Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

[Trunkage]

They were denying germ theory for centuries.

Well, I'd point out that they had evidence for Miasma but ignored when it didn't match their theory

Also, I think a lot of it had to do with doctors feeling blamed for killing patients when they didn't sterilize equipment or wash their hands

That's very similar to coal companies and their response to climate change. They dont want to be in trouble. That's far more important than science or data

 

[Gordon_4]

Well, I'd point out that they had evidence for Miasma but ignored when it didn't match their theory

Also, I think a lot of it had to do with doctors feeling blamed for killing patients when they didn't sterilize equipment or wash their hands

That's very similar to coal companies and their response to climate change. They dont want to be in trouble. That's far more important than science or data

Or things like Black Lung if my grandmother’s stories about her father are anything to go by.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

EDIT:

I mean, it's also not a bad law, so...

What is actually bad about it? Also, the democrates aren't my team.

Basically the entire world thinks it's a bad law as even the most progressive European countries don't have laws like this.

If an R law would allow something like 1 in a million bad thing being allowed to happen, it's the end of the world here. The law literally allows women to get abortions a minute before giving birth. And the response to that is basically "well, nobody does that anyway".

Yet here you unironically call a woman a 'pregnant person'. So looks like just for an instant you got over it and understood the fluidity of language.

Also, at one point in time the word 'woman' and verbal language as a whole didn't exist and humans were still getting pregnant.

It's just one of the many things that get changed to not "offend" some super small minority of people and it doesn't even make sense to change it to begin with.

I'm surprised you didn't notice sooner. Phoenix has been spouting the whole, "masks don't do anything"/anti-mask rhetoric since the very start of the pandemic. I choose not to talk to a man that lacks so much empathy and spreads hurtful (lack of) knowledge on all of humanity. Yet it is more than happy to support jackasses who don't give a rip about anyone, but themselves.

That's a lie, I have messages being for masks at the start right here on this forum when everyone was against them. Sorry, that I want proof something works after about 1 year of doing something. You were also told to wash your hands and use hand sanitizer and that doesn't work.

Okay, so you don't believe trans men are men and you don't respect gender identity. Can you stop pretending you do in the trans athletes thread now?

Also to paraphrase the OP from multiple threads, you could just choose not to be bothered by it y'know.

OMFG, SEX is different than GENDER.

I literally said why I posted the story, just pointing out the hypocrisy. You think I actually care about this law?

Once again, Phoenix posts expecting everybody to agree with him only to be sorely disappointed that the majority of this forum is more leftward than he pretends to be.

Honestly, we need more laws like this. The Republicans are so determined to roll back a century of progress, we need to make it harder for them to succeed.

Again, even the most progressive countries in Europe don't have this kind of law. I posted pointing out the hypocrisy, I don't really care about people's stances on the law. I'm pretty sure if you asked the majority of people if an 8-month abortion is moral, they'd say "no" even if you got a whole group of progressives. It's like how you all are upset up Florida's Parental Rights law that does nothing. Guess what? Most democrats agree with the law. Maybe if you get out your echo chambers you'd notice that.

Again, they are both on the same team. The very things (macro level things) you're so against, the Ds are just as for it as the Rs. What progress are the Rs rolling back? You do realize minorities have more opportunities in red states right? It's why black people have been doing a reverse migration to the south the last 20 or so years.

Based on the article this law doesn't do anything but prevent future limitations imposed by the federal government.

While I personally object to late term abortions (6m+) I wonder if those actually occur (often)? Instead of focusing on time limits they should make work of accessibility. Not sure if that's an issue in Colorado but it seems that's a typical tactic to reduce abortions, just make it unnecessarily difficult to perform.

That was kinda the point of posting, it's a law that really does nothing much similar to other R laws, yet the R laws get all this outrage.

I'm not very pro-abortion but I'm also not for laws aggressively limiting abortions either. There's plenty of situations where I feel abortion is morally OK and making sure abortions only happen in those situations just wouldn't be feasible in the 1st place anyway and putting women in that situation to have to prove something is pretty shitty and demeaning.

So what happens if a woman legally changes her gender to a man without needing a full medical transition, and then becomes pregnant? It means, theoretically, he may be denied an abortion in a state that was supposed to ensure its access.

Legal wording is, after all, really important.

Sex and gender are two different things.

You guys are missing that he probably thinks abortions being legal is regression. We're all slipping from God into hedonism etc.

Nope, I'm like the least religious person in the world. Read my response to Generals.

