Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[Trunkage]

I heard some bits of the discussions they were having, and couldn't help but notice they weren't really talking about Roe v Wade at all.

So.. if they never talk about Roe, they can just pretend they didn't change Roe?

 

[tstorm823]

So.. if they never talk about Roe, they can just pretend they didn't change Roe?

Oh, they can absolutely annihilate Roe without speaking a word about it, but the bits I heard were all debating when life begins and whether that's an explicitly religious stance... which has absolutely nothing to do with the decision in Roe, and seems potentially inappropriate in a case about a law that applies after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Edit: It occurs to me that I never offered a general take on this. This case isn't really a challenge to the general framework or logic of Roe v Wade, but rather a challenge to the practical application of Roe v Wade. To start with, Roe v Wade is a stupid ruling. After much deliberation on whether states should be allowed to restrict abortions, the court deferred to centuries old common law practices and then invented ridiculous rationalizations for the whole thing. Abortion is somehow a right because of the implication of privacy guaranteed by due process? What the hell is that? But it's also not an unmitigated right because the state has a vested interest in a fetus once it's viable? That sounds equally ridiculous. I have no idea what drugs they were on when they made that crap up. But if we ignore the reasoning for a moment and just focus on the end result, the practical outcome of Roe is that states:

1) Can't restrict first trimester abortions.
2) Can restrict second trimester abortions within reason.
3) Can ban most abortions within the third trimester.

So the direct argument appealing to precedent that this law in Mississippi is illegal is that it moves that 3rd step from 24 weeks to 15 weeks. The reason this Mississippi law has made it up the courts is because it actually works within the logic of Roe v Wade if not the numerical framework: Mississippi is basically asserting that viability is not fixed at the third trimester (which is easy enough to understand when premature babies are born and have survived before 24 weeks), and they have chosen a different point in gestation to base their laws on (I don't know why 15 weeks, I'm sure they rationalize it somehow). If the court says "sure, this law can stand", that does not mean the end of Roe v Wade, it would just be sliding the timeline a bit. If the court decides based on this case that Roe is dead and states can do what they want, I'll be the first one here calling it judicial activism.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So what does the Oligarchy want? The men in it want easy sex without repercussions. A Feminist critique of Roe is that it was dreamed up by 9 elite men that made it easier for them to have sex with nice girls without repercussions.

And now it's time to make sure that the repercussions fall on the women! Which is what always happens in these theocratic "paradises".

 

[gorfias]

And now it's time to make sure that the repercussions fall on the women! Which is what always happens in these theocratic "paradises".

In theory, two other major things happens next. Women think, "If I have sex with this guy I hardly know, I could get pregnant and become a mother before I am ready. There for, I will deny him sex." Or, "OK, rich oligarch got me pregnant. I cannot get an abortion. Time to get child support from him." Neither of which these oligarchy men would want happening.

 

[Cheetodust]

In theory, two other major things happens next. Women think, "If I have sex with this guy I hardly know, I could get pregnant and become a mother before I am ready. There for, I will deny him sex." Or, "OK, rich oligarch got me pregnant. I cannot get an abortion. Time to get child support from him." Neither of which these oligarchy men would want happening.

... The "rich oligarchs" have been shuffling their mistresses off for abortions since forever. Like to the point of being a joke. One of the major criticisms of these kinds of laws is that they unevenly affect those that cannot travel for an abortion. That's why women in ireland were dying from black market abortion pills but if they were lucky enough to live they just went to jail.

Edit: also it wouldn't just be "denying" men sex. It would be denying themselves sex because, and hear me out, sex is meant to be enjoyed by both parties. It is not simply a service women offer to men. So what you're actually saying is "women will think twice about having sex because it could alter their entire life".

 

[gorfias]

So what you're actually saying is "women will think twice about having sex because it could alter their entire life".

That would be the concern of these oligarchs that just want easy sex with nice girls without repercussions. Lack of access to abortion might cause such girls to be more coy, and they do not want that.

