Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
Never wrote it was. Her analysis was that 9 elite men invented a right to abortion that made it easier for those men to exploit and use "nice girls". On that, I think she has a point. Period.
Her actual analysis is far more wordy and nuanced, and you should probably use that instead of a sound bite you think looks attractive to claim feminist support while making an argument that she criticizes at length
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
I think whomever sourced those Dworkin quotes and showed them to you had a severe agenda. Like, Dworkin was 110% anti-"traditional" marriage
EDIT: Site acting weird: trying to add your earlier quotes from Dworking...

I'm not seeing any mention of 9 elite men creating abortion rights to make it easier for them to exploit "nice girls" in your quotes.

I would feel properly spanked if I had pulled a quote from the middle of her work that she then says, "it may seem that way, but that isn't what really happened".

Example: I love a 3 min. Trumpland clip in which Michael Moore gives the best pro-politician speech I've ever heard in my life, in favor of Trump. When I mention it, I am careful to point out that isn't really what he is doing. In greater context, he is against Trump... particularly if you continue to watch the piece. But the analysis of the piece works and is amazing.

Maybe I'm missing it. Do you have a clip where she provides this analysis but then adds that is not what they were really doing? Honestly, if so, I just did not know of it and apologize. But if you don't? You are just going about this incorrectly.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
I'm not seeing any mention of 9 elite men creating abortion rights to make it easier for them to exploit "nice girls" in your quotes.
That's because I couldn't find that quote and am starting to believe you've dreamed it up. Your first reference to it was "a feminist said so" without any attribution
I would feel properly spanked if I had pulled a quote from the middle of her work that she then says, "it may seem that way, but that isn't what really happened".

Maybe I'm missing it. Do you have a clip where she provides this analysis but then adds that is not what they were really doing? Honestly, if so, I just did not know of it and apologize. But if you don't? You are just going about this incorrectly.
I can't even find the "clip" where she says this in the first place, but have this related passage:
"Right-wing women have surveyed the world: they find it a dangerous place. They see that work subjects them to more danger from more men; it increases the risk of sexual exploitation. They see that creativity and originality in their kind are ridiculed; they see women thrown out of the circle of male civilization for having ideas, plans, visions, ambitions. They see that traditional marriage means selling to one man, not hundreds: the better deal. They see that the streets are cold, and that the women on them are tired, sick, and bruised. They see that the money they can earn will not make them independent of men and that they will still have to play the sex games of their kind: at home and at work too. They see no way to make their bodies authentically their own and to survive in the world of men. They know too that the Left has nothing better to offer: leftist men also want wives and whores; leftist men value whores too much and wives too little. Right-wing women are not wrong. They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it. They are not wrong. Right-wing women see that within the system in which they live they cannot make their bodies their own, but they can agree to privatized male ownership: keep it one-on-one, as it were. They know that they are valued for their sex— their sex organs and their reproductive capacity—and so they try to up their value: through cooperation, manipulation, conformity; through displays of affection or attempts at friendship; through submission and obedience; and especially through the use of euphemism—“femininity, ” “total woman, ” “good, ” “maternal instinct, ” “motherly love. ” Their desperation is quiet; they hide their bruises of body and heart; they dress carefully and have good manners; they suffer, they love God, they follow the rules. They see that intelligence displayed in a woman is a flaw, that intelligence realized in a woman is a crime. They see the world they live in and they are not wrong. They use sex and babies to stay valuable because they need a home, food, clothing. They use the traditional intelligence of the female—animal, not human: they do what they have to to survive.”
― Andrea Dworkin, Right-Wing Women
Add that her her specific call out of forced childbearing earlier and try to explain why you think that she thinks abortion is bad. Like you're pantomiming a hypothetical quote to use as support for your own argument that she very specifically hates.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Like you're pantomiming a hypothetical quote to use as support for your own argument that she very specifically hates.
No. She (and I) don't want to ban abortion. I think she (and I) think Roe badly reasoned. And sorry to not have the exact quote. I'm not 100% certain it was from her. Just something I'd heard 35 years ago and I don't want to try to take credit for this analysis.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
You don't have the data or the basis to back any of this up.
Nobody has that data. You cannot formulate reliable data for how many people are having explicitly unreported abortions. It doesn't matter who "looks into it", their data will be really rough estimates at best. If you don't like the implications I've pointed out from the estimates pro-choice organizations have made, you should question their statistics, not be mad at pro-life people for failing to do the impossible.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,694
896
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Add that her her specific call out of forced childbearing earlier and try to explain why you think that she thinks abortion is bad. Like you're pantomiming a hypothetical quote to use as support for your own argument that she very specifically hates.
The solution is to make everyone weebs who is into 2D so that 3D women can be free from "playing the sex games" as she put it, but then you have women competing with fictional characters and feeling jealous at men spending their power on these characters and not them, which leaves them out in the cold with a bunch of cats (not that that's a bad thing, I fucking love cats, I'm slightly allergic to them, not too much, just I can't touch my eyes if I pet em, still love em to bits), so it's actually more nuanced than the quote purports.


