Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[tstorm823]

I should point out the only time the Bible mentions abortion is when it tells women how to do it. A trial of drinking some potion of water, ash and a bunch of stuff a husband can force his wife to drink if he suspects her pregnancy is another man, and it causes her to miscarry.
But you know...I went to 12 years of Catholic school, so its just cheating to have read the Bible.

a) You didn't learn crap about that passage in Catholic School. You 100% learned about that from atheists on the internet. If you did actually read that passage in school (which you probably actually didn't), there is 0% chance it was taught as abortion, and 0% chance you reached that interpretation yourself. I went to Catholic School, I know exactly how little that actually says about your biblical knowledge.
b) The Catholic Church has condemned abortion for longer than the current formulation of the Bible has existed. I don't expect someone to know every verse of the Bible by virtue of going to Catholic school, but I would expect you to know that a huge swath of Catholic tradition exists independent of the Bible, and sola scriptura is a Protestant idea.

 

[Agema]

b) The Catholic Church has condemned abortion for longer than the current formulation of the Bible has existed.

Yes, but this elides the important fact that the Catholic problem with abortion involved the issue killing something with a soul, however there was a longstanding disagreement about when a fetus received a soul, so it was in fact a grey area early in pregnancy.

Consequently, the official Catholic stance on abortion is in fact vastly more recent than you're suggesting: outside some relatively minor reforms, it's younger than Protestantism.

 

[McElroy]

I just want to point out that this is acceptable for the man to do [the bitter water ritual from Numbers].
So I'm going to propose something. What if we changed the abortion laws so that if the man wants the abortion to happen it has to be forced upon her.
It makes about as much sense as the pro-life crowd

Reading that passage and the Wikipedia page for some extra info, the only conclusion is that the argument (like most of what SilentPony has written in this thread) is incredibly bad faith. No wordplay intended.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, but this elides the important fact that the Catholic problem with abortion involved the issue killing something with a soul, however there was a longstanding disagreement about when a fetus received a soul, so it was in fact a grey area early in pregnancy.

Consequently, the official Catholic stance on abortion is in fact vastly more recent than you're suggesting: outside some relatively minor reforms, it's younger than Protestantism.

It was only ever gray by degrees. It was never an official catholic stance that early abortions were ok. The debate was whether it was a lesser sin than murder or not. And frankly, that debate almost certainly still exists to some extent.

 

[Schadrach]

The bureaucracy required to scrutinise the finances of millions of single parents would be grossly impractical:

...and the bureaucracy required to scrutinize the financial situations for payouts for things like TANF, SNAP, etc? Because all of those are subjected to periodic (in my state yearly) reviews, failing to fill out the review paperwork with required documentation means your benefits are cut until you are in compliance, and benefits are routinely adjusted as a consequence of the review results. This isn't something that would be wildly different than that.

including extremely dubious attempts by the state to have to define what is in the child's benefit and what is not

You establish formulas for determining what the paying parents maximum "share" of communal expenses (think rent, utilities, shared grocery [aka not alcohol, tobacco, etc]) should be based on whatever factors would be reasonable. Like, we already do this for every form of support paid from government coffers. Somehow that kind of analysis is entirely reasonable to be done separately for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, etc (and each program has separate requirements and standards and paperwork required) but is completely insane for child support?

plus enforcing that (resultant legal actions).

If they don't do the review, you cut off their benefit. If the review shows they are getting paid an inappropriate amount, you adjust the result up or down as required. Again, we do this for all other benefits and somehow it isn't impossible for any of those. They can use some of that funding they receive for collecting child support to fund it, rather than it going into the general budget.

Particularly confounding here is that the welfare of parent and child are interlinked: a stressed, unhappy, struggling custodial parent is likely to do a worse job of child-raising.

Remember: You had sex with someone once so it's only reasonable that you owe them a lifestyle for the next two decades. Even if they sexually assaulted you or it was statutory rape. Oh, and because the federal government pays the states based on the amount of this money they collect, the state-level bureaucracy will make it as easy as possible to increase how much but as hard as possible to reduce it.

Not least the additional risk in cases where a relationship has been abusive, where the one paying child support can use that support as a way to continue controlling, abusing and harassing their ex-partner.

Ah, yes, the same argument as to why more fair child custody is bad - we just have to assume that men are abusive by default and that any attempt to not just be screwed over by the system or their ex is actually abuse. To the point that people pursuing the idea that in contested custody cases the court should start from a position that equally shared custody is best unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise get referred to as the "abusers lobby". Side note: A rebuttable presumption of shared custody is actually law in one US state as of a few years ago, and nothing seems to have imploded...yet.

