Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[Schadrach]

Not to mention you need a super majority to even have a chance of that.

End the filibuster first, and you don't. You also solve most of those silly problems with Democrats not being able to get things done.

Well, the thing about dependents is that they depend on other people. Therefore, there is an expectation that both the people who created that certain form of dependent should contribute to its welfare.

This is precisely why pro-choice arguments are built on medical bodily autonomy and pro-life arguments are built on the idea that a fetus is ultimately a human child at it's earliest and most vulnerable stage of development. Supporting abortion is just saying that the mother has a unique right to utterly back out of that expectation, so long as she takes the option early enough.

Despite the fact that welfare of the child is the primary aim,

If that were the case, then some effort would be made to ensure that money is spent for the child's benefit, yet none is. We manage to have all kinds of regulations and paperwork to justify the payout for any kind of support where the money comes from the government, but not child support.

Hell, there are even occasional cases where the parent who the child is currently living with is paying the other parent, because that parent had lost custody but their lifestyle needs be maintained in case they manage to regain custody in the future. And cases where the recipient is funding their entire lifestyle from child support. The actor who played Alan on Two and a Half Men fell into both those, with the court requiring him to continue paying child support for a time despite her no longer having custody of the child because child support was her only income (and had been since they broke up) and she might potentially regain custody in the future.

There are actually ways to get out of child support, and there are cases of women like raping men, getting pregnant and being denied child support. And if I recall correctly, a father can "abandon" the child, not sure what the legal term is, and say not his, he wants no part in anything to do with it, and doesn't have to pay child support.

Citations needed.

 

[Agema]

This is precisely why pro-choice arguments are built on medical bodily autonomy and pro-life arguments are built on the idea that a fetus is ultimately a human child at it's earliest and most vulnerable stage of development. Supporting abortion is just saying that the mother has a unique right to utterly back out of that expectation, so long as she takes the option early enough.

No, supporting abortion is not "just" about saying a mother has a unique ability to back out of the expectation (I notice you elide the fact that such a decision also relieves the man of any expectations), it is a belief that she has rights over her own body that are not to be readily transgressed by either a father or the state.

This a difficult decision men are thankfully spared, due to not having any incubation duties. This difference in biology does create some inherent imbalances that are hard to smooth away, but I absolutely cannot see any good reason why the answer is that men get to sort all arrangements as it suits them, up to and including enforcing months of physical suffering and harm on women.

If that were the case, then some effort would be made to ensure that money is spent for the child's benefit, yet none is. We manage to have all kinds of regulations and paperwork to justify the payout for any kind of support where the money comes from the government, but not child support.

You are attempting to argue sheer absurdity. The bureaucracy required to scrutinise the finances of millions of single parents would be grossly impractical: including extremely dubious attempts by the state to have to define what is in the child's benefit and what is not, plus enforcing that (resultant legal actions). 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. 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.

 

[gorfias]

And that is just today's borderline schizophrenic paranoia slippery slope fallacies of the terminally rightwing.

I figured that wasn't even worth addressing in its sheer lunacy. Somebody trying to parody Conservative thinking would consider that too on the nose.

Irrelevant. That's *your* argument, not mine or Dworkin's, *you* get to make it.

1) Lotta head in the sand, "Gee Whiz, giving power to foreign, remote, centralized authorities who are unaccountable, unelected people is just going to work out so well in the long run!" thinking. Absurd. BTW: The Left's current adoration of big corporations and censorship, I think, is going to backfire on them big time as well.
2) Fine. I'll try one. It was passed to protect pro-life candidates from electoral defeat. Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe decision on Chief Justice Warren E. Burger's USSC. They were both nominated by Republicans. I think the decision horse shit on stilts, so, why did they do it? People were issue voting. One could have all sorts of great ideas and initiatives but if they were pro-life, they would lose elections. After passing Roe, they could bluster a lot but not do anything real about abortion and they became relatively safe for those same single issue voters. Over turn Roe, the issue returns to the political sphere, which I think is about to happen.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

1) Lotta head in the sand, "Gee Whiz, giving power to foreign, remote, centralized authorities who are unaccountable, unelected people is just going to work out so well in the long run!" thinking. Absurd. BTW: The Left's current adoration of big corporations and censorship, I think, is going to backfire on them big time as well.