See, you think being wanted is bad, being desired for your "sexual organs" and so on seems inhuman. Thing is, being unwanted apparently is even worse, since these women do in fact deep down want to be wanted, or at least want the opportunities that being wanted grants, since without them they get outcompeted in a capitalist economy. This quote presumes only men are into sex, and that women never want companionship or fun and are just bearing it. It's not quite that simple.


Basically this sounds more like women want to be men, while also being women too. Whoa...explains a lot of that non-binary stuff now, don't it XD.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,302
8,779
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Never wrote it was. Her analysis was that 9 elite men invented a right to abortion that made it easier for those men to exploit and use "nice girls".
And isn't it nice that women have you to decide what's better for them? I mean, obviously they can't figure it out for themselves.

And in terms of men and sperm cells, sperm cells are alive. They can be used by fertility clinics. Its wasting precious life to masturbate and not save the sperm to be used in babies.
Every sperm is sacred; every sperm is great! Which is why I'm waiting for someone to prosecute women for 250 million counts of murder every time they have sex. She should have an egg waiting for each and every one of those precious little swimmers!
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
And isn't it nice that women have you to decide what's better for them? I mean, obviously they can't figure it out for themselves.
Again:
1) I think Roe was radical and an example of very poor judicial philosophy.
2) My hope is that with Roe gone, US representatives will have to provide the US with moderate reproductive law taking its place.
One of the new Texas laws include having people rat out others. That, to me, is radical and its supporters will pay a price at the polls. To fix things, anti-abortion types will have to moderate their positions.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
Every sperm is sacred; every sperm is great! Which is why I'm waiting for someone to prosecute women for 250 million counts of murder every time they have sex. She should have an egg waiting for each and every one of those precious little swimmers!
You joke, but there are some far right lunatics who think along those lines.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,887
2,235
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Again:
1) I think Roe was radical and an example of very poor judicial philosophy.
2) My hope is that with Roe gone, US representatives will have to provide the US with moderate reproductive law taking its place.
One of the new Texas laws include having people rat out others. That, to me, is radical and its supporters will pay a price at the polls. To fix things, anti-abortion types will have to moderate their positions.
But according to this thread your problem with Roe v Wade is specifically that it allowed rich men the freedom to have more sex with "nice girls" which literally has nothing to do with Roe V Wade, or abortion in the slightest.

I still haven't heard a reasoned argument from you about why Roe V Wade is bad which doesn't include you pretending that it opened the flood gates to rich men suddenly being able to have sex with as many women as they want all willy nilly, which is something that has literally always happened, which has nothing to do with any abortion law, and you haven't even explained why people having sex is even bad.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
But according to this thread your problem with Roe v Wade is specifically that it allowed rich men the freedom to have more sex with "nice girls" which literally has nothing to do with Roe V Wade, or abortion in the slightest.

I still haven't heard a reasoned argument from you about why Roe V Wade is bad which doesn't include you pretending that it opened the flood gates to rich men suddenly being able to have sex with as many women as they want all willy nilly, which is something that has literally always happened, which has nothing to do with any abortion law, and you haven't even explained why people having sex is even bad.
I posited a plausible reason for why it happened as proposed by a radical lesbian feminist, not why I think it happened. I'm not sure why it happened myself. Just that this radical change occurred without a textual imperative, was radical, and had on its face non-sense for telling people in 50 states they used to have a right to a say in something they think has a huge impact on their society and then suddenly, based upon new "discoveries" from an "emanation from a penumbra" in 200 year old text heretofore in no way barring them from their say, now did.

Presume, as I do, that Roe is based upon b.s. on stilts. Why do you think they did it?
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,887
2,235
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I posited a plausible reason for why it happened as proposed by a radical lesbian feminist, not why I think it happened. I'm not sure why it happened myself. Just that this radical change occurred without a textual imperative, was radical, and had on its face non-sense for telling people in 50 states they used to have a right to a say in something they think has a huge impact on their society and then suddenly, based upon new "discoveries" from an "emanation from a penumbra" in 200 year old text heretofore in no way barring them from their say, now did.

Presume, as I do, that Roe is based upon b.s. on stilts. Why do you think they did it?
Because women should have the right to control their bodies, abortion is a medical procedure, and making abortion a privacy right makes perfect sense in a world where your medical records and treatment are entirely private between you and your doctor and not privy to the government.

Saying that abortion has a huge impact on society so people should be able to control it is complete BS. It would be like a state controlled by fundamentalist Christians saying that they have the right to outlaw all medical practice within the state because God should decide who lives and dies, not doctors.

Frankly I don't think that the Supreme Court goes nearly far enough with protecting the privacy rights of citizens.

Edit: I would also like to point out that the average age of the Supreme court justices in the Roe V Wade case was 53, and for those who ruled in favor of the right to an abortion it was 63 (the 2 youngest members of the court disagreed with the decision) so I rather doubt the idea they the justices voted in favor of abortion because it would make it easier for them to have sex with "nice girls." This was 1970, and viagra wasn't released until 1998. They couldn't get their dicks hard enough to have sex with anything at that point in their lives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
374
68
Country
United States
It would be like a state controlled by fundamentalist Christians saying that they have the right to outlaw all medical practice within the state because God should decide who lives and dies, not doctors.
Given the anti-vax rhetoric, that's not hyperbole anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Given the anti-vax rhetoric, that's not hyperbole anymore.
Given pro-vax imperatives and mandates, do you think there is any such thing as medical privacy anymore?
Because women should have the right to control their bodies, abortion is a medical procedure, and making abortion a privacy right makes perfect sense in a world where your medical records and treatment are entirely private between you and your doctor and not privy to the government.

Saying that abortion has a huge impact on society so people should be able to control it is complete BS. It would be like a state controlled by fundamentalist Christians saying that they have the right to outlaw all medical practice within the state because God should decide who lives and dies, not doctors.

Frankly I don't think that the Supreme Court goes nearly far enough with protecting the privacy rights of citizens.
Your position seems to be something Robert Bork used to criticize. You don't trust people to govern their own lives. They can be "fundamentalist Christians saying that they have the right to outlaw all medical practice within the state because God should decide who lives and dies, not doctors."

Not a very pro-liberty position to take.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,887
2,235
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Given pro-vax imperatives and mandates, do you think there is any such thing as medical privacy anymore?

Your position seems to be something Robert Bork used to criticize. You don't trust people to govern their own lives. They can be "fundamentalist Christians saying that they have the right to outlaw all medical practice within the state because God should decide who lives and dies, not doctors."

Not a very pro-liberty position to take.
It's a very pro-liberty position to take. I'm not saying that you can't govern your life, I'm saying you shouldn't seek to govern other people's lives.

I'm not forcing you to get an abortion if you don't want it, but I don't think you should have any say in whether anyone else gets an abortion as it has nothing to do with you.

If anyone doesn't trust other people to govern their own lives it's you, because you seem to want states involved in the private lives of citizens even more than they currently are.

You seem to be significantly conflating state's rights and people's rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen and gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
It's a very pro-liberty position to take. I'm not saying that you can't govern your life, I'm saying you shouldn't seek to govern other people's lives.

I'm not forcing you to get an abortion if you don't want it, but I don't think you should have any say in whether anyone else gets an abortion as it has nothing to do with you.

If anyone doesn't trust other people to govern their own lives it's you, because you seem to want states involved in the private lives of citizens even more than they currently are.

You seem to be significantly conflating state's rights and people's rights.
OK. Your post is very strange to me, but OK.