Okay so there are two ways I can find. Giving up Parental Rights, and Abandonment. Both do exactly what they sound like. The Parental Rights would be like giving up father rights to a step-father, whereas Abandonment you're just no longer part of any equation.

The former doesn't work like you think it does, at least not in the US (hell, there was even a case where a man donated sperm to a lesbian couple with a contract explicitly giving up all paternal rights and obligations and after the lesbian couple broke up he was on the hook for child support because the donation wasn't processed by a properly accredited clinic, paperwork be damned). As for Abandonment, there are laws regarding it in every state, all are a bit different, but all make it difficult and possibly illegal (specifically kidnapping) for the father to do without the mother's consent. And I don't think there are any actual cases where one parent abandons, the other parent gets the child back, and the question of child support is raised at all making it a giant legal question mark (that I expect wouldn't land on the side you do).

 

[gorfias]

snip

Initially, each state of the US was like it's own nation. You had a sort of limited power Federal government that had very specific enumerated powers. But they really weren't meant to mess with your state outside very limited situations. That arguably ended without new legislation in our polite war... er... Civil War.
That an elected POTUS and legislature put USSC judges in place doesn't much work in terms of representation. Once in power, the Justices are able to do as they please, for whatever reason they please, leaving your average Eisenhower of Nixon to shrug going, "wow! I did not expect that!"
I don't have a problem with USSC interpreting law. I have a problem when they engage in bull shit on stilts. Which is what Roe is.
Example: There was no Internet in 9/17/1787. But it makes logical sense to apply 1st Amendment protections to free speech on the Internet.
The 3rd Amendment of the US Constitution holds that, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This is limiting Government power over private citizens. Suppose the court holds that in an emination of a penumbra this really means they have an obligation to say yea or nay to every single law ever passed by Congress?
Ultimately, to retain freedom means being vigilant. When you think the USSC is full of horse feathers, as a liberty loving citizen, it is up to you to do your part to call them out on it. That, I think, is happening with Roe today.
I am left wondering what the political impact will be on actual representatives that are RTL. In part, we'll see in 2022.

 

[Agema]

It was only ever gray by degrees. It was never an official catholic stance that early abortions were ok. The debate was whether it was a lesser sin than murder or not.

It's probably never been the Catholic church's official stance that watching television is okay either, but that's not a rationale to infer the church was against it either.

Secondly, it is evident from historical writings that the debate on how sinful early abortion might be extended all the way to many Catholics not thinking it sinful at all.

 

[Agema]

...and the bureaucracy required to scrutinize the financial situations for payouts for things like TANF, SNAP, etc?

What on earth are you talking about, then? Child support is already de facto means tested - the parents negotiate the payments, and/or most if not all jurisdictions have formulas to determine appropriate support. Why are you demanding what already exists?

If they don't do the review, you cut off their benefit.

Sure, because when a partner (or the state) wants to punish their ex-, what better way to get at them than making the child suffer.

Because, of course, in the mind of the manosphere, a child isn't a real person, just a tool to vent their frustrations on women.

Remember: You had sex with someone once so it's only reasonable that you owe them a lifestyle for the next two decades.

Yes, you can reasonably be obliged to make sure the household of the custodial parent is kept to a reasonable standard for the good of your offspring. I mean, they are doing your work for you, bringing up that child. What is the hourly rate for childcare (x 24 x 365)? I'm guessing it's probably expensive enough to make child support a very cheap option.

Ah, yes, the same argument as to why more fair child custody is bad - we just have to assume that men are abusive by default

How fascinating you chose both to unnecessarily introduce gender into my comment and create a straw man. It's like you don't have a useful answer to the point I made. Oh, because you don't. Abusive partners are just something that their victims are just expected to put up with because men should have what they feel like (except when the victims are men - but they're a sufficiently ignorable minority).

 

[SilentPony]

a) You didn't learn crap about that passage in Catholic School. You 100% learned about that from atheists on the internet. If you did actually read that passage in school (which you probably actually didn't), there is 0% chance it was taught as abortion, and 0% chance you reached that interpretation yourself. I went to Catholic School, I know exactly how little that actually says about your biblical knowledge.
b) The Catholic Church has condemned abortion for longer than the current formulation of the Bible has existed. I don't expect someone to know every verse of the Bible by virtue of going to Catholic school, but I would expect you to know that a huge swath of Catholic tradition exists independent of the Bible, and sola scriptura is a Protestant idea.

