International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

shuttlt 1st July 2022 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13845974)
So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?

There were some leaked emails way back in the pandemic where Pfizer were trying to keep exactly this secret because it did matter to people. This way the media and fact checkers lie is so tired and lazy, but why not if it works?

Regnad Kcin 1st July 2022 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845320)
Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.

What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.

I read this, then I laughed and laughed.

slyjoe 1st July 2022 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13845974)
It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:
...snip

If you quote someone else in a dissenting opinion, then yes, you are making the same argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846004)
There were some leaked emails way back in the pandemic where Pfizer were trying to keep exactly this secret because it did matter to people. This way the media and fact checkers lie is so tired and lazy, but why not if it works?

My point is it only mattered for the COVID vaccine, not the other vaccines.

Brainster 1st July 2022 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13846007)
If you quote someone else in a dissenting opinion, then yes, you are making the same argument.

Really? Is this a requirement of dissenting opinions? If Sotomayor and the other dissenters to the overturning of Roe quoted Alito's opinion at all they are making the same argument? Fascinating!

slyjoe 1st July 2022 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13846045)
Really? Is this a requirement of dissenting opinions? If Sotomayor and the other dissenters to the overturning of Roe quoted Alito's opinion at all they are making the same argument? Fascinating!

Context DOES matter. Thomas was dissenting on the majority opinion, not the plaintiffs.

cosmicaug 1st July 2022 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13845566)
WTF are you talking about?

Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? The GOP is the better marketers and horrible legislators. The Democrats are terrible marketers and they can't get much passed the party of 'blocking every ******* thing whether it was originally their idea or not and whether it is good for the country or not'.

Mitch McConnell has been as bad for the country as Drumpf.

Perhaps you could describe this magical democracy you believe is possible when the minority is running the country.

This is where they are heading: rig the system & if the rigging doesn't get the desired result, declare it null and void & substitute the desired result anyway. This "legal theory" gets you both.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-will-hear-case-that-tests-power-of-state-legislatures-to-set-rules-for-federal-elections/

Tero 2nd July 2022 04:37 AM

If it were just abortion, and then the court would stop there and do incremental changes like they are supposed to, we might recover. But no.


I have a couple of Finnish Americans telling me the politics is normal and he can't wait till the Nov election is over, we are freaking out too much. He will be happy for GOP taking the senate and he will just suffer the last two years under Biden, but in 2024 everything will be fine. Move along, nothing to see here!

No, it's not fine. A non-elected branch of government is basically writing law. Biden must act now. Election day will be too late. We will have no way to stop republicans at the state level in 2023 and 2024.

Upchurch 2nd July 2022 05:23 AM

They aren’t writing law, but they aren’t protecting the rights of the people, either.

Tero 2nd July 2022 06:21 AM

A blog ridiculing the sophisticated work of the court:
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/2022...gged-cats.html

mikegriffith1 2nd July 2022 08:09 AM

Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.

TheGoldcountry 2nd July 2022 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13846653)
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.

As soon as you can get knocked up, I'll consider your opinion on this matter.

Until then, I don't really give a ****.

BTW, you don't have to be a "radical liberal" to think that someone should have bodily autonomy, and it's one of the worst violations of human rights to take that away. Let me guess: you're one of those people who think that the Fourth Amendment is unneeded, too. "Hey, if you got nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?"

Random 2nd July 2022 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13846653)
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.

Well, there are certain birth defects that render a pregnancy non-viable that don't show up that early, but the main reason was politics. Viability becomes possible at about 22 weeks (no premature baby in history before that has survived as far as we know), but the Mississippi law kicked in at 15 weeks in an effort to separate the idea of viability from the legality of abortion.

If viability is not an issue, why isn't 15 weeks enough? If 15 weeks is enough, why not 14? Why not 13? Why not 6? Politically speaking it was just another effort to chip away at abortion rights. You can either fight those or lose ground bit by bit by bit.

So it gets to the Supreme "Court" and the court said not only was a 15 ban OK, but there was no right to an abortion in the US. The court could have just said the first part, but they went all in on overturning Roe. Its not really liberals fault. With this "Court", if it had not been this case, it would have been another.

kookbreaker 2nd July 2022 08:54 AM

This is one of those uses of the words “perfectly sane” that show how words don’t mean anything to right-wing psychopartisans.

