R v W ?

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Post Reply
User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21117
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

R v W ?

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:35 pm

I've been seeing a lot of right to life folks crowing about Ginsberg dying in the next 6 years and the SC finally overturning RvW.

Do you feel that recent and future conservative appointees to the Supreme Court will demonstrate loyalty to the conservative body politic that got them into the Court, or do you feel they will uphold their role as check and balance for this Republic of ours? And uphold the long lasting decisions of their predecessors?

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38222
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: R v W ?

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:48 pm

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:35 pm
I've been seeing a lot of right to life folks crowing about Ginsberg dying in the next 6 years and the SC finally overturning RvW.

Do you feel that recent and future conservative appointees to the Supreme Court will demonstrate loyalty to the conservative body politic that got them into the Court, or do you feel they will uphold their role as check and balance for this Republic of ours? And uphold the long lasting decisions of their predecessors?
Once we get that wall built the only two ways Mexicans are getting here: roe vs. wade. \:D/

Now to the questions you pose...

I imagine that the best indicator of the future is the past. For the most part, Supreme Court justices have done their best to act in good faith. Yes, they are political nominees, but their lifetime tenure gives them freedom that a term office does not provide and while they--whether "liberal" or "conservative"--were appointed, they were appointed to act as a critical component of our constitutional system, the independent judiciary. Americans are supposed to be political, but they are also supposed to be able to rise above political differences when the good of the country is at stake, and for the most part they do.

As for "uphold the long lasting decisions of their predecessors" that's not really their task. There were all sorts of Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery and Jim Crow and other things that many people find distasteful today. Nobody is seriously arguing that they should have upheld them.

With specific reference to Roe vs. Wade, it's difficult to say. The decision, as I understand it, is not a very solid one from the point of view of Constitutional law, but it does reflect the attitudes of the majority of Americans. The right way, the way it should have been done, is by passing a law and not by judicial activism which fashioned a new "constitutional" right out of thin air.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10902
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: R v W ?

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:46 pm

Roe v. Wade as a political cudgel was false outrage to politically activate evangelical rubes. There are books on how this was done. It's not really about repeal, which is an enormous political loser. We've had a pretty strong 24 months of evidence of what happens when the GOP faces a choice between religious fidelity and power.

A quick check reveals the developed countries with an outright ban on abortion are Malta, Andorra, and San Marino. I'd never heard of the second two.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38222
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: R v W ?

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:26 pm

Nobody in their right mind thinks that abortion is a good thing, it's not just evangelical rubes who think it's ugly and inconsistent with everything we claim to believe in. It may be that it is a necessary evil but the fact that it's become a rallying point of the left speaks to their lack of moral compass and humanity. Also, what school did you go to that you've never heard of Andorra?
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: R v W ?

Post by Turdacious » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:33 pm

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:35 pm
I've been seeing a lot of right to life folks crowing about Ginsberg dying in the next 6 years and the SC finally overturning RvW.

Do you feel that recent and future conservative appointees to the Supreme Court will demonstrate loyalty to the conservative body politic that got them into the Court, or do you feel they will uphold their role as check and balance for this Republic of ours? And uphold the long lasting decisions of their predecessors?
Right to Life in the US has always primarily been a Catholic thing, and as I understand it practicing Catholics (who happen to be husbands of practicing Catholics) make up a majority of the Court. To Spells' point, what evangelicals think is kind of secondary.

With RvW, the Court defined when life began, which isn't necessarily their purview; medical science regarding fetal viability and awareness of different reasons for abortion have come a long way since that ruling. There's also the ugly racist angle of the pro-choice side (which RBG, Maggie Sanger, the Freakanomics guys have most famously been proponents of). I'd be surprised if things like: sex selective abortion, abortion after the second trimester, abortion because of risk of a child disability (ex. downs syndrome), etc... continue. As I understand it, most Western countries have more restrictive abortion policies than we do-- I would expect us to go more along those lines, or return some responsibility to the states, than to do an outright repeal.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: R v W ?

Post by Turdacious » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:35 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:26 pm
Nobody in their right mind thinks that abortion is a good thing, it's not just evangelical rubes who think it's ugly and inconsistent with everything we claim to believe in. It may be that it is a necessary evil but the fact that it's become a rallying point of the left speaks to their lack of moral compass and humanity. Also, what school did you go to that you've never heard of Andorra?
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/chicago ... he-nation/
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38222
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: R v W ?

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:06 pm

As an aside, I've never understood the rush to trust women with the decision to terminate a pregnancy when they've already demonstrated their inability to successfully operate their own vagina or effective birth control technologies.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10902
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: R v W ?

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:48 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:06 pm
As an aside, I've never understood the rush to trust women with the decision to terminate a pregnancy when they've already demonstrated their inability to successfully operate their own vagina or effective birth control technologies.
You may be surprised to hear that the penis also plays a role in unplanned pregnancies.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38222
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: R v W ?

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:23 pm

You don't have any idea what my penis has planned!
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: R v W ?