1. Funnily enough, you're entirely wrong about this one. It was taught and brought up by the Monks, yes Monks, specifically for the kids who were going to anti-abortion protests as an inconsistency in the Bible regarding pro-life. We also talked a bunch about slavery, rape and death. Because they took it very seriously.
2. You might want to read this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/
Your whole diatribe about the church being against abortion for millennia? Its just factually untrue. Its been about 500 years.

 

[Schadrach]

What on earth are you talking about, then? Child support is already de facto means tested - the parents negotiate the payments, and/or most if not all jurisdictions have formulas to determine appropriate support. Why are you demanding what already exists?

The distinction is that child support is assigned based on a formula, calculated once and then left as-is unless one or the other parent seeks to change it by petitioning the courts. There is no follow up unless someone petitions the courts for a change, and the state-level bureaucracy handling it specifically tries to make things as easy as possible for increases and as difficult as possible for decreases because the state receives federal money based on the amount collected.

Oh, also it's not exactly means tested - for the payer the Court can used what's called "imputed income" which is essentially deciding what you *could* be making instead of what you actually are and setting the amount based on that.

Sure, because when a partner (or the state) wants to punish their ex-, what better way to get at them than making the child suffer.

Because, of course, in the mind of the manosphere, a child isn't a real person, just a tool to vent their frustrations on women.

1. Not sure how there's a punishment here? Is it that we expect them to routinely refuse to fill out a form every year or so because patriarchy or whatever? Is it that lying on such a form would likely be considered fraud? Is it that they delay payment if you refuse to cooperate until your paperwork is in proper order (that's what they do for SNAP, TANF, etc)?
2. It's a periodic review, we already do them for SNAP, TANF, etc. Not some sort of inquisition, just the state asking for updated info on your situation and a few supporting documents (pay stubs, utility bills, whatever might be relevant), then using the results to adjust the benefit according to the formulas.
3. Other benefits also generally allow you to request changes when your situation changes without requiring a court hearing that's typically going to be several months in the future. A consequence of this is that when a payer loses a job, or moves to a lower paying job they are still being charged at a rate based on their old situation for however long it takes them to work through the bureaucracy and get a court hearing.
4. Also not sure how periodic review and adjustment is more prone to abuse than potentially dragging them into court repeatedly to demand you get your way?

Like literally, I'm suggesting a system in which there's periodic review paperwork, and if someone's situation changes a request can be filed and things adjusted without involving the courts again unless there's suspicion of fraud, by treating child support like any other benefit. I'm also suggesting that states should not receive federal funding based on the amount of child support collected to remove an incentive to maximize collections.

How fascinating you chose both to unnecessarily introduce gender into my comment and create a straw man. It's like you don't have a useful answer to the point I made. Oh, because you don't. Abusive partners are just something that their victims are just expected to put up with because men should have what they feel like (except when the victims are men - but they're a sufficiently ignorable minority).

In custody as well as in child support, it is primarily men who are payers/get the short end of custody and any suggestion that reform is needed gets branded as being in the service of "abusers". Sorry for gendering something that is mostly gendered. Especially since women paying child support are paying child support for children they uniquely had a choice to have.

No one is telling a woman that she's been raped so now she owes her rapist money for two decades for the privilege of being his victim. No one taken seriously, at least.

 

[Seanchaidh]

What if, instead of making the burden of raising children resemble an entrapment and its effect dependent on the wealth of the parents, we had the state provide the necessary resources?

 

[Agema]

Like literally, I'm suggesting a system in which there's periodic review paperwork, and if someone's situation changes a request can be filed and things adjusted without involving the courts again unless there's suspicion of fraud, by treating child support like any other benefit.

If that's literally all you mean, no I don't really have a problem with regular reviews.

On the other hand, nor am I particularly thrilled by the idea of millionaires paying $5000 a year to someone vastly poorer because they can calculate it as the bare minimum to keep their ex- and child in a trailer park with running water. Some concept of the child reflecting the wealth of both their parents is intensely reasonable. The custodial parent will necessarily be a part-beneficiary, because if baby is going to have a nice house to live in, custodial parent necessarily lives in it too.

In custody as well as in child support, it is primarily men who are payers/get the short end of custody and any suggestion that reform is needed gets branded as being in the service of "abusers".

