Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[SilentPony]

All this talk of economic factors, medical viability of a fetus, social norms, responsibilities. Its all bullshit nonsense designed to make this an emotional issue, when its not.
Pure and simple its the woman's body, her right to choose. Legally no other factors need be considered. Women are not slaves to a fetus, and legally speaking no man has the right to force a woman to do something she doesn't want to.
Any other discussions is just trying to hide slavery by another name.

 

[Buyetyen]

Any other discussions is just trying to hide slavery by another name.

Which is really what the anti-abortion crusade is about: power and control.

 

[Silvanus]

Ahhh, just thinkin' 'bout those who said there was no material difference between Trump and Clinton, or the accelerationists that said we might as well go for Trump to teach the Democrats to pick someone better next time.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

I also wanna add that this is the same party that wants to make access to the social safety net harder for poor parents with young kids. They only care about the baby when it’s in the mother’s womb, when the baby born it’s time to put on those boot straps and don’t expect any kind of help from the government if you’re struggling financially.

 

[Worgen]

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.

I suppose you could make the argument that people wanting abortion rights right to the point of birth are extreme, but no one in power is really making that argument, just weirdos on the internet. Really if we could easily and cheaply transfer a fetus out of the womb then there would be no need for abortions, hell, if we just had good standardized sex ed and access to birth control we wouldn't really need it.

 

[meiam]

I don't think republican care about abortion itself, they just realize that they're on the wrong side of most issues they do care about and it just so happen that the church is also on the wrong side of most issues, so they're natural allies. Plus very religious people often care about religion more than absolutely anything, so they're easy to manipulate by draping your message in religious connotation, while not having to do anything religious yourself (see Trump being popular with the most religious people despite being pretty much the exact opposite of everything religious pretend to be). It help that they can plaster picture of baby on everything.

Even the church probably don't care that much about abortion itself, its more about rallying people to their cause using an emotional issues (and hoping they can convert and have them give donation in the process).

At this point both the republican and the church have made so much noise about abortion that walking back, or even failing to deliver changes, would be seen as failure. So they'll keep pushing the issue no matter what. In that sense there's no negotiation possible. And they'll ignore every arguments and statistics about it, if they accepted them it would be admitting that they were wrong on the subjects and wasted their time and energy.

The only way forward would be to find a way to de politicize the issue, but the democrat also use the issue for electoral gain so I doubt that will happen. Ideally you need to change the message from "How dare you oppose this thing that I approve of!" to "Wait you oppose this?! How weird, I bet you think the earth is flat too.".

 

[SilentPony]

Which is really what the anti-abortion crusade is about: power and control.

And they should at least be honest about it. All this shit about sanctity of life, and what if your mother aborted you, and heartbeats and adoption and the innocence of the unborn. Its all just code for men controlling women. Just admit it. "I don't want women to have abortions because I want women to be second class citizens." That's it.
Even the KKK has the moral backbone to admit they don't really care about blood purity or religious rights, they just don't like black people.

 

[tstorm823]

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.

Do you think the desire for abortions is a constant across cultures, independent of circumstance? When comparing the rates of abortion where it is legal to where it is banned, you are comparing wealthy nations to poor nations. Do you really expect the abortion rate to be roughly identical between a nation with prevalent contraception and negative birth rates when compared to a place with ~60% teen pregnancy rate? Does comparing those things feel like meaningful data to you? When you compare the death rates between legal and illegal abortions, you are comparing Western Europe to nations with 30% lower life expectancy. Does that seem like a comparison that generates meaningful data without even attempting to correct for mitigating factors? Nevermind that a lot of the data for illegal abortions is guesswork at best, you should be suspicious of those statistics taken at face value.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Sure why not?

Areas with higher death rates for illegal abortions also tend to be areas with much higher maternal mortality rates so the math washes out

Kinda telling that your go-to rebuttal is "but what if the math for basically every secular medical advocacy group in the world is wrong?"

 

[SilentPony]

Sure why not?

Areas with higher death rates for illegal abortions also tend to be areas with much higher maternal mortality rates so the math washes out

Kinda telling that your go-to rebuttal is "but what if the math for basically every secular medical advocacy group in the world is wrong?"

Because it has nothing to do with math, science, sociology, economics, morality or even religion. Its simply anti-women. Its men who think women should serve as brood-mares, with no choice of having children. And why stop there? Why allow women a choice in who they marry, or who they can have kids with?
Its anti-woman, pure and simple.

 

[Agema]

It's the end of abortion as a right. Not immediately, but in a death by 1000 cuts way.

SCOTUS, loaded with anti-abortion candidates, will just rule to allow 15 week abortions. With that precedent set, it will then become 12 weeks, then 10 weeks, then 8 weeks, then 6 and then basically gone.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

"easy sex with nice girls without repercussions"

You keep saying this like it's some sort of mantra. What do you have against sex?

 

[bluegate]

Republicans are a cancer on society, especially modern day ones.

I think that says enough about where I stand on Roe Vs Deadpool.

 

[tstorm823]

Kinda telling that your go-to rebuttal is "but what if the math for basically every secular medical advocacy group in the world is wrong?"

The one thing you can know for certain is that the math is always wrong. What's the quote: "all models are wrong, but some are useful"? That sentence can mean different things depending on your goal. If you're trying to calculate a physical element with a degree of precision strong enough to design things around, you stop developing your model when you reach that point. If you're trying to advocate for less restrictive abortion laws, you stop developing your model when you reach the point where the statistics play out.