 

[Worgen]

That has worked how well over the last 250 years? The US court generally does not find in favor of the little people

Not true. Sure, you can find some cases that are kinda fucked but judges will often go out of their way for the little guy.

 

[Worgen]

In a pro-life state, I used to have the right to outlaw a process I saw as murderous, racist, evil and socially destructive. Then, suddenly, without new legislation created by representative government and no clear imperative in enumerated law, 200 year old law was used as justification for brand new totalitarian restriction of this former power of the US individual.

A suggestion on how this will cause moderate reform: the religious right will over reach (ie have citizens rat each other out) and lose actual representative elections. Badly. And the only way back to power for them will be to stop being lunatics. Pass something on which we can all agree.

ITMT: In the US, the Left is on its way to an election defeat of historical proportions provided 2022 is not "fortified". That power loss caused by over reach will not necessarily be felt until 2024.

And the courts expanded individual freedoms by not allowing them to do that.

We shall see what 2022 has in store, but its not uncommon for the ruling party to lose seats after the first 2 years and right now the democrats only barely have a majority. Depending on how the court rules here, they could actually cement a solid democratic win since its hard to get the left to rally together on an issue, but abortion would be one of those issues, since if the court rules against it, then the only way to get protections for it again are a federal law or wait till the conservatives on the court die or retire and replace them.

 

[gorfias]

And the courts expanded individual freedoms by not allowing them to do that.

And the courts expanded individual freedoms by not allowing them (other individuals) to do that (engage in things they thought very important to have a sound, fair, not-evil or dysfunctional society).

All laws are restrictions on one person in favor of another. The right to property restricts another's from taking your stuff. Environment law restricts another's right to pollute. Etc.

My objection is how they did it. The least representative branch of government "discovered" in an "emanation of a penumbra" a heretofore never discovered restriction on some people's rights in 200 year old legislation that held no such apparent imperative.

Law requires legitimacy to function. Otherwise, you are inviting extremism, which I think Roe did.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That would be the concern of these oligarchs that just want easy sex with nice girls without repercussions. Lack of access to abortion might cause such girls to be more coy, and they do not want that.

Oligarchs generally don't have a problem floating a plane ticket to a state/country where abortion isn't restricted as much, hence the decades upon decades of jokes, stories, and examples of them doing just that.

Hell, we've got a sitting Representative under investigation for sex trafficking for moving a 17 year old across state lines to a state with more permissive age of consent laws that's working on the same principl.

 

[Worgen]

And the courts expanded individual freedoms by not allowing them (other individuals) to do that (engage in things they thought very important to have a sound, fair, not-evil or dysfunctional society).

All laws are restrictions on one person in favor of another. The right to property restricts another's from taking your stuff. Environment law restricts another's right to pollute. Etc.

My objection is how they did it. The least representative branch of government "discovered" in an "emanation of a penumbra" a heretofore never discovered restriction on some people's rights in 200 year old legislation that held no such apparent imperative.

Law requires legitimacy to function. Otherwise, you are inviting extremism, which I think Roe did.

Except abortion is different from all those. Abortion is something that only effects women in society. They have to carry a fetus to term, no one else does. Any law restricting access to abortion is literally telling women what they can or can't do with their body and pretty much making it so that during this time it isn't their body anymore.

 

[gorfias]

Oligarchs generally don't have a problem floating a plane ticket to a state/country where abortion isn't restricted as much, hence the decades upon decades of jokes, stories, and examples of them doing just that.

Hell, we've got a sitting Representative under investigation for sex trafficking for moving a 17 year old across state lines to a state with more permissive age of consent laws that's working on the same principl.

That "plane ticket" presents another obstacle for the oligarch that I'd think he'd not want to deal with. Even if possible, the nice lady he's trying to sleep with may still act differently (might not be as easy) in an environment where abortion on demand is not easy.