Ziggurat 2nd July 2022 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 13846565)
No, it's not fine. A non-elected branch of government is basically writing law.

You have that backwards. Roe v. Wade was a non-elected branch writing law. Now that the decision has been reversed and that judicial law removed, the elected branches get to actually write the law on abortion.

cosmicaug 2nd July 2022 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13846653)
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame.

That's basically just gaslightning.

Radical liberals, inasmuch as they even exist in the USA political landscape, have near zero influence. All of these lawsuits were, by design and intent, meant to be challenged. This was a feature, not a bug. If it had not been Dobbs that triggered the (de facto or, as it turned out, literal) repeal of Roe vs. Wade it would have been one of at least a dozen others waiting in the wings for their turn.

Tero 2nd July 2022 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13846653)
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.

The 15 weeks might be workable. But it also excluded rape and incest. Those are time consuming cases in courts and not easy for the victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_...h_Organization
Contains Mississippi law and back ground. A single clinic had to handle all cases.

Gaetan 2nd July 2022 10:29 AM

Most women abort to save money, if you abolish money you would save millions of babies.

96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

kookbreaker 2nd July 2022 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846751)
Most women abort to save money, if you abolish money you would save millions of babies.

96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

Pro-forced birth propaganda that throws a multitude of legitimate reasons under a blanket "social" category. These would include:

1) I am not fit to be a parent.
2) I do not want to have children.
3) My Partner is not fit or willing to have children
4) I have already had enough children to handle
5) I am not ready in life to have children
6) etc. etc.

Money is a reason, but fact is a lot of folks just don't want to have a kid.

junkshop 2nd July 2022 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846751)
Most women abort to save money, if you abolish money you would save millions of babies.

96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

"Human Life International is a Catholic, Pro-Life Mission"

I'm sure they're not biased at all.

So of that 96.5%, how many are 'economic', and how many are 'social'?

From your link:
Quote:

Originally Posted by hli.org
Tabulation of reports on “Induced Termination of Pregnancy” from Florida [1998-2020], Louisiana [1996-2018], Minnesota [1999-2019], Nebraska [2001-2019], South Dakota [1999-2019], and Utah [1996-2018].

What about the rest (the vast majority) of the states?

Gaetan 2nd July 2022 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by junkshop (Post 13846773)
"Human Life International is a Catholic, Pro-Life Mission"

I'm sure they're not biased at all.

So of that 96.5%, how many are 'economic', and how many are 'social'?

Three quarter are economic others are for for social reason as to keep their work than you can say it is all economic anyway, the propaganda in media it because of rape is false, it is just a very small amount.

cosmicaug 2nd July 2022 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846782)
Three quarter are economic others are for for social reason as to keep their work than you can say it is all economic anyway, the propaganda in media it because of rape is false, it is just a very small amount.

That's an intentionally disingenuous framing, to save money. It conjures up some some middle class woman finding it rewarding to clip a few coupons in her idle time to save a few bucks and... oh yeah, having an abortion will save money too.

It's like bringing into this world another human being is no big deal and not laden with all sorts of profound implications. Yes, you dismiss some of it as merely economic; but merely economic can have profound implications & can completely derail someone's life (including the child, I might add).

But yeah, it's no biggie. Carry on. Let's go back to a time when women could not legally make their own financial decisions.

Stacyhs 2nd July 2022 01:03 PM

Having a child profoundly changes not only a woman's economics, but her entire life. Ask any mother, especially a single mom. 'To save money' is the most egregiously dishonest POS excuse.

junkshop 2nd July 2022 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846782)
Three quarter are economic others are for for social reason as to keep their work than you can say it is all economic anyway, the propaganda in media it because of rape is false, it is just a very small amount.

Citation, please. That breakdown does not appear on the page you linked.

shuttlt 2nd July 2022 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13846815)
Having a child profoundly changes not only a woman's economics, but her entire life. Ask any mother, especially a single mom. 'To save money' is the most egregiously dishonest POS excuse.

Kinda changes a fathers life as well. How the hell am I going to pay for this was definitely something I thought before, but not after.

theprestige 2nd July 2022 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13846007)
If you quote someone else in a dissenting opinion, then yes, you are making the same argument.

