Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Also: Marriage is a constitutionally protected right. Limiting the genders of those who get married is plainly discriminatory.  It's harder.

Marriage is protected in the constitution? I remember the will of the founders including a lot of details about enslavement, but nothing saying "we shall make a country so that we may marry each other."

I think this is probably the best argument against the so called Originalism Constitutional theory.
The Constitution's drafters thought Slavery was A-OK! Why the fuck should be base our current Constitution on what those sick fuckers thought!?

[Vector]

2) I don't want to be forced to have a child, because I don't want to pay for it -> Every deadbeat father in existence, NOT OK

"Giving birth will throw myself and my other children into poverty" is the typical socioeconomic argument recognized by feminists. This cannot be equated to the situation of "deadbeat dads." The assumption with "deadbeat dads" is that they are fine with their partners giving birth nine months after their thirty seconds' pleasurable investment, but have no intent of supporting the result financially. In this story, the "deadbeat dad" is capable of supporting the mother and her baby, but prefers not to, and there is ultimately little consequence to him whether his lover gives birth or not.

This is qualitatively different from not wanting to give birth, because one outcome for that parent will be very different, from a personal perspective, than the other. There is no such thing as little consequence to a person who is enduring the rigors of pregnancy or labor.

[Lidku]

This Clarance Thomas guy is a real character. Apparently he wants to pivot the SCOTUS to take up a case against same-sex marriage? Kinda a slippery slope in his case, considering he's in an interracial marriage. Though I wonder, would he make an attempt to repeal interracial marriage regardless of his own personal status?

[None]

I don't see how those two are related.
I don't have any empirical evidence, but aren't more black babies aborted than white babies? Arguably, do we not get more black people than white people with restrictions on abortion?  Don't the black fathers and their families deserve some rights when the white mother-to-be, and her white family, decide they can't bear to bring a black kid into this world?

Eh, I'm not saying that I agree with the Court's decision.  But I'm leery of throwing race relations into the abortion issue without sensitivity to both issues of race and unplanned pregnancy.

Welp. This is all going to spiral badly.

Now that is quite accurate.

i'm sorry, do socioeconomic circumstances not factor in at all in your world view, or are life-threatening medical emergencies just better for black people making this a win for them? Won't anyone please think about how the men are hurt when women take control of their personal health?

Also, I really can't help you if you think the pregnant white woman in this circumstance won't be entirely alienated by said white family if that's the crux of your imagined abortion scenario. Or, fuck, if you assume every child could be loved and supported appropriately if they only couldn't get aborted.

It seems to me that you are saying it is OK to kill babies if it helps the white woman get along better with her white family.
There are plenty of valid reasons to get an abortion.  I wish to be clear on that.  But making one's family happy, in my opinion, is not one of them.

There is also an inherent problem in saying "babies shouldn't be born if they can't be supported". Do only Rich People get to dictate who gets born?

Frankly, you sound like a rich bitch, and I'm feeling like I don't value your opinions very much.

To be even more clear:
1) I don't want to be forced to have a child, because I just don't want a child -> OK
2) I don't want to be forced to have a child, because I don't want to pay for it -> Every deadbeat father in existence, NOT OK

1) They're not babies
2) It's the woman's choice, end of discussion
3) If the woman chooses because her family won't tolerate it, it's the woman's choice.
4) We culturally have deep-seated issues with race, but forcing a fetus to be carried to term won't fix that.
5) Rich people don't get to dictate if a fetus is carried to term, the woman does.
6) It's not the deadbeat father that's carrying the fetus to term, it's the woman, and therefore it's her choice.
7) Pregnancy is still a life-threatening medical fiasco and it's also very, very expensive.
8 ) Can you guess who decides in a pregnancy to carry the risk and monetary cost? That's right, the woman.

Are you seeing a pattern here? I'll send my butler to connect the dots for you if you're not quite sure.

[Rolan7]

Remember these two fundamental facts about LGBTQ people:
1) They got money, at least some in the alphabet.
2) Unlike other discriminated groups, they can pretend to be straight then advocate for their group to be protected.

Also: Marriage is a constitutionally protected right. Limiting the genders of those who get married is plainly discriminatory.  It's harder.

Trans rights are the most vulnerable, especially in the areas of public accommodations and health care.

Eh, I'm not saying that I agree with the Court's decision.  But I'm leery of throwing race relations into the abortion issue without sensitivity to both issues of race and unplanned pregnancy.

The question is whether this establishes a precedent that can be used to overturn essentially any law that related to social progress, something that before this would have been an unthinkable option in terms of legal precedent since later legal precedent could be used to override earlier rulings.

I think that is a fair concern, but note that overturning precedent is how you get social progress.
Hopefully, this case fits in the "rare and special" category, so the Supreme Court doesn't think they can pull this shit every day.
My crystal ball is in the shop, so all I can say is keep watching.

Actually, people need to make a big deal about this.  The Supreme Court does consider the public perceptions of their actions: If they think the blowback from this case is "less than expected", they'll be emboldened to make more decisions. If they feel the heat of the public's near-universal hatred, then they'll take on less controversial issues for a while.

