4 ms·

You're blaming the Dems for relying on a precedent staying a precedent, as if that's a dumbshit rookie move, as if what the Rs did (a series of nominees lying a

You're blaming the Dems for relying on a precedent staying a precedent, as if that's a dumbshit rookie move, as if what the Rs did (a series of nominees lying about their beliefs in order to overturn a popular ruling) is a normal thing to do that they should've expected. I don't think that's accurate. I think this is pretty unusual, and the main reason the Ds didn't work harder to pass a bill legalizing abortion is that it was already legal. In any event, you seem to have missed the point of my post, which was that we can't assume that things like contraception, gay marriage, and interracial marriage are safe from being overturned just because a plurality support them. You said banning contraception is a "scratch issue" with evangelicals, and I'm pointing out, so is banning abortion, and yet, here we are.

kcplate 4y ago
> You're blaming the Dems for relying on a precedent staying a precedent, as if that's a dumbshit rookie move Yes, I am definitely blaming them. Judge Ginsburg warned them, told them it was not going to survive certain challenges. The dems did nothing. If the smartest legal mind on your side (and she was not the only one BTW) is warning you that something you hold claim to hold sacred is in danger and you choose to do nothing to protect it, that is a dumb shit move. However, I’d argue that it may have been intentional—that to the democratic leadership abortion rights were not sacred, but only valuable to them for the political division it caused. >You said banning contraception is a "scratch issue" with evangelicals Contraception is simply different. There isn’t the “innocent third party without a voice” factor there that will motivate the activism and financial investment in that activism the same way. Same sex marriage is kind of the same, there is no third party component to it to protect.
- ineptech 4y ago
  > Yes, I am definitely blaming them. I'm sure it's satisfying but I don't think it adds a lot to the conversation. Maybe the Ds don't play hard enough (blocking nominees, lying under oath, etc) but you shouldn't have to cheat to protect a popular long-standing precedent. > Contraception [and same sex marriage] is simply different. The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a religious belief; I don't see why the court would enforce that but not other religious beliefs, like women submitting to their husbands and so forth. Your stance that D's were dupes for believing R's about Roe v Wade would appear to suggest that we shouldn't believe you about this either. The theocrats on the court are young, they probably have 30+ years ahead of them, and the only sensible prediction is to assume that anything disliked by Fundamentalist Christians is in danger. That means not just contraception and gay marriage, but Obamacare, social security, trans rights, owning sex toys, gay adoption, domestic violence laws, spousal protective orders, womens' rights generally, Miranda and anything else predicated on Due Process, any gun restriction, and I'm not feeling super confident about the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, or interracial marriage. Surely your "what a bunch of dumbshits, why didn't they see this coming" applies to those too?
  - belorn 4y ago
    > The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a religious belief That is mostly false. If a pregnant mother get harmed to the degree that it harms the unborn or kills it, the legal system (and "popular opinion" in my view) see it as being more than just harming the mother. In feticide, there is an third party involved. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is very explicit about that and it also gives an explicit exception for abortions. If we view child in utero as similar to a cancer growth off the womans body then feticide does not exist. There would be physical assault, but not homicide, because no Homo sapiens would be killed. That view point conflict with how a lot of people feel in those situations.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      I think you missed the phrase "in abortion" in the sentence you quoted. You may feel that those positions are contradictory or hypocritical, but it's disingenuous to act as if pro-choice people agree. Edit: also, if you're going to wade in to an ongoing discussion, it's nice to respond to the thing we're generally arguing about; don't just pluck one sentence fragment out and start a new discussion over it. When someone says, "I think X, therefore Y", they're arguing that X is true enough in this context to support a belief in Y, not that X is always true in all contexts, which is a much larger (and therefore, easier to argue against) claim.
      - belorn 4y ago
        The reason I address that point is that its the central point of contention why abortion is different from contraception and same sex marriage. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 illustrate that in some situation people, even non-religious people, want to to view unborn as more than just cells growing on the woman. It not just a religious belief but rather an emotional one. My guess is that for popular belief, if a unborn dies because of violence to the woman then people emotionally see it as murder of an other human being. If the woman choose to abort then for social reason many/most people do not view it as a human being that died. This is however a conflict of views which has nothing to do with religion. With contraception, even if it was done through force, no one outside of religious belief would see it as killing a human. How would even The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 be applied? Should each sperm count as a half human? Similar with same-sex there isn't any direct situations where non-religious people suddenly would be in favor of outlawing it. As for the exception written in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, what is say is that the legality of abortion is not effected by the definition of the that law. Nothing more, nothing less. We can have laws allowing abortion for social reasons regardless if we view the bunch of cells as being more than just a bunch of cells.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Having grown up in a country where all contraception was illegal, I assure it's not that different. The arguments abortion are simply transferred onto contraception as 'interference with the divine will' and (implicitly) the price to be paid for sexual indulgence. Among religious persons and societies, doctrinal considerations outweigh all others. If you are under the impression that the abortion issue is different because large numbers of non-religious folk are sufficiently motivated by the ethical issue to engage in activism and donate funding, I think you're quite mistaken.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    Perhaps in a country with a homogeneous religious culture it’s easy to dictate dogmatism, and while the US might be religious compared to perhaps Europe, it is not homogeneous. I’d argue that you could take two different congregations affiliated with the same denomination and probably find topics or scripture that would create fierce debate between the two. Birth control might be a big deal to some devout Catholics and some primitive/fundamentalist Baptists, but virtually every other denomination and congregation is literally not going to care.