 

[Kwak]

You were also told to wash your hands and use hand sanitizer and that doesn't work.

This is revolutionary. Is Big Hygiene suppressing the evidence?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Basically the entire world thinks it's a bad law as even the most progressive European countries don't have laws like this.

If an R law would allow something like 1 in a million bad thing being allowed to happen, it's the end of the world here. The law literally allows women to get abortions a minute before giving birth. And the response to that is basically "well, nobody does that anyway".

It's not a thing done on a lark. Super late abortions mean that something has done drastically wrong somewhere along the line, and *that* usually means that bureaucratic red tape is a hindrance. So no, it's not a bad law, I don't give a shit what other countries think.

It's just one of the many things that get changed to not "offend" some super small minority of people and it doesn't even make sense to change it to begin with.

Since you refused to guess, I'm going to tell you that super big, super important group of people you forgot about when demanding people use women instead of people:

Girls.


Girls. Female children. Calling them women regardless of what age they get pregnant at changes people's perception of them. A pregnant 14 year old is not a woman. She is still a child, a girl, and it's important to remember that. The US uses shit like this to continually defend grown ass men marrying children. You obviously believe language like this matters, hence being pissed off at "people", but why don't you give a shit about children being referred to as adults?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is revolutionary. Is Big Hygiene suppressing the evidence?

He's conflating hand washing, which is great and people should do it more, with alcohol sanitation, which is good in a pinch but has limitations in a lot of ways due to alcohol on skin not being terribly good vs certain, specific types of resilient viruses, so if someone forgoes hand washing in favor of hand sanitizer, they become more vulnerable to very specific viruses

But it's phoenix, who does not know nor care about nuance.

 

[Cheetodust]

OMFG, SEX is different than GENDER.

I literally said why I posted the story, just pointing out the hypocrisy. You think I actually care about this law?

Jesus... Does everything that's said to you go over your head? I was referring specifically to your complaint about the use of the phrase "pregnant people".

So I'm going to say it very clearly.

If you believe that trans men are men then the phrase pregnant people shouldn't bother you. The only reason for that to bother you is that you believe that only women can get pregnant meaning that you believe trans men are women.

This has nothing to do with the difference between sex and gender because we're talking about the gender descriptors man and woman. You said that there has never been a pregnant person who wasn't a woman meaning that you do not believe that any trans man who has gotten pregnant is a man. Man and woman purely refer to gender, not sex.

 

[bluegate]

Basically the entire world thinks it's a bad law as even the most progressive European countries don't have laws like this.

Because those European countries don't need a law like this.

In those countries if a person is in the situation where they need a late term abortion, they'll most likely be able to get it through their healthcare system.

Domestic terrorists attacking abortion clinics is more of a part of American culture that hasn't been widely exported to Europe... Yet.

 

[Silvanus]

It's just one of the many things that get changed to not "offend" some super small minority of people and it doesn't even make sense to change it to begin with.

Uhrm, no, law requires specificity and accuracy. You write laws to encompass all the eventualities you want to cover: it's literally the most practical way to do it.

And you're the only one "offended" about wording here; arguing that they should make the wording less practical, and less accurate, just so... what? Will you feel better knowing that the law has failed to apply properly?

 

[Cheetodust]

And you're the only one "offended" about wording here

It's not offense when Phoenixmgs does it. Other people get offended because their response is irrational but phoenix is always just using his big good science brain to get to the truth of why these words aren't actually just words and are therefore harmful because words can't be harmful. Science says so.

 

[Buyetyen]

Again, even the most progressive countries in Europe don't have this kind of law. I posted pointing out the hypocrisy, I don't really care about people's stances on the law. I'm pretty sure if you asked the majority of people if an 8-month abortion is moral, they'd say "no" even if you got a whole group of progressives. It's like how you all are upset up Florida's Parental Rights law that does nothing. Guess what? Most democrats agree with the law. Maybe if you get out your echo chambers you'd notice that.

Again, they are both on the same team. The very things (macro level things) you're so against, the Ds are just as for it as the Rs. What progress are the Rs rolling back? You do realize minorities have more opportunities in red states right? It's why black people have been doing a reverse migration to the south the last 20 or so years.

Yawn. You make shit up, dude. You really do.

 

[McElroy]

Man and woman purely refer to gender, not sex.

