The most depressing part of this is that so many activists (and most citizens as well) have no comprehension of what the ruling was about. It was not a statement about whether abortion was right or wrong, it was whether an activist court overreached in making it legal on a federal basis in 1972.
Most of the states where these protests are occurring are not impacted at all by the ruling.
Unfortunately, our media either doesn't understand the ruling as well, or they do, and instead of being journalists, choose to paint it in a way to create as many clicks as possible, and encourage divineness amongst the readers.
My other favorite is the "six week abortion ban", I've had people parroting their deceptive media sources tell me "don't they know there may not even be a fetal heartbeat at six weeks!"
(the bills are EXPRESSLY bills that only ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat, and the MSM simply calls them six week bills in order to deceive a bit and control the language, since "fetal heartbeat" creates more empathy)
And the media never mentioning that RBG stated that R V W was a “ leaky document” and that it should go back to the States. Never diffuse a misunderstood DIVISIVE topic.
What really has them angry is that in recent decades, the left has relied on judicial overreach to implement policies that they could never get legislative approval for. They see this court reversing that trend, and it scares the hell out of them.
Actually, I was most encouraged by the SCOTUS position to reign in some of the regulatory agencies, another back door that Dem congress folks have used instead of passing legislation.
Narcissism. “Hey everybody, look at me, I’m [pro or anti] abortion!”
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood’s website lists 12 different birth control methods, many that are 99 percent effective, and the morning after pill is available in 50 states.
The funniest thing to me is that there is some small but critical mass of loud shouters who think that they can control the engine of government to make other people do what they want them to do. It never works. It never has worked.
Prohibition: people still drank alcohol, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
Attempts at gun control: people still have guns, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
End of Roe v. Wade: people will still get abortions because they feel the need to and don't care about the law
The only thing sillier than the state making itself look silly are the people who insist the state should make itself look silly.
You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses. The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women. Abortions will be either illegal or extremely hard to obtain or require a great deal of money. The next step is to ban all birth control methods that don't require the women to beg the man to cooperate and leave her helpless against him.
Except for the states that allow abortion up until birth. Do you think California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, et al are going to restrict their current abortion laws? No, they won’t. So stop with the useless scare tactics. It makes you look stupid.
Here in Illinois, the legislature via Dem super majority is all-in on abortion for all. No need for a minor having it done to advise her parent. Also, the IL Gov who is running for Pres had ribbon-cutting ceremony at new metro-East (St. Louis) women's health care/abortion clinic. Illinois is officially an abortion destination.
"The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women."
Wow! I did not know this. That's really terrible. Is it even possible for us decent people to live among all these monsters? And to think that many of them are women themselves! Unbelievable! Anyway, it's cool that you know so much about them so you can inform us. I'll be on the lookout.
Plenty of women are dupes thinking that men regard them as SPECIAL and that they will still be respected and allowed to engage in meaningful work after men get the laws they want. Other women are stupid whores who deserve miserable lives but the Special Cool Girls will be exempt! You’re totally wrong; to men you’re just another piece of worthless dirt to be scraped off after you’re no longer useful.
WTF are you talking about? The only factual statement you made is, "You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses." You're absolutely right...celebrating the demented photos of partial birth aborted babies demonstrates the evil you state.
Nonsense. ‘Partial birth abortion’ was a slogan devised by the woman-haters to make a rare procedure done in terribly dangerous pregnancies scary to the uninformed public. If you cared about babies, you had 50 years to make birth control free, child care and parental leave universally available, and force men to actually be some use around the house.
You did NONE of those things; you opposed every single effort we feminists made.
Maybe in the blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland. I will deliver it garbed as Lord Humungus from THE ROAD WARRIOR, shouting through a bullhorn to a terrified encampment.
I disagree about the loud shouters, etc. There have been demonstrations, or rather, series of demonstrations, that worked, to wit, the US Civil Rights demonstrations. The point of a demonstration, or any other form of direct action, is not to make friends and influence people, or to present a logical argument; it is to make trouble over an issue which the demonstrators care about, and to continue making trouble, exacting a cost from their opponents / oppressors, until the cost rises to the point where it outweighs the benefit to the o/o to continue whatever it is they're doing. It is not a contest of ideology, manners, righteousness, or popularity; it's a contest of will and interest. Loud shouting is usually annoying, and therefore may be a useful tool, but in most cases it's only a beginning.
I think the protests are nothing more than an attempt to stir up the blue base before the midterms, and a significant number of protestors are paid to be there.
A good friend of mine’s unemployed son is currently being paid to carry a protest sign. I did know what cause he’s protesting; could be pro or con. Paid protesters are all too real.
The SCOTUS is wrong. Women have the inherent right to control their lives that includes ending a pregnancy, it is not granted by the government at any level as explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. The ONLY role that the courts are granted the power to play as per Article III is to ensure that rights are not infringed and thus whether a law is constitutional or not.
For conservatives, this was just the first step towards a nation-wide, court-decreed ban on abortion on the basis of ‘life begins at conception’. Next will be an interstate case to move to the next leg of the race. Whatever it takes to get a case before the Supremes where they will rule on the question of whether life begins at conception or not.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Don't be stupid. The Dobbs decision self there is no :right of "privacy" arising in the Constitution related to abortion. It had nothing to do with the "federal government", with or without the courts. Don't be an idiot.
The court had no authority to nullify the right to abortion. If they believed it to be improperly ruled as under the unenumerated right to privacy, ironically, privacy is not an enumerated right, then they should have placed it where it belongs, under the Ninth Amendment.
You see the same exact thing with Citizens United. People hate it but don't realize that if it went the other way, government could simply outlaw your speech before an election.
If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
Luckily (and this has been pointed out many times to you), the court did no such thing - they simply (correctly) stated the states were the ones with the power (thank you 10th Amendment).
Wrong. The SCOTUS did nullify a woman's right as it threw the issue back to the states to decide, which makes it a privilege. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Therefore, Dobbs is unconstitutional on its face.
actually i understand completely what the ruling was about; it is about christians setting up a theocratic state under the guise of states rights or the ruling was decided incorrectly. the majority opinion cherry picked data, if they had gone back to 1776 the statement would have noted that abortion prior to quickening was legal in the US when the constitution was ratified but that would have interfered with their preordained decision
I agree, but do you know why or have an opinion on why the Supreme Court decided to make this decision now? It's a highly charged political issue and in the midst of all that is going on, couldn't they have waited? Like do it next year. I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states.
