As we approach SCOTUS scrapping Rowe v Wade...

[Evangelicalhumanist]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions, I have a suggestion that could make that all totally unnecessary:

Why not pass laws about what men may do with their willies, when and with whom, and what the consequences for not complying ought to be?

Oh, yeah, that would be interfering with "personal freedom," which no Conservative would ever want to do -- unless it's to women, who (still) aren't really "persons" anyway, right?

 

[The Hammer]

Good to me.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[sun rise]

I'm surprised they're not going to do it via the "shadow docket" because why bother with having a fig leaf over their political decisions.

 

[Revoltingest]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions, I have a suggestion that could make that all totally unnecessary:

Why not pass laws about what men may do with their willies, when and with whom, and what the consequences for not complying ought to be?

Oh, yeah, that would be interfering with "personal freedom," which no Conservative would ever want to do -- unless it's to women, who (still) aren't really "persons" anyway, right?

Another misandrist rant, eh.
Many women are anti-abortion.
Many men are pro-abortion.
Keep your sexist views up there in Canuckistan.
We have enuf trouble with your ilk down here.

There....that was fun.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions,

It is an issue that always sticks in my mind in various ways. I don't really understand it. And the approach I do take on it, probably differs from that of republicans or democrats: I believe in overpopulation, and they do not. Both of those parties just want to cover the land in buildings and roads. So I don't get why democrats are actually pro-choice. Nor do I really understand why republicans are 'pro-life,' for the many reasons that have been discussed endlessly.

 

[Stevicus]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions, I have a suggestion that could make that all totally unnecessary:

Why not pass laws about what men may do with their willies, when and with whom, and what the consequences for not complying ought to be?

Oh, yeah, that would be interfering with "personal freedom," which no Conservative would ever want to do -- unless it's to women, who (still) aren't really "persons" anyway, right?

Well, there might be some conservatives who would go along with such a law, as it has been in the past with anti-fornication laws.

When conservatives talk about "freedom," they're almost always talking about the "freedom" of capitalists to engage in dishonest, unethical practices and any policies which make the poor poorer.

Whenever conservatives talk about freedom, it's never about sexual freedom or personal freedom or bodily autonomy or anything like that at all. It's not even about free speech or freedom of religion or about people being free of unreasonable search and seizure (unless it's a business, of course).

So, yeah, despite what some liberals might think, I don't think conservatives would have that much of a problem with any law controlling what men do with their willies. They'd have no problem banning all porn, skin mags, and any TV show which shows a woman's belly button. And no sex ed. in the schools either; we don't want kids learning anything about it until they're 40.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Another misandrist rant, eh.
Many women are anti-abortion.
Many men are pro-abortion.
Keep your sexist views up there in Canuckistan.
We have enuf trouble with your ilk down here.

There....that was fun.

Yet....the point I was trying to make is that it would actually be immensely less expensive, immensely less intrusive and hugely less coercive (to women) to prevent abortion by not getting anybody pregnant. And even though I'm gay, I know how that happens.

 

[F1fan]

Good to me.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Unless both the goose and gander want to end a pregnancy but the republican state says no. Big government at work, that is what the GOP is today. They aren't about liberty and freedom, they are about control.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

When conservatives talk about "freedom," they're almost always talking about the "freedom" of capitalists to engage in dishonest, unethical practices and any policies which make the poor poorer.

I actually don't really know what they mean by freedom. This might be my 'centrist' bias talking, but when I think of republicans that I've had around me in my life, I roughly estimate that they think freedom is hierarchical. And the sort of freedom that you get, is roughly a combination of positive and negative freedom (in the technical sense). That is to is say, it seems to me to be more like 'power' than freedom - which is to say, that the 'is-ought' problem remains as freedom/power is gained. The 'left' also may have 'power' issues in my estimation

But I don't really know. I guess I don't understand the republican/democrat ideas about freedom/power, and instead work on defining those things myself. I think it is important to solve the is/ought problem, as freedom and power is exercised. That is to say, that think the exercise of freedom/power is legitimated by having goals/actions that are Just. Recognition of the corruptibility of freedom/power seems never to be discussed on either side as self-criticism.

 

[The Hammer]

Unless both the goose and gander want to end a pregnancy but the republican state says no. Big government at work, that is what the GOP is today. They aren't about liberty and freedom, they are about control.

I just meant if they want to control women's bodies, I'll be the first man to volunteer for them to put some restrictions on my sexual behaviours too.

 

[Watchmen]

More and more Republican-led states (2 just yesterday) adopt new laws restricting abortions, I have a suggestion that could make that all totally unnecessary:

Why not pass laws about what men may do with their willies, when and with whom, and what the consequences for not complying ought to be?

Oh, yeah, that would be interfering with "personal freedom," which no Conservative would ever want to do -- unless it's to women, who (still) aren't really "persons" anyway, right?

Rowe v Wade won’t be overturned.

 

[The Hammer]

Rowe v Wade won’t be overturned.

But I could see it being severely curtailed.

 

[F1fan]

Rowe v Wade won’t be overturned.

Well, are we placing bets on it?

I doubt they will let it stand as is. They might cut the time limit. Roe actually sets a limit at the second trimester, but that only meant that unless there is a state law that sets a prohibition on the third trimester any abortion was legal. States did set a prohibition on the third trimester.

So the new limit could be pulled back to allow abortion ONLY in the first trimester, or 15 weeks, or whatever the majority agree on. They could say abortion isn't a right at all. We don't know. This is now a political issue in the SC, not a legal one. It'll be interesting to see where Roberts falls on the decision. It's likely to be 6-3, but could be 5-4.

Abortion rights are being attacked on setting clinic regulations that can't be met. So the prohibition is a secondary effect, not a direct prohibition, but the effect is what the GOP wants. The ends justify their means. Texas tried this and their SC ruled that the new regulations were illegal, and the clinics were able to stay open. But some closed because they had to until the appeals was heard, and that is many months long. The GOP is doing guerrilla warfare on abortion clinics, and they are killing them even though the courts tend to side with the clinics. None of this will change until the voters throw out these extremist Republicans.

 

[Watchmen]

But I could see it being severely curtailed.

Meh. I doubt it. And I don’t have much time to such wedge issues.

 

[Shaul]

Abortion is becoming obsolete. The number of women in child bearing age is shrinking due to demographics. Contraception usage is getting more effective. Non-surgical terminations will also reduce surgical abortions. Plus the fiscal margins are shrinking due to rising costs.

But leftists will keep pushing abortion even as it becomes less and less relevant and more and more unpopular.

 

[Watchmen]

Well, are we placing bets on it?

I doubt they will let it stand as is. They might cut the time limit. Roe actually sets a limit at the second trimester, but that only meant that unless there is a state law that sets a prohibition on the third trimester any abortion was legal. States did set a prohibition on the third trimester.

So the new limit could be pulled back to allow abortion ONLY in the first trimester, or 15 weeks, or whatever the majority agree on. They could say abortion isn't a right at all. We don't know. This is now a political issue in the SC, not a legal one. It'll be interesting to see where Roberts falls on the decision. It's likely to be 6-3, but could be 5-4.

Abortion rights are being attacked on setting clinic regulations that can't be met. So the prohibition is a secondary effect, not a direct prohibition, but the effect is what the GOP wants. The ends justify their means. Texas tried this and their SC ruled that the new regulations were illegal, and the clinics were able to stay open. But some closed because they had to until the appeals was heard, and that is many months long. The GOP is doing guerrilla warfare on abortion clinics, and they are killing them even though the courts tend to side with the clinics. None of this will change until the voters throw out these extremist Republicans.

A conservative SCOTUS has had opportunity to reverse the decision and did not do so. I don’t expect that to change now.

 

[The Hammer]

New Abortion is becoming obsolete

Declining doesn't make it any less necessary to preserve.

The US is increasingly secularizing, should we just do away with religious institutions, or are their services (not mass/sermon, but actual community service) still useful for some?

 

[Stevicus]

I actually don't really know what they mean by freedom. This might be my 'centrist' bias talking, but when I think of republicans that I've had around me in my life, I roughly estimate that they think freedom is hierarchical. And the sort of freedom that you get, is roughly a combination of positive and negative freedom (in the technical sense). That is to is say, it seems to me to be more like 'power' than freedom - which is to say, that the 'is-ought' problem remains as freedom/power is gained. The 'left' also may have 'power' issues in my estimation

But I don't really know. I guess I don't understand the republican/democrat ideas about freedom/power, and instead work on defining those things myself. I think it is important to solve the is/ought problem, as freedom and power is exercised. That is to say, that think the exercise of freedom/power is legitimated by having goals/actions that are Just. Recognition of the corruptibility of freedom/power seems never to be discussed on either side as self-criticism.

I think you're hitting upon the great contradiction which has existed in this country since its founding nearly 250 years ago. To use George Carlin's description, "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free."

As for power, at least the Founders were wise enough to realize that they didn't want power to rest solely with a single individual, faction, or state. They favored a separation of powers between state and federal governments, as well as a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government.

My observation has been that conservatives tend to focus on economic and business freedom. Religious conservatives also tend to support the same agenda, although obviously favored towards the predominant religion.

When it comes to abortion, I've always considered it a medical issue and my opinion is that it should be left in that realm. A matter between doctor and patient. The law need not get involved in that.

However, on a philosophical level, I can see where some might view a human fetus as a human life - or at least having the potential of being such. But as a philosophical question, I sometimes wonder how it came to be that it was automatically a liberal/conservative issue.

It seems to have turned out that way in practice, although there are those who are mostly liberal yet oppose abortion, as well as those who are mostly conservative yet favor abortion.

 

[F1fan]

Abortion is becoming obsolete. The number of women in child bearing age is shrinking due to demographics. Contraception usage is getting more effective. Non-surgical terminations will also reduce surgical abortions. Plus the fiscal margins are shrinking due to rising costs.

Then it makes us wonder what the conservatives are so hell-bent on eliminating it. McConnell has made placing conservative judges a huge priority. Trump was very accommodating to giving the right the judges they wanted to overturn laws they didn't like. Trump's three SC picks were vetted by the Federalists, a republican think tank. These judges were picked due to their ideological position against abortion rights. The SC has lost trustworthiness in recent years. The trust that politics has has for many decades as a public service is being lost.

But leftists will keep pushing abortion even as it becomes less and less relevant and more and more unpopular.

It's an established right. Democrats are defending this established right.

The question is why the right is going after abortion if it is less relevant. Do you have an answer?

 

[F1fan]

A conservative SCOTUS has had opportunity to reverse the decision and did not do so. I don’t expect that to change now.

There is courage in numbers.