Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Lucidus]

(06-26-2022, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't go anywhere, I literally read what you wrote regarding men vs. women. 

I said nothing about men vs. women in the original post you responded to. You interpreted as such. I'm not responsible for your insertion of gender into a post about biological reproduction.

Quote:So, you admit your statement that prompted my response was inaccurate and denied the existence of transgender men.

Again, you introduced gender into the conversation, when gender has nothing to do with biological reproduction.

Quote:I concur.  Except that's not what you said.  I understand completely, it's you who appears confused.

Yet again, I spoke of biological reproduction and you chose to interpret that as gender related.

Quote:What an obvious case of projection.  I'll repost your own words, again.

There is no way to interpret your response outside of men are not "required" to deal with the three things you mentioned, because that's literally what you said.  This completely denies the existence and lived experience of transgender men.  Hence I called you out on it.  Now, if your mistake was inadvertent, simply say so, apologize and we'll move on.  I will certainly take you at your word that you made an inadvertent error.  But kindly quit trying to deflect the blame for your statement on to me.

The only way to interpret "one" as "men" is to confuse biological reproduction with gender. "One" refers to anyone possessing the ability to become pregnant. They could be men or women. Again, it's not my issue that you chose to assign gender.

Perhaps this will help, by making extremely simple:

Group A contains all people that possess the biological means to become pregnant.
Group B contains all people that don't possess the biological means to become pregnant.
Groups A and B are comprised of both men and women, both cis and trans.
Group A is more directly [physically, mentally and emotionally] affected than Group B.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2022, 04:03 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I said nothing about men vs. women in the original post you responded to. You interpreted as such. I'm not responsible for your insertion of gender into a post about biological reproduction.


Again, you introduced gender into the conversation, when gender has nothing to do with biological reproduction.


Yet again, I spoke of biological reproduction and you chose to interpret that as gender related.


The only way to interpret "one" as "men" is to confuse biological reproduction with gender. "One" refers to anyone possessing the ability to become pregnant. They could be men or women. Again, it's not my issue that you chose to assign gender.

Perhaps this will help, by making extremely simple:

Group A contains all people that possess the biological means to become pregnant.
Group B contains all people that don't possess the biological means to become pregnant.
Groups A and B are comprised of both men and women, both cis and trans.
Group A is more directly [physically, mentally and emotionally] affected than Group B.

And with this steamer of a post you've officially entered nonsensical bullshit territory.  I would think a person who states they pride themselves on making logic based arguments would simply own their error like an adult and move on instead of trying to worm their way out of it.  Thank you for the insight into your true personality.

[Lucidus]

(06-26-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And with this steamer of a post you've officially entered nonsensical bullshit territory.  I would think a person who states they pride themselves on making logic based arguments would simply own their error like an adult and move on instead of trying to worm their way out of it.  Thank you for the insight into your true personality.

At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not an honest interlocutor.

You have refused to acknowledge that you inserted gender needlessly, then employed the "I'm not saying it, it's just what I read" excuse. I've attempted to reduce it to a level that is extremely easy understand, yet you still pretend to be unaware of the differences between between biological reproduction and gender. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2022, 05:04 PM)Lucidus Wrote: At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not an honest interlocutor.

You have refused to acknowledge that you inserted gender needlessly, then employed the "I'm not saying it, it's just what I read" excuse. I've attempted to reduce it to a level that is extremely easy understand, yet you still pretend to be unaware of the differences between between biological reproduction and gender. 

Dude, your entire line of response in this discussion has been the internet equivalent of saying "nuh uh".  You are, once again projecting your own inadequacies unto others.  I'll leave it to anyone else reading to draw their own conclusions, and I do so with confidence that very few would fall four your particular line of prevarication.  

[Lucidus]

(06-26-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, your entire line of response in this discussion has been the internet equivalent of saying "nuh uh".  You are, once again projecting your own inadequacies unto others.  I'll leave it to anyone else reading to draw their own conclusions, and I do so with confidence that very few would fall four your particular line of prevarication.  

You have not been an honest interlocutor in our exchange, which is apparent from the very first accusation of transphobia.

I will leave it there and bid you good day. Cheers.

[M.W.]

(06-24-2022, 04:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Right but he's postulating that people who voted democrat to preserve roe v wade might switch to voting republican now that republicans overturned it against their will. 

Just seems like an odd mindset.  

it is insanity.

[M.W.]

(06-24-2022, 05:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It is pretty interesting and it really mocks our feel-good democratic narrative.