What is it about this that makes you so stuck? Most people don't consider the words 'man' and 'woman' to include transpeople. The link to sex is automatic and intuitive. And here you're trying this "gotcha" (I haven't read through Phoenixmgs' comments, only the parts you've quoted, so I'm speaking my own mind instead of assuming his) like: "so a pregnant person shows you their ID that has their gender as 'man' and thus they are a pregnant man" and only transphobes disagree. But it's impossible to agree if 'man' always means 'cis-man' unless specified further. I'd say that ok, they are a pregnant trans-man, and thus a woman who's gone through gender reassignment.

 

[Cheetodust]

Most people don't consider the words 'man' and 'woman' to include transpeople.

Prove most.

You're literally just describing transphobia.

 

[McElroy]

Prove most.

You're literally just describing transphobia.

Obviously I can't make up a statistic and it probably can't be quantified too well. However, it is automatic and intuitive. A more philosophical viewpoint: (note that I didn't come up with this, I listened a discussion between a streamer and some gender philosopher youtuber) there are so-called prototypes for 'man' and 'woman' that include sexually dimorphic characteristics and sex itself. These prototypes are universal enough that intuitively they are what comes to mind for almost everyone.

There is a minority of people that stop to consider and include transgender into that. Most people don't. They have no reason to. A headache-inducing squabble for nothing but some internet points.

Also I already described transphobia in the other thread

AFAIK, postmodern transphobia starts at when someone says 'woman' or 'man' they always mean a cis-[wo]man unless specified further.

Most people are transphobic if the only way to not be one is to be 100% on board with everything.

 

[Bedinsis]

Prove most.

In 2021, where do Americans stand on transgender rights? | YouGov

Two in five Americans (40%) think a person should be able to legally self-identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, while just as many (38%) disagree.

today.yougov.com

 

[Cheetodust]

In 2021, where do Americans stand on transgender rights? | YouGov

Two in five Americans (40%) think a person should be able to legally self-identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, while just as many (38%) disagree.

today.yougov.com

So not most then? And slightly fewer than those who said yes.

Obviously I can't make up a statistic and it probably can't be quantified too well. However, it is automatic and intuitive. A more philosophical viewpoint: (note that I didn't come up with this, I listened a discussion between a streamer and some gender philosopher youtuber) there are so-called prototypes for 'man' and 'woman' that include sexually dimorphic characteristics and sex itself. These prototypes are universal enough that intuitively they are what comes to mind for almost everyone.

There is a minority of people that stop to consider and include transgender into that. Most people don't. They have no reason to. A headache-inducing squabble for nothing but some internet points.

Also I already described transphobia in the other thread Most people are transphobic if the only way to not be one is to be 100% on board with everything.

Recognising their gender isn't 100% on board with everything. It's literally the ground floor.

There is a difference between not stopping to think about it and stopping to think about it and concluding that trans men are women. The difference is transphobia.

 

[Bedinsis]

So not most then? And slightly fewer than those who said yes.

From the poll:
A transgender woman is a woman: 37 % agree, 18 % unsure, 46 % disagree
A transgender man is a man: 38 % agree, 18 % unsure, 44 % disagree

The largest group do not put transpeople of female gender in the category woman; the largest group do not put transpeople of male gender in the category man.

But that group is not the majority, no. I am uncertain what you meant with "And slightly fewer than those who said yes."

I am in the agree opinion, but that is not really relevant.

 

[Cheetodust]

From the poll:
A transgender woman is a woman: 37 % agree, 18 % unsure, 46 % disagree
A transgender man is a man: 38 % agree, 18 % unsure, 44 % disagree

The largest group do not put transpeople of female gender in the category woman; the largest group do not put transpeople of male gender in the category man.

But that group is not the majority, no. I am uncertain what you meant with "And slightly fewer than those who said yes."

I am in the agree opinion, but that is not really relevant.

"Two in five Americans (40%) think a person should be able to legally self-identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, while just as many (38%) disagree. "

Not sure how people are drawing the distinction between trans people legally being able to identify as a gender other than their birth gender but not being that gender.

 

[Buyetyen]

Not sure how people are drawing the distinction between trans people legally being able to identify as a gender other than their birth gender but not being that gender.

Most people are stupid and don't put that much though into their opinions.

 

[McElroy]

Not sure how people are drawing the distinction between trans people legally being able to identify as a gender other than their birth gender but not being that gender.

Okay, you are admitting where the problem is. It's possible that people respect gender reassignment as it legally is, while thinking that [wo]man is reserved for the [fe]male sex. Similarly one can conclude that pregnancy is reserved for women, and at the same time recognizing that women can get gender reassignment, which leads to there being pregnant trans men. I don't think there is a conflict in this train of thought, but I'm fine if that is the disagreement.