Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[jamil]

View attachment 209367

Not a straw man. You didn't really say what part you stood by. If the thing you're standing by isn't a justification in calling her a whore, then I'm simply mistaken about what that referred to. I mean. If you're standing by her apparent lack of math skills I have no disagreement there. Math is hard.

But if it's about the whore thing, you'd have to infer some thing from the photo that aren't apparent. What I can reasonably infer from the photo relevant to this discussion are:

* that she is obviously not in favor of the court's opinion, evidenced by the fact that she's there with a sign.
* she doesn't think it's anyone else's business, including the government's, if women get abortions.
* she is math challenged.
* she's not gonna **** that simp behind her no matter how much he signals his support for her.

Some things I don't think are reasonable to infer:
* that she's ever had an abortion. Supporting a right to abortion doesn't imply she's had one.
* that she's a whore. We don't know how she earns money. She may be rich from daddy's trust fund. We don't know if she's unmarried, or otherwise is having sex outside of marriage. There's no indication that she is married. Or is having an affair if she is.
* that she's irresponsible with sex. There's no indication from the photo that she doesn't use birth control, or that if she did get pregnant, that it wouldn't be intentional.

So if what you stand by is not calling her a whore because of that photo, then that's my mistake, not a strawman.

 

[BugI02]

My complaint is that in the proposed bill, that medical exception does not seem to be in the new code post-HB1282. I, like many on here, think overturning Roe was the correct legal decision. I'm certainly not opposed to people being responsible for the consequences of their actions. We should all be concerned for these (quite rare) exceptions, in my opinion.

To try to write a law to encompass all personal exceptions and edge cases is the way to madness and invites all sorts of legal shenanigans in an attempt to weaken the law or end run around it

IMO opinion, the proper method is to write a simple, unambiguous law and then allow the rare cases to petition for judicial relief. I feel the same way about the 30 or 40 80 year old black grandmothers who don't drive and seem unable to otherwise obtain photo ID. You don't distort the entire system in order to accommodate the few who aren't a good fit, you entertain those cases to supply individual and not blanket relief

 

[BugI02]

If the law doesn't make exception for that case, and no one seems to have a problem that, then you've got more of an extreme radical problem than you realized.

With all of the slippery slope arguments regarding gun control on this forum, it's hard to believe that some people can't see what a worrying number of theologically driven extremists really want...

Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control - Stateline

Last year, conservative Republicans in the Missouri legislature took a run at blocking Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, a frequent and prominent target of anti-abortion activists and politicians. But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their...

www.pewtrusts.org

Sigh. If we don't like gun control measures in NYC, or CHI or SFO, there is no relief, your only option is to move to a free-er state or **** it

Perhaps if a progressive's current home state is 'too much of a theocracy' (read: cleaves to judo-christian tradition on moral issues) they should consider the same options, rather than us having to listen to arguments that feel that some indeterminate few will be inconvenienced. Abortion is not illegal everywhere, unfortunately. They should move - although I expect if strict controls on abortion is shown to drive out progressives, they may be adopted more widely than otherwise might be true

 

[Cameramonkey]

Personally, I don't think we should castrate him - I think execution of the variant of his choice is more appropriate (in another recent SC decision, they recognized the right of death row prisoners to request a method of execution).

I prefer one of two methods for this scenario:

Raping a minor: Into a woodchipper head first.

Impregnating a minor: into a woodchipper FEET first. VERY slowly.

 

[BugI02]

Women ( not all women) have used sex as a commodity since the beginning of time. There's a pretty good chance that most of us have been a part of such .

This^^^

If you think the 'sex strike' by the sexually undesirable is some new idea, perhaps look up Lysistrata and when it was written - and seeking to withhold sex for political purposes is ABSOLUTELY treating it as a commodity rather than anything involving love

 

[jamil]

Women ( not all women) have used sex as a commodity since the beginning of time. There's a pretty good chance that most of us have been a part of such .

Yes. Women don't have physical power (mostly), so they use what power they have over the people who do have physical power. Men want sex. So women can use that to get what they want from men, even the men they're married to. Men trade the use of their physical power and whatever appeal that has, in trade for sex. So a diamond ring for getting into her pants. Like you say, not all sexual relationships are built on that dynamic, but many are.

While you could say that's a form of whoring on the woman's part, that transaction between men and women is so ubiquitous that I'd rather call it a natural transaction of human nature. So for the attractive females, and the physically/economically powerful males, they have to override it. For ugly women and the not so physically/economically powerful males, they don't have to override that instinctive transaction because it's not as available for them. That helps in other areas too. It's harder to cheat if you're ugly and broke.

 

[JEBland]

I prefer one of two methods for this scenario:
Raping a minor: Into a woodchipper head first.
Impregnating a minor: into a woodchipper FEET first. VERY slowly.