kcplate 4y ago

> You're blaming the Dems for relying on a precedent staying a precedent, as if that's a dumbshit rookie move Yes, I am definitely blaming them. Judge Ginsburg warned them, told them it was not going to survive certain challenges. The dems did nothing. If the smartest legal mind on your side (and she was not the only one BTW) is warning you that something you hold claim to hold sacred is in danger and you choose to do nothing to protect it, that is a dumb shit move. However, I’d argue that it may have been intentional—that to the democratic leadership abortion rights were not sacred, but only valuable to them for the political division it caused. >You said banning contraception is a "scratch issue" with evangelicals Contraception is simply different. There isn’t the “innocent third party without a voice” factor there that will motivate the activism and financial investment in that activism the same way. Same sex marriage is kind of the same, there is no third party component to it to protect.

ineptech 4y ago
> Yes, I am definitely blaming them. I'm sure it's satisfying but I don't think it adds a lot to the conversation. Maybe the Ds don't play hard enough (blocking nominees, lying under oath, etc) but you shouldn't have to cheat to protect a popular long-standing precedent. > Contraception [and same sex marriage] is simply different. The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a religious belief; I don't see why the court would enforce that but not other religious beliefs, like women submitting to their husbands and so forth. Your stance that D's were dupes for believing R's about Roe v Wade would appear to suggest that we shouldn't believe you about this either. The theocrats on the court are young, they probably have 30+ years ahead of them, and the only sensible prediction is to assume that anything disliked by Fundamentalist Christians is in danger. That means not just contraception and gay marriage, but Obamacare, social security, trans rights, owning sex toys, gay adoption, domestic violence laws, spousal protective orders, womens' rights generally, Miranda and anything else predicated on Due Process, any gun restriction, and I'm not feeling super confident about the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, or interracial marriage. Surely your "what a bunch of dumbshits, why didn't they see this coming" applies to those too?
- belorn 4y ago
  > The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a religious belief That is mostly false. If a pregnant mother get harmed to the degree that it harms the unborn or kills it, the legal system (and "popular opinion" in my view) see it as being more than just harming the mother. In feticide, there is an third party involved. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is very explicit about that and it also gives an explicit exception for abortions. If we view child in utero as similar to a cancer growth off the womans body then feticide does not exist. There would be physical assault, but not homicide, because no Homo sapiens would be killed. That view point conflict with how a lot of people feel in those situations.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    I think you missed the phrase "in abortion" in the sentence you quoted. You may feel that those positions are contradictory or hypocritical, but it's disingenuous to act as if pro-choice people agree. Edit: also, if you're going to wade in to an ongoing discussion, it's nice to respond to the thing we're generally arguing about; don't just pluck one sentence fragment out and start a new discussion over it. When someone says, "I think X, therefore Y", they're arguing that X is true enough in this context to support a belief in Y, not that X is always true in all contexts, which is a much larger (and therefore, easier to argue against) claim.
    - belorn 4y ago
      The reason I address that point is that its the central point of contention why abortion is different from contraception and same sex marriage. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 illustrate that in some situation people, even non-religious people, want to to view unborn as more than just cells growing on the woman. It not just a religious belief but rather an emotional one. My guess is that for popular belief, if a unborn dies because of violence to the woman then people emotionally see it as murder of an other human being. If the woman choose to abort then for social reason many/most people do not view it as a human being that died. This is however a conflict of views which has nothing to do with religion. With contraception, even if it was done through force, no one outside of religious belief would see it as killing a human. How would even The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 be applied? Should each sperm count as a half human? Similar with same-sex there isn't any direct situations where non-religious people suddenly would be in favor of outlawing it. As for the exception written in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, what is say is that the legality of abortion is not effected by the definition of the that law. Nothing more, nothing less. We can have laws allowing abortion for social reasons regardless if we view the bunch of cells as being more than just a bunch of cells.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Having grown up in a country where all contraception was illegal, I assure it's not that different. The arguments abortion are simply transferred onto contraception as 'interference with the divine will' and (implicitly) the price to be paid for sexual indulgence. Among religious persons and societies, doctrinal considerations outweigh all others. If you are under the impression that the abortion issue is different because large numbers of non-religious folk are sufficiently motivated by the ethical issue to engage in activism and donate funding, I think you're quite mistaken.
- kcplate 4y ago
  Perhaps in a country with a homogeneous religious culture it’s easy to dictate dogmatism, and while the US might be religious compared to perhaps Europe, it is not homogeneous. I’d argue that you could take two different congregations affiliated with the same denomination and probably find topics or scripture that would create fierce debate between the two. Birth control might be a big deal to some devout Catholics and some primitive/fundamentalist Baptists, but virtually every other denomination and congregation is literally not going to care.