International Skeptics Forum

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

Resume 19th July 2022 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13859190)
As long as people are being hurt and things are getting worse, some people are happy.

Well, the whorish split-tails who say no when they really mean yes deserve it.

At least that's what the misogynist rape apologists would have one believe.

Stacyhs 19th July 2022 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13859173)
From https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/opinion/miscarriages-abortion-ban.html


As Idaho seems to have a particular appeal that makes it a Mecca for militia types & all sorts of right wing extremism, we might be tempted to see the total takeover of their GOP by extremists as an aberration. This is a mistake. They might be early adopters but they should not to be considered a case apart. This is the GOP today.



The writer has not been paying attention if she was "taken aback".

Idaho is a beautiful state that I've been to years ago and I have family living there. A friend move there several years ago and became so right-wing that we no longer have a relationship with him. But I refuse to set foot in it now because of its extremism.

My best friend and my SIL both had ectopic pregnancies and had to have abortions. Both pregnancies were planned. But ectopic pregnancies are lethal to the woman which also results in fetal death so this kind of extremist law is irrational and stupid beyond belief. And yet here we are.

ponderingturtle 19th July 2022 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13859234)
My best friend and my SIL both had ectopic pregnancies and had to have abortions. Both pregnancies were planned. But ectopic pregnancies are lethal to the woman which also results in fetal death so this kind of extremist law is irrational and stupid beyond belief. And yet here we are.

Hey the laws allow the doctors to move the implanted embryo to a less lethal location. It is really the doctors fault for not developing this procedure.

Stacyhs 19th July 2022 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13859268)
Hey the laws allow the doctors to move the implanted embryo to a less lethal location. It is really the doctors fault for not developing this procedure.

True dat. Those doctors are probably radical pro-choice activists! :rolleyes:

arayder 19th July 2022 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13859190)
As long as people are being hurt and things are getting worse, some people are happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13859198)
When you see comments like this, in a thread that vehemently advocates for the killing of the unborn, you just scratch your head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 13859204)
Don't speak for me. Maybe you scratch your head, but I don't. I understand that your entire goal is to hurt the libs and force children to have their rapists' babies.

I make the point again that there are plenty of folks who will tell you that our rights are God given and not subject to the limitations of governmental whims. . . but then turn right around tell the rest of us that we have only the rights they say we have.

The 9th amendment is a mystery to these folks.

In this case women are made powerless and are expected to accept being violated, raped and forced to give birth to children. . .just so someone can get a one up on the libs.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13859234)
Idaho is a beautiful state that I've been to years ago and I have family living there. A friend move there several years ago and became so right-wing that we no longer have a relationship with him. But I refuse to set foot in it now because of its extremism.

My best friend and my SIL both had ectopic pregnancies and had to have abortions. Both pregnancies were planned. But ectopic pregnancies are lethal to the woman which also results in fetal death so this kind of extremist law is irrational and stupid beyond belief. And yet here we are.

What brought this to mind is the North Carolina bill that Shemp brought up before. No, it is not being discussed now. Yes, it is absolutely realistic that it will be seriously considered & passed in the not too distant future. Would it be the next session? 2024? I have no idea but current GOP trends make it something other than unfounded alarmism to consider that something similar to that could pass in multiple states in less than a decade. The GOP is shedding off it's less extremist members. This is where we are going.

arayder 19th July 2022 02:28 PM

delete

arayder 19th July 2022 02:52 PM

. ..and I ask if this self aggrandizing notion of the the sanctity of life is going to extended to our self righteous brethren telling us they are will decide when a family member is to be taken off life support, or whether grandpa is going to forego the next round of chemo.

Talk a about violation of our rights!

arayder 19th July 2022 03:03 PM

. ..and I ask if this self aggrandizing notion of the the sanctity of life is going to extended to our self righteous brethren telling us they are will decide when a family member is taken off life support, or whether grandpa is going to forego the next round of chemo.

Talk a about violation of our rights!

Stacyhs 19th July 2022 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13859342)
What brought this to mind is the North Carolina bill that Shemp brought up before. No, it is not being discussed now. Yes, it is absolutely realistic that it will be seriously considered & passed in the not too distant future. Would it be the next session? 2024? I have no idea but current GOP trends make it something other than unfounded alarmism to consider that something similar to that could pass in multiple states in less than a decade. The GOP is shedding off it's less extremist members. This is where we are going.

