Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
You think things have changed so much that abortion opposition isn't still the majority in even a single state? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Click to expand...
It's not extraordinary. In your link there's a big difference between 2007 and 2014.

Not only that, you know it depends on how the question is asked. Current surveys don't leave out abortion banning states when they come up with less than 10% of the population wants a total ban.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.
Click to expand...
I see you didn't address my explanation. Here, I'll repeat it:

Some people are arguing no laws against abortion. That is being misconstrued into claiming they are for 9th month elective abortions. You can't be that stupid, I know you aren't.

Abortions are not done on viable infants in the third trimester except for fetal demise, impending demise or serious risk to the mother.

How do I know? Oh I don't know, I've only been a medical provider since 1985 and an RN since 1976.

I'm not going to argue this other **** with you, you provide some evidence doctors go around murdering viable infants in the third trimester. It's ludicrous.

I believe Dr Tiller, before he was murdered by a deranged pro-life idiot, described a third trimester abortion on a 12 yr old incest victim. And that was in the early 3rd trimester.

Bottom line, these are not willy-nilly abortions for no reason other than the mother's choice.


If people want to debate laws against abortion they need to stop lying about the pro-choice POV about those abortions.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
I am not “Mr. Astaire,” but this answer is pretty easy.

The demand has been to enshrine the right to abortion as Federal law, which would mean the States that currently ban it would be forced to allow it. This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW, it didn’t go away because the people who were demanding this knew how fragile the SCOTUS ruling was.

Beyond that, the demand has been to allow unrestricted abortion, which would mean States that cut off at 12/15/20 weeks would now be forced to allow them even beyond 24 weeks in some cases.

There has also been demand to make it covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Abortion coverage was a big debate during the ACA negotiations.
Click to expand...
Like I said, people want the government out of the bedroom, period. That is being misconstrued as people wanting and getting late 3rd trimester abortions. No, because at that point the physician or midwife would not decide to do this for no reason.

And as for restrictions, those were allowed after a follow-up SCOTUS ruling that I believe had a second trimester cutoff.
 
Last edited:
From Wiki:
The abortion rate has continuously declined from a peak in 1980 of 30 per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44) to 11.3 abortions per 1,000 women by 2018.[10] In 2018, 77.7% of abortions were performed at 9 weeks or less gestation, and 92.2% of abortions were performed at 13 weeks or less gestation.[10] By 2020, medication abortions accounted for more than 50% of all abortions.[11] Increased access to birth control has been statistically linked to reductions in the abortion rate.[12][13][14]
Click to expand...
So the rate has been decreasing.

Planned Parenthood V Casey
... the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the imposition of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right.[1] ...

The case arose from a challenge to five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982; among the provisions were requirements for a waiting period, spousal notice, and (for minors) parental consent prior to undergoing an abortion procedure. In a plurality opinion jointly written by associate justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, the Supreme Court upheld the "essential holding" of Roe, which was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protected a woman's right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability.[3]

The Court overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis, thereby allowing states to implement abortion restrictions that apply during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
There were more details but in essence states could make restrictions on abortions but not ban them before viability.
 
This whole thing is about a bunch of religious hooey. If 'Christians' want to end abortions, making them illegal doesn't do it.

They don't care about those unborn children, they care about punishing the pregnant persons. It's a single issue voter cause celeb' that has been exploited by the GOP since Falwell noticed how profitable is was in terms of donations and that the issue got his Evangelicals votes and therefore political power.

That is where an honest debate should be. Not this nonsense that making abortions illegal is somehow saving unborn babies. It is not.

And people who want no restrictions whatsoever simply want the government out of the decision that should be between a pregnant person and their provider. Claiming they want abortions in the late 3rd trimester is dishonest because it assumes there is no healthcare provider involved in the decision.


Anyone care to have an honest debate about this?
 
Last edited:
The entire Right -Wing message, including White Christians can be boiled down to this: Empathy is Bad. Considering another's point of view is treason.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's not extraordinary. In your link there's a big difference between 2007 and 2014.