Dude, it's not "head in the sand thinking" to point out that if the federal government relegates rights to solely states, things like gay marriage or abortion become immediately illegal and that doesn't make people that applies to more free.

Like, this is how I know you've never been in any sort of position where this would apply to you. Fucking telling people how much more free they are when states immediately restricting this they used to be able to do under federal law

2) Fine. I'll try one. It was passed to protect pro-life candidates from electoral defeat. Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe decision on Chief Justice Warren E. Burger's USSC. They were both nominated by Republicans. I think the decision horse shit on stilts, so, why did they do it? People were issue voting. One could have all sorts of great ideas and initiatives but if they were pro-life, they would lose elections. After passing Roe, they could bluster a lot but not do anything real about abortion and they became relatively safe for those same single issue voters. Over turn Roe, the issue returns to the political sphere, which I think is about to happen.

If Republicans know all this, and the if original Roe was just a long con why have they been fighting tooth and nail to get the correct justices on the docket to ban it, including all of the insane shit they pulled in the last 5 years alone?

Mitch McConnell's been part of the Republican establishment since Roe was decided. If you're giving him the benefit of the doubt at this stage, you're a mark

 

[Cheetodust]

1) Lotta head in the sand, "Gee Whiz, giving power to foreign, remote, centralized authorities who are unaccountable, unelected people is just going to work out so well in the long run!" thinking.

Literally an Anarchist. I don't want my government oppressing people because I don't want government full stop. However, if it takes unelected and unaccountable authorities to curb the powers of barely elected, unaccountable authorities then in that case it's a win. But the fact that you think an actual democracy would be "tyranny of the majority" speaks to the horseshit your spouting. Don't act like you want democracy when you're explicitly against it.

BTW: The Left's current adoration of big corporations and censorship, I think, is going to backfire on them big time as well.

BTW, this is horseshit. The left don't adore big corporations. It's the left demanding they pay more tax and pay their employees better. It's neolibs and the right that suck off CEOs and "job creators".

2) Fine. I'll try one. It was passed to protect pro-life candidates from electoral defeat. Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe decision on Chief Justice Warren E. Burger's USSC. They were both nominated by Republicans. I think the decision horse shit on stilts, so, why did they do it? People were issue voting. One could have all sorts of great ideas and initiatives but if they were pro-life, they would lose elections. After passing Roe, they could bluster a lot but not do anything real about abortion and they became relatively safe for those same single issue voters. Over turn Roe, the issue returns to the political sphere, which I think is about to happen.

... So then why would they go on to make outlawing abortions a key part of their politics? Like if they'd just gone "abortion's legal, we just have to deal with it" that argument would make some kind of sense. But they instead went "abortions legal and I will make it my life's work to change that." if it wasn't for roe they could have just kept their mouths shut, but Roe made it so they had to campaign strongly on an anti-abortion platform making it clear to those single issue voters who to kot vote for.

 

[gorfias]

If Republicans know all this, and the if original Roe was just a long con why have they been fighting tooth and nail to get the correct justices on the docket to ban it, including all of the insane shit they pulled in the last 5 years alone?

Mitch McConnell's been part of the Republican establishment since Roe was decided. If you're giving him the benefit of the doubt at this stage, you're a mark

... So then why would they go on to make outlawing abortions a key part of their politics? Like if they'd just gone "abortion's legal, we just have to deal with it" that argument would make some kind of sense. But they instead went "abortions legal and I will make it my life's work to change that." if it wasn't for roe they could have just kept their mouths shut, but Roe made it so they had to campaign strongly on an anti-abortion platform making it clear to those single issue voters who to kot vote for.

Imagine you get to attract single issue voters, and then never really do anything for them. And you have Roe as cover to not do anything real. This happens with the left too, "Medicaid for all, $15 an hour minimum wage". John McCain used to campaign on protecting the Southern border but once in office, would do all he could to open it up.

I think you can only promise stuff for so long before you do actually have to do something about what you've been campaigning on, now for going on 50 years. (I think $15 an hour will be real... when the purchasing power of $15 is down to what $7.25 was 10 years ago.)

Time may be up for those Pro-life pols that have been promising for 50 years. And there is science now to help bolster their arguments that didn't exist in the early 1970s.