While I agree with the sentiment, it's not constitutional. I think we can make the case for capital punishment, but we don't need to take joy in actually doing it.

To try to write a law to encompass all personal exceptions and edge cases is the way to madness and invites all sorts of legal shenanigans in an attempt to weaken the law or end run around it

IMO opinion, the proper method is to write a simple, unambiguous law and then allow the rare cases to petition for judicial relief. I feel the same way about the 30 or 40 80 year old black grandmothers who don't drive and seem unable to otherwise obtain photo ID. You don't distort the entire system in order to accommodate the few who aren't a good fit, you entertain those cases to supply individual and not blanket relief

Judicial relief takes time and resources and opens the door to abuse the other way. We already know those cases like the life of the mother exception, so why wouldn't we put those into the legislation? Fixing overly broad legislation with the judiciary is just an excuse for bad legislation. I take your point given the number of young people "with glaucoma who need medical marijuana," there are obvious issues both directions - personally, I'd rather hold the doctors who lie to "prescribe medical treatments" that skirt the law accountable by introducing according criminal charges.
I agree on the ID issue; we could totally fix that by providing say, a free day of public transportation each quarter just to ensure people have access to get to the BMV for a state-issued ID as just one idea offhand (I also think state-issued IDs, but not driver's licenses, should be tax funded). Okay, back to the topic on hand.
Abortion in the life of the mother exception (which as Chip pointed out could very well extend to the poor 10 year old girl being discussed) would prevent additional unnecessary legislation & judiciary action. Lastly, if we also consider the optics of it, it makes conservatives look like loons by saying "we don't care it women die even when the pregnancy isn't feasible." It's just asking for the pendulum to swing too far in the wrong direction.

 

[chipbennett]

If the law doesn't make exception for that case, and no one seems to have a problem that, then you've got more of an extreme radical problem than you realized.

With all of the slippery slope arguments regarding gun control on this forum, it's hard to believe that some people can't see what a worrying number of theologically driven extremists really want...

Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control - Stateline

Last year, conservative Republicans in the Missouri legislature took a run at blocking Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, a frequent and prominent target of anti-abortion activists and politicians. But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their...

www.pewtrusts.org

On the one hand, this sort of thing is the reason that I think it prudent to take the time to ensure that Indiana legislators craft the correct bill, not merely rush through the fastest bill.

And one the other hand, I am not quite so concerned about the "slippery slope" issue here, when - again - over 98% of abortions are currently performed for purely elective reasons. (Even rape and incest fall into the approximately 1.5% of all other reasons for abortion.)

That article appears to be mostly fear-mongering. Let me know when such legislation actually gets passed, in any state. Thus far, even Missouri couldn't get it passed.

 

[chipbennett]

If they're both equally wrong, what's the equivalent to "whore" that you guys call the dudes? I haven't heard that term yet. It would be interesting to know.

I think you guys are holding women to your standards. Or probably more accurately, you're holding them to the standards of your belief system. I'm pretty sure they don't believe that they're devaluing themselves at all. I don't think they think of sex as "giving it away", at least not completely in those terms.

It's not as if the only reason women have sex at all is for the express enjoyment for the dude. I'm not a woman, so I can't be 101% certain but I'm pretty sure the science is solid that women like to *** too. Women do use sex, but that has little to do with whether they're married or not.

Women use sex to influence men. Men use money, prestige, power, to influence women. Marriage doesn't matter in that regard. And I'm not saying I think sex outside of marriage is benign. People should reserve sex for someone they have a long term commitment with.

I just think that calling the women who end up with unwanted pregnancies, whores, is not right. It implies the father has no responsibility at all, and especially, seems as though you guys have utter contempt for the people you think are caught up in sin. It's one thing to joke about it. And I get that. I joke as much as anyone about stuff like that. But the defense I hear for calling them whores isn't that it's just a joke. The contempt looks real to me.

What's wrong with "manwhore" - or just "whore"?

 

[jamil]

While I agree with the sentiment, it's not constitutional. I think we can make the case for capital punishment, but we don't need to take joy in actually doing it.

Okay. Maybe a compromise. Dad gets to choose the punishment?

Judicial relief takes time and resources and opens the door to abuse the other way. We already know those cases like the life of the mother exception, so why wouldn't we put those into the legislation? Fixing overly broad legislation with the judiciary is just an excuse for bad legislation. I take your point given the number of young people "with glaucoma who need medical marijuana," there are obvious issues both directions - personally, I'd rather hold the doctors who lie to "prescribe medical treatments" that skirt the law accountable by introducing according criminal charges.
I agree on the ID issue; we could totally fix that by providing say, a free day of public transportation each quarter just to ensure people have access to get to the BMV for a state-issued ID as just one idea offhand (I also think state-issued IDs, but not driver's licenses, should be tax funded). Okay, back to the topic on hand.
Abortion in the life of the mother exception (which as Chip pointed out could very well extend to the poor 10 year old girl being discussed) would prevent additional unnecessary legislation & judiciary action. Lastly, if we also consider the optics of it, it makes conservatives look like loons by saying "we don't care it women die even when the pregnancy isn't feasible." It's just asking for the pendulum to swing too far in the wrong direction.