Really? I quote jackass arguments I intend to rebut or dismiss all the time. In fact I'm doing it right now. Only an idiot or a scumbag would read this post as agreement with you.

So tell me more about your take on a Supreme Court Justice's citations in their dissent.

Gaetan 2nd July 2022 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13846815)
Having a child profoundly changes not only a woman's economics, but her entire life. Ask any mother, especially a single mom. 'To save money' is the most egregiously dishonest POS excuse.

You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.

Tero 2nd July 2022 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13845974)
It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:



And that particular claim isn't exactly incorrect, even according to NBC News:



So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?

What's the problem? No part ofvthe vaccine molecules comes from fetuses, as stated. Nothing to do with "long ago." There are enzymes and even cells in vaccine processes. None of those come from mammals.

A piece commonly used is called plasmid, of bacterial origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine

Pfizer:Manufacturing the vaccine requires a three-stage process. The first stage involves the molecular cloning of DNA plasmids that code for the spike protein by infusing them into Escherichia coli bacteria. For all markets, this stage is conducted in the United States,[117] at a small Pfizer pilot plant in Chesterfield, Missouri[118][119] (near St. Louis). After four days of growth, the bacteria are killed and broken open, and the contents of their cells are purified over a week and a half to recover the desired DNA product. The DNA is bottled and frozen for shipment. Safely and quickly transporting the DNA at this stage is so important that Pfizer has used its company jet and helicopter to assist.[120]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfiz...VID-19_vaccine

junkshop 2nd July 2022 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 13846827)
What's the problem? No part ofvthe vaccine molecules comes from fetuses, as stated. Nothing to do with "long ago." There are enzymes and even cells in vaccine processes. None of those come from mammals.

A piece commonly used is called plasmid, of bacterial origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine

Pfizer:Manufacturing the vaccine requires a three-stage process. The first stage involves the molecular cloning of DNA plasmids that code for the spike protein by infusing them into Escherichia coli bacteria. For all markets, this stage is conducted in the United States,[117] at a small Pfizer pilot plant in Chesterfield, Missouri[118][119] (near St. Louis). After four days of growth, the bacteria are killed and broken open, and the contents of their cells are purified over a week and a half to recover the desired DNA product. The DNA is bottled and frozen for shipment. Safely and quickly transporting the DNA at this stage is so important that Pfizer has used its company jet and helicopter to assist.[120]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfiz...VID-19_vaccine

"Would you kindly..."

shuttlt 2nd July 2022 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by junkshop (Post 13846829)
"Would you kindly..."

:-)

cosmicaug 2nd July 2022 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846826)
You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.

So close and yet so far.

shuttlt 2nd July 2022 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 13846827)
What's the problem? No part ofvthe vaccine molecules comes from fetuses, as stated. Nothing to do with "long ago." There are enzymes and even cells in vaccine processes. None of those come from mammals.

This is how fact checking works:

Statement: The vaccine was developed using foetal tissue.
Factcheck: False! The vaccine does not contain foetal tissue.

They do this over and over again.

Stacyhs 2nd July 2022 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846821)
Kinda changes a fathers life as well. How the hell am I going to pay for this was definitely something I thought before, but not after.

Pay for what? An abortion? A man could never be forced to pay for an abortion he didn't want. But think of all the child support he's going to be forced to pay by a court order.

A woman could make the choice not to continue a pregnancy but once she's carried it for 9 months and gives birth, it's not an easy thing to give it up for adoption. So many, if not most, women will keep the child and raise it... often without the participation of the father. It's her life that is profoundly changed. His? Not so much if at all.

shuttlt 2nd July 2022 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846826)
You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.

It's quite a bit more than that. I rather think you need the society to see families as fundamental, and parenthood to be the assumed default task that adults will perform. I don't immediately recall where it is from, but there is a quote that goes something like.... once having children becomes something whose merits society discusses as a rational question, that society is done. Other than Israel, every first world country has had below replacement birth rates for decades, many for more than a century.

bruto 2nd July 2022 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13846826)
You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.