Will it be the single issue killer? I don't know. Democrats are in deep crap for the perception that they have been at an all out war on the US citizenry since Beijing Biden took over. Except on abortion. Will people say to heck with all of our complaints about the Democratic party, they're protecting abortion and vote Democrat in 2022?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Imagine you get to attract single issue voters, and then never really do anything for them. And you have Roe as cover to not do anything real. This happens with the left too, "Medicaid for all, $15 an hour minimum wage". John McCain used to campaign on protecting the Southern border but once in office, would do all he could to open it up.

I think you can only promise stuff for so long before you do actually have to do something about what you've been campaigning on, now for going on 50 years. (I think $15 an hour will be real... when the purchasing power of $15 is down to what $7.25 was 10 years ago.)

Time may be up for those Pro-life pols that have been promising for 50 years. And there is science now to help bolster their arguments that didn't exist in the early 1970s.

Will it be the single issue killer? I don't know. Democrats are in deep crap for the perception that they have been at an all out war on the US citizenry since Beijing Biden took over. Except on abortion. Will people say to heck with all of our complaints about the Democratic party, they're protecting abortion and vote Democrat in 2022?

The Democrats haven't been having the federal judiciary constantly blocking their attempts at getting what they want for near 50 years. The GOP's been doing shit *constantly*, to the point of encouraging bombings and assassinations.

There are literally state laws set to trigger making abortion illegal when the Supreme Court overturns Roe! Why in god's name do you think this is a bluff? Why, precisely, do you believe they are insincere? Or were insincere in 1973?

I mean for Christ's sake, Protestant's didn't even give a shit until years after Roe.Your timeline's all fucked up.

 

[gorfias]

I mean for Christ's sake, Protestant's didn't even give a shit until years after Roe.Your timeline's all fucked up.

Historically, in the US, there have always been restrictions on abortion rights. That's why a Roe was needed in the 1st place. It wasn't only Catholic majority states that had restrictions on the practice.
I think Right to Life type politicians insincere because I think people elite enough to run and win office tend to fit a demographic that wants abortion legal. Trump, for instance, might run on RTL, but personally? I would not be surprised to learn he's paid for a lot of them.
ITMT, you could be pushing all sorts of crazy laws not meant to take effect as Roe was in place. You got to satisfy your pro-life voters while not really doing anything.
Compare to Immigration. In 1986 they passed an amnesty for those illegally in the US with the promise of real border enforcement. Instead, 20 years later, you had tough talk McCain leading the charge for another Amnesty. After years of tough talk, Trump got elected in large part because he really was going to enforce the borders. McCain would go on to describe the very people he had been cultivating with his promises, the "crazies".

So, yeah, these RTL pols set up all of this stuff but now that it's really about to happen, I'm sure privately many, if not most of them, are scared out of their minds.

Do you think RTL is political poison?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Do you think RTL is political poison?

No, I know how elections work in this country and payed attention to the results of them. The GOP's been working on this as an explicit party platform for longer than I've been alive and will let them shore up red states with "look at those godless liberals over there murdering babies, not like pure <here>". They'll use the federal government to ban it the next time they get anything close to a majority. If '22 goes particularly badly for the Dems, I can see the GOP overriding a veto.

Why is it so goddamned hard to convince people to believe conservatives say what they mean when they have zero history of backing off when they're close to a win, on abortion specifically?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Back me up here @tstorm823, the right wing has been legitimately trying to ban abortions for decades now, yeah? It's not just some extremely long-con bullshit election strategy?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is precisely why pro-choice arguments are built on medical bodily autonomy and pro-life arguments are built on the idea that a fetus is ultimately a human child at it's earliest and most vulnerable stage of development. Supporting abortion is just saying that the mother has a unique right to utterly back out of that expectation, so long as she takes the option early enough.

"Unique" in the sense that it's fairly rare for a dude to be gestating a fetus against their will, sure.

 

[SilentPony]

Citations needed.

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. You contest nothing, you didn't want/know the baby, maybe the mother raped you or something like that. No fathering, no visitation, no nothing.

 

[gorfias]

No, I know how elections work in this country and payed attention to the results of them. The GOP's been working on this as an explicit party platform for longer than I've been alive and will let them shore up red states with "look at those godless liberals over there murdering babies, not like pure <here>". They'll use the federal government to ban it the next time they get anything close to a majority. If '22 goes particularly badly for the Dems, I can see the GOP overriding a veto.

Why is it so goddamned hard to convince people to believe conservatives say what they mean when they have zero history of backing off when they're close to a win, on abortion specifically?

I think, with lots of judges appointed by RTL pols, Roe has stood for 50 years. So the promises of RTL pols ring really hollow.
Yet now, we really may be on the verge of over-turning Roe. I predict those that go to far on restrictions will be punished at the polls. If Dems do not lose badly in 2020, I think that proves my point. If they do? I think you have the point.

 

[Agema]

No, I know how elections work in this country and payed attention to the results of them. The GOP's been working on this as an explicit party platform for longer than I've been alive and will let them shore up red states with "look at those godless liberals over there murdering babies, not like pure <here>". They'll use the federal government to ban it the next time they get anything close to a majority. If '22 goes particularly badly for the Dems, I can see the GOP overriding a veto.

No, I don't think GOP will dare ban abortion at a federal level.

The key is that banning abortion keeps core voters sweet in lots of red states, but everywhere else it's somewhere between an electoral liability and catastrophe.

 

[SilentPony]

No, I don't think GOP will dare ban abortion at a federal level.

The key is that banning abortion keeps core voters sweet in lots of red states, but everywhere else it's somewhere between an electoral liability and catastrophe.

Yes and no. This is the Frankenstein's monster that gets lose scenario all over again. The GOP didn't actually think Trump would win in 2016, he was just a useful idiot for marketing and fund raising. But then he won and his make Mexico pay for the wall was suddenly presidential policy.

Some dingbat cultist like Amy Barret is a true believer, that her mission on this earth by God is to end abortion. She wasn't smart enough to get the memo on "Abortion is just a tool to get the Evangelicals to vote". The GOP has created the perfect storm of shitty bed fellows and true believers that Abortion could become federally illegal, because they kept pushing one more step. They never actually cared, they were only using people who do for their money and votes. But those believers eventually became lawyers, judges, elected to office. Those people do think this whole thing was about abortion and are determined to end it.

 

[tstorm823]

Back me up here @tstorm823, the right wing has been legitimately trying to ban abortions for decades now, yeah? It's not just some extremely long-con bullshit election strategy?

Catholics have been legitimately trying to ban abortion for millenia, so you can rest assured that some on the right are genuinely in for it, myself included.

On the other hand, if you ask me, the real issue that turned the Bible Belt red is abortion, and I suspect there are politicians savvy enough to realize that and heartless enough to milk it. So there are probably Republican politicians with a vested interest in not banning abortion so that they can run on banning abortion.

Overall, I'd guess it's a mixed bag.

No, I don't think GOP will dare ban abortion at a federal level.

The key is that banning abortion keeps core voters sweet in lots of red states, but everywhere else it's somewhere between an electoral liability and catastrophe.

Banning abortion at the federal level isn't a thing that makes sense within the established constitutional framework. Like, most murder isn't a federal crime, so even with abortion treated as murder, why would all abortions be federal crimes? I think it would actually take an amendment to make a federal abortion ban with any chance at enforcement, and if such a thing would ever become possible to pass, the point is already moot as the states will all have banned it themselves.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

1) Lotta head in the sand, "Gee Whiz, giving power to foreign, remote, centralized authorities who are unaccountable, unelected people is just going to work out so well in the long run!" thinking. Absurd. BTW: The Left's current adoration of big corporations and censorship, I think, is going to backfire on them big time as well.

Can you explain how the justices of the supreme court are "foreign?"

Also, while they are un-elected, Supreme Court Justices are appointed by a sitting president, who was elected, and confirmed by the senate, who are also all elected. This is the exact same level of obfuscation as any law which you don't vote for directly, but which was created by elected officials.

If you have a problem with Supreme Court justices interpreting laws because they aren't directly elected you should also have a problem with legislators creating laws without allowing you to directly vote for each law.

 

[SilentPony]

Catholics have been legitimately trying to ban abortion for millenia, so you can rest assured that some on the right are genuinely in for it, myself included.

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.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

But you know...I went to 12 years of Catholic school, so its just cheating to have read the Bible.

American evangelicals are too busy thumping the Bible at the rest of us to actually read it.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

I just want to point out that this is acceptable for the man to do this.

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 forcee upon her.

It makes about as much sense as the pro-life crowd