Though I don't think, particularly in the #Metoo era, that things are working out exactly as they planed, which, as an MRA, amuses me no end!

Except abortion is different from all those. Abortion is something that only effects women in society. They have to carry a fetus to term, no one else does. Any law restricting access to abortion is literally telling women what they can or can't do with their body and pretty much making it so that during this time it isn't their body anymore.

I'd think any law impacts people's body. There are all sorts of caveats. (No cruel and unusual punishment, different tax rates based upon income levels and more).
Are you writing that Roe had no social impact on the USA?

 

[MrCalavera]

That "plane ticket" presents another obstacle for the oligarch that I'd think he'd not want to deal with. Even if possible, the nice lady he's trying to sleep with may still act differently (might not be as easy) in an environment where abortion on demand is not easy.

It's hardly an obstacle for people who use planes like me or you use a car. Or have a private one.
Neither is finding a doctor who's ready to skirt over law for a price. Not with that kind of money.

 

[Cheetodust]

That would be the concern of these oligarchs that just want easy sex with nice girls without repercussions. Lack of access to abortion might cause such girls to be more coy, and they do not want that.

That "plane ticket" presents another obstacle for the oligarch that I'd think he'd not want to deal with. Even if possible, the nice lady he's trying to sleep with may still act differently (might not be as easy) in an environment where abortion on demand is not easy.

Though I don't think, particularly in the #Metoo era, that things are working out exactly as they planed, which, as an MRA, amuses me no end!

I'd think any law impacts people's body. There are all sorts of caveats. (No cruel and unusual punishment, different tax rates based upon income levels and more).
Are you writing that Roe had no social impact on the USA?

You're entire argument is "it'll be fine because the oligarchs probably won't just do the thing they've always done for reasons." and that's a stupid argument. The entire point is that abortions being illegal in a country has never stopped the rich and powerful from accessing abortions and your only response is" maybe they won't though".

 

[gorfias]

You're entire argument is "it'll be fine because the oligarchs probably won't just do the thing they've always done for reasons." and that's a stupid argument. The entire point is that abortions being illegal in a country has never stopped the rich and powerful from accessing abortions and your only response is" maybe they won't though".

You misunderstand my argument and what we're even talking about.

Part of it is, why was Roe ever passed in the 1st place? I'd write, because elite oligarchs thought it would make getting sex from nice girls easier. I don't know if that proved true or not. Some argue that the elite always could get abortions for the girls they impregnated. Even with that ability, nice girls would be more coy about having sex with them if they themselves do not have easy access to abortion. The oligarchs do not want nice girls being sexually coy with them.

I think Roe phony law created by elites and that causes radicalism. There have even been terrorist attacks on abortion clinics.

So, my hope is, Roe is over-turned. Loons that want the pendulum too far in the other direction, asking things like having neighbors rat out neighbors, will lose spectacularly in elections, both local and national. Therefore, the path back to power will be moderation.

I think this was RBG's position on Roe as well. Reviewing.

EDIT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

 

[Worgen]

I'd think any law impacts people's body. There are all sorts of caveats. (No cruel and unusual punishment, different tax rates based upon income levels and more).
Are you writing that Roe had no social impact on the USA?

No, abortion is different. Those examples are based on externalities. Abortion is entirely internal, sure it takes 2 people to create a fetus but once that is done the man can just fuck off, the woman is stuck with, essentially, a parasite for the next 9 months. There is no other real comparison, if you are anti-choice then you just think that a pregnant woman shouldn't be in control of her body.

What do you mean social impact? Why does it matter?

 

[gorfias]

No, abortion is different. Those examples are based on externalities. Abortion is entirely internal, sure it takes 2 people to create a fetus but once that is done the man can just fuck off, the woman is stuck with, essentially, a parasite for the next 9 months. There is no other real comparison, if you are anti-choice then you just think that a pregnant woman shouldn't be in control of her body.

What do you mean social impact? Why does it matter?

Your position on a woman's internal body is a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter.
What a person does with their body can have an impact upon a society. So that society may want a say in whatever it is that you're doing.
In the case of Roe, off the top of my head, I think there are millions fewer babies born alive in the USA.
Some, like in the book, "Freakanomics" argue this lead to reduction in street crime as street crime was disproportionately done by grown people that had been unwanted and would otherwise have been aborted. Others argue the loss of these children has caused demographic shifts that will result in political shifts.
Did this change women sexually in their conduct? Did it feed into something called "hypergamy" which would have social consequences and more? I think so.

Regardless, when Roe is gone, I think extreme political positions will have consequences at the polls. Both sides will have to moderate their positions to be palatable to the other side. This is how you end up with a government that is seen as legitimate, fostering public civility.

 

[Worgen]

Your position on a woman's internal body is a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter.
What a person does with their body can have an impact upon a society. So that society may want a say in whatever it is that you're doing.
In the case of Roe, off the top of my head, I think there are millions fewer babies born alive in the USA.
Some, like in the book, "Freakanomics" argue this lead to reduction in street crime as street crime was disproportionately done by grown people that had been unwanted and would otherwise have been aborted. Others argue the loss of these children has caused demographic shifts that will result in political shifts.
Did this change women sexually in their conduct? Did it feed into something called "hypergamy" which would have social consequences and more? I think so.

Regardless, when Roe is gone, I think extreme political positions will have consequences at the polls. Both sides will have to moderate their positions to be palatable to the other side. This is how you end up with a government that is seen as legitimate, fostering public civility.

Ultimately none of that matters. You are still attempting to highjack a woman's body and force her carry something to term whether wanted or unwanted. If men could become pregnant then I doubt this would be an issue since men wouldn't put up with it, we can barely get people to wear masks in a pandemic situation, imagine telling men they had to carry a kid for 9 months.

You are making a mistake again. There are only really extreme positions on one side of this. One side thinks it should be a woman's choice, the other thinks it should be extremely curtailed if not 100% outlawed regardless of situation and all variations inside of that.

 

[gorfias]

You are making a mistake again. There are only really extreme positions on one side of this. One side thinks it should be a woman's choice, the other thinks it should be extremely curtailed if not 100% outlawed regardless of situation and all variations inside of that.

I don't think women in Europe, which came about abortion rights through representative manners, can have unfettered access to abortions even after there is a viable human life in their womb. As our medical ability to have that life be viable outside the womb grows, the argument that another person is not harmed by abortion becomes less tenable.

As for men's bodies? They are disposable. Toss 'em into a war that has nothing to do with their own nation and watch them get blown up. Nobody cares.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't believe they do. I've seen two types of statistics used to justify such a claim. The first are the claims about how much abortion there was before banning/legalization, which I've never seen a source where the numbers for illegal abortions when it's banned don't seem to be absolutely pulled directly out of somebody's butt with just a hope that nobody will sniff test it. The other type is comparing abortion rates in nations with/without abortion bans, which find curiously similar rates per capita between developed countries with negative birth rates and 3rd world nations with alarming numbers of pregnant children, and never bother to question if there are other factors at play, lest it hurt the argument.

Edit: just want to add a concrete example of a dumb statistic. It is often said that the year before Roe v Wade, 39 people died from illegal abortion, and only 5 died from illegal abortion the year after. What they don't mention is that the year after, 33 people dies in abortions, of which most were now legal. So fewer people died, consistent with the trends in increasing medical safety at the time. But they make it sound like a huge dramatic reduction... (because you have to lie to make abortion appeal to people).

According to Amnesty, unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide, whereas legal abortion is one of the safest procedures available (safer than childbirth). And there is no statistically-significant difference between the numbers of women who access abortion in countries where it is legal vs illegal.

That reading is supported by the WHO, HRW, the CMI, the UN OHCHR, the BPAS, and pretty much every international charity and medical association.