does NOT violate the rights of women and girls of childbearing age? We're already seeing horror stories such as "Ohio attempts to force pregnant 11-year-old rape victim to bear her rapist's baby" -- is this the sort of thing you consider a desirable legal outcome, or do you imagine crafting an anti-abortion law that presumably avoids such horrors? If the latter, then HOW exactly do you propose this?
Prediction: either she will not answer, or she'll answer by denying that things like the Ohio 11-year-old are the outcomes she wants but will refuse to explain exactly how.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24077
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by JasonL » 20 May 2019, 15:59

It’s not that hard if you put on the “it’s murder” hat. No yeah buts, just imagine you thought it was murder like if the child was killed after birth. I disagree with their view but I don’t find it confusing. They would say - there are 2 people with rights here one of them is going to be murdered.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2019, 16:12

JasonL wrote:
20 May 2019, 15:59
It’s not that hard if you put on the “it’s murder” hat. No yeah buts, just imagine you thought it was murder like if the child was killed after birth. I disagree with their view but I don’t find it confusing. They would say - there are 2 people with rights here one of them is going to be murdered.
Gotta disagree there -- whether or not you think something is a crime is NOT the same question as "how would you propose banishing this crime WITHOUT violating the rights of other human beings?" Take that 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio: the state IS forcing her to carry a fetus to term. That is a fact regardless of whether you think the fetus has rights superseding the 11-year-old's. So is the argument "the rights of this 11-year-old rape victim are less important than the rights of the ovum fertilized by the rapist's sperm, to the point where the state is justified in forcing this 11-year-old to put her needs and desires aside to benefit another?"
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2019, 16:27

The frustration I feel with these forced-birth "libertarians" is similar to the frustration I felt speaking to that long-ago drug warrior in Connecticut -- the one who opposed medical marijuana, thought ALL marijuana use should be harshly punished with jailtime ... then when I told her about that for-reals paraplegic college professor who smoked weed to treat his paralysis-induced muscle spasms, and asked her how much time she thought HE ought to spend in prison, she got furious and called it a "ridiculous question."

FFS, if you honestly believe marijuana is bad enough that ANYONE who uses it belongs in prison, then it is intellectual and moral dishonesty at best to shy away from the real-world effects of what you say you want: if you think that wheelchair-bound professor belongs in prison, then say so. Or at least, don't get angry at me for asking how long he should stay there. If you think an 11-year-old should be forced to bear her rapist's baby to term, then say so. But quit your bullshit of pretending it's somehow a dishonest appeal to emotion (or worse) that makes people like me point to that wheelchair-bound professor, or the 11-year-old rape victim, and say "These are real-world people being harmed by your laws. If you think these people need to be harmed for the greater good, please explain why. And no, that is NOT an unfair question; you are the one proposing laws with these real-world outcomes. What's unfair is your refusal to address them, and your anger when others do."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24077
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by JasonL » 20 May 2019, 17:26

They. Think. It. Is. Murder. The balancing of rights and interests in that view is murder vs. something less than murder.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by thoreau » 20 May 2019, 17:31

I think this take passes the ideological Turing test:

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/0 ... e-pro-life

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17956
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Hugh Akston » 20 May 2019, 17:37

JasonL wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:26
They. Think. It. Is. Murder. The balancing of rights and interests in that view is murder vs. something less than murder.
Right, which is why religion has outlived its usefulness as a vector for liberation, and the road to freedom is laid over the smoldering ruins of burnt churches. Scandinavian black metal is optional.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2019, 17:54

JasonL wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:26
They. Think. It. Is. Murder. The balancing of rights and interests in that view is murder vs. something less than murder.
In which case they need to admit to the full implications of what they say they believe: if that means the 11-year-old rape victim has to be forced to bear her rapist's baby, then admit to this (and, if you want, make some cluckings about how it's too bad about that poor 11-year-old, but it IS for the greater good after all).

Are they going to have miscarriages be investigated on suspicion of murder? If that is what they want, then they need to admit this -- and, yes, go further and admit "Our commitment to saving that fertilized egg from being murdered DOES unfortunately mean the rights of the women and girls involved have to be curtailed." But to hell with the intellectual dishonesty of taking offense at being asked "How do you propose fulfilling this law without violating the rights of women and girls? Or is this a matter where you believe the rights of women and girls HAVE to be violated in such instances?"
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2019, 17:58

Generalized reminder: the question is NOT "Do you think abortion is murder" but "as a self-described libertarian who presumably cares about the rights of individuals, how do you propose outlawing that particular type of 'murder' without violating the rights of individual women and girls?" Does your commitment to individual rights include individuals who are or might be pregnant? How would you propose distinguishing between a natural miscarriage versus a criminally induced abortion?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17315
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by lunchstealer » 20 May 2019, 19:25

Real talk because this has been a legitimate question in my mind -

Do any and all here think that slavery is worse than or less awful than murder? I'm guessing the default is murder because it's irreversible, but I sometimes think that murder causes less suffering than slavery, so maybe slavery is the worse thing. The more I think about it, the whole thing for me seems tied up in bodily autonomy. Murder is wrong because it's non-consensual. Is it really murder to, say, assist suicide in someone who is too disabled to perform their own suicide, where you're the one who actually pushes the button or plunger or whatever it is that is typically used in right-to-die circumstances. I kinda have trouble saying it is. Meanwhile, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under at least some non-consensual circumstances seems worse than removing a pre-sentient organism even if it's technically murder.
Hugh Akston wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:37
Scandinavian black metal is optional.
Is it?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9698
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by nicole » 20 May 2019, 20:00

Hugh Akston wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:37
JasonL wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:26
They. Think. It. Is. Murder. The balancing of rights and interests in that view is murder vs. something less than murder.
Right, which is why religion has outlived its usefulness as a vector for liberation, and the road to freedom is laid over the smoldering ruins of burnt churches. Scandinavian black metal is optional.
Newsletter?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15878
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Aresen » 20 May 2019, 20:12

lunchstealer wrote:
20 May 2019, 19:25
Real talk because this has been a legitimate question in my mind -

Do any and all here think that slavery is worse than or less awful than murder? I'm guessing the default is murder because it's irreversible, but I sometimes think that murder causes less suffering than slavery, so maybe slavery is the worse thing.
I've never been able to give a clear answer on that question. On the one hand, enslavement is theoretically reversible. (I say 'theoretically' because the vast majority of slaves never got their freedom and the vast majority of slave-owners never doubted their 'right' to own another person - assuming they even thought of their slaves as 'people'.) Murder is not reversible in any sense.

On the other hand, I think there is something inherently depraved about slavery. First, because it denies the fundamental humanity of the enslaved and, second, because a slaver's desire to own another person is perverse. One can commit murder for logical reasons, however base or noble those reasons, without denying the humanity of one's victim.

I am inclined to view slavery as worse, but I don't know what I would choose if I was told my choice was either die or live as a slave.
The more I think about it, the whole thing for me seems tied up in bodily autonomy. Murder is wrong because it's non-consensual. Is it really murder to, say, assist suicide in someone who is too disabled to perform their own suicide, where you're the one who actually pushes the button or plunger or whatever it is that is typically used in right-to-die circumstances. I kinda have trouble saying it is. Meanwhile, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under at least some non-consensual circumstances seems worse than removing a pre-sentient organism even if it's technically murder.
I am on record as saying I do not believe that a fetus is a human being, but I recognize that others believe it is. The latter position has inevitable consequences when used to justify a ban on abortion; I do not see any inclination to accept those consequences among those who hold it.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24077
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by JasonL » 20 May 2019, 21:50

lunchstealer wrote:
20 May 2019, 19:25
Real talk because this has been a legitimate question in my mind -

Do any and all here think that slavery is worse than or less awful than murder? I'm guessing the default is murder because it's irreversible, but I sometimes think that murder causes less suffering than slavery, so maybe slavery is the worse thing. The more I think about it, the whole thing for me seems tied up in bodily autonomy. Murder is wrong because it's non-consensual. Is it really murder to, say, assist suicide in someone who is too disabled to perform their own suicide, where you're the one who actually pushes the button or plunger or whatever it is that is typically used in right-to-die circumstances. I kinda have trouble saying it is. Meanwhile, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under at least some non-consensual circumstances seems worse than removing a pre-sentient organism even if it's technically murder.
Hugh Akston wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:37
Scandinavian black metal is optional.
Is it?
Again, putting on my lets pretend I think this hat, the life of an innocent is particularly bad to take. It's a bad murder to kill a child, not a marginal murder like suicide assistance for a willing person of death penalty for the guilty. I think that's how they'd respond. One thing in that Katie Herzog piece, the most strident pro lifers I've known have all been women. The left gets that part of the story wrong pretty often - the it's about controlling women thing. It really isn't - not for the great majority of people who hold this view. They think something is murder I don't think is even remotely problematic. So, here we are.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2019, 22:08

It's a bad murder to kill a child, not a marginal murder like suicide assistance for a willing person of death penalty for the guilty. I think that's how they'd respond.
Still, though -- speaking specifically about the self-described libertarians -- none of them have said a word abut other children, like the 11-year-old who got raped. And none of them will say "Is THIS what you want the law to do?" one way or the other -- but they WILL get VERY Indignant upon hearing any suggestion that they are proposing that the state violate her rights. Or, the state laws proposing that miscarriages be investigated on suspicion of a crime -- is THAT what they want the law to do?

