Abortion

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,594 comments
  • 121,863 views
TexRex
Not human. Vermin. Parasites whose singular purpose for existence is to deny individual sovereignty and to cause pain and suffering to members of disfavored groups.
Click to expand...

My initial thought on this is that it's not constructive and just vilifies people that honestly think they're doing the right thing - regardless of how misguided. You might have more of a point than I assumed at first glance though.

It is the nature of the abortion "debate" to cast both sides as monsters. And there is some reasonable underpinning behind that. On the one hand, you have people who are attempting to trample the rights to bodily autonomy of women, and even in some cases violate their right to life by preventing them (via force) from getting the medical care they need to survive. This kind of human rights violation should directly correspond to a criminal act. Rights must be reciprocal, so attempting (or succeeding) in violating the rights of these women should result in a corresponding loss of rights for the people that attempt this. If Abbott signs into law an abortion ban that causes women to die, Abbott has committed murder, intentionally.

On the other side, pro-life folks accuse the people that legalize and perform abortions of the same thing - murder. And they not only advocate for that direct criminal charge, but in some cases they go vigilante and attempt to carry out executions on their own at abortion clinics. They would probably say the same thing about the Colorado governor that I just said about Abbott. That he is a murderer.

Hard to ratchet down from these kinds of conclusions. There are some real differences though. One side in this debate knows, fully, that they are violating the rights of innocent people - and they justify this. The other side denies advocating that any innocent people have their rights violated.

The first bit - that one side knows they're violating rights - probably needs a little unpacking. They argue that it is justifiable that women lose certain rights in favor of the unborn. And they have various justifications for this. But each of those justifications breaks the reciprocal relationship of human rights. It ultimately, always, comes down to pregnancy resulting in enslavement in favor of a preferred group (the unborn). And regardless of whether you consider this group to have a right to life, you know you're violating the rights of women to achieve this outcome. It is criminal behavior*, even if you take it on its own terms. At best it is voting for others to carry out criminal behavior on one's behalf.

If someone is willing to force people to die or become enslaved, one has no logical basis expect better than this for themselves.

*from the perspective of rights
 
Last edited:
Danoff
My initial thought on this is that it's not constructive and just vilifies people that honestly think they're doing the right thing - regardless of how misguided. You might have more of a point than I assumed at first glance though.

It is the nature of the abortion "debate" to cast both sides as monsters. And there is some reasonable underpinning behind that. On the one hand, you have people who are attempting to trample the rights to bodily autonomy of women, and even in some cases violate their right to life by preventing them (via force) from getting the medical care they need to survive. This kind of human rights violation should directly correspond to a criminal act. Rights must be reciprocal, so attempting (or succeeding) in violating the rights of these women should result in a corresponding loss of rights for the people that attempt this. If Abbott signs into law an abortion ban that causes women to die, Abbott has committed murder, intentionally.

On the other side, pro-life folks accuse the people that legalize and perform abortions of the same thing - murder. And they not only advocate for that direct criminal charge, but in some cases they go vigilante and attempt to carry out executions on their own at abortion clinics. They would probably say the same thing about the Colorado governor that I just said about Abbott. That he is a murderer.

Hard to ratchet down from these kinds of conclusions. There are some real differences though. One side in this debate knows, fully, that they are violating the rights of innocent people - and they justify this. The other side denies advocating that any innocent people have their rights violated.

The first bit - that one side knows they're violating rights - probably needs a little unpacking. They argue that it is justifiable that women lose certain rights in favor of the unborn. And they have various justifications for this. But each of those justifications breaks the reciprocal relationship of human rights. It ultimately, always, comes down to pregnancy resulting in enslavement in favor of a preferred group (the unborn). And regardless of whether you consider this group to have a right to life, you know you're violating the rights of women to achieve this outcome. It is criminal behavior*, even if you take it on its own terms. At best it is voting for others to carry out criminal behavior on one's behalf.

If someone is willing to force people to die or become enslaved, one has no logical basis expect better than this for themselves.

*from the perspective of rights
Click to expand...
My understanding is they know abortion violates women's rights....but because it takes a "right to life" away it is justifiable. Basically it's operating on a kind of hierarchy (wrongly).