Post by JimZipCode » Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:07 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:26 pm
Nobody in their right mind thinks that abortion is a good thing
It's not. It's just better than the anti-choice position.

Roe v Wade is beside the point, I think a right to an abortion is implicit in the 13th amendment.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11589
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: R v W ?

Post by nafod » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:55 pm

Allow me to mansplain.

Tied into this whole mess is the thousands of years of history, running right up to today especially in many corners of the planet, where women were/are still little more than chattel, lacking even control over their own bodies, much less the right to vote or drive a car or expose their wrists.

It’s pretty easy to see men arguing against abortion as just more of the same exerting of ownership over another’s body, and I can have enough empathy to fully understand why they might want to say, “@#$ that @#$”.

The shared sentiment is that no one really wants an unwanted pregnancy to occur. That’s a point of attack everyone should be able to agree to.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10902
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: R v W ?

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:23 pm
You don't have any idea what my penis has planned!
New sig.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: R v W ?

Post by Turdacious » Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:02 am

nafod wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:55 pm
Tied into this whole mess is the thousands of years of history, running right up to today especially in many corners of the planet, where women were/are still little more than chattel, lacking even control over their own bodies, much less the right to vote or drive a car or expose their wrists.
Exactly. That's why most abortions worldwide are sex selective, and 99% of the time are done to eliminate a female fetus.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38222
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: R v W ?

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:29 pm

nafod wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:55 pm
Allow me to mansplain.
No.
nafod wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:55 pm
Tied into this whole mess is the thousands of years of history, running right up to today especially in many corners of the planet, where women were/are still little more than chattel, lacking even control over their own bodies, much less the right to vote or drive a car or expose their wrists.
Never happened. Women have, aside from dying in childbirth, enjoyed as high or higher standards of living and social status than men since the Venus of Willendorf. Nobody has ever had "control over their own bodies" and certainly not men, who were enslaved, drafted into armies and navies, forced to march to the far ends of the earth, and only ever "got" a "right" to vote when they took it at the end of a bayonet. The idea that women were just lowing cattle herded through history is part of the bullshit communist-feminist rewrite of history.

In fact, who do you think were the most vociferous opponents of female suffrage? Women. Because they, wisely, didn't want any part of male responsibilities. Women were the leaders in opposing the 19th amendment, the ERA, and abortion rights. It's a matter of record.
nafod wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:55 pm
It’s pretty easy to see men arguing against abortion as just more of the same exerting of ownership over another’s body, and I can have enough empathy to fully understand why they might want to say, “@#$ that @#$”.
Not it's not easy to see at all and don't be such a sissy. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they are guilty of two murders, not one. Why is that? Because we all recognize that semantic differences between fetus and baby are just bullshit sophistry. If it's wrong for men to lord over women's bodies, isn't it wrong for women to do the same to unborn children? The fundamental inconsistency of the pro-abortion stance is so obvious it would be laughable if it weren't so murderous.
nafod wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:55 pm
The shared sentiment is that no one really wants an unwanted pregnancy to occur. That’s a point of attack everyone should be able to agree to.
Sure, but the disconnect is that pro-abortion women want to have the freedom of men without ever facing up to the personal accountability that comes with it. Also, there's the fact that the child is 50% the father's DNA but the man-hating abortion lobby thinks that he should have no say whatsoever in the pregnancy.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
syaigh
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5694
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people

Re: R v W ?

Post by syaigh » Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am

How bout you keep your woman-controlling vitriol to yourself before we start pushing for mandatory castration. With the number of rapes in the world, against men and women, it makes more sense . . . . That's why we castrate our dogs, cows, horses, etc. Makes everyone get along better.

Its none of your goddamned business what we do with our bodies. Most anti-abortion idiots are also anti-birth-control. Its a whole lot stupid nonsense.

Pro-choice doesn't mean we love abortion or bathing in the blood of newborns. Simply that the religious right doesn't dictate our medical decisions. Mainly because most of them are complete idiots when it comes to actual science.

If you are truly truly truly pro-life, support social services. Take abused children away from the parents who torture and murder them. Educate and feed the poor. And let them all have necessary medical care. And allow women to terminate dangerous pregnancies.

And stop fantasizing that all infants are going to grow up to be blonde haired blued eyed Aryan graduate students. Spend some time in high school special ed in the hood where retarded kids are having retarded kids and they are starving and sexually abused and all kinds of crap. How bout we make birth control and sex ed more available? Its been shown to reduce abortion rates up to 40%.

Abortion is such a stupid line in the sand. Its like saying you can prevent war by handing out flowers.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38222
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: R v W ?

