6 ms·

> 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 (blocki

> 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.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      I agree that people who believe a fetus is a person ought to be more opposed to abortion than gay marriage or contraception; but it is also true that people who believe a fetus is a person ought to favor easier access to contraception (which provably reduces abortions), and they generally don't, so here we are.
      - nickd2001 4y ago
        A bit of insider info from the UK on this one :) UK Catholics believe that life begins moment of conception and therefore generally oppose abortion (apart from extreme cases e:g mother might die, baby might die anyway, baby will suffer badly). Opposition to abortion generally goes with desire for better support of troubled mothers, but whether in practice this practically results in improved services seems doubtful. Apparently the stats say 90% of UK married Catholics actually use contraception. And parents quietly say to their teenagers "If you can't be good, be safe" ;). Gay marriage is something some clergy go about but the "silent majority" of Catholics is liberal on gay and trans issues I think, believing that committed love for each other counts more than what gender a couple are. So what you say ought to happen, seems to me does happen in the UK in my experience. However, what happens in the USA is a different matter. :)
kcplate 4y ago
> The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a vreligious belief; I don't see why the court would enforce that but not other religious beliefs I think you missed my point on this, i was speaking in terms of things that drive they activist attitudes, not any specific legal distinction. as belorn said in their comment to you, in certain legal cases we consider the unborn child as a person. You don’t have this sort of strange legal dichotomy with a innocent third party with contraception or gay marriage
- ineptech 4y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but the position that religious fundamentalist activists aren't particularly interested in keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. edit to add: and most of the bible verses they quote to support that view also condemn divorce and sex outside of wedlock, so forgive us for not knowing what is and isn't in danger. You make a persuasive argument that we should be more concerned than we think we should.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. Sure, but taking a position to prevent something from becoming legally recognized requires far less effort and commitment than taking something presently legal and making it illegal. Abortion was an outlier because there was a tangible victim to rally around in the pro-life activist’s eyes. There simply isn’t a tangible victim they can point to for gay marriage and contraception. Those issues center around behavior they might regard as sinful, but in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer. People may not approve…but will they care enough to work against them? I don’t think so. I know a lot of folks who are loudly pro-life, but I can only think of perhaps one that might actively work against gay marriage, and none that would have a strong opinion at all regarding contraception
    - ineptech 4y ago
      Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. It certainly seems to have died down since then, but I would've said the same thing about the pro-life movement until this week. I don't think the view from within our bubbles is a good way to measure these things. For example, did you realize that "pro-life" was a minority view among evangelicals, before I posted that poll? I sure didn't. As for the "victim," the most effective way we know of to reduce the number of abortions is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that. I think it's a mistake to think this is only or even primarily about the fetus.

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.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    I agree that people who believe a fetus is a person ought to be more opposed to abortion than gay marriage or contraception; but it is also true that people who believe a fetus is a person ought to favor easier access to contraception (which provably reduces abortions), and they generally don't, so here we are.
    - nickd2001 4y ago
      A bit of insider info from the UK on this one :) UK Catholics believe that life begins moment of conception and therefore generally oppose abortion (apart from extreme cases e:g mother might die, baby might die anyway, baby will suffer badly). Opposition to abortion generally goes with desire for better support of troubled mothers, but whether in practice this practically results in improved services seems doubtful. Apparently the stats say 90% of UK married Catholics actually use contraception. And parents quietly say to their teenagers "If you can't be good, be safe" ;). Gay marriage is something some clergy go about but the "silent majority" of Catholics is liberal on gay and trans issues I think, believing that committed love for each other counts more than what gender a couple are. So what you say ought to happen, seems to me does happen in the UK in my experience. However, what happens in the USA is a different matter. :)

kcplate 4y ago

> The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a vreligious belief; I don't see why the court would enforce that but not other religious beliefs I think you missed my point on this, i was speaking in terms of things that drive they activist attitudes, not any specific legal distinction. as belorn said in their comment to you, in certain legal cases we consider the unborn child as a person. You don’t have this sort of strange legal dichotomy with a innocent third party with contraception or gay marriage

ineptech 4y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but the position that religious fundamentalist activists aren't particularly interested in keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. edit to add: and most of the bible verses they quote to support that view also condemn divorce and sex outside of wedlock, so forgive us for not knowing what is and isn't in danger. You make a persuasive argument that we should be more concerned than we think we should.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. Sure, but taking a position to prevent something from becoming legally recognized requires far less effort and commitment than taking something presently legal and making it illegal. Abortion was an outlier because there was a tangible victim to rally around in the pro-life activist’s eyes. There simply isn’t a tangible victim they can point to for gay marriage and contraception. Those issues center around behavior they might regard as sinful, but in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer. People may not approve…but will they care enough to work against them? I don’t think so. I know a lot of folks who are loudly pro-life, but I can only think of perhaps one that might actively work against gay marriage, and none that would have a strong opinion at all regarding contraception
  - ineptech 4y ago
    Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. It certainly seems to have died down since then, but I would've said the same thing about the pro-life movement until this week. I don't think the view from within our bubbles is a good way to measure these things. For example, did you realize that "pro-life" was a minority view among evangelicals, before I posted that poll? I sure didn't. As for the "victim," the most effective way we know of to reduce the number of abortions is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that. I think it's a mistake to think this is only or even primarily about the fetus.