-----

In other news, a teen on the other side of the atlantic has been jailed for an abortion:

www.bbc.co.uk

Nebraska teen jailed for illegal disposal of her aborted foetus

The Nebraska woman pleaded guilty to to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion.
www.bbc.co.uk

EDIT: It's the disposal of the remains more so than the abortion, looking at it further.
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
My understanding is they know abortion violates women's rights....but because it takes a "right to life" away it is justifiable. Basically it's operating on a kind of hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And a hierarchy of rights is a fraught proposition. You would think this would cause pro-lifers to find some humility. Even if you believe this is a conflict of rights, a reasonable position is to recognize that you cannot easily resolve it. If you're lazy enough, I guess resolving this conflict feels easy though - slutty women deserve to die, suffer, or be saddled with children they don't want. It is justice in the eyes of god - god being the people who vote for abortion to be illegal of course.
 
Last edited:
So the stay on the April order by Trump judge Kacsmaryk enjoining FDA approval of abortion drug mifepristone 23 years ago and thereby enacting federal prohibition on dispensing the drug is still in effect (which is to say that it can be dispensed), but a 5th Circuit panel has ruled 2-1 on the condition of standing (whether a case may be brought), rejecting the standing of plaintiff Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an anti-choice activist group out of Texas whose purported mission is to "uphold and promote the principles of Hippocratic medicine" but which has curiously been incorporated for just a year.

The CA5 panel consists of a Bush [the younger] appointee, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and two Trump appointees, Cory T. Wilson and James C. Ho. The dissenter Ho is a distinctly Trumpist bitch in both activism and propensity to wage culture war battles publicly and as part of judicial opinions.

Largely a formality because conflicting circuit court rulings puts the matter in the hands of SCOTUS, the new ruling also reflects the consistent inconsistency of conservatism in that it would prohibit mail distribution of the drug as well as use after 7 weeks (from 10), both federally, because "states' rights" only matter when constraining law which conservatives oppose.
 


As expected, the county results closely mirror a combination of urbanization with centers of education which helps explain northeast Ohio, something I think a lot of people are surprised about including me.

Capture ohio results.JPG


Ashtabula county is the furthest northeast in the state, and below that there are three green counties in a horizontal row. Each one of those has its own university of decent size, the University of Akron, Kent State and its several satellite commuter campuses, and Youngstown State. Kent State is by far the biggest and is a dominant employer with about 20,000 undergrads.

But I still find the northeast a really curious quirk of Ohio. I don't really know why its like that - historically it makes sense because of industrial union Democrats but the Republican party effectively destroyed that idea long ago.

I live in Montgomery county, the green one north of Cincinnati, where Dayton is, a decent sized city, and the University of Dayton. to the right of Montgomery is Greene county which also has a university of its own, Wright State. Problem is, its largely a commuter university, and the people who go there don't actually live or vote in Greene county, they live in Montgomery. Greene county also hosts the air force base but besides active-duty people, most contractors and other employees live in Montgomery county. Green county also hosts a large suburban area of Dayton, the small and relatively poor city of Xenia, the hyper-liberal town of Yellow Springs where Dave Chappelle lives, and everything else is farms. The makeup of Green County is geographically very similar to northeast Ohio counties yet it is consistently conservative in every election. Doesn't matter what we're voting for, Greene county drops the ball every time.

I don't know what it is about southwest Ohio but the suburbs vary greatly, there is no consistency at all, and the rural areas are hyper-conservative I suppose to counter the big cities they surround. Well, I know the problem. At some point all the southern baptists figured out how to swim across the river and now southwest Ohio is plagued with confederate sympathizers. It is truly embarrassing. If we're gonna build the wall, build it along the Ohio River. That girl from Covington never called me back anyway, screw it.
 
Last edited:
Did they go with the manipulative "unborn child" wording when they asked the question? If so then they won't be able to rely on that trick in the future and congratulations to Ohio voters for not being fooled.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
Did they go with the manipulative "unborn child" wording when they asked the question? If so then they won't be able to rely on that trick in the future and congratulations to Ohio voters for not being fooled.
Click to expand...
They did use the word "child" in the ballot wording but that was public info long ago so people saw right through that. But the real kicker were the "vote no" signs they created and the wording they used on those. Multiple nonsesical phrases that were honestly contradictory if you'd put two of them next to each other. One phrase that garnered a ton of confused questions was "Vote No, protect parents' rights". Um...what? The next sign would say something like protect the children. So people kept asking who the hell are we protecting here, how am I supposed to vote. Basically the conservatives were just throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks, not caring whether it made any sense at all, which I guess is par for the course these days.
 