Post by Fat Cat » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:56 pm

syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
How bout you keep your woman-controlling vitriol to yourself before we start pushing for mandatory castration. With the number of rapes in the world, against men and women, it makes more sense . . . . That's why we castrate our dogs, cows, horses, etc. Makes everyone get along better.
:rolleyes: I enjoy this level-headed, dispassionate dialogue we've established. Just two adults discussing public policy.
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
Its none of your goddamned business what we do with our bodies. Most anti-abortion idiots are also anti-birth-control. Its a whole lot stupid nonsense.
That's a tight argument, really. But I'm pro-birth control and anti-abortion so you may apologize for your emotional hyperbole at any time.
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
Pro-choice doesn't mean we love abortion or bathing in the blood of newborns.
Not sure about that. :-k
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
If you are truly truly truly pro-life, support social services. Take abused children away from the parents who torture and murder them. Educate and feed the poor. And let them all have necessary medical care. And allow women to terminate dangerous pregnancies.
Nah. I never said I was pro-life, I said I was anti-abortion. It's 100% fact that some people deserve to die. Just not the babies plz.
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
And stop fantasizing that all infants are going to grow up to be blonde haired blued eyed Aryan graduate students.

I will not.
Image
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

User avatar
syaigh
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5694
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people

Re: R v W ?

Post by syaigh » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:41 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:56 pm
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
How bout you keep your woman-controlling vitriol to yourself before we start pushing for mandatory castration. With the number of rapes in the world, against men and women, it makes more sense . . . . That's why we castrate our dogs, cows, horses, etc. Makes everyone get along better.
:rolleyes: I enjoy this level-headed, dispassionate dialogue we've established. Just two adults discussing public policy.
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
Its none of your goddamned business what we do with our bodies. Most anti-abortion idiots are also anti-birth-control. Its a whole lot stupid nonsense.
That's a tight argument, really. But I'm pro-birth control and anti-abortion so you may apologize for your emotional hyperbole at any time.
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
Pro-choice doesn't mean we love abortion or bathing in the blood of newborns.
Not sure about that. :-k
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
If you are truly truly truly pro-life, support social services. Take abused children away from the parents who torture and murder them. Educate and feed the poor. And let them all have necessary medical care. And allow women to terminate dangerous pregnancies.
Nah. I never said I was pro-life, I said I was anti-abortion. It's 100% fact that some people deserve to die. Just not the babies plz.
syaigh wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 am
And stop fantasizing that all infants are going to grow up to be blonde haired blued eyed Aryan graduate students.

I will not.
All seemingly simple problems require a lot of infrastructure to support their solutions.
Send to
Patient Educ Couns. 1994 Jul;23(3):161-71.
Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained.
Ketting E, Visser AP.
Abstract
This article gives a review of the main factors that are related to the low abortion rate in the Netherlands. Attention is payed to figures on abortion and the use of contraceptive methods since the beginning of the 1960s up to the end of the 1980s. The strong acceptance of family planning was influenced by changing values regarding sexuality and the family, the transition from an agricultural to a modern industrial society, rapid economic growth, declining influence of the churches on daily life, introduction of modern mass media and the increased general educational level. The introduction of modern contraceptives (mainly the pill and contraceptive sterilization) was stimulated by a strong voluntary family planning movement, fear for overpopulation, a positive role of GPs, and the public health insurance system. A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services) as well as through wide acceptance of sterilization. The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services.

PIP:
People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world. Between 1965 and 1975, a shift from a largely agricultural society to an industrial society, rapid economic growth and the establishment of a welfare state, a reduced influence of the church in public and personal life, introduction of mass media, and a rapid increase in the educational level of both men and women brought about a rapid change in traditional values and family relations in the Netherlands. These changes and the introduction of modern contraception effected a breakthrough in family planning and sexual morality. Factors facilitating the rapid transition to a contraceptive society in the Netherlands were a voluntary family planning movement, fear of overpopulation, role of general practitioners in providing family planning services, and inclusion of family planning in the national public health insurance system. Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs. The mass media address adolescent sexuality and preventive behavior. Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: R v W ?

Post by Turdacious » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:55 pm

Oh yeah, let's all praise those progressive Dutch...
The Netherlands has banned forced sterilization of transgender people and has passed a new law that simplifies ways to change gender registration in passports and other official documents. The law will take effect in July 2014.

Under current Dutch law, a person’s gender can only be changed in official documents after obligatory and often unwanted sterilization and gender modification operations, followed by judicial permission. Many transgender people therefore choose to live with official documents that do not correspond with their gender identities, creating challenges as they apply for jobs, access healthcare, and otherwise officially identify themselves.

The new law now simplifies the process for legal gender registration, allowing transgender people age 16 years and older to obtain an official statement of an expert, affirming that they wish to have their gender marker changed in accordance with their gender identity.

In a report on transgender rights in the European Member states, human rights bodies such as the Council of Europe and the United Nations reprimanded the Netherlands over their former transgender law and insisted on a modification. More than a dozen countries in Europe including Germany, Austria and Denmark have similar sterilization laws.

Earlier in 2013, Sweden also ended requirements that transgender people be sterilized or undergo surgery in order to change their gender identity on official documents.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/netherlands-ba ... der-people
Rotterdam city council has called for mothers, judged to be incapable to raise children, to be given compulsory contraception by court order. The Dutch council has launched a voluntary contraception drive for 160 women believed to be at risk due to learning difficulties, psychological issues or addiction, nrc.nl reports.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 46621.html
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

Post Reply