There really is nothing I would rule out anymore as being too extreme for the GOP. They are getting more extreme by the day. They scare the crap out of me.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13841701)
If y'all think this is all they want - to overturn Roe v Wade, think again. They will be going after other precedents as well.

Griswold v Connecticut (the right to use contraception)
Lawrence v. Texas (the right to same-sex intimacy)
Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same sex marriage)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...trac-rcna35228

The corrupt sex-pest, Justice Clarence Thomas has made this clear in his concurring opinions, effectively inviting anyone to bring cases that might lead to the overturning of those precedents.

If Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned, homosexuality will once again be a criminal offence in Texas - (its already Texas law but currently unenforceable) but would immediately become enforceable if Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned

You can be 100% certain that if were to happen, a whole bunch of peckerwood redneck states like Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee etc will follow suit!

This will help. This can pass:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/us/politics/house-gay-marriage-bill.html

Stacyhs 19th July 2022 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13859396)

To those who claim the Dems never learn, this shows otherwise.

Beelzebuddy 19th July 2022 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13859402)
To those who claim the Dems never learn, this shows otherwise.

Well color me impressed, I didn't know it had passed the Senate. How did they convince Manchin to nuke the filibuster for it?

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13859432)
Well color me impressed, I didn't know it had passed the Senate. How did they convince Manchin to nuke the filibuster for it?

Sarcasm noted (I have the t-shirt as my sisters gave it to me).

No, you are totally right.

Despite my generally pessimistic outlook on all this, I just think that we should wait and see before assuming it is not going to go the way of rights preservation. I think that, even for today's Republicans, invoking the filibuster for this particular thing may be a bridge too far. If current trends continue (which I hope they don't) it probably won't be the case after an election cycle or two. For now, though, I think that there's still a chance.

On the other hand, they could just say that it's settled precedent and no such law is needed so **** you. I do get that.

shemp 19th July 2022 05:49 PM

Another unintended consequence of the Supreme Court ruling:

The Supreme Court May Have Just Killed Porn’s ‘Creampie’

Quote:

Say goodbye to creampies.

Yes, thanks to the Supreme Court’s archaic rollback of women’s reproductive rights, these types of scenes—when a man finishes inside of a woman—just became some of the riskiest to perform. And America’s really going to miss them, as the term “creampie” consistently ranks among the top ten Pornhub searches in the United States.

Sure, porn stars have always faced a certain amount of risk. STIs are an occupational hazard on any given day despite safety protocols and self-mandated industry testing every two weeks. But no one’s thinking about pregnancy. Until now. Without the constitutional right to an abortion, a right that has been upheld for nearly half a century, what happens if birth control fails? Adult actresses are uniquely positioned to confront this sudden lack of bodily autonomy.

Adult entertainment is a legally regulated business in California, though many of its stars reside outside the state in places where abortion is now illegal or severely restricted. If a performer did get pregnant on set, Attorney Corey D. Silverstein, who represents some of the largest content creators in the adult business, says it’s unlikely to be considered a workplace accident. These are independent contractor relationships, with producers using a release of liability along with standard releases on set, and as Silverstein points out, “Proper releases already have protections in place, so they are not liable for this type of incident.”
This is no laughing matter. It's very serious for women who work in the porn industry.

Quote:

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a surprising number of women in the adult industry are weighing their options of self-preservation in the form of medical sterilization—a permanent surgical procedure known as getting your “tubes tied.”

“I’ve had passing thoughts about tubal ligation for the sake of a permanent solution, which isn’t something I would ever choose to do previously,” reveals adult actress Violet Doll. “I was in a very abusive relationship as a teen. Without access to abortion, I would’ve felt even more trapped.”

The 2021 AVN Star of the Year (the Oscars of porn) recipient stands by her younger self’s choice to end the pregnancy without any regrets. “Considering my situation, abortion saved my life. I believe it’s part of what gave me the courage to leave. It was a reminder that I control my body. Women have lost a right that in part saved me,” she says.

Concerned that access to birth control may be next, as alluded to by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, 28-year-old adult performer Avery Jane has begun to consider her future options. “I plan to look into doctors for a more permanent sterilization solution,” states Jane. “I don’t want children and need to make sure I can continue to work and live my life without the fear that birth control will one day be taken away too.”
Of course, surgical sterilization works both ways. Male performers could get a vasectomy.

Quote:

“I would absolutely love to get my tubes tied, however, because I am so young without children, finding a doctor to do the procedure has been difficult,” offers the 32-year-old erotic content creator. “For the time being, I have stopped working with other male models. I would love to continue to work with models if they can prove that they’ve had a vasectomy.”
My goodness, this certainly limits what Clarence Thomas can watch on the bench with one hand on his cell phone and the other under his robe!

Regnad Kcin 19th July 2022 07:32 PM

Quote:

Say goodbye to creampies.

Yes, thanks to the Supreme Court’s archaic rollback of women’s reproductive rights, these types of scenes—when a man finishes inside of a woman—just became some of the riskiest to perform. And America’s really going to miss them, as the term “creampie” consistently ranks among the top ten Pornhub searches in the United States.

Sure, porn stars have always faced a certain amount of risk. STIs are an occupational hazard on any given day despite safety protocols and self-mandated industry testing every two weeks. But no one’s thinking about pregnancy. Until now. Without the constitutional right to an abortion, a right that has been upheld for nearly half a century, what happens if birth control fails? Adult actresses are uniquely positioned to confront this sudden lack of bodily autonomy.

Adult entertainment is a legally regulated business in California, though many of its stars reside outside the state in places where abortion is now illegal or severely restricted. If a performer did get pregnant on set, Attorney Corey D. Silverstein, who represents some of the largest content creators in the adult business, says it’s unlikely to be considered a workplace accident. These are independent contractor relationships, with producers using a release of liability along with standard releases on set, and as Silverstein points out, “Proper releases already have protections in place, so they are not liable for this type of incident.”

This is no laughing matter. It's very serious for women who work in the porn industry.
Oh no he didn’t!

bruto 19th July 2022 07:50 PM

Trying to think like a religious fanatic here, let us say that one is successful in outlawing IUD's and "artificial" birth control. What next?

Implantation of an IUD is a procedure done on a non-pregnant woman's reproductive system to make it inhospitable to an embryo, and outlawing makes a woman's uterus state property. In what way does that idea not extend into forbidding a woman to tie her tubes? That, after all, does not actually prevent the production of ova, only what they can do. And we''ve already established that the government can regulate what a woman does with her reproductive organs in anticipation of sex.

And "barrier" birth control, such as condoms and diaphragms, similarly only impedes the travel of gametes. A vasectomy does the same job, just in a different location. By what principle can birth control devices be outlawed but not birth control operations?

Bans on birth control literally assign to government the control of a person's bodily parts, and control of what a person can wear.

Of course, most of what we seem to be facing is the government preventing us from using our sexual equipment as we please, but the assignment of ownership implicit in this can go the other way too. Involuntary sterilization is no longer considered a good idea by most, but once you own a thing, you can do all sorts of things with it.

Once again we may be faced with the destruction of a right, and even if certain things are then permitted, or tolerated, or left out of the laws that replace that former right, such things are essentially arbitrary privileges. You may never have a law that says you may not have a vasectomy, or have your tubes tied, but if birth control is outlawed, you will never actually have a right to it, only a dispensation. The right to homosexuality, other forms of so-called "sodomy," and even interracial marriage, are under fire already. If you're heterosexual and inclined to do things the usual way, you may never think yourself included among those who are told by the state whether they may enjoy sex, when, where, how and with whom, but that's only because you have chosen what the government likes, not because you're actually free.

Much of this speculation is, of course, outrageous, extreme, silly, and pretty unlikely. But think about the principles involved here when rights are abolished.

psionl0 19th July 2022 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13859342)
What brought this to mind is the North Carolina bill that Shemp brought up before. No, it is not being discussed now. Yes, it is absolutely realistic that it will be seriously considered & passed in the not too distant future. Would it be the next session? 2024? I have no idea but current GOP trends make it something other than unfounded alarmism to consider that something similar to that could pass in multiple states in less than a decade. The GOP is shedding off it's less extremist members. This is where we are going.

That bill could only be passed by a referendum.

It it were to pass then it would say more about the people of NC than its politicians.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13859575)
That bill could only be passed by a referendum.

It it were to pass then it would say more about the people of NC than its politicians.

Disregard comment, then.

Apathia 19th July 2022 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13859556)
Trying to think like a religious fanatic here, let us say that one is successful in outlawing IUD's and "artificial" birth control. What next?

Implantation of an IUD is a procedure done on a non-pregnant woman's reproductive system to make it inhospitable to an embryo, and outlawing makes a woman's uterus state property. In what way does that idea not extend into forbidding a woman to tie her tubes? That, after all, does not actually prevent the production of ova, only what they can do. And we''ve already established that the government can regulate what a woman does with her reproductive organs in anticipation of sex.

And "barrier" birth control, such as condoms and diaphragms, similarly only impedes the travel of gametes. A vasectomy does the same job, just in a different location. By what principle can birth control devices be outlawed but not birth control operations?

Bans on birth control literally assign to government the control of a person's bodily parts, and control of what a person can wear.

Of course, most of what we seem to be facing is the government preventing us from using our sexual equipment as we please, but the assignment of ownership implicit in this can go the other way too. Involuntary sterilization is no longer considered a good idea by most, but once you own a thing, you can do all sorts of things with it.

Once again we may be faced with the destruction of a right, and even if certain things are then permitted, or tolerated, or left out of the laws that replace that former right, such things are essentially arbitrary privileges. You may never have a law that says you may not have a vasectomy, or have your tubes tied, but if birth control is outlawed, you will never actually have a right to it, only a dispensation. The right to homosexuality, other forms of so-called "sodomy," and even interracial marriage, are under fire already. If you're heterosexual and inclined to do things the usual way, you may never think yourself included among those who are told by the state whether they may enjoy sex, when, where, how and with whom, but that's only because you have chosen what the government likes, not because you're actually free.

Much of this speculation is, of course, outrageous, extreme, silly, and pretty unlikely. But think about the principles involved here when rights are abolished.

In that vein I'd be a criminal for not having obeyed the Biological Imperative to "be fruitful and multiply." Except if I were poor. According to some Conservatives, the poor shouldn't be allowed to have children.

gnome 20th July 2022 06:17 AM

Nah, they don't mind if the poor have children. They just don't want to do anything about making their lives sustainable or healthy.

Random 20th July 2022 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13859783)
Nah, they don't mind if the poor have children. They just don't want to do anything about making their lives sustainable or healthy.

Don't be too sure. Forced sterilization was definitely a thing in the US. Granted it is probably pretty far down the modern Conservative wish list, but it I have no doubt it is still there.

shuttlt 20th July 2022 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Random (Post 13859789)
Don't be too sure. Forced sterilization was definitely a thing in the US. Granted it is probably pretty far down the modern Conservative wish list, but it I have no doubt it is still there.

The state pushing sterilization was a progressive idea back in the day. Progressivism believes in these kind of big programmes of rational social change implemented top down by experts. Conservatism is generally distrustful of such things. That is why you don't generally find conservatives advocating for federal programmes to end poverty. It's not because they like poverty, it's that they are sceptical of solutions like this. Such views are never going to get traction, because they are a call to reduce the size of the federal government which is never going to happen. Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.... So you have this cycle of populist Republicans saying they are going to reduce the size of government, and then not doing it, just as you have populist leftists deciding it is better to talk a good game and then go along with Nancy Pelosi.

SteveAitch 20th July 2022 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Random (Post 13859789)
Don't be too sure. Forced sterilization was definitely a thing in the US. Granted it is probably pretty far down the modern Conservative wish list, but it I have no doubt it is still there.

It's cheaper to just make them so poor that the children die before their 5th birthdays, while the parents starve to death.

JoeMorgue 20th July 2022 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13859556)
Trying to think like a religious fanatic here, let us say that one is successful in outlawing IUD's and "artificial" birth control. What next?

1. Mandatory pregnancy.

Oh they won't call it that to be sure but soon we're going to start seeing the first push for "policies" and "incentives" for women to have children, spoken in a nice balance of meaningless feel good truisms about "motherhood" sprinkled with dog whistles for the "Replacement Theory" racists to hear and then they will be tweaked and strengthened until basically the only way for a woman to be an actual functioning member of society is to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Basically if anything is in conflict between women being a broodmare and a woman performing literally any other role in society, watch for the law to start taking the side of "mother should be the default."

2. Finding excuses to take children from non-Christian families and put them with ultra-religious foster parents.

shemp 20th July 2022 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveAitch (Post 13859792)
It's cheaper to just make them so poor that the children die before their 5th birthdays, while the parents starve to death.

Workhouses. The poor can be worked to death for a profit.

SteveAitch 20th July 2022 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13859884)
Workhouses. The poor can be worked to death for a profit.

Damn, never thought of that. Now you know why I'm not rich! :o

JoeMorgue 20th July 2022 10:21 AM

Again we're data mining stuff when they have already admitting that a supply of fresh infants for the Christian Adoption Complex is one of the stated goals.

BobTheCoward 20th July 2022 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13858684)
Huh? No smilies, so I assume itís a serious post.

You consider a 10 year old raped and impregnated who decides to abort the rapistís fetus a murderer? Show your work.

No, I don't consider it murder. But I do think it is stupid to make arguments against abortion that ignore that position.

wareyin 20th July 2022 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13859948)
No, I don't consider it murder. But I do think it is stupid to make arguments against abortion that ignore that position.

Why would it be stupid to ignore a stupid position? And...I'm going to need evidence for any answer you give.

BobTheCoward 20th July 2022 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13859954)
Why would it be stupid to ignore a stupid position? And...I'm going to need evidence for any answer you give.

If you exclude the people who think it is murder, then you are just in an echo chamber. All of us who don't think it is murder seem to already agree with you.

wareyin 20th July 2022 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13859957)
If you exclude the people who think it is murder, then you are just in an echo chamber. All of us who don't think it is murder seem to already agree with you.

If you exclude the crazy people, all you have left is sane people making policy? Well, gosh, now that you put it that way it doesn't sound stupid to ignore the crazy people taking crazy positions after all!

Plus you didn't provide any evidence for your claim that you think it's stupid to ignore that position (the crazy position only held by a tiny, tiny minority of people)

BobTheCoward 20th July 2022 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13859967)
If you exclude the crazy people, all you have left is sane people making policy? Well, gosh, now that you put it that way it doesn't sound stupid to ignore the crazy people taking crazy positions after all!

Plus you didn't provide any evidence for your claim that you think it's stupid to ignore that position (the crazy position only held by a tiny, tiny minority of people)

If you exclude the crazy people, then you are not discussing anything because there isn't anything to discuss.

wareyin 20th July 2022 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13859971)
If you exclude the crazy people, then you are not discussing anything because there isn't anything to discuss.

That's still not evidence. You're assuming that the numbers of crazy people are relevant with no evidence, you're assuming that the input of that tiny minority of crazy people is beneficial with no evidence, and you're assuming that those crazy people who take extreme positions like that actually want to discuss anything or compromise with anyone, with not only no evidence for but all evidence against such an assumption being valid.

BobTheCoward 20th July 2022 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13859986)
That's still not evidence. You're assuming that the numbers of crazy people are relevant with no evidence, you're assuming that the input of that tiny minority of crazy people is beneficial with no evidence, and you're assuming that those crazy people who take extreme positions like that actually want to discuss anything or compromise with anyone, with not only no evidence for but all evidence against such an assumption being valid.

I'm not assuming any of that because I don't believe any of that is true

ETA: heck, if you want to discuss abortion on a forum, someone who will never compromise will oblige you with all the abortion discussion you want...it won't end.

wareyin 20th July 2022 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13860039)
I'm not assuming any of that because I don't believe any of that is true

ETA: heck, if you want to discuss abortion on a forum, someone who will never compromise will oblige you with all the abortion discussion you want...it won't end.

You're assuming all of that if you think it's valuable to include arguments that claim a 10 year old having an abortion is committing murder. Which is what you already did claim.

BobTheCoward 20th July 2022 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13860059)
You're assuming all of that if you think it's valuable to include arguments that claim a 10 year old having an abortion is committing murder. Which is what you already did claim.

...I don't think it is valuable. It is merely the only thing to discuss in regards to the event. If someone doesnt think it is murder, then there is nothing about this event to discuss...people share the same conclusion.

wareyin 20th July 2022 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13860081)
...I don't think it is valuable. It is merely the only thing to discuss in regards to the event. If someone doesnt think it is murder, then there is nothing about this event to discuss...people share the same conclusion.

If you think it's stupid to ignore, then you think it's valuable to include in the discussion.

BobTheCoward 20th July 2022 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13860084)
If you think it's stupid to ignore, then you think it's valuable to include in the discussion.

.....No I don't. And I'm not going to go on a long explanation to you of why because that is off topic. If you want to discuss further, you can message me or start another thread.

arayder 20th July 2022 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13860086)
.....No I don't. And I'm not going to go on a long explanation to you of why because that is off topic. If you want to discuss further, you can message me or start another thread.

So, BobTheCoward, do you think it is murder to take a brain dead relative (with no living will) off life support?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.