The Roe Countdown

[shemp]

Only 61% of Americans are "strongly" sure that we landing on the Moon.

Let me save everyone a lot of trouble. Ask pretty much any question at this point.

~60% of Americans will say the truth or at least something honest and close to it.
~40% are idiots, trolls, liars, or people who want to watch the world burn.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Greg, do you place the value of a woman's life to be more or less than the value of a zygote? An embryo? A fetus? A sperm? Ova?

 

[trustbutverify]

Only 61% of Americans are "strongly" sure that we landing on the Moon.

Let me save everyone a lot of trouble. Ask pretty much any question at this point.

~60% of Americans will say the truth or at least something honest and close to it.
~40% are idiots, trolls, liars, or people who want to watch the world burn.

Interesting that ~ 40% of Americans also approx represents Trump's base.

 

[bruto]

Yes





That would be not too stupid.



That would be too stupid. No one will do that.

I seriously doubt Griswold will be overturned, but if it is, it won't be overturned for that reason.



Mr. Condomban didn't exist. The man in question did not want to ban condoms. His position was being misrepresented.


However, at the time I wrote, I wasn't sure of that, because he was only identified as a GOP Senate candidate. Well, some states have pretty easy ballot access for primaries. He could have been a Vermin Supreme style candidate, or just a crank who filed the paperwork. As it turns out, he appears to be a legitimate candidate, but he never said what was attributed to him. In other words, option 2.

The Griswold decision might be overturned for all sorts of reasons, but the law it overturned criminalized both the use and advocacy of birth control.

"No one would do that" has, unfortunately, failed in the past to be true.

So it is true that this particular Senate candidate did not speak specifically about banning condoms. He simply advocates overturning the decision that ended the ban on condoms - not just on selling them, but on using them. Overturning a judgment ending a ban on birth control does not, of course, have anything to do with birth control. Or any other matter regarding the issue of whether the state can criminalize the private sexual activity of couples...oh no. Let us be shocked and surprised when people do stupid, idiotic and regressive things after having said that's just what they would like to do. But they didn't say those specific words!

And of course, as always, one can point out that even with a reversal of Griswold, and even with a law that takes advantage of it, such a ban would not be successful and could not be enforced, and there is no danger in having laws that cannot be fairly or uniformly enforced, is there? Certainly no possibility of unfair discriminatory enforcement and use of selective enforcement to harass political or racial adversaries.... No no, not that.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Griswold decision might be overturned for all sorts of reasons, but the law it overturned criminalized both the use and advocacy of birth control.

"No one would do that" has, unfortunately, failed in the past to be true.

Things can indeed change. Less than a century ago, alcoholic beverages were illegal in the US. In theory, it could happen again.


However, I think the chance of birth control being outlawed is in about the same league as the chance that alcohol will once again be outlawed.

 

[cosmicaug]

After you show me some proof that all these attacks on Griswold are some abstract philosophical position and not a concrete practical tactical decision of what to go after next after Roe is overturned.

It's tactical, but not in the sense of being intelligently thought out. It is to try to give what they think that their base (Trumpers) wants to hear. Simple as that.

This seemed clear to me within the context of the Republicans running for AG in Michigan. Clearly, they had no clue as to what Griswold was about & they gave the answer of being against it when someone explained it to them. The calculus is that the Christian Right is a significant part of the Trumper crowd & they think they might be against that. There was no underlying philosophical position: it was a seat of the pants attempt to align with their base who they fear. There's no reason to think that this will not repeat itself simply because it happens to be insane. Insane is a feature, not a bug to these people.

 

[Planigale]

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal


Written 10 years ago but still just as true now.

If you want to know how it happened, and hear an apology from the person who brought it about listen here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0011cpq

A teenager who wanted to make it big in Hollywood made a propaganda movie about abortion (that you correctly say was not an issue for the evangelicals at the time), and made it an issue. He now regrets it.

It is a great pod cast. Indeed the whole series on the culture wars is great. What makes it truly effective is that being a BBC program, it has to be balanced, and that makes it easy to come to an opinion on issues.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't know the mind of a frog but I would suggest frogs never become beings in the same sense that humans do. You are equivocating. And you've now moved one step further in to absurdity since you said egg, not zygote. Are all sperm next?

I thought it was clear I referred to fertilized frog egg

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion. I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population? There are "lots" of people who believe the moon landing didn't occur. They are still a fringe.

Well, the explanation they gave was that they just wanted to avoid covering birth control that causes abortions but what actually happened? Looks to me like when someone actually did something they attacked all birth control, not just certain kinds.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537

Any exceptions there?

And also there is some long standing confusion about how hormone based birth control methods actually work. Do they block fertilization, implantation, or maybe both. The science favors mostly by blocking fertilization but can't rule out that they occasionally block implantation. And, no matter what the science says the anti-abortion crowd is the same crowd as the creationism crowd so who knows if the actual facts will even decide the issue? If they get the wrong idea in their heads about how birth control works who knows what will happen.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I thought it was clear I referred to fertilized frog egg

Oh, OK. So you were one step away from total stupidity.