I did pick up one thing from the decision: If people want better laws, they need to elect better people. 
If the Texas GOP is a bunch of neo-nazis, vote those assholes out.
Organize better among the Democrats.  Support more moderate Texan Republicans. Form a Third Party. Eh, I don't live in Texas, so frankly I just don't care. If you don't live in Texas, maybe it ain't your problem either? Maybe we each need to worry more about our own states, and less about what crazy & stupid people are doing in other states?
Yes, I am aware that people move between states. But I can't worry about 49 other states being optimal if I should possibly wish to move in some unforeseen future.

The people in Texas can't just vote the "neo-nazis" (fascists, mostly) out because of voter suppression methods and gerrymandering.  People volunteer a lot of personal time and money to fight such measures, but they remain effective at trapping a fairly balanced state in heavily conservative hands.

It's "my problem" (outside of basic empathy) because Texas wields incredible power on the federal level.  The Texas GOP's recent manifesto is not limited to states-rights issues, they are coming after all of us.  "States Rights" is a LIE, a stepping stone they use to crush all opposition locally before acting federally.

Mike Pence already proved this today by proposing a federal anti-abortion law.  It's just grandstanding... for now... but it is absolutely what they want.  The idea that we can just sit by and let Texas be a shithole is at once horrific and naive.

And yeah, only zoomers grew up with legal gay marriage.  If we can force people to carry fetuses, we can certainly allow states to deny marriages.  This is also on the Texas GOPs public agenda: refusing to acknowledge "unnatural" homosexual marriages from other states.  Again, Roberts and the GOP are being very explicit that they're not stopping with abortion (as if that would be okay).  They're not even being sneaky about it anymore.

Somewhat related and not for the faint of heart, I saw a twitter thread recently that reminded me how fragile these rights are.  My leftish-liberal father deliberately deadnames famous trans people so I really shouldn't be shocked, it's just how things are. 

CW: Lots of slurs and rather depressing.  https://twitter.com/Fondantfiend/status/1539838398566846464?t=8cCRBDH9Tfix199sUlE-Pw&s=09
But the idea that we queers will be okay because some of our alphabet has money... what the fuck, man.  That's such a weird implication and it doesn't even matter to the Right.  Even Pete Buttigieg, the most respectable and polite gay, is still just a *slur* to the Right.

Oh and I forgot that we can just hide and live with it.  Thanks!  I've done that all my life and now I'm 36 and only now getting a sense for what I was missing, but that's great advice!  Fuck!

[Lidku]

America is heading toward a civil war, or at least, extreme balkanization.

[TamerVirus]

All I know is that there’s gonna be some spicy protests this weekend!
Grab your riot shields

[Rolan7]

This Clarance Thomas guy is a real character. Apparently he wants to pivot the SCOTUS to take up a case against same-sex marriage? Kinda a slippery slope in his case, considering he's in an interracial marriage. Though I wonder, would he make an attempt to repeal interracial marriage regardless of his own personal status?

He actually did bring up Loving v Virginia too, so I guess he's being consistent.  Maybe he wants a divorce, IDFK.  I don't know what he's thinking.
I forgot to mention, re: Democrats in Texas organizing better if they want basic human rights:  Texas targeted mutual aid with their bounty program.  They were going after people for organizing & aiding.  It's not just for abortion, either:  Republicans have always gone after voting-assistance groups in their zealous attempts to STOP PEOPLE FROM VOTING.

[McTraveller]

I think an actual civil war would require too much personal sacrifice for people to actually do it. Instead people will just sit and complain, then drink too much and watch their favorite entertainment.

Localized violence? Yes that's basically inevitable.  But a full civil war? I wouldn't say it's "not possible", but I don't know if I'd put it at more than 50% chance in the next 10 years.  Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe there really are more people out there with guns willing to die for their cause and "be a hero" than I think?

What percent of a population has to be "on board" to have a civil war?

[Rolan7]

When the government withholds justice, the people cease to be peaceful.

I don't foresee a civil war, but I'm sure we're going to get more riots.  (Along with protests, but protests have proven completely ineffective).  It's just how things work.  People don't obey the law merely because of the threat of force, they respect the law when they respect the government.  That currency of respect has been dangerously depleted.

[Lidku]

I wonder how this decision will affect the casual "dating market" in America. This is will probably radicalize most women to disavow dating altogether. This overture will probably have disastrous societal ramifications if this lasts long-term.

[TamerVirus]

This is will probably radicalize most women to disavow dating altogether.

Incel uprising confirmed

[Strongpoint]

Body autonomy is an important right, fetuses ARE NOT persons with any rights. Rats have more personality than fetuses. There is literally nothing to discuss.

One thing that I consider rational is to thoroughly check every woman coming to make an abortion and have her have a chat with a trained professional who will ask essential questions: "Are you being pressured by your family\child's father?", "Are you doing it because of financial problems?", "Are you doing it because of religious beliefs of your community to avoid dishonor?", etc. Then direct her to people who may help her solve her issues. But if she still wants to proceed - it is her right.

And yes, women are often forced into abortion, especially in conservative communities (irony). I know a woman who literally left her home as a teenager because her parents tried to force her to abort the child. She had people who supported her, but many don't.

[McTraveller]

So I was going to write something long, but ultimately it just comes down to this:

Do the right thing always, regardless of what the government or anyone else says.  And the right thing is basically treating other people with kindness, especially when they are your enemy.

[Lidku]

This is will probably radicalize most women to disavow dating altogether.

Incel uprising confirmed

LOL