Because the state of Mississippi brought a case that they accepted and ruled on. I don't know that anybody has tried bringing the case for review before, but I may be wrong. As RGB said, this past ruling was on shaky ground, and Congress should have made it an enumerated right decades ago.
Thanks. I found a good article on it. This issue was taken up rather late last year. I wish they would have waited. I'm not against people taking to the streets to voice their objections, but I have had my fill of marches, screaming voices and banners.
"I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states."
Wrong. All rights are constitutional issues as government's role is t protect them, not nullify them as explained in the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist #84 and the Ninth Amendment. The court's ruling unconstitutional on its face as it has no authority to nullify rights.
The media doesn't understand? The most depressing part is that people like you don't understand!
The SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to do what it did, nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life that includes ending a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus itself becomes a being, when its brain develops the capacity for mind.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which16 they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
Ah, Jeffey, your idiocy arises again! You must be the dumbest shit out there. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life". It merely said the US Constitution does not include a right to privacy such that laws cannot be enacted regulating abortion.
You really are one of the worst Trolls commenting here.
The idea a person, despite humble origin and a myriad of flaws both personal and professional, can rise above their station and do more than anyone bargained for? By staying true to their principles the best they know how, forge a legacy worth remembering, whatever the shortcomings?
That perhaps, so that we may even improve on it to form a more perfect union?
Please. Culturally expropriate the every living shit out of that. I insist.
LOL! You're a true idiot. Read The Federalist #84 and the historical background of the Ninth Amendment and deal with the facts laid out by the founders on this or don't post.
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility."
Should Alexander Hamilton had met our dear and illustrious Jeff Biss, he would've bestowed upon Biss' personage and all his heirs the title of, "King Cunt of Taibbi's Substack."
I certainly appreciate the Hamilton quote, and understand the concern. The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights.
The Court overstepped it’s authority in Row because it created a Federal law, which it has no authority to do. Should the abortion issue come before them in the context of unenumerated rights the outcome might be far different from Dobbs. My understanding (which is minimal) is that there is even some historical support of the right to an abortion. I’m sorry I don’t have a source for my reference.
The point is SCOTUS did not do something unconstitutional, in fact they restored some Federalism. It’s really easy to play this up as anti-abortion Justices forcing their ideology on the nation, and then leave out context. But that context is crucial and totally missing from the conversation. Which I think is the point. It keeps the public divided and distracted while the politicians and their Overlords do other more consequential things.
People's feelings about feelings (about feelings ...) do not affect the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter what Sotomayor feels, and likewise feelings about her feelings are equally irrelevant.
In liberal theory, states, being artifices, do not have rights, only powers, which are granted to them provisionally by the people and serve at their convenience.
"The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights."
Wrong. It is about the inherent right of women to control their own lives without state interference. No level of government has the authority to nullify any right. Their ruling is unconstitutional as Article II provides no power to nullify a right as explained clearly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in his Ninth Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If the "inherent right of women to control their own lives" is retained by the people, what was the point of Roe in the first place? Sound totally superfluous.
WHAT RIGHT? That's the effing point. There is not "right" enumerated in the Constitution and the Roe decision was wrongly decided. Now it's been corrected and women who want an abortion can get one in a state that provides it. No one is stopping them. You can start a gofundme for all of those women who want to aid and abet (just as the moronic protestors screamed).
Sorry, unenumerated rights are simply a loophole to drive through pseudo-laws when a minority is trying to act in opposition to a majority, imho. Abortion should have become an enumerated right, but the fanatics on both sides of this issue prevented it from happening. I'm pro choice, but anti infanticide, which is where, I believe, the vast majority of the population resides.
The solution is for the states to pass laws, or the US Congress to do the same.
For too long, again, imho, SCOTUS and regulatory agencies (EPA big time) have bailed out our dysfunctional Congress by over reaching their roles to change society, when it should be Congress deliberating and acting.
This. There is much talk of executive overreach and judicial overreach (I, personally, am no fan of either) but they might not happen so much if Congress would just do its fucking job. The fact that it hasn't for at least 80 years might be something for a competent political scientist to explain.
Read The Federalist #84. The SCOTUS has no constitutional power to nullify any right as it did with the right to abortion. Article III provides no such power.
Sorry, but you're wrong as explained in the Declaration of Independence, rights are not granted by man, they simply exist and by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. I suggest that you read it. Women have the inherent right to abortion, it is not granted by any state, the federal government, the vote, etc. All unenumerated rights exist, such as the right of privacy, self defense, to take a walk, to read a book, to work on Saturday or Sunday, to live in the neighborhood on one's choice, etc, and are protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Ah, Jeffey, you must be one of the stupidest commenters here. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life." It said there is not a Constitutional right to abortion. If there is an "inherent right" then, OK, just talk to your state legislators about it. Some may disagree, but you are so convinced I am sure you can also convince them.
You continue to be one of the dumbest shits commenting.
LOL! You are dim. Read The Federalist #84. The state, at any level, has no power to nullify any right. The SCOTUS' ruling is unconstitutional as Article III grants it no power to nullify any right and states also have no such power.
Abortion is not an issue the Supreme Court should ever have decided, that is, not a constitutional issue. It's a decision that was meant to be determined by the states.
LOL! It is a constitutional issue to the extent that government has no authority to nullify a woman's right to abortion. It only has the authority to protect rights that would involve setting limits on abortion to protect the fetus when it becomes a being, a person, at the point that its brain develops the capacity for mind.
I see. Your cutoff point is "when it becomes a being, a person, at the point its brain develops the capacity for mind." Crystal clear. When does that happen? 9 months? 8? 7? 6? 5? 4? Upon emergence from the birth canal? Sometime afterward?
"As a first step in answering these questions, we reviewed the literature on fetal pain and fetal anesthesia and analgesia."
"Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
So fair to say you have no real answer and neither do they? Maybe we should appoint a panel of government experts to decide. Maybe we just need the right group of experts to tell us what we wish to hear?
Also, it's an entirely different question than brain-dead people as they are at the opposite end of life's journey.
Rights are central to the constitution as explained in The Federalist #84. Women have the inherent right to abortion, period. The state, government at any level, has no power to nullify rights.
I don't know where you get your information, but abortion is not a constitutional issue, and issues like gun rights are, etc. That's why it went back to the states. Roe v wade should never have been a decision the Supreme Court made. Many seem to think overturning roe v wade was a decision by the court to end abortion rights for women, it is not, but a decision to be made by individual states.
It is a constitutional issue as it is a woman's rights issue. Rights are not granted by any level of government as argued by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Dobbs is unconstitutional as proven by Alito's arguments.
The "right" to exterminate the beating heart of a person with separate DNA is given to someone by whom, by what? Nevermind, I really have no desire to engage you.
I would delve further into the links you’ve posted to understand your position...except when Democratic Congressional leaders respond with “ well, then we are going to pack the courts.” .... and if the Republicans should ever sugges doing that, they’d be screaming from the rafters how unjust and “ unconstitutional “ and how dishonest “ underhanded” , etc etc etc.. it’s like watching two six year olds play “ Go Fish” changing the rules “mid stream.” 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
The Democrats are feckless. The Republicans are the enemy, but with a feckless opposition, they get away with anything that they try to get away with. The Democrats should have been arguing my points, but they haven't because they are feckless, or they are totally ignorant of Article III, The Federalist #84 and the Ninth Amendment.
I'm sorry, where does either of those passages define a "right to privacy"? And what does that actually mean? I had a real Draft Card, does "my body, my choice" apply to Draftees? I can tell you the answer to that one. No, you don't always have a choice.
The Court only decides the Constitutional Question, and the Pro-Abortion side of Roe was a stretch that was criticized by a number of Liberal Legal Experts at the time. Now that decision is back in the hands of the State Legislatures and Courts, where it should have stayed.
Progressives are all Democratic until their side loses.
No. 14th Amdt "substantative due process" and the right to privacy under Griswold (which save a solo concurrence also eschewed a 9th Amdt basis). Thanks for playing, you may pick up your consolation prize on the way out the door.
The constitution does not reference "privacy" therefore according to conservatives it doesn't exist. Conservatives, like yourself, ignore Ninth Amendment because you don't believe in rights, but it's there because Madison and Hamilton did and thus that is its intent, to protect all unenumerated rights.
Thanks for playing, you may pick up your consolation prize on the way out the door.
See Jeff, if you bothered to read my other comments you'd know I'm not much of a conservative, least of all the caricature in your mind.
Hamilton argued for no Bill of Rights because of the inevitable presumption that only those itemized would be protected. The 9th was offered as the weak protection it turned out to be (relative to the "privileges and immunities" that was in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution proper, but would be gutted by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse cases).
Read The Federalist #84 and James Madison's argument against adding a Bill of Rights. Rights were NEVER to be determined by the vote, allowing that was termed "tyranny of the majority" and that was to be avoided.
Hamilton could not have known about the state of medical science in the 21st Century. A fetus is considered "viable" (at least a 50% chance of surviving a premature birth) after about 23 weeks of pregnancy. The record is a bit less than 22 weeks. Roe v. Wade extended "rights" well beyond that. I have no doubt that, if he were equipped with that knowledge, Hamilto would consider late term abortions to be murder.
You'll get no where with him, since I've had some encounters with him on this issue. He defined a fetus as a thing until it has developed a mind. I doubt any woman looks at the child she is carrying as an object at any stage of her pregnancy. Even if she chooses to get an abortion I doubt the vast majority of women think she is getting rid of a thing.
I love how people claim a fetus is just a thing, not a human, clump of cells etc. If that's true then why don't pregnant women just chug alcohol and do drugs? if it's just a "thing" that doesn't feel any impacts
LOL! You don't get anywhere with me because you're wrong! The same standard that must be used with the fetus is the same one used for people who suffered brain trauma. If they are brain dead or their brain is such that it cannot support mind then they are no longer considered a being, or person, and their survivors can legally kill them.
The difference between the two is that an adult who is brain dead, is brain dead no matter how long he, or she is on life support, but a fetus has the potential to develop a brain, and that brain becomes even more evolved once the child is born.
"I have no doubt that, if he were equipped with that knowledge, Hamilto would consider late term abortions to be murder."
Your ability to peer into the mind of a man who was shot dead by Aaron Burr in 1804 is nothing short of remarkable. If only Hamilto were with us today, furiously legislatin'!
I am working hard on my BURR and JACKSON musicals but for some reason I can't get any Broadway producers interested in backing my spec scripts. They be like, "It's just all about white men shooting each other and then singing songs about it," and I be like, "Well, yeah, that's American history, raw and unfiltered. Authentic."
The fact is that rights cannot be nullified as the SCOTUS did. As governments are formed to protect rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
Therefore, the court's only path was to rule to protect the fetus' rights when it became a being, when its brain had developed the capacity for mind, which can be determined by neuroscientists (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429).
Your entire argument rests on an article where the words "may" and "probably" feature prominently and literally ends with, "If the fetus can feel pain..."
It concludes nothing about what neuroscientists can or cannot determine about a person's capacity for mind.
Jesus never mentioned abortion. Not once. If it was so important, he would have. BTW, Genesis 2:7 says this, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”
Jesus isn't relevant to this discussion. Besides god killed a lot of innocents, babies, animals, adults who did nothing wrong, etc. God also had the Israelites kills babies, etc. Besides, that "breath" thing in Jewish tradition occurs at the first breath of a delivered baby.
Women have the inherent right to control their lives that includes abortion until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for consciousness, at which point it becomes a being and thus has rights. Until then the fetus is a mere object with no legal standing except as the property of the woman.
Sex education should be taught with clarity. Unwanted pregnancies, STDs could be prevented if people engaged in sexual activities with more thought. This is probably a hopeless suggestion. But all this energy shown in the video--could some of it not be turned to better education?