 

[The Atheist]

Are all sperm next?

Yes.

Wanking will be the death penalty, and any woman who wantonly releases her eggs into the toilet instead of getting impregnated will be sent to jail until she conceives.

 

[cosmicaug]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion.

You must lead a shetered life.

I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population?

A significant enough component of the people that GOP politicians have chosen to consider their constituency to be problematic.

 

[Planigale]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion. I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population? There are "lots" of people who believe the moon landing didn't occur. They are still a fringe.

That you have never heard it is irrelevant. Given most people do not know how their body works you are probably right only a minority of people would think that. But if you do know how contraceptives work, this is a fact.

Certainly IUCD are equated with abortion, I was taught that at medical school. We learnt it because people's beliefs have to be taken into account when considering what contraception to advise, and because IUCD can be used as post coital contraception. What IUCD do is not prevent ovulation or fertilisation, but prevent implantation of a fertilised ovum. Now whether that is abortion is arguable, but it is different from barrier methods, rhythms methods, pulling out etc. Hormonal contraception is more complex, clearly the morning after pill like the IUCD is not preventing fertilisation, but implantation. The regular pills mostly work by preventing ovulation, but may also prevent implantation. So an important question is do you believe that life and rights begin at fertilisation, implantation, quickening or viability? That is not a scientific question, but a moral and legal one.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The topic is about abortion. Not about life.

Specifically, it's about protecting people. Zygotes, embryos and fetus are not people and should not be given human rights because of this.

I agree. Did you see the post I responded to regarding the onset of human life? Perhaps that post, and my reply should be purged for being off topic.

Greg, do you place the value of a woman's life to be more or less than the value of a zygote? An embryo? A fetus? A sperm? Ova?

I place no particular value on any life besides my own and those that are important to me, human or otherwise.

 

[lobosrul5]

Things can indeed change. Less than a century ago, alcoholic beverages were illegal in the US. In theory, it could happen again.


However, I think the chance of birth control being outlawed is in about the same league as the chance that alcohol will once again be outlawed.

I wonder if you are aware that alcohol sales are still illegal in some areas of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

I dunno, lets circle back in a year and see if any states have, or have made serious attempts to ban "plan b" or birth control. I think they will.

 

[bruto]

Things can indeed change. Less than a century ago, alcoholic beverages were illegal in the US. In theory, it could happen again.


However, I think the chance of birth control being outlawed is in about the same league as the chance that alcohol will once again be outlawed.

Good luck on that. There are plenty of people who would like to outlaw birth control, and despite the majority who undoubtedly would not, that does not mean it cannot happen. In any case, that congressional candidate in question, though he claims to be for birth control, has made it explicitly clear in his own clarification that he does not regard this, or the basic issue of privacy, even in one's personal sex life, as a right, and is firmly in the "states' rights" camp when it comes to contraception laws. Whether or not the overturning of Griswold leads to banning of contraception anywhere is unknown, and probably not likely, but it is not impossible. What goes when that judgment goes is not just contraception, though, but the right to privacy. We can still, presumably, plead the fifth amendment if accused of immoral conduct in our beds, but we can no longer say "it's none of your business," because when the right of privacy is destroyed, that's no longer true.

 

[cosmicaug]

I thought it was clear I referred to fertilized frog egg

It's pretty clear that when the language "human being" is used we are referring to someone who is a person. Sloughed, potentially viable human epithelial cells are not human beings in the same sense a zygote is not a human being (even though, potentially, both could develop into human beings —a.k.a. people).

If you want to analogize to frogs, for some reason, a frog fertilized egg would not be a "frog being". Of course a zygote is both alive and of a species classifiable as a frog (just like sperm & ova before it & just like the tadpole & adult frog after it).

This intentional equivocation between being "human" and "a human" or "human being" is really not very fun at all and you should stop it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's pretty clear that when the language "human being" is used we are referring to someone who is a person. Sloughed, potentially viable human epithelial cells are not human beings in the same sense a zygote is not a human being (even though, potentially, both could develop into human beings —a.k.a. people).

If you want to analogize to frogs, for some reason, a frog fertilized egg would not be a "frog being". Of course a zygote is both alive and of a species classifiable as a frog (just like sperm & ova before it & just like the tadpole & adult frog after it).

This intentional equivocation between being "human" and "a human" or "human being" is really not very fun at all and you should stop it.

Then "being" is meaningless construct

 

[cosmicaug]

Then "being" is meaningless construct

Oh no, it's perfectly fine. You can call sloughed human cells human beings all you want when you are talking to yourself. Call them blue Sargasso flicker titlings, if you want. However, when you are communicating with others, we ideally want some sort of common ground and it is not a common understanding to call any random living matter that happens to be genetically human a "human being".

Again, this is only an ideal and it can be hard to achieve sometimes. Misunderstandings happen. However, doing this sort of equivocation intentionally is not helpful.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wonder if you are aware that alcohol sales are still illegal in some areas of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

I dunno, lets circle back in a year and see if any states have, or have made serious attempts to ban "plan b" or birth control. I think they will.

I also think they will. I do not think they will ban birth control pills or condoms.