You want your voices heard?  Get out there and vote!

Ok, and the votes are in and the person who gets to pick the next 3 SC justices is...........the guy who lost by 3 million votes!  Thanks for playing!

100% true!

[basballguy]

(06-26-2022, 05:04 PM)Lucidus Wrote: At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not an honest interlocutor.

You have refused to acknowledge that you inserted gender needlessly, then employed the "I'm not saying it, it's just what I read" excuse. I've attempted to reduce it to a level that is extremely easy understand, yet you still pretend to be unaware of the differences between between biological reproduction and gender. 

Insulting someone because you lost an argument. You’re cool.

[PDub80]

(06-26-2022, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Roe was not on firm ground.  It was a major stretch trying to cover abortion under the 14th's right to privacy.  I am far from the only person here who thinks so.  I get not liking the ruling, I don't like the ruling, but if you're trying to be at all objective then Roe being overturned is not judicial overreach or activism.  In fact, it's much easier to make both those arguments against the original Roe ruling.  I get that people are very emotional right now, but this was not a poorly supported decision.

This is 100% correct. In Roe v Wade, the court used Griswold vs Connecticut, which was about right to privacy in one's own home and with their own body in relation to an old, moronic, Connecticut law that said people were NOT allowed to use contraceptives AT ALL... and then the court made a loooooong stretch to tie that into federal abortion via Roe v Wade.

However, overturning Roe v Wade has a slippery slope compenent that is already a possibility. Justice Thomas has already come out and said the court will be reviewing other rulings that were based off of Griswold v Connecticut.

THAT is NOT good, IMO.

I am an empathetic person and try to listen to and understand the great many sides to this topic. It's an incredibly polarizing topic.

[*pally*]

It actually isn’t complex. In a country that claims as its hallmark “freedom and liberty for all”. You have neither if you do not have body autonomy. The 9th amendment which has been forgotten by Justice Alito says that the people retain rights not specified in the constitution. Abortion was legal up until quickening or first movement in all 13 states at the time of ratification of the Constitution.
But hey, if we are supposed to rule this country based on 18th century beliefs and knowledge then let’s by start only allowing weapons available at the time. And of course, they must be owned by persons who actually participate in a well-regulated militia.
It is amazing that these so-called originalists take the most conservative view of the various amendment…except for the 2nd and religion clause of the 1st. With those 2, they are downright making things up as they go.

[BoomerFan]

(06-27-2022, 02:24 AM)pally Wrote: It actually isn’t complex.  In a country that claims as its hallmark “freedom and liberty for all”. You have neither if you do not have body autonomy.  

I don't support what the SCOTUS has done and think the argument of trying to make better law is undercut by some of Justice Thomas's comments but your argument has two major failings. One, you've created a false dichotomy. There can still be civil liberties despite this ruling even in states that will/have outlawed abortion. And two, the opposition's argument is that there can be neither freedom nor liberty for all if human children are being murdered. Do I personally believe life begins at conception? No I think we're talking about a bunch of cells. It might be difficult to say exactly where the line is that those cells can feel something to the point we have some moral obligation to them but the third trimester makes sense. 

The problem with the 9th is people will claim that anything is a right. Or you have to resolve issues of two rights at odds with each other. I would say there is a natural right to privacy, but right is limited by others' right to live. States can and do make laws regarding things that might be natural rights if they aren't codified in the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS. 

I am with you on your reading of the 2nd though. 

I will also say, I am disgusted by message boards (specifically parts of reddit) where people are openly endorsing a violent response to this ruling (and the mods do nothing). I mean, it is predictable that this would only inflame the culture war but still it is toxic and childish and of course someone innocent will end up being harmed. That's how it is with all wars. 

It is also worth noting that this isn't the 1970s anymore. There are a lot of forms of birth control, many less intrusive than at that time. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of abortions (as a percentage of population) is declining anyways.

[*pally*]

(06-27-2022, 07:53 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: I don't support what the SCOTUS has done and think the argument of trying to make better law is undercut by some of Justice Thomas's comments but your argument has two major failings. One, you've created a false dichotomy. There can still be civil liberties despite this ruling even in states that will/have outlawed abortion. And two, the opposition's argument is that there can be neither freedom nor liberty for all if human children are being murdered. Do I personally believe life begins at conception? No I think we're talking about a bunch of cells. It might be difficult to say exactly where the line is that those cells can feel something to the point we have some moral obligation to them but the third trimester makes sense. 

The problem with the 9th is people will claim that anything is a right. Or you have to resolve issues of two rights at odds with each other. I would say there is a natural right to privacy, but right is limited by others' right to live. States can and do make laws regarding things that might be natural rights if they aren't codified in the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS. 

I am with you on your reading of the 2nd though. 

I will also say, I am disgusted by message boards (specifically parts of reddit) where people are openly endorsing a violent response to this ruling (and the mods do nothing). I mean, it is predictable that this would only inflame the culture war but still it is toxic and childish and of course someone innocent will end up being harmed. That's how it is with all wars. 

It is also worth noting that this isn't the 1970s anymore. There are a lot of forms of birth control, many less intrusive than at that time. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of abortions (as a percentage of population) is declining anyways.

If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters.  You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else.  I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman.  Its like she suddenly doesn't matter once she is pregnant even if that pregnancy is against her will or desire.  

Abortion rates have fallen steadily since about 1983.  They fall faster during Democratic presidencies, probably because the economy has been better during those times. 2 things have big impact on pregnancy rates...comprehensive school-based sex education that goes beyond abstinance and easy access to a variety of birth control methods.  Keep in mind that the same right-wing that wanted Roe-v-Wade overturned is going after sex education because they believe parents should do it. Most parents do a lousy job of it. They underestimate the power of teenage hormones.  They can teach morality...let educators deal with the facts. They are also going after several forms of birth control including the very effective IUD and the day-after pill.  They believe that even preventing the implantation of a zygote is abortion.

As I said earlier, abortion will never ever be legislated out of existence.  What they are legislated is the elimination of safe abortions for women who don't have the money or ability to travel.  78% of single mothers already live in poverty.  That number will grow. The number of children in poverty will grow exponentially.  Only 43% of women actually receive child support and even that is often inadequate.  Women will be leaving the workforce because of too expensive or unavailable child care.  

[BoomerFan]

(06-27-2022, 09:30 AM)pally Wrote: If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters.  You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else.  I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman.  

Repeating a false dichotomy does not make it true. 

And if you heard nothing about the rights of the woman in what I wrote, then read my post again. Or to save you time I'll restate the position, the issue is potentially two conflicting rights. One would be the woman's and one the unborn child. There is a strong argument that the latter is a non-entity in the first two trimesters so I'm not defending the position. But I'm not going to strawman it either. Your right to liberty ends where someone else's begins. That is the essentials of the argument. 

[WeezyBengal]

(06-25-2022, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: It is always interesting to see the opinions on abortion from men who will never have to live the actual reality of the impact an unplanned unwanted pregnancy has on a woman. Or the impact of carrying a child who will be born only to quickly die.  Or having to give up everything to take care of a profoundly disabled child. Sure there is some impact on the father but they aren't the one whose entire life and health will change because of a pregnancy.

First of all, you will never ever legislate abortion out of existence.  It has been part of society since women first became pregnant.  What is being done is safe abortion for poor and marginalized women is being outlawed.  It is being outlawed in states with minimal social safety nets, underperforming education systems, and poor records of conviction for crimes against women.  They are condemning another generation of children to poverty, in many cases.  Many of these states don't have the capacity to handle an increase in abandoned healthy children let alone special needs children.  

Women have lost the right to make decisions for themselves concerning their bodies and their families. If you don't understand why women are upset then you are oblivious.  This isn't about just the right to abortion.  And it was done by right-wing extremists on the court pushing their personal religious beliefs on Americans.  All of Trump's judges were chosen by the right-wing Federalist Society.  Gorsuch has a seat McConnell obstructed for a year so it wouldn't be filled by the duly elected President.  Then he changed Senate rules so he would be confirmed.  Justice Kennedy retired under some very unusual circumstances so that Kavanaugh could be nominated.  Kavanaugh had several million dollars in debts cleared up mysteriously (well above his financial means to pay off like they were) with no investigation that should have disqualified him.  But McConnell's rules prevailed again.  And oh yeah let's talk about ramrodding Barrett through with less than a month to election day with voting already underway despite that being the argument McConnell used to block Garland
.  Let's not forget about Thomas whose wife was actively involved in the coup attempt to keep Trump in office.  Thomas has already announced he is after birth control, same-sex marriage, and sexual freedom for consenting adults.  There will be more.  EVERY human being has a right to privacy in their bedroom and doctor's office.  
So now states, like Ohio, with heavily gerrymandered state legislatures have made abortion virtually unobtainable.  What they haven't done is address ANY of the issues that lead to abortion in the first place.  Or to put in any assistance to change things once a child is born.  Ohio minimum wage won't support 1 person let alone a child.  There is no mandatory paid maternity leave.  Minimal help for daycare, and early childhood education. Medicaid is restricted.  There are NO new laws forcing child support payments from the time of conception, and no life insurance in case of miscarriage.  No rules spelling out the paternal responsibility.  Nope, the entire burden is on the woman.  

There is more to being pro-life than being pro-birth but frankly, that is where it stops for most of that movement.  They look at you blankly when after birth is brought up.  They are all pro-adoption, which is unaffordable for many, only if these babies go to good "Christian" homes of course.  Adopted children have demons of their own.  There is a very real mental health issue surrounding the feeling of abandonment from birth parents and detachment from adopted parents.  No help with mental health care either from the pro-life crowd.

I am proudly pro-LIFE but this is not the way to end abortion. It is a way to alienate a large part of the population though.  It is a poorly written decision that will have unforeseen profound repercussions.  We are headed toward rule by a Christian Taliban.  We are dangerously close already in far too many states.  Sadly though they have already taken over the Supreme Court.

As a Christian (and someone who leans pro choice and is against what happened with overturning Roe vs. Wade) this statement frustrates me (and I'm not even sure who the frustration is aimed at, to be honest). 

Just because someone is pro life doesn't make them Christian and vice versa. Being pro life wasn't written in stone by Christians, its an ideal that Christians believe in but not one that they COMPLETELY own. 

I guess I am just a little frustrated how some people out there are attacking Christianity over this and looking at Christianity as the singular focus of why this happened.

[*pally*]

(06-27-2022, 09:41 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Repeating a false dichotomy does not make it true. 

And if you heard nothing about the rights of the woman in what I wrote, then read my post again. Or to save you time I'll restate the position, the issue is potentially two conflicting rights. One would be the woman's and one the unborn child. There is a strong argument that the latter is a non-entity in the first two trimesters so I'm not defending the position. But I'm not going to strawman it either. Your right to liberty ends where someone else's begins. That is the essentials of the argument. 

what other rights do the unborn possess?  If the mother miscarried there would not even be a death certificate because under most state laws a miscarried pregnancy isn't a person.  You can't take out life insurance on a fetus.  You can't collect child support on a fetus.  A person who kills a fetus while committing a crime will only be charged with its death after viability.  I can't get a deduction on my taxes because of a pregnancy.  Justice Alito said if a right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right.  Preborn personhood isn't in the constitution nor is it considered a historic norm.  

So tell me, what rights does this unborn have?

[GMDino]

Including some posts for context...wait for it.

(06-26-2022, 02:29 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Please explain your response without shifting the blame to something you saw and copied from Reddit. 

In the post you claimed was transphobic, the content addressed the realities of biological reproduction. At no point was gender mentioned. That's where you allowed your mind to go. It's telling that your first instinct was to pervert the topic in such a manner. 

I'm a homosexual and activist who's an avid supporter, defender and member of the LGBTQIAS2+ community. I have to deal with "veiled bigotry" by means of projection or misdirection all the time, so I'm sure you can understand why I find your explanation rather curious, to say the least.

(06-26-2022, 02:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a hard time understanding how you could be confused.  I've been told, numerous times, that men can get pregnant, have periods, etc.

You stated, in relation to men vs. women that;

One isn't required to undergo physical, hormonal and emotional changes to bring forth life.

One isn't required to endure pain, severe discomfort or various medical issues to bring forth life.

One isn't required to potentially be forced against their will and autonomy to bring forth life. 

This is denying that there are, indeed, men who have to go through all of that.  If you have an issue with my response to your transphobia then kindly take it up with the transgendered community, I am merely echoing their statements on this subject.  Maybe you're not the ally you thought you were?

(06-26-2022, 04:03 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I said nothing about men vs. women in the original post you responded to. You interpreted as such. I'm not responsible for your insertion of gender into a post about biological reproduction.


Again, you introduced gender into the conversation, when gender has nothing to do with biological reproduction.


Yet again, I spoke of biological reproduction and you chose to interpret that as gender related.


The only way to interpret "one" as "men" is to confuse biological reproduction with gender. "One" refers to anyone possessing the ability to become pregnant. They could be men or women. Again, it's not my issue that you chose to assign gender.

Perhaps this will help, by making extremely simple:

Group A contains all people that possess the biological means to become pregnant.
Group B contains all people that don't possess the biological means to become pregnant.
Groups A and B are comprised of both men and women, both cis and trans.
Group A is more directly [physically, mentally and emotionally] affected than Group B.