Tl:dr: if you think the state should force pregnant women and girls to remain so against their will, then at least have enough honesty to admit "MY presumed commitment to individual rights does not apply to individuals who happen to be pregnant and don't want to remain so." Or even "Well, it sucks that women already traumatized by an unwanted miscarriage will be further traumatized by the murder investigation, but IMO it's worth it to maybe save a baby's life." "Can't make a pro-life omelet without breaking a few slutty eggs."

Just tell me, pro-life "libertarians": is this rash of state laws what you want this country to be? Is forcing that 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring a proper use of state power, in your view?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24547
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Mo » 21 May 2019, 09:54

Jennifer wrote:
20 May 2019, 22:08
Just tell me, pro-life "libertarians": is this rash of state laws what you want this country to be? Is forcing that 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring a proper use of state power, in your view?
And they would say, would you allow that same woman to kill her rapist's offspring if the child were 5 years old instead?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 14:38

Mo wrote:
21 May 2019, 09:54
Jennifer wrote:
20 May 2019, 22:08
Just tell me, pro-life "libertarians": is this rash of state laws what you want this country to be? Is forcing that 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring a proper use of state power, in your view?
And they would say, would you allow that same woman to kill her rapist's offspring if the child were 5 years old instead?
No doubt, because pretending a just-fertilized egg is equal to (or even greater than, in the case of women) a full-fledged human, to the point where said egg negates the human rights of any woman or girl it happens to reside in.

Though even in your hypothetical, Mo, I notice they can't quite bring themselves to come out and say "Yes, forcing this 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring IS how the state should use its power." Just like that long-ago drug warrior I interviewed could not bring herself to come right out and say "That paraplegic pot-smoking professor DOES indeed belong in prison" ... but she sure got pissed off when anyone asked her precisely how she thought the law should treat pot smokers like him.

In both instances -- the hardcore drug warriors and the hardcore "your human rights vanish once a egg is fertilized inside of you" types -- I dare suggest "If you cannot bring yourself to look at and admit to the harms caused by the laws you support, perhaps that suggests those laws don't deserve your support." Especially not when those who support such laws call themselves "libertarians."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12401
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Ellie » 21 May 2019, 14:58

Mo wrote:
21 May 2019, 09:54
Jennifer wrote:
20 May 2019, 22:08
Just tell me, pro-life "libertarians": is this rash of state laws what you want this country to be? Is forcing that 11-year-old to bear her rapist's offspring a proper use of state power, in your view?
And they would say, would you allow that same woman to kill her rapist's offspring if the child were 5 years old instead?
This is one of the reasons I think analogies to organ donation make a stronger place to argue from. If you think a zygote is a human being and therefore entitled to the same rights as a one-year-old baby, there's not much I can say to change your mind. You don't care if I think a zygote is not a human being. And I'm unlikely to convince you that killing a one-year-old baby is fine and dandy.

But suppose I meet you on your side of the field and say, okay, let's agree that a zygote IS a human being. We already have established by law and practice that you cannot force someone to use their body to keep another person alive. You cannot arrest someone and cut out their kidney to save someone who needs a transplant. Even though that might well mean a human being would die. We have already established that a right to bodily autonomy supercedes a right to life. Unless you're willing to campaign to change ALL the laws -- unless you're willing to put yourself in the living organ donor database and accept any call that comes in for your body parts -- you need to explain why abortion gets a special loophole or double standard.
"2019 has got to stop injecting dmt straight in the dick hole." - dhex

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12401
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Ellie » 21 May 2019, 15:02

By the way, I don't think all pro-life people are trying to control women's bodies, but I do think a portion of pro-life women buy into that subconsciously. That it's about making the "right" choices and having consequences if you don't. Like, look, I was a good woman and behaved myself so I didn't need an abortion. Why should other women get to choose an easier path than me? And I think those women would change their minds if they found themselves needing an abortion -- or they would rationalize it as a special circumstance, but all those other women still need to behave. Similar to how there are doubtless pro-life politicians out there who would still get their wife or mistress an abortion if needed.
"2019 has got to stop injecting dmt straight in the dick hole." - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 21 May 2019, 15:09

Ellie wrote:
21 May 2019, 15:02
And I think those women would change their minds if they found themselves needing an abortion -- or they would rationalize it as a special circumstance, but all those other women still need to behave.
Oh, they do. This article is from 2007: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/7/22/361020/-
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests