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)

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849661)
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.

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.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
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.

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.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849717)
I'm not doing any more generalization than SG was.

:rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13849781)
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.

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.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 10:01 PM

From Wiki:
Quote:

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]
So the rate has been decreasing.

Planned Parenthood V Casey
Quote:

... 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.
There were more details but in essence states could make restrictions on abortions but not ban them before viability.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 10:11 PM

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?

The Great Zaganza 7th July 2022 10:29 PM

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.

ZiprHead 8th July 2022 04:25 AM

Here is a video of Debbie Reynolds describing her fetus dying in the 7th month of her pregnancy and not being able to have it removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iF9pI_Szuk

wareyin 8th July 2022 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13850884)
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.

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.

psionl0 8th July 2022 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13850429)
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?

Eli was not asked directly if he had seen a letter from the Whitehill School.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13850429)
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.

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.

Upchurch 8th July 2022 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13851082)
Eli was not asked directly if he had seen a letter from the Whitehill School.

Well, then, to repeat myself: What do you think the titular lie was?

psionl0 8th July 2022 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13851083)
Well, then, to repeat myself: What do you think the titular lie was?

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.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13850908)
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.

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.

Upchurch 8th July 2022 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13851092)
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.

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?

psionl0 8th July 2022 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13851102)
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?

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.

TragicMonkey 8th July 2022 07:30 AM

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!

psionl0 8th July 2022 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13851155)
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!

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" ?

Suddenly 8th July 2022 08:14 AM

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.

Beelzebuddy 8th July 2022 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13851083)
Well, then, to repeat myself: What do you think the titular lie was?

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.

slyjoe 8th July 2022 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13851182)
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.

I think the fact that Thomas invited challenges to same sex marriage and contraception belies your argument.

wareyin 8th July 2022 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13851182)
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.

I do wonder how those Justices would look on someone testifying under oath before them who deliberately gave misleading answers to hide the truth? Would anyone be held in contempt or charged with perjury as a "technicality"?

cosmicaug 8th July 2022 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13851078)
And this is supposed to be solid evidence that in 2022, 8 years later, religious beliefs have remained the same or increased,
[...]

Please present evidence of this.

cosmicaug 8th July 2022 09:57 AM

This will be a sh*tshow:

Quote:

Biden signs executive order aimed at safeguarding abortion rights
By Donald Judd and Kate Sullivan, CNN
Updated 12:32 PM EDT, Fri July 8, 2022


(CNN) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday aimed at protecting abortion rights in response to the landmark decision by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

“I’m asking the Justice Department, that much like they did in the civil rights era, to do something, to do everything in their power to protect these women seeking to invoke their rights,” Biden said at the White House, standing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The President on Friday derided the Supreme Court’s decision as “extreme” and “totally wrongheaded,” saying, “What we’re witnessing wasn’t a constitutional judgment, it was an exercise in raw political power.”

The President said the fastest way to restore abortion rights was for the American people to elect more members of Congress in November’s midterm elections who will support federal legislation protecting abortion access.

Biden said it was his “hope and strong belief that women will in fact turn out in record numbers to reclaim the rights that have been taken from them by the court.”

“Let me be clear, while I wish it had not come to this, this is the fastest route available,” Biden said.

There is no action the President can take to restore the nationwide right to an abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Biden has acknowledged publicly his options to expand abortion access remain limited.

[...]
If it doesn't get fixed legislatively at the national level, trying to just address it with executive orders is just going to very quickly end up climbing up the judicial ladder until it hits the SCOTUS which will swat it down.

wareyin 8th July 2022 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13851250)
Please present evidence of this.

Evidence that 2022 is 8 years later than 2014?


Or evidence for Zig's claim, that we're all disputing, that a 2014 religious survey is good evidence for beliefs about abortion today? Because...I can't provide evidence for that. I don't believe it's true. Given the 7 point drop between 2007 and 2014, I'm fairly certain that the same survey conducted today would show fewer religious adherents.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13851243)
I think the fact that Thomas invited challenges to same sex marriage and contraception belies your argument.

I mean, it's Thomas. He lost it a while back.


It has been SOP for appellate judges to note the long term implications of a decision. Usually aren't quite that blatant about inviting challenges though.

xjx388 8th July 2022 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13851263)
Evidence that 2022 is 8 years later than 2014?


Or evidence for Zig's claim, that we're all disputing, that a 2014 religious survey is good evidence for beliefs about abortion today? Because...I can't provide evidence for that. I don't believe it's true. Given the 7 point drop between 2007 and 2014, I'm fairly certain that the same survey conducted today would show fewer religious adherents.

I'm sure that's true, but even if people aren't adherents of a particular religion anymore, they often retain many of the religious ideas.

The Great Zaganza 8th July 2022 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13851255)
This will be a sh*tshow:



If it doesn't get fixed legislatively at the national level, trying to just address it with executive orders is just going to very quickly end up climbing up the judicial ladder until it hits the SCOTUS which will swat it down.

I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

wareyin 8th July 2022 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13851266)
I'm sure that's true, but even if people aren't adherents of a particular religion anymore, they often retain many of the religious ideas.

When people leave a religion, they tend to stop following it's proscriptions, and they certainly stop attempting to force those religious beliefs on others.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13851249)
I do wonder how those Justices would look on someone testifying under oath before them who deliberately gave misleading answers to hide the truth? Would anyone be held in contempt or charged with perjury as a "technicality"?

If a person is currently swinging an axe at your head and you object and your defense against this is because they said that they had no plans to cut your head off, well, that's about what is going on here.

I'm not going to ever defend these judges in general. The point is that an awful lot of people are fixating on something that, ironically, was an example of behavior that wasn't unethical.

There is no formalist answer to questions about Roe besides acknowledging it is settled law and will be treated as such. Same about the value of precedent.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13851269)
I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

That's the Justice Roberts approach. The new gang isn't exactly into that and will shamelessly now rule curtailing that power and then later rule expanding it when it suits them.

Segnosaur 8th July 2022 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13851182)
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.

You are right that in theory a judge should avoid approaching a case with a 'closed mind'.

However, to some of us there is a difference between:

"We heard a case that was unique, and the lawyers pleading the case made some compelling arguments"

and....

"We jumped on the first abortion case that came along, that wasn't really unique in any way, in order to take away women's rights. Our decision was written by a guy who claimed that the original Roe decision was wrong, and the reasoning behind it is complete bunk (citing a centuries-old 'expert' who prosecuted witches, and making a claim that 'women won't be harmed')".

One of those examples illustrates a judge exhibiting an open mind in coming to their decision. The other illustrates judges who were close-minded and were always going to rule against abortion rights, regardless of whatever they claimed about it being "settled law".

I believe the 3 Trump appointees lied during their confirmation hearings. However, I do recognize that there is no way to build any sort of legal case against them for perjury, or to have them impeached. (Note however that I think a case could be made against Drunky McRapeface for perjury during his testimony, but for other reasons.)

cosmicaug 8th July 2022 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13851263)
Evidence that 2022 is 8 years later than 2014?


Or evidence for Zig's claim, that we're all disputing, that a 2014 religious survey is good evidence for beliefs about abortion today? Because...I can't provide evidence for that. I don't believe it's true. Given the 7 point drop between 2007 and 2014, I'm fairly certain that the same survey conducted today would show fewer religious adherents.

I think I misread your comment and was asking for what you too were asking: evidence that religiosity has been increasing anywhere in the USA.

Random 8th July 2022 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13851269)
I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

Precedent is meaningless to this bunch. They decide the answer they want, then they backfill the legal-sounding justification. If there is a conflict between their rulings, they just find some arbitrary difference, no matter how small, and use that to explain away their hypocrisy.

The Supreme Court is an unelected political Super-Legislature, not neutral arbiters of the law.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2022 10:21 AM

Expect baiting Conservative Hissyfitting about the evils of Executive Orders any second now.

Skeptic Ginger 8th July 2022 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13851158)
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" ?

Don't you get it, they all knew damn well they would overturn Roe the first chance they got.

The reason they were not asked directly (if they weren't) is because the Senators know that answer: "I cannot address anything specific" or something to that effect. So the Senators were asking the only questions they knew they could get an answer to.

The members lied because they knew full well their answers were purposefully deceptive. You can bitch all you want that technically blah blah blah :words: It doesn't change the fact THEY LIED.

cosmicaug 8th July 2022 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13851269)
I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

Seems... doubtful.

Conservatives stopped loving unitary executive theory as soon as Obama took office & they learned to love it again as soon as Trump took office. These 6 conservatives are not special, just because they happen to hold the highest judicial appointment in the land, and will follow the same pattern.

Skeptic Ginger 8th July 2022 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13851249)
I do wonder how those Justices would look on someone testifying under oath before them who deliberately gave misleading answers to hide the truth? Would anyone be held in contempt or charged with perjury as a "technicality"?

Yes, Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." and then claimed he defined sexual relations as including an emotional involvement.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13851281)
You are right that in theory a judge should avoid approaching a case with a 'closed mind'.

However, to some of us there is a difference between:

"We heard a case that was unique, and the lawyers pleading the case made some compelling arguments"

and....

"We jumped on the first abortion case that came along, that wasn't really unique in any way, in order to take away women's rights. Our decision was written by a guy who claimed that the original Roe decision was wrong, and the reasoning behind it is complete bunk (citing a centuries-old 'expert' who prosecuted witches, and making a claim that 'women won't be harmed')".

One of those examples illustrates a judge exhibiting an open mind in coming to their decision. The other illustrates judges who were close-minded and were always going to rule against abortion rights, regardless of whatever they claimed about it being "settled law".

I believe the 3 Trump appointees lied during their confirmation hearings. However, I do recognize that there is no way to build any sort of legal case against them for perjury, or to have them impeached. (Note however that I think a case could be made against Drunky McRapeface for perjury during his testimony, but for other reasons.)



Taking their answers at face value is formalistic pretense at it's most naked and shameless, yes. However, we've abandoned the whole of the judiciary to this sort of formalism and this seems an odd place to start being mad about it given the way they've used this sort of pretense to obliterate civil rights and liberties.

wareyin 8th July 2022 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13851282)
I think I misread your comment and was asking for what you too were asking: evidence that religiosity has been increasing anywhere in the USA.

Close enough. I was actually pointing out the absurdity of using a survey that showed religiousity dropping 7 points in 7 years as evidence that 8 years later those 51% (with 7 point error bar) results would stay the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13851297)
Yes, Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." and then claimed he defined sexual relations as including an emotional involvement.

Yep, and he was charged with perjury over it.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2022 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13851302)
Taking their answers at face value is formalistic pretense at it's most naked and shameless, yes.

At this point I can't image the court NOT arguing that all the mob boss did would tell the shop owner what a nice little shop he had and what a shame it would be if anything were to happen to it...

"I'm not wrong and evil because I've mad an arbitrary set of formality that I'm following" is way to common these days.

Nobody, literally ******* nobody here, is acting under any pretense that the candidates where unaware of what they were being asked. This whole "Well I gave them a mathematicians answer that wasn't technically wrong" spiel can go cut bait.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.