I think there are enough clear-cut exceptions evident to write those into law. I think it becomes obvious when that starts to get into the weeds though. At some point things get too finely defined that it's gonna take judicial review just to figure out what the law is.

 

[ditcherman]

If the law doesn't make exception for that case, and no one seems to have a problem that, then you've got more of an extreme radical problem than you realized.

With all of the slippery slope arguments regarding gun control on this forum, it's hard to believe that some people can't see what a worrying number of theologically driven extremists really want...

Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control - Stateline

Last year, conservative Republicans in the Missouri legislature took a run at blocking Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, a frequent and prominent target of anti-abortion activists and politicians. But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their...

www.pewtrusts.org

We both know there is a lot of fear porn involved in both arguments, abortion “rights” and gun control.
And what happens is the worst of the slippery slope arguments usually don’t come to pass, given time. That’s the hard part, no one wants to give it time.

Concerning your theological extremists worries, most of the people I associate with would want exceptions. I know my sample size means nothing to you, but it means at least as much as the fear pornmongers.

 

[jamil]

What's wrong with "manwhore" - or just "whore"?

What's wrong with minding our own business and not having to call them any names? I think on a case by case basis, one could reasonably call them irresponsible. Calling either the women or men who unintentionally cause a pregnancy whore, or some "whore" derivative is completely unnecessary. If you have to judge every individual for all the things you don't approve of, at least make it accurate.

 

[ditcherman]

Concerning exceptions, fertility clinics are cautioning their patients that procedures such as in-virtro fertilization may be outlawed if a total abortion ban is adopted.
That doesn’t seem logical to me, I’m one for some exceptions.

 

[JEBland]

Okay. Maybe a compromise. Dad gets to choose the punishment?

Again, I like the idea. I genuinely don't have an inherent moral objection to it.... but we're limited to constitutionally allowable punishments.

I think there are enough clear-cut exceptions evident to write those into law. I think it becomes obvious when that starts to get into the weeds though. At some point things get too finely defined that it's gonna take judicial review just to figure out what the law is.

Agreed, but the legislation should narrow that uncertainty window. Where exactly is the line will be narrowed bit by bit. Purposefully having a vague window when we already know some of the borders seems to be bad legislation to me. It will also provide guidance on judicial review so that there isn't as great a capacity to legislate from the bench.

 

[JEBland]

Concerning exceptions, fertility clinics are cautioning their patients that procedures such as in-virtro fertilization may be outlawed if a total abortion ban is adopted.
That doesn’t seem logical to me, I’m one for some exceptions.

As I understand it, this is because they fertilize several eggs at once, and rely on some fraction of those not taking and attaching to the uterine wall. If there are too many successful fertilized eggs, it can then endanger the mother (which again, could fall into the main category of exceptions that nearly all of INGO including us right-wingers agree to), so they do a selective process to remove some but not all fertilized eggs.

 

[Ark]

So ****ing irresponsibly is all on the woman? She’s the ho, and the dude is simply lucky?

Men literally get arrested and taken to prison if they walk away from their child support responsibility, and get exactly zero legal say in whether the child is kept.

 

[Creedmoor]

View attachment 209341

Seems to me in the last 38 years, Republicans have had a much greater impact on my familys don'ts and can not's than Democrats.
And it seems to be accelerating.

 

[ditcherman]

Seems to me in the last 38 years, Republicans have had a much greater impact on my familys don'ts and can not's than Democrats.
And it seems to be accelerating.

Haha tell that to the 63,459,781 dead babies.

 

[Creedmoor]

Oh. And that all the women who have unwanted pregnancies bear all the responsibility for that, that they’re all whores, and that the men who impregnated them have zero responsibility, and should just be looked at as lucky studs.

Those are the ones that cry with payroll deduction happens when 'That Whore' keeps the bastard child and eventually sues for child support that was 18 months behind.

 

[chipbennett]

What's wrong with minding our own business and not having to call them any names? I think on a case by case basis, one could reasonably call them irresponsible. Calling either the women or men who unintentionally cause a pregnancy whore, or some "whore" derivative is completely unnecessary. If you have to judge every individual for all the things you don't approve of, at least make it accurate.

That's a bit of a non sequitur, isn't it? The original complaint was that women who engage in certain behaviors are called "whores", while the men who co-equally engage in those behaviors are not similarly described. I'm merely stating that any description applies to both parties, equally.

Personally, I don't call anyone such (or any other) names. People are free to engage in whatever consenting, lawful activities they choose. I only insist that they take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions and actions.