Not only that, you know it depends on how the question is asked. Current surveys don't leave out abortion banning states when they come up with less than 10% of the population wants a total ban.
Click to expand...

To poke at Zig's 2014 Religious Landscape Study results, they have error bars in the +/- 7 point range, and note that there was a 7 point drop in religion between 2007 and 2014. And this is supposed to be solid evidence that in 2022, 8 years later, religious beliefs have remained the same or increased, so that the 51% (+/-7%) of North Dakota residents against abortion is both the same or higher and solid evidence that the state should outlaw abortion.
 
Upchurch said:
What do you think the titular lie was, if not Eli's failure to disclose the rejection letter to his parents and his evasiveness around the subject of attending Whitehill School?
Click to expand...
Eli was not asked directly if he had seen a letter from the Whitehill School.

Upchurch said:
ETA: In case it needs to be said, Eli's allowing his parents to believe something that was not true parallels the SC candidates allowing Senators to believe they would not overturn Roe.
Click to expand...
Sure. In both cases, they didn't have to answer a question they were not directly asked. It might be considered morally wrong that they allowed the questioners to believe something that was false but legally, it can't be classified a lie.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The entire Right -Wing message, including White Christians can be boiled down to this: Empathy is Bad. Considering another's point of view is treason.
Click to expand...

It's somewhere between that and simply being unable to comprehend that these points of view exist. There is a continuum that has FOX news grifters on one end and OAN viewers on the other.
 
psionl0 said:
I don't know. He withheld a letter his parents should have received but (wrong as it is) he didn't tell an actual lie.
Click to expand...

The page at the end of the PDF I linked to is an ELA lesson. Do you think it is at all possible that you misunderstood the story and/or what "lying" means? Or is it more likely that Kurt Vonnegut doesn't understand the English language as well as you do?
 
Upchurch said:
The page at the end of the PDF I linked to is an ELA lesson. Do you think it is at all possible that you misunderstood the story and/or what "lying" means? Or is it more likely that Kurt Vonnegut doesn't understand the English language as well as you do?
Click to expand...
Call it "lying" if you wish but your appeal to authority doesn't prove anything.

This is an art that is skillfully practised by politicians. Instead of being nailed down on a specific question they are allowed to waffle around it so they can't be accused of telling a direct lie.
 
Lies are a subset of deception. I would have thought this was obvious to people who spoke a language or, you know, experienced existence as a human, but apparently not!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Lies are a subset of deception. I would have thought this was obvious to people who spoke a language or, you know, experienced existence as a human, but apparently not!
Click to expand...
Don't you get it? Nobody asked the direct question!!!

How can you say, "you didn't volunteer the workings of your mind therefore you lied" ?
 
Last edited:
These justices being transparent about future rulings would be completely contrary to the "balls and strikes" mindset that is part of a formalist/originialist outlook and on top of that would be unethical.

The only thing they can do is respond in generalities because otherwise they are testifying that they will approach cases with a closed mind.

The whole angle that these justices were dishonest is abject nonsense even were it based on more than hurt feelings. It's a pretty vivid example of the liberal "have the fascists arrested on a technicality" obsession.
 
Upchurch said:
Well, then, to repeat myself: What do you think the titular lie was?
Click to expand...
Not to segue into the literature forum, but that wasn't the eponymous lie. The lie was that the family didn't see themselves as entitled. "A Remenzel never asks for anything"... so long as they never need to. Eli was actually the only honest one of them.
 
Suddenly said:
These justices being transparent about future rulings would be completely contrary to the "balls and strikes" mindset that is part of a formalist/originialist outlook and on top of that would be unethical.

The only thing they can do is respond in generalities because otherwise they are testifying that they will approach cases with a closed mind.

The whole angle that these justices were dishonest is abject nonsense even were it based on more than hurt feelings. It's a pretty vivid example of the liberal "have the fascists arrested on a technicality" obsession.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that Thomas invited challenges to same sex marriage and contraception belies your argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom