Quoted post unavailable.
Let’s repeal the second amendment then. Let the states decide.
Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
161–170 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#162The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.
For anyone interested, the book Freakonomics had a chapter devoted to studying this as a factor that lead crime to drop from its peak in the early 90s US, approximately 20 years after Roe v Wade.
Kind of a provocative study and you could make a similar case for leaded gasoline and other factors but nevertheless interesting.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#163This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…
To be fair, we’ll never know all the things Jesus said since it’s not like he wrote an autobiography or anything. All records of him were selected and written by other people, who may or may not have been comprehensive.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#164There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.
A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.
Unless it's young life that's already living and happens to be impregnated via rape? Then fuck her, right? Force her to give birth?
And exactly how does banning an abortion when the pregnancy is not viable for any number of reasons (molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, anencephaly) help anyone? Why are we forcing women to carry dead fetus's around in their bodies?
Because that's what a total ban on abortion does. It also makes IVF illegal if "life begins at conception".
The notion that the only abortions happening are happy couples who find out they're pregnant, tell their friends and family, plan parties, and then in some sinister plot months later wake up and casually decide "you know what, let's just kill it" is absurd.
Not all life is equal, and not all human life is equal. If you were driving down the street and two buildings were on fire, a IVF clinic with viable implanted eggs, and a preschool full of living children, you would 100% of the time try and rescue the preschoolers if you only had time for one. The idea that all human life down to a recently implanted egg has the same value as an 11 year old girl who's been raped and wants an abortion is an untenable position.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#165This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…
My understanding is that abortion is a major social justice issue for Christians. So you would want to engage with them on their social justice priorities and strategies, finding overlap, and so forth. At least that’s how I approach these dialogues regarding policies of lower levels of government.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#166Roe vs Wade was the very first case we studied in first-year jurisprudence at law school 20-odd years ago, _half a world away_, in Australia.
Devastating to see this outcome. Reinforces the sense that we’ve somehow ended up in a deeply weird timeline.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#167"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112
Holy sh*t. Lawrence v Texas? Literally banning gay sex on the mind of American Conservatives
Have you read (or "read"; I don't want to be responsible for your death lol) the Texas GOP platform[1] for this year? The first sentence in the "Homosexuality and Gender Issues" section is "Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice". And they follow it up with "we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality".
They are rearing for another battle in the gay rights culture war.
----------
[1] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-...
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#168How is this seen like it's the end of the world? Just vote with the people that won't ban abortion.
"Just vote with the people that won't ban abortion" in insufficient in a system with an undemocratic Senate. The Senate controls who gets on the Supreme Court, and it requires 60 votes to advance legislation.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#169The real question is, what kind of draconian laws will they start hatching to make abortion tourism (flying to a state where it's legal, then coming back) illegal. How do you legislate that? Are people still free to go to another state if they want? Are they getting arrested as soon as they come back? The next case they'll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.
This is a good point - it's how the Texas law was written.
And not just travel - self managed abortions are cheap, safe, and the most common of all abortions nowadays. They can just mail you the pills, and its literally safer than ibuprofen.
You're going to see a lot of cases about "Can [provider, citizen, org] in [Legal_State, Legal Country] provide [medical care, advice, money, other_help] to [person, organization] in [Illegal_State]"
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#170Interestingly: The NYT link was written 4 hours ago (~6AM EST) - but the decision seems to have been released around ~10AM EST. I suppose everyone expected this post the leak. Without taking any side on this issue: this is a tough day in America, when a 50-year precedent is overturned.
Id imagine for important news it would be easy enough to just write two articles and release the correct one, especially if your main concern is being first to publish
A slightly different situation, but it reminds me of the classic election-day crossword, which was cleverly constructed to support either outcome:
http://www.alaricstephen.com/main-featured/2017/7/3/the-clin...