Why do all of these medical advocacy groups report their data in terms of per capita abortions, and not relative to the number of pregnancies? Can you guess what happens if you compare the percentage of pregnancies aborted to the legal status of abortion? (Hint, the places it's banned have much higher birth rates). It's not a better statistic, per se, as it's still trying to compare the global north to the global south without presenting that context, but it's 1000% better than extrapolating from the first statistic that abortion laws have no effect.

 

[gorfias]

You keep saying this like it's some sort of mantra. What do you have against sex?

Wow, whole other discussion and an important one. Very briefly, I resent elite men that would create a society in which easy sex for themselves without repercussions radically improves while decreasing the likelihood of rank and file men getting a partner, becoming a husband with a faithful wife, having marriage, kids family and a place in our society. Did that happen? You could start a whole thread on that one.

It's the end of abortion as a right. Not immediately, but in a death by 1000 cuts way.

SCOTUS, loaded with anti-abortion candidates, will just rule to allow 15 week abortions. With that precedent set, it will then become 12 weeks, then 10 weeks, then 8 weeks, then 6 and then basically gone.

Possibly, but I think women have the power to vote as a bloc to punish radical restrictions upon their reproductive rights. Ending Roe, while I think legally correct, will be poison at the polls for a lot I support. But in the long term, I expect ending Roe to bring about a more moderate, agreed upon paradigm.

Side note: looked more into Ruth Bader Ginsberg's position on this. She was against Roe as a privacy matter and preferred abortion rights be pursued from the angle that an unplanned pregnancy can do havoc to a woman's life in a way that it does not to a man's, thereby anti-abortion laws are violating equal protection.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Wow, whole other discussion and an important one. Very briefly, I resent elite men that would create a society in which easy sex for themselves without repercussions radically improves while decreasing the likelihood of rank and file men getting a partner, becoming a husband with a faithful wife, having marriage, kids family and a place in our society.

Sounds like you have a problem with capitalism.

 

[gorfias]

Sounds like you have a problem with capitalism.

You are not completely wrong. That's actually been said of anti-feminists in general. That capitalism has made advances for women possible. If you're against those advances, your against capitalism. I'm pretty much focusing, in this case, on 9 elite men hallucinating into law that a new paradigm that allows them easier sex with nice girls without repercussions.

And I need to swing it back around to the author of this view, a Feminist. Her beef was that this easy sex with nice girls without repercussions made it, in her esteem, easier for powerful men to exploit and use women.

Yes, women like sex. But many are realizing how much we've gotten wrong over the decades. Today, no strings sex is making a lot of women feel used and exploited. Without the fear of repercussions, you have a lot of men expecting sex asking, what would a woman's objection to it be? Some, even if they take no for an answer, leave very hard feelings behind. See the Aziz Ansari incident as an example.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The one thing you can know for certain is that the math is always wrong. What's the quote: "all models are wrong, but some are useful"? That sentence can mean different things depending on your goal. If you're trying to calculate a physical element with a degree of precision strong enough to design things around, you stop developing your model when you reach that point. If you're trying to advocate for less restrictive abortion laws, you stop developing your model when you reach the point where the statistics play out.

Why do all of these medical advocacy groups report their data in terms of per capita abortions, and not relative to the number of pregnancies? Can you guess what happens if you compare the percentage of pregnancies aborted to the legal status of abortion? (Hint, the places it's banned have much higher birth rates). It's not a better statistic, per se, as it's still trying to compare the global north to the global south without presenting that context, but it's 1000% better than extrapolating from the first statistic that abortion laws have no effect.

I see this is going to be the next semantic point you're going to be banging on about, but again: so what?

Wow, whole other discussion and an important one. Very briefly, I resent elite men that would create a society in which easy sex for themselves without repercussions radically improves while decreasing the likelihood of rank and file men getting a partner, becoming a husband with a faithful wife, having marriage, kids family and a place in our society. Did that happen? You could start a whole thread on that one.

The ability for a woman to file for divorce or get an abortion didn't hurt "rank and file" men in anyway, if they were worthy of having a loving and faithful partner to begin with.

I just meant that a dude couldn't look good in the short term and be a shitbag in the long term. Powerful men will not be facing any sort of repercussions for this in anyway whatsoever and I'm curious why you think they would? Elite debauchery didn't start up or get worse after feminism became a thing

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Republicans really want to lose the midterms here. Democrats are kind of unhappy with the Democrat government right now and usually don't vote in midterms as much as Republicans. If they reverse Roe v Wade the Democrats will go and vote in numbers that will probably rival 2020

 

[tstorm823]

I see this is going to be the next semantic point you're going to be banging on about, but again: so what?

You understand that the phrase "so what?" is typically intended to mean "you are correct, but it isn't important", right? Are you actually conceding the point that that these advocacy groups have all embraced a particular statistical analysis that is useful to their purposes more than it is accurate, but then questioning why that matters? It matters because if you actually want a real answer to "what happens when you restrict abortion", you cannot even guess from the information being presented knowing that it's being presented in a deliberate way to support reaching one conclusion.

Edit: to repeat what I said earlier: people lie about abortion because you cannot get people to support it without lying.