Last edited:
Keef
They did use the word "child" in the ballot wording but that was public info long ago so people saw right through that. But the real kicker were the "vote no" signs they created and the wording they used on those. Multiple nonsesical phrases that were honestly contradictory if you'd put two of them next to each other. One phrase that garnered a ton of confused questions was "Vote No, protect parents' rights". Um...what? The next sign would say something like protect the children. So people kept asking who the hell are we protecting here, how am I supposed to vote. Basically the conservatives were just throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks, not caring whether it made any sense at all, which I guess is par for the course these days.
Click to expand...
They might as well push for the results to have been rigged now. Only way they can think of re-introducing the ballot ever again.
 
Blitz24
They might as well push for the results to have been rigged now. Only way they can think of re-introducing the ballot ever again.
Click to expand...
They tried to rig it back in August. There was another "Issue 1" in a special election which was even more devious. When the Supreme Court struck down Roe v Wade Ohio did the thing and passed somewhat serious abortion limitations. The special election constitutional amendment would've increased the requirement for passing further constitutional amendments on the ballot from a simple majority to 60%. They wanted to use the existing simple majority to raise it to 60% which would've guaranteed that no contested amendment would ever pass again, likely including reversion of that very amendment. It would've destroyed the state democracy.

And they knew what they were doing by setting that 60% threshold - both this women's rights amendment and recreational marijuana only passed by 56.6% and 57% respectively. It would've been impossible to ever achieve these things, ever, barring a seismic shift in state demographics.

The August measure was absolutely despicable, and itself was also passed by 57% exactly.

Three ballot measures this year have made it exceedingly clear that Ohio is not a conservative-majority state. It's merely gerrymandered to hell. Republicans have openly ****ed themselves three times on the ballot this year alone. Gerrymandering aside, I hope our next general election is an absolute slaughter.
 
Last edited:
Blitz24
They might as well push for the results to have been rigged now. Only way they can think of re-introducing the ballot ever again.
Click to expand...
No, they'll just go back to what we've been saying they'll do all along. "States should decide for themselves." State decides for itself "Actually, the Federal Govt. should be involved".


Edit*
Or they'll say outlandish stuff like this out loud.
 
Last edited:
I'd laugh if these anti-choice wankers weren't so deadly serious about it all. Just look at him.

654bd1cab788914e5552ad76.jpeg
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
I'd laugh if these anti-choice wankers weren't so deadly serious about it all. Just look at him.

View attachment 1302175
Click to expand...
I wouldn't normally suggest it, but his long tweet following the passing of Issue 1 really displays the level of gross commitment they have to this 1 cause.
Giving up on the unborn is not an option. It's politically dumb and morally repugnant. Instead, we need to understand why we lost this battle so we can win the war.
Click to expand...
I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality.
Click to expand...
Fourth, we've spent so much time winning a legal argument on abortion that we've fallen behind on the moral argument.
Click to expand...
A lot of people are celebrating right now, and I don't care about that. I do care about the fact that because we lost, many innocent children will never have a chance to live their dreams. There is something sociopathic about a political movement that tells young women (and men) that it is liberating to murder their own children. So let's keep fighting for our country's children, and let's find a way to win.
Click to expand...

For 1 good point he made about where Republicans lose touch with the populace on this topic, there's more of this religious backed nonsense. Morally repugnant, moral legitimacy, moral argument. It's Christian Conservative Holier-Than-Thou approach where they're just trying to "save" children in the name of God & save the morally "corrupt" from having abortions.

You can criticize the propaganda effort on the other side for lying to people about these issues or confusing the populace, but it suggests we have to do a much better job of persuasion.
Click to expand...
This is the biggest bull **** in the entire tweet. Republicans are the ones who go to the extreme of lying to their voters that abortions are being done right up until 9 months or in Trump's own words, "The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby".

No woman is going through 9 months of pregnancy and child birth just to abort their baby a second after. JD Vance & these people are disgusting creatures who fail to understand not everyone is to be bound to their religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
McLaren
Republicans are the ones who go to the extreme of lying to their voters that abortions are being done right up until 9 months or in Trump's own words, "The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby".
Click to expand...
I believe technically the first isn't a lie in some states (and may be the case soon in the UK), but Trump's words are.

EDIT: I think the way to move forward in the debate is for the pro-choicers to acknowledge that it can happen, but it's preferrential to women seeking out abortifacients and self inducing a late term abortion.
 
Last edited:
McLaren
This is the biggest bull **** in the entire tweet. Republicans are the ones who go to the extreme of lying to their voters that abortions are being done right up until 9 months or in Trump's own words, "The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby".
Click to expand...
I do get it though.