Lets be ruthlessly honest here: lots of men don't have custody because they don't want it or seriously contest it. Men who banged-up mom without ever wanting a child, or who did but then left mom doing the housework and the child-raising because they would rather fulfil their traditional male provider role, and plenty who walked out on their family. Most don't magically change into a devoted dad when the custody hearing comes up: they'd still rather mom was doing the work. They just don't want to pay for it, and just to underscore a certain baseline of shittiness, this in effect means them not wanting to pay for their own child. That's how much they really love their kids.

This does not of course exist as any insult to the many men who always have wanted and been involved in the upbringing of their children, many of whom will almost certainly have a good shot at gaining custody, or at least plentiful access. It's just to point out that the blanket claim "women usually get custody" involves an awful lot of men who have underinvested time and emotion in their offspring, which is a cause to the effects of custody hearings. I am also live to the fact that all manner of problems abound - such as the custodial parent moving out of state and all sorts of other issues - but those myriad problems are rarely solved satisfactorily by creating even bigger problems.

There are things we can do here. If lawyers tend to advise men they won't get custody, maybe these lawyers need a kick up the backside to stop encouraging men to give up. Maybe many men should be better advised in formative years that child-raising is a valuable and worthwhile thing to do with their time, and so on. We can tackle inequalities in all sorts of ways that aren't about primarily gratifying men who produce children and want to leave all the shit for everyone else to clean up.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Some concept of the child reflecting the wealth of both their parents is intensely reasonable.

Though unimaginative. They could instead reflect the wealth of society at large; indeed, all people could.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

What if, instead of making the burden of raising children resemble an entrapment and its effect dependent on the wealth of the parents, we had the state provide the necessary resources?

Well, then we wouldn't have disadvantaged children growing up to be criminals for police to gun down in the streets. And then where would we be?!

 

[tstorm823]

1. Funnily enough, you're entirely wrong about this one. It was taught and brought up by the Monks, yes Monks, specifically for the kids who were going to anti-abortion protests as an inconsistency in the Bible regarding pro-life. We also talked a bunch about slavery, rape and death. Because they took it very seriously.
2. You might want to read this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/
Your whole diatribe about the church being against abortion for millennia? Its just factually untrue. Its been about 500 years.

1. The monks did not teach you that God committed ritual abortions. Don't lie.
2. The second sentence of your link states " the Church has consistently opposed abortion ". And considered it a sin for the first 6 centuries, and also the millenium after that, and also the last 500 years. It's been considered a sin the entire time, your link says so right there. Don't lie.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

C'mon now, we all know there's sins and then there's sin sins. Like, it started off as a sin because it hid evidence of fornication, not because "it was murder".

 

[Trunkage]

Well, then we wouldn't have disadvantaged children growing up to be criminals for police to gun down in the streets. And then where would we be?!

Why would you think they would reach childhood?

Back in the old days, they just throw new borns into kilns or poison their milk. Most unwanted children did not live to see their first week.

I find the idea that 'we just foster unwanted children out' one of the most preposterous statements ever made because it just doesn't not understand that history exists. Thinking that they will be shot by police is also preposterous because they just won't live that long

 

[SilentPony]

1. The monks did not teach you that God committed ritual abortions. Don't lie.
2. The second sentence of your link states " the Church has consistently opposed abortion ". And considered it a sin for the first 6 centuries, and also the millenium after that, and also the last 500 years. It's been considered a sin the entire time, your link says so right there. Don't lie.

The monks didn't tell us God committed abortions, but they certainly pointed out what the Bible says. Big difference.
Biblical literacy is a very important part of faith to them. So they actually studied the Bible, not just read it. And the Latin and Greek translations. Because they were so devout and believed in God, the last thing they trusted was the word of man.
So they know, and thus I know, that the Bible isn't anti-Gay. The whole "lay with a man as you do a woman" was deliberately changed from laying with a child as you do a woman.
The current English Bible isn't the exact word of God...

 

[tstorm823]

The monks didn't tell us God committed abortions, but they certainly pointed out what the Bible says. Big difference.

Right. So where did you get the idea that passage is about ritual abortion? Probably from atheists on the internet.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't understand why we are still talking about religious stuff. If your religion tells you not to have an abortion, have at it (or not, as the case maybe be.) Religions placing that expectation on everyone else is the opposite of what America stands for. (Well, at least pretends.)