Nonsense. It may well be that economic considerations are important, but very poor people in very poor places often have lots of kids, and not just because they don't know better, and birth rates go down as economies improve. If money is the only thing that makes a difference, I hope for their sake that you have no kids, and pity them if you do.

shuttlt 2nd July 2022 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13846863)
Nonsense. It may well be that economic considerations are important, but very poor people in very poor places often have lots of kids, and not just because they don't know better, and birth rates go down as economies improve. If money is the only thing that makes a difference, I hope for their sake that you have no kids, and pity them if you do.

The cost of having children, and the economic rewards of having children, vary hugely depending on where you are. If you go back to the 19th century and before, just as an extreme example, desperately poor people would have lots of children with the expectation that they would work from a young age, provide some kind of support for their parents in old age and require relatively little to maintain. From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood).

d4m10n 2nd July 2022 02:30 PM

10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio
 
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...rtion-in-ohio/

Quote:

A 10-year-old girl was denied an abortion in Ohio after the Supreme Court ruled last week that it was overturning Roe v. Wade, demonstrating the tangible impacts that the high court’s decision is having on patients seeking access to the medical procedure.
More details here.

Leumas 2nd July 2022 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13846839)
So close and yet so far.


and getting further and further....

Quote:

The southern state’s top law enforcement official was not the only Republican to reference God while taking a victory lap. Nor was he alone in rooting for the supreme court to continue a pattern of forcing religion back into the US political system and tearing down the wall that separates church from state.

The court – said to be more pro-religion than at any time since the 1950s – wrapped up one of its most consequential and divisive terms this week. Critics lamented a string of decisions that they say undermine legal traditions that prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.

...

In all three cases, the court decided against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the constitution’s first amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion, known as the “establishment clause”.

Stacyhs 2nd July 2022 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13846871)

I'm sure that 10-year old girl is wanting an abortion for 'money' reasons. :rolleyes:

My sister helped deliver a baby to a 10 year 'mother' old years ago. She said it was absolutely horrible.

Minoosh 2nd July 2022 02:56 PM

If there were more intellectual honesty on the part of those drooling for complete bans I might not mind the Supreme Court's decision so much. But IMO it's an absolute fact that hardly anyone really believes a zygote is a human being. If they did Missouri's AG would not have ruled that Plan B (which can either prevent conception or prevent a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall) is acceptable for now. No Indiana doctor would have performed the abortion on the 10-year-old girl. Etc. They're not going to condone MURDER because technically they can get away with it.

I'm not saying no one believes this but I'd say it's fewer than 10 percent of people. Unfortunately it may be more than 10 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I also believe very few people actually want to force a woman to bear a child WITHOUT A BRAIN who is 100 percent going to die within minutes/hours absent heroic measures to preserve heartbeat/respiration.

Not even the Bible equates a fetus with a human being. A person who causes a miscarriage is guilty of the Bronze Age equivalent of a CIVIL offense.

I don't know how this is all going to play out, I think the U.S. has taken a step backward, but with any luck it will force a more honest look at what's really going on here. I think many people who support choice are still somewhat uneasy with abortion as an "easy" form of emergency birth control, or for selecting the sex of the baby etc. If you think it through, IMO the arguments really do support the position that it's a woman's choice. But that doesn't mean I'm always perfectly comfortable with that position either.

Stacyhs 2nd July 2022 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846868)
The cost of having children, and the economic rewards of having children, vary hugely depending on where you are. If you go back to the 19th century and before, just as an extreme example, desperately poor people would have lots of children with the expectation that they would work from a young age, provide some kind of support for their parents in old age and require relatively little to maintain. From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood).

That has to be one of the most historically ignorant posts I've ever read. "... a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children"? No, they couldn't. They had no choice and many children starved to death or had serious health problems due to severe malnutrition like scurvy, rickets, dental problems, vision problems, goiters, and mental impairment . Most medieval women gave birth many times but they did not have large families because so many children never made it to their first birthday.

Women had many children because
1) there was no reliable birth control
2) using any form of birth control was against religious teachings and
you'd 'go to hell' if you used it.
3) doctors could not even discuss birth control with their patients
4) getting an abortion was illegal and extremely dangerous
5) husbands had a 'right' to have sex with their wives whether the wives wanted to or not. There was no such thing as 'marital rape'.

Take a few history classes before spreading such nonsense.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.