If I believed that the immortal spiritual soul of god was infused at the moment of conception, and that it was divine will that these are God's children and need to be saved, I would probably fight as hard and care as deeply about passing abortion laws as well, or at least I can understand how one is driven to that position. I'd like to think I'd still understand that it's not an open and shut case.

I don't know how to get through to the true believers except to say that we cannot legislate on religious belief.
 
Danoff
I don't know how to get through to the true believers except to say that we cannot legislate on religious belief.
Click to expand...
Why not? There are no laws on interest. The bible states charging interest is a sin. The bible does not condemn abortion, nor even mentions it. Yet you are perfectly fine with people who are allowed to charge interest?


It would be different if a law would oblige religious people to abort unborn childeren.
You can live a perfect normal christian live without doing any abortion.
 
Last edited:
It would be an act of courage to ignore the results of the election and not allow for the murder of Ohio babies.We are probably 10 years away from this opinion being acceptable though.
Click to expand...

No dude, you've already done that with the 2020 election.
 
Danoff
I do get it though.

If I believed that the immortal spiritual soul of god was infused at the moment of conception, and that it was divine will that these are God's children and need to be saved, I would probably fight as hard and care as deeply about passing abortion laws as well, or at least I can understand how one is driven to that position. I'd like to think I'd still understand that it's not an open and shut case.

I don't know how to get through to the true believers except to say that we cannot legislate on religious belief.
Click to expand...
I'd respect their stance more if they showed they gave an equal damn about those babies after birth too.
 
Gingerale
Why not? There are no laws on interest. The bible states charging interest is a sin. The bible does not condemn abortion, nor even mentions it. Yet you are perfectly fine with people who are allowed to charge interest?
Click to expand...
Ok this is going to get a little weird but try to follow me. Their religious beliefs do not include charging interest being a sin. I know that seems odd given that you're saying it's in the bible (I'll take your word for that), but it's not part of their religious beliefs even if it is in their holy book. What is part of their religious belief (and this doesn't have to be in their holy book for that to be true) is that the soul is infused into a single cell at the moment of conception.

Gingerale
It would be different if a law would oblige religious people to abort unborn childeren.
You can live a perfect normal christian live without doing any abortion.
Click to expand...
To try to understand, imagine for a moment that there were a law declaring that people with a certain skin color are not free people or people at all, but property that can be enslaved according to their master. Now imagine that someone said "you can live a perfectly normal life without owning a slave, so what difference is it to you?" You can see how this argument doesn't land with someone who believes that the unborn have a right to life.

But we simply cannot allow laws based on religious belief, for so many reasons.
 
Danoff
Ok this is going to get a little weird but try to follow me. Their religious beliefs do not include charging interest being a sin. I know that seems odd given that you're saying it's in the bible (I'll take your word for that), but it's not part of their religious beliefs even if it is in their holy book. What is part of their religious belief (and this doesn't have to be in their holy book for that to be true) is that the soul is infused into a single cell at the moment of conception.


To try to understand, imagine for a moment that there were a law declaring that people with a certain skin color are not free people or people at all, but property that can be enslaved according to their master. Now imagine that someone said "you can live a perfectly normal life without owning a slave, so what difference is it to you?" You can see how this argument doesn't land with someone who believes that the unborn have a right to life.

But we simply cannot allow laws based on religious belief, for so many reasons.
Click to expand...
Well, we can, but that would completely throw away the separation of church and state.
 
Danoff
Oh you mean excluding abortions right? I'm sure you'd see that states with legal abortion had a higher infant mortality rate if you included every abortion in that rate. [/s]
Click to expand...
This is an infantile line of reasoning. :lol:

They seem to think abortions don't happen in states and territories in which they say "no you can't".
www.who.int

Worldwide, an estimated 25 million unsafe abortions occur each year

Worldwide, 25 million unsafe abortions (45% of all abortions) occurred every year between 2010 and 2014, according to a new study by WHO and the Guttmacher Institute published in The Lancet.
www.who.int www.who.int
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
They seem to think abortions don't happen in states and territories in which they say "no you can't".
Click to expand...
It's more like they don't consider it to be on their hands. God (or the police) sort that stuff out. They did their part to stop it.
 
Danoff
It's more like they don't consider it to be on their hands. God (or the police) sort that stuff out. They did their part to stop it.
Click to expand...
Even though the figures show that far from stopping it, they're making things worse for everybody involved. sigh religion-based legislation...
 

Latest Posts

Back