(06-26-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And with this steamer of a post you've officially entered nonsensical bullshit territory.  I would think a person who states they pride themselves on making logic based arguments would simply own their error like an adult and move on instead of trying to worm their way out of it.  Thank you for the insight into your true personality.

(06-26-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, your entire line of response in this discussion has been the internet equivalent of saying "nuh uh".  You are, once again projecting your own inadequacies unto others.  I'll leave it to anyone else reading to draw their own conclusions, and I do so with confidence that very few would fall four your particular line of prevarication.  

So anyway...

(06-27-2022, 12:09 AM)basballguy Wrote: Insulting someone because you lost an argument.  You’re cool.

Yeah but not who you think.  

Lucidus had his post "refuted" by inserting something he never said and being called a "transphobe".  He respectfully tried to figure out how SSF got that and then restated his point to clarify only to be insulted on a personal level.

That happens a good bit around here.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2022, 09:30 AM)pally Wrote: If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters.  You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else.  I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman.  Its like she suddenly doesn't matter once she is pregnant even if that pregnancy is against her will or desire.  

Abortion rates have fallen steadily since about 1983.  They fall faster during Democratic presidencies, probably because the economy has been better during those times. 2 things have big impact on pregnancy rates...comprehensive school-based sex education that goes beyond abstinance and easy access to a variety of birth control methods.  Keep in mind that the same right-wing that wanted Roe-v-Wade overturned is going after sex education because they believe parents should do it. Most parents do a lousy job of it. They underestimate the power of teenage hormones.  They can teach morality...let educators deal with the facts. They are also going after several forms of birth control including the very effective IUD and the day-after pill.  They believe that even preventing the implantation of a zygote is abortion.

As I said earlier, abortion will never ever be legislated out of existence.  What they are legislated is the elimination of safe abortions for women who don't have the money or ability to travel.  78% of single mothers already live in poverty.  That number will grow. The number of children in poverty will grow exponentially.  Only 43% of women actually receive child support and even that is often inadequate.  Women will be leaving the workforce because of too expensive or unavailable child care.  

Well that autonomy is removed at some point in the pregnancy even under Roe.

And I would check that 78% of single mothers live in poverty.  That seems pretty high.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 10:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Including some posts for context...wait for it.






So anyway...


Yeah but not who you think.  

Lucidus had his post "refuted" by inserting something he never said and being called a "transphobe".  He respectfully tried to figure out how SSF got that and then restated his point to clarify only to be insulted on a personal level.

That happens a good bit around here.

And here I was being nice and civil to you since your return.  But you just couldn't help yourself and had white knight a dude who got caught up in his own wording and refused to own it.  I explained his statement numerous times, and all I got was "nuh uh" in response.  Odd that you would defend that.  On second thought, no it isn't.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 01:10 AM)PDub80 Wrote: This is 100% correct. In Roe v Wade, the court used Griswold vs Connecticut, which was about right to privacy in one's own home and with their own body in relation to an old, moronic, Connecticut law that said people were NOT allowed to use contraceptives AT ALL... and then the court made a loooooong stretch to tie that into federal abortion via Roe v Wade.

However, overturning Roe v Wade has a slippery slope compenent that is already a possibility. Justice Thomas has already come out and said the court will be reviewing other rulings that were based off of Griswold v Connecticut.

THAT is NOT good, IMO.

I am an empathetic person and try to listen to and understand the great many sides to this topic. It's an incredibly polarizing topic.

Yeah, I share some of those same concerns.  But, as I stated earlier Roe was on much shakier ground than other decisions, such as same sex marriage.  I suppose the cases they accept for their next term will tell us something in this regard.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I share some of those same concerns.  But, as I stated earlier Roe was on much shakier ground than other decisions, such as same sex marriage.  I suppose the cases they accept for their next term will tell us something in this regard.

I hear ya, it's just hard to have much confidence in the strength of any positions now. A president with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent won and appointed 3 SC justices who were instrumental in doing something that has an amount of bipartisan disdain rarely seen in this climate. 

I'd put on my tinfoil hat and wonder why overturning something both sides have anything close to agreement upon was so damn important. Add in that the Trump justices were blatantly lying about their intentions to do so and, well...hard not to assume we are sliding down a slope. 

Plus people can be pissed about this, but the GOP can still clean house in the midterms and further show that unlike Dee Snyder, we are gonna take it.