Nonsense. The only evidence that sex education taught with or without clarity may reduce unwanted pregnancies comes from a handful of programs operating in institutional settings (like juvenile justice centers) or other therapeutic settings. Sex education generally is simply not effective. Education has far less effect on behavior than we want to believe. What does? The Brookings Institution found that 'reality T.V.' documenting the plight of teen mothers has had a significant impact on spurring contraceptive use. Who knew Jerry Springer was socially beneficial? Pew Research finds that the number of sexually active young people has declined; and those that are, are much more likely to use contraceptives. The 'morning after' pill has also become more ubiquitous. Teen pregnancies (mostly unwanted) are now the lowest since 1955 as are abortion rates since 1973. If anything, what we need is more contraceptive advertising and over-the-counter 'plan B' pills like other most other countries.
I do not think any help people can get is nonsense. Education can be in many forms. I do not think you can rely on teens to watch reality t.v. This video clip shows that lots of people care passionately and some of that energy might be put to providing education. Advertising is one way, but it is also paid for by the companies that produce their product. This is a multi-pronged concern and young men should be as concerned as young women.
The two extremist factions on abortion - the camp that wants abortion on demand any time prior to labor, and the no abortion ever under any circumstances - are the noisiest and least significant in terms of actual numbers. Yet they define the terms of debate, which is insane. And whatever compromise between those two poles is made, neither end will be happy. Tough.
The law that struck down Roe didn't even end abortion, it limited it to 15 weeks - the most common legal limit in Europe. Funny how the left doesn't want to be like Europe on that.
i am part of the left, 15 weeks is fine with me and many others. universalizing an entire group as holding a single opinion is lazy as well as inaccurate. always humorous when rationalists try to reason in public.
My absolute favorite unhinged take was from a woman who I saw interviewed on CNN who said that Republicans wanted to turn women into forced breeders, as in A Handmaid's Tale.
Yep Republican operatives are trolling bars where they ply young women with drinks so they wake up hung over & knocked up.
I have to say that for a group who screams loudly about their reproductive rights they seem woefully ignorant about how their reproductive systems actually work. At times it seems like they think that semen is flying through the air like dust and could, at any moment, impregnate them against their will. Almost as if they think they've had no part in their own impregnation.
Unhinged is right. Heard a woman say yesterday that her 20yo, blue state dwelling daughter now wants to both leave the country and not have children despite always having wanted children.
Wait, what? You don't want to have children because it might become harder to get an abortion in states you don't even live in?
I can't decide if this story is made more absurd on its face or the fact that the mother of the 20yo actually repeated it on cable television. Perhaps it's better if the 20 yr old chooses not to have children -- logic can't be purchased.
Yes and here's an obvious and cheaper (more human) "choice"--hand out birth control. Or even morning after pills (yes, the other extreme is nonsense, too). Why are we paying for all these surgeries in terms of insurance rates or for Planned Parenthood who uses fungible dollars and makes us pay for it as well. HELLO people. But mostly, these laws need to be legislated.
Ha, not many of these people, that's for sure. These progressives are insane, but the pro-lifers need to pick their battles. Handing out birth control and after morning pills would be VASTLY better than what's been happening. Though of course, the issue itself is less important than letting the people decide their own approach to it within states. Still, extreme pro lifers hurt the cause. Nothing wrong with morning after pills and birth control. And even before heartbeat rules or first trimester would be huge improvement. But at LEAST, don't fight the morning after pill. Please folks.
Y'know I never thought of that angle. Covid and babies as plagues to be avoided.
Although for a crew that seems willing to boost forever while they bathe in Purell & wrap themselves in mask layer after mask layer you'd think that they'd be able to muster the energy to slip on one measly condom.
Probably not Mr. pierce. I think they had a long standing policy of "don't ask don't tell" that dates back to the reign of the Cuomo brothers. No one wanted to overturn that bound & ball gagged rock.
We can also mention Rage Against the Machine who recently dragged themselves out of old rocker limbo to do a concert where the lead singer/millionaire activist kept using the phrase "birth givers."
Say the word bitch, say it. W-O-M-E-N. Repeat after me, W-O-M-E-N.
Rage Against The Machine told me to rage against the machine and I raged. Despite all my rage, I was still just a rat in a cage.
Personal anecdote: I was in an elevator at the Plaza in Las Vegas about 20 years ago with an Asian lady probably in her 50s and she was ragin': "YOU CANNOT BEAT THE MACHINE! THE MACHINE BEATS YOU!" Funniest fucking shit ever. I will take it with me to my grave.
If you are referring to Margaret Sanger, I don't know whether she was "rich" but she was a eugenicist (which at that time was considered to be a respectably scientific position, although far from universal), and a racist, even judged by the standards of the day.
IIRC, the public is not allowed to access her archive, as "St. Margaret" had many things to say that would not do by today's standards for secular sainthood.
Interestingly enough links that I could easily find even a couple of years ago outlining many of her unsavory words and deeds have been completely replaced with a burst of articles from various MSM outlets trying to whitewash Sanger's reputation.
Are you questioning St. Margaret? Don't you know that Big Tech has our best interests at heart and is only trying to protect us from wrongthink and disinformation?
Actually she isn’t. It is sometimes argued by abortion fanatics that restricting abortion is racist because black people get them disproportionately.
It’s valuable context to note that one significant reason black women were historically encouraged to get abortions was because the people promoting abortions were eugenisists who desired to disproportionately reduce the population of black people. It’s hard to argue the disproportionate number of planned parenthood’s located near black populations has nothing to do with the founder’s view that black people generally had inferior genes and should practice abortion more.
For the party that nursed the kkk to support an organization that was founded partly on reducing the population of black people shouldn’t be good optics. Maybe it should be supporting orphanages and adoption of black babies rather than funding their destruction. I mean, if it didn’t want to look like it hasn’t changed much since it fought the civil war to keep black people as slaves.
The hysteria of college educated upper middle class white females is a sight to behold. Does this fill some other empty place in their lives? Asking for a friend.
Personally, as a father who saw the ultrasound of the tiny baby moving inside my wife, I have a fairly mixed viewpoint on this. I do think it’s killing a baby. But I do not think the government should ever dictate what women do with their bodies. This is a life which is completely dependent on the woman. You can hate abortion and refuse to support the government interfering in a woman’s right to choose.
The statistics on this are horrifying. Black women have had 20 million abortions since Roe v Wade. And there are only 45 million black Americans. Those are genocide numbers.
But women are not baby factories living at the whim of congress and the courts. This is their basic freedom which is being attacked.
I end up thinking tolerance and understanding are going to have more positive impact than draconian laws.
By the way, YES I intentionally said “women”, not birthing people. Because only women have babies.
But before that is settled science, where do men who become pregnant stand on aborting these babies they claim to be able to have?? It obviously should be front and center in this dialog....... 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️... The Age of No Reason
"Black women have had 20 million abortions since Roe v Wade. And there are only 45 million black Americans. Those are genocide numbers."
Thank you for this major point. Unlimited abortion is one of the most racist policies in the United States today.
For at least the last half-dozen years, more black babies have been aborted than white babies, even the total black population is around 1/4 of the white population.
Yes, I want ALL children to be born. Parents of those children can choose adoption. I don't nor does anyone have the "right" to kill a growing, beating heart with separate DNA.
Dialogueless politics. That’s about it. We go from one rage machine moment to the next. Feed them something they can rage against, since they’re already nuts. I mean (sorry) but look at them. Is there any other conclusion? Then, while they’re feeding, take away their real rights. Has anyone noticed censorship? Or loss of body autonomy in the form of injections or the crimes against farmers happening everywhere, along with our food supplies? The real message is “pick a side” so we can do whatever is necessary to destroy the opposition. “Dialogueless politics”. Beautiful little phrase, Matt and a perfect summation of this moment.
It is not encouraging to see that the authors conflate _conservatism_ with the Right. The principles of the Right (at least before our vocabularies were put in the blender) were authority, power, private wealth, social status, the military virtues, and so on. While those on top usually want to stay there, in fact rightists could be radicals or moderates, classical fascists being an example of rightist radicalism. Conservatives, on the other hand, dislike change, so in a leftist polity the conservatives might wish to conserve liberalism or social democracy. The authors' confusion about political terms probably extends to their findings.
As for predicting "mental illness", that concept often means a failure to adhere to norms set by prestige groups and lacks objective meaning. It is so vulgar to respond to disagreement with a charge of "mental illness" that the Soviet Union went through a phase of practicing it, after they became embarrassed about flinging dissidents into prisons and concentration camps.
Democrats had 50 years to do something about Roe. They even had a heads up this year. Supreme Court ain’t the issue here.
Obama came into office with quite the head wind, nothing. Democrats spent every election reminding everyone who would listen that if republicans get into power Roe will go away, nothing.
Are the Democrats really interested in Roe?! Or just re-election?
Add immigration reform to the list. Dems had a supermajority in 2009 and could have easily peeled off a few republicans but instead we got Obamacare battles.
Precisely right. Dems have used the abortion issue (specifically the imminent overturning of Roe) as a bogeyman to scare up votes in every election in my living memory. Seems no one clued them in to what happened to the gender-nonspecific individual who cried 'Wolf!' - but since it is one of those issues that gets people to ballot boxes who might not otherwise vote, I can't conjure what the Republican's strategy is here. Unless there isn't one, and all those rich old fucks in Congress are just ready to watch the country burn from the decks of their yachts.
That’s my next response to my doctor when she offers up another jab. Herd immunity is clearly not attainable, vaccines do not prevent contracting the disease, so , like, NO, I’ve had enough with the false science.
What I find interesting is the people who try to claim that vaccines are different because the decision affects other people. But let's say we accept that and leave aside any questions of whether the decision to have an abortion also affects other people, all that they are actually saying is that they believe bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, and it can be overruled in certain situations.
So anyone who accepts that needs to also accept that "bodily autonomy" is not an argument for abortion rights. The argument has now become "do other factors override bodily autonomy in this case"?
There could be competing rights. For example, we may believe in the right of free speech but still suppress incitement, "fighting words", "shouting fire in a crowded theater", and so forth. Bodily autonomy, even if not absolute, could be considered such a right. The government (or the people, mob, etc.) would then have to justify invading and overriding the right in question. I'm not taking that position, I'm just pointing out that it's sort of rational.The assumption that the government etc. have the right to seize control of people's bodies for an arbitrary purpose, especially one whose main support is religious, has not been justified and is not rational if you start out with the assumption that the powers of the government etc. are to be limited.
Yes absolutely. The point is just that anyone claiming “my body, my choice” as an argument is full of crap. The argument is: under what conditions (if any) does “my body, my choice” get overruled by other rights when it comes to abortion? Anyone unwilling to have that discussion and who is just throwing out mantras shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Well, one could be an absolutist: "Under no conditions may my body or parts of it be seized or controlled by the government, the people, institutions, whatever. That's equally rational (from my point of view) because a person might well desire that because of the way the self is constituted as it arises in nature. The principle would apply not only to abortion but to contraception, sex change and other medical procedures, drug use, including both medicinal use (like vaccines) and recreational use, torture, and the death penalty. Have I left anything out?
How about lockdowns? Forcing people to remain in the homes. Incarceration in general? I’m not sure of an argument that would make death penalty a bodily autonomy issue but not incarceration.
Many boundaries can be drawn between the self and the external world. The physiological boundary of the body (that is, a person's skin) seems like the last and most interior, unless we're going to talk about brains in vats and other fictive concepts. Imprisonment and lockdowns could be interpreted as being outside that innermost boundary. Actually, to actually remain alive requires several liberties, powers or resources not contained in the body, like being able to breathe, drink, eat, rest, and so on. Since prohibiting (or requiring) abortion invades the innermost limits of the body, it invades all the other limits as well. The death penalty and torture also invade those limits in a way that imprisonment doesn't _necessarily_.
The current president and vice president have both made a career out of the war on drugs, and they aren't doing anything to stop it at the federal level even today. So, I'd say plenty of people love the war on drugs, they've just stopped saying it outloud.
The current president and vice president are cynical rightists (assuming the president is still cognitively capable of cynical rightism). Their supposed opinions have no bearing on the present discussion.
I can understand the passion of anti-abortion activists -- 'murdering innocent children!' and all that.
But the pro-abortion activists? I mean, the prospect of traveling across the state line for abortion? How can you get riled up so much about that? Sorry, but their outrage seems completely phoney...
Because it costs money. For large percentages of women seeking abortions, it's a LOT of money, not to mention time off from work, etc. Not arguing, just answering your question. As far as the hysterical outrage, I don't think it's phony; it's just dipshit stupid. Who responds to hysterical outrage? No one with a brain...
You're imagining folks have money in a country where the average person can't scrape together $400 cash (documented in a broad nationwide study) to handle unexpected contingency cost. For the un-average person, that means they're broke all the time, and pre-cashing they're paycheck at the currency exchange, and not even really living paycheck to paycheck. Also, with rents being what they are now, most renters are paying 50% or more of their pay to have a place to live. In fact, current credible studies show that (essentially) no one can afford to rent a 1 BR apartment without going backwards financially.
That's the big deal. And like I said, I'm not arguing the point, I'm just pointing out how it IS a big deal for lots of folks.
Oh yeah…Don’t get me started on the stupidities involved in all this. You could also probably include all those people that ain’t got $400…are all tatted out in full arm sleeves.
What better use for a $400 phone than to take pictures of my latest $400 tattoo so I can post it everywhere? PS: You'd better pay for my abortions, fascist!
Tattoo parlors are a going business in my 'burg. Had I any entrepreneurial verve I would start one. They are everywhere but there still don't seem to be enough.
This one has always baffled me. Being a Luddite, I didn't get a cell phone until 2007 when they became cheaper than landlines. The bums in the bum park across the road don't have housing, but they all have iPhones. Priorities!
I don't know. My point is: the cost of abortion itself is several hundred bucks. To the hypothetical woman you're talking about here it's already a big deal. The $80 bus ticket doesn't seem to make a lot of difference.
In fact, restrictions and outright bans in some states might just turn abortion into economy of scale: fewer providers with higher volume, and, therefore, lower prices.
Sure, maybe, but now we're talking about something else. Back to financials...
These hypothetical woman are not hypothetical, credible studies have shown it's real money to a LOT of people.
And yes, rioting or otherwise beefing about stuff that's a done deal is dumbshit. Time to figure out the financials, not prolong the stupidity with demonstrations very few give a shit about.
Many of them are sincerely outraged because of slippery slope arguments. They this as being a functional banning of all abortion somehow, that women with life-threatening pregnancies will be legally prevented from receiving DNCs, that women will be investigated and prosecuted for miscarriages, that contraception will be outlawed and that gay marriage will be outlawed. So they are angry at the imaginary narrative in their head (and being fed by pundits and the media, in many cases).
I think that depends on how intellectually and emotionally grounded the person is. And the degree to which the current culture has taught them that having a tantrum is the best way to get what they want.
The basic principle, if only intuitively understood, is the limit of the power of government. In history, it has certainly a very slippery slope. As for tantrums, if they work, OK; if not, one must try something else.
They shouldn't HAVE to cross state lines. While it's true that doing so is not a particular hardship considering the gravity of the situation, it is no one's business but the parents'.
The invasion into the privacy and personal freedoms of the individual is an overreach by a government established to protect individual liberties. They shouldn't have control over whether I smoke weed and they shouldn't have control over whether I want to mitigate a mistake.
The protests and outrage are indeed well justified. The court's decision, is not.
The court's decision in this case is entirely justified. And long overdue. The Roe decision was essentially justices writing law as if they were legislators (not that it's unique in this, this happens a lot--a lot of their previous decisions should be overturned on that basis).
I don't personally have a problem with it being left up to the states (I prefer a much, much less powerful central government generally) but if it is going to be a federal matter, that should be taken care of by the congress. It should be a matter of legislation (like so many other things) rather than judicial fiat.
I'm pro-choice and 100% support European-style abortion legality. If any state outlaws the morning after pill, that state is stupid. Etc. But that doesn't mean Roe V. Wade was a good decision (it was not) or that the SCOTUS did not reach far beyond it's remit when it decided to literally legislate from the bench (it did). I'm okay with a reasonable compromise bill by congress protecting abortion rights (some people disagree that the federal government has the right to affirmatively decide to make something "legal" against the will of the states without passing a constitutional amendment; I don't think that's the case).
But the courts decision was correct, in this case, given their actual remit.
What's the timeline on mitigating that kind of mistake? I mean, I intended to have both my children but there have been numerous times when I've thought I had made a mistake there--so what rationale is there in imposing a post-birth limitation on a parent's "right" to mitigate a mistake?
My mother was and is a leftist, and when I was born in 1969 and she might have mitigated that mistake, given I was born a male (I mean, once she found out I was going to be part of the patriarchy), and turning into a woman wasn't a known option back at the time. Or she might have mitigated it at any other later date for any number of reasons.
I'm okay with morning after pill and IUDs in terms of preventing the implantation of the embryo, and I'm okay with a "up to 15 weeks" style compromise. But I subscribe to the old Democrat dogma of "safe, legal and rare". Should be available, rarely used, and done in hospitals of actual OBGYN clinics by medical doctors who actually exist to care for women's health rather that merely perform abortions. IMO.
But I'm also okay with the states passing laws democratically that I disagree with, from complete bans (which I very much disagree with) to abortions-up-to-the-due-date (which I also very much disagree with). That's federalism.
And frankly we'd probably already be at whatever uneasy compromise we were eventually going to arrive at, had the court not decided Roe V. Wade by literally writing legislation from the bench.
I suspect the real story here is what a non-event this has been nationwide. There are always people willing to yell and scream. Put a camera in their face and they love it. They yell and scream louder. They color their hair and put on face paint. 100 of them look like a mob. 500 look like a mass protest. 1000 and you think they're the entire nation.
They're not. Not even close. And they rarely, if ever, shape reality.
Those who do shape reality, they do it quietly behind closed doors with money and force with no cameras or journalists watching. They never get on TV. They're not in videos. At least not as themselves. But they are, as actors, playing a role with their strings pulled by . . . drum roll please . . . . yes that's the Big Question isn't it?
I'm not at all disputing your point, but I do wonder why this stuff gets intensive media coverage now and the mass protests against Iraq War II 19 years ago (by mostly non-face-painted, non-hair-colored people) didn't.
Also, all the “good politicians” were for the war, with Hillary being at the front of the line. We can’t question Hillary or the “good people”, can we?
Well, many of us tried but failed. The "good people" are very powerful.
It will never cease to be of interest to me that Obama rode into power by questioning the "good people" and immediately became the foremost "good person."
He was, above all, a chameleonic spokesmodel for policies he didn’t formulate, understand, or care about. He is a charismatic sleazebag with his eye on where the money is at all times. He learned from Valerie, a master at the un-indictable con.
sometimes big things do start out with small protests. So the idea of covering & reporting on small protests is not at all a journalistically useless idea. It's always hard to know what will become what.
Well, today is Bastille Day, so point taken. If the Marquis de Sade hadn't been using his piss funnel for a megaphone and shouting through the bars of the cell he was in (in the Bastille) urging the demonstrators on to bigger things, it wouldn't have happened.
So, a sadist was very much part of the cause of revolution. Which opens up lots of possible thoughts....
Bingo. In Perstein's "Nixonland", he lays out that organizational process starting back in the 60's. The guys that put this together, no one has ever heard of. A lot of the folks currently in the news were around then, as supporters or facilitators, but it was the unknowns that made it all happen.
Slavery still remains very present to some people (I mean, the slavery of the western world that pretty much went away by 150 years ago).
There's also plenty of actual slavery going on outside of first world democracies but those same people so concerned about how the legacy of slavery infuses and informs everything in the present day in America and Europe seem remarkably unconcerned about ongoing slavery in the present day in Africa, the Middle-East, China and elsewhere.
It knows one limit: the civilizing influences of a civilized culture. Irrespective of any flaws of Western society, deconstructing it and destroying or corrupting all its institutions is a terrible idea--for everybody. Reduced to our natural state, humans will indeed be horrendously depraved.
It's coming. That's perhaps the greatest benefit of the Dobbs decision. These people will start to run out of steam when sensible abortion laws get passed that generally reflect the opinions of the voters of the various states. We're not there yet, but we will be. Look at Europe and notice that this nonsense isn't happening there.
Perhaps people in the west especially the USA will figure out that "it's the system stupid!" I'm not hopeful. After the acceptance of the woke agenda and the COVID narrative and now the Ukraine narrative; I've pretty well given up hope. Of course, being an atheist All my memorable life I've never understood how anyone could believe those absurdities and I never will. People can believe anything. I do agree that changes within the system will never happen, it's just too corrupt. Millions in the streets would do it but organizing Americans is like herding cats. Things are going to get really bad in Europe, perhaps the people will take to the streets in the millions, the yellow vests in France and now the farmers in Holland might be a start.
As long Rutte does not cross the United States, he can sleep safely in his bed as long as the security forces remain on side. So far, there is no sign that his grip on the police or military is slipping.
Seems that way. A real piece of work. Well hooked into the WEF. Don't know much about him but I'm guessing he's a feckless wonder like Trudeau, not a direct bankster plant like macron or super Mario. What gives me some hope is that the french rose up a few decades ago and ran the president right out of the country. Just happened in Sri Lanka. I'm more than a little concerned about what is going to happen when Russia takes the whole Donbass by fall and the US, of course I mean the Ukraine refuses to negotiate. WWIII is a possibility then with the US election comming up soon.
The problem is that the West in general and the United States in particular have already lavished so much material, financial and moral support on the Ukrainian regime that anything less than Total Victory will be a blow to Muh American Credibility. As a result, the West has put itself in a position where it has no choice but to keep on doubling down, and every time the West doubles down, the cost of calling off the war (in terms of damage to Muh Credibility) keeps going up.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
Yeah, throw good money after bad, the MIC love's it. Throw Good lives after the dead. I wish they would teach USMC General Smedley Butlers book "War is a racket" in every grade of every American school. Take the lives and money saved from the military and the foreign adventures and rebuild the country into it's potential.
"anything less than Total Victory will be a blow to Muh American Credibility"
Iraq and Afghanistan weren't such a blow?
The fact that the disastrous results of the USA's military adventures of the past two decades merit only a handwave and are not talked about in polite company make me, depressedly, a believer in von Bismarck's maxim about a special providence for fools, drunkards, etc.
Good point. By now it is obvious to anyone with as much sense as God gave a stray cat that America is an empire in decline, and that any further damage might well be fatal.
Which is why the Empire has to go for broke, rather than go out quietly and mind its own business.
Individual cat's are very limited on what they can accomplish. Pride's of Lions and packs of wolves can accomplish much more. Homo sapiens are social animals like wolves and can accomplish much in groups. The problem is that HS can and do believe stories and the ruling classes use this to control us. How to get the masses to work and fight for their own benefits, I have no idea. Union's have been destroyed, they were the first target of Hitler and the first of the neoliberalism elite's. In collective action is strength, individual action is severely limited against the the ruling classes who use your sisters and brothers against you.
Democracy, such a nice word, aspirational for sure. Pharaoh got his workers "no, they weren't slaves" to build his pyramids and fight in his wars using "manufactured consent" which is how the ruling classes do it today. The biggest difference other than technology between then and now is that pharaoh would forgive debts from time to time through a debt jubilee. It gave a very big practical reason for the unwashed to support him. Other rulers did the same. The Roman oligarchy put an end to that. From the Grachi brothers to Julius Caesar who tried to lessen the grip of the oligarchy it didn't end well for them. There's never been a democracy in the history of the world and the USA isn't even close, Switzerland is probably closest. "There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free" Hannah Ardent. On a practical level at the lower levels of society, China is more democratic than any Western country. That's why things are getting better for the Chinese people and worse for the working classes in the west.
I had to take a break at 7 minutes because I honestly felt like the sheer lameness was causing me brain damage.
Those activists are the most pathetic thing I've seen I've seen since Greta Thornberg yelled at the UN.
These nitwits are impossible to take seriously.
This is true even though the issue is incredibly serious.
I actually have trouble thinking of a more morally fraught social issue than abortion. But the entire public dialogue is so utterly fucking pathetic that it chased every serious person to the sidelines.
I have no idea what to do about nitwits like these activists. Maybe promise them all a sum of money if they promise to never leave their campus?
What I don't understand is what they think they're doing. Do they think the SC will take it all back? Say "Never mind?" It's crystal clear that the fight is now in state legislatures. It's about filing bills and lobbying for yours and against theirs. After that, it's about supporting your candidates and opposing theirs. Clowning around in the streets does none of that.
Clowning around the streets raises funds. This is all about money and stupidity. Note that 90% of the people on the streets protesting are young, probably out of work, idiots.
Nope, it doesn't. It alienates all those people they need to align with. But, that's lost on these types. Riots do work though...they make sure all those folks just trying to get through the world, that might align with them, never do.
The most depressing part of this is that so many activists (and most citizens as well) have no comprehension of what the ruling was about. It was not a statement about whether abortion was right or wrong, it was whether an activist court overreached in making it legal on a federal basis in 1972.
Most of the states where these protests are occurring are not impacted at all by the ruling.
Unfortunately, our media either doesn't understand the ruling as well, or they do, and instead of being journalists, choose to paint it in a way to create as many clicks as possible, and encourage divineness amongst the readers.
Omission by decision. Keep the populace uninformed and you can control them via simple narratives. Every authoritarian regime used the same playbook.
My other favorite is the "six week abortion ban", I've had people parroting their deceptive media sources tell me "don't they know there may not even be a fetal heartbeat at six weeks!"
(the bills are EXPRESSLY bills that only ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat, and the MSM simply calls them six week bills in order to deceive a bit and control the language, since "fetal heartbeat" creates more empathy)
Correction: after a fetal heartbeat is *detected*
And the media never mentioning that RBG stated that R V W was a “ leaky document” and that it should go back to the States. Never diffuse a misunderstood DIVISIVE topic.
What really has them angry is that in recent decades, the left has relied on judicial overreach to implement policies that they could never get legislative approval for. They see this court reversing that trend, and it scares the hell out of them.
Actually, I was most encouraged by the SCOTUS position to reign in some of the regulatory agencies, another back door that Dem congress folks have used instead of passing legislation.
For reasons I don't understand I'm unable to click the heart emoji, so I agree.
What precisely is an example of "judicial overreach to implement policies"?
However, this ruling is unconstitutional for the reasons that I posted.
Narcissism. “Hey everybody, look at me, I’m [pro or anti] abortion!”
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood’s website lists 12 different birth control methods, many that are 99 percent effective, and the morning after pill is available in 50 states.
The funniest thing to me is that there is some small but critical mass of loud shouters who think that they can control the engine of government to make other people do what they want them to do. It never works. It never has worked.
Prohibition: people still drank alcohol, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
Attempts at gun control: people still have guns, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
End of Roe v. Wade: people will still get abortions because they feel the need to and don't care about the law
The only thing sillier than the state making itself look silly are the people who insist the state should make itself look silly.
You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses. The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women. Abortions will be either illegal or extremely hard to obtain or require a great deal of money. The next step is to ban all birth control methods that don't require the women to beg the man to cooperate and leave her helpless against him.
Except for the states that allow abortion up until birth. Do you think California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, et al are going to restrict their current abortion laws? No, they won’t. So stop with the useless scare tactics. It makes you look stupid.
Here in Illinois, the legislature via Dem super majority is all-in on abortion for all. No need for a minor having it done to advise her parent. Also, the IL Gov who is running for Pres had ribbon-cutting ceremony at new metro-East (St. Louis) women's health care/abortion clinic. Illinois is officially an abortion destination.
Good. Illinois believes women are humans, unlike Texas where I live.
Even WI PP sites moved across the border in anticipation of overturning of Roe.
“Red States eye restrictions on interstate travel for abortion services”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/red-states-eye-restrictions-on-interstate-travel-for-abortion-services
It’s not ‘scare tactics’, it’s just being honest about what conservatives’ true end goal is here.
Now, how about you stop with the gaslighting?
Do you really think the government can stop people from traveling to another state? Good luck enforcing that in America.
The minute the Republicans have Congress and the Presidency they will ban abortion and birth control nationally. Quit being foolish.
With what legal authority can they do that? You are beyond ignorant.
"The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women."
Wow! I did not know this. That's really terrible. Is it even possible for us decent people to live among all these monsters? And to think that many of them are women themselves! Unbelievable! Anyway, it's cool that you know so much about them so you can inform us. I'll be on the lookout.
Plenty of women are dupes thinking that men regard them as SPECIAL and that they will still be respected and allowed to engage in meaningful work after men get the laws they want. Other women are stupid whores who deserve miserable lives but the Special Cool Girls will be exempt! You’re totally wrong; to men you’re just another piece of worthless dirt to be scraped off after you’re no longer useful.
You need to take this trauma to a real therapist. It' honestly tragic that this is what you think of all men.
So what category are you in? The dupes, the whores, or the SPECIAL Cool Girls?
I might be able to help you with that reading comprehension problem.
WTF are you talking about? The only factual statement you made is, "You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses." You're absolutely right...celebrating the demented photos of partial birth aborted babies demonstrates the evil you state.
Nonsense. ‘Partial birth abortion’ was a slogan devised by the woman-haters to make a rare procedure done in terribly dangerous pregnancies scary to the uninformed public. If you cared about babies, you had 50 years to make birth control free, child care and parental leave universally available, and force men to actually be some use around the house.
You did NONE of those things; you opposed every single effort we feminists made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE
Your final paragraph would make a great Public Service Announcement.
Maybe in the blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland. I will deliver it garbed as Lord Humungus from THE ROAD WARRIOR, shouting through a bullhorn to a terrified encampment.
I disagree about the loud shouters, etc. There have been demonstrations, or rather, series of demonstrations, that worked, to wit, the US Civil Rights demonstrations. The point of a demonstration, or any other form of direct action, is not to make friends and influence people, or to present a logical argument; it is to make trouble over an issue which the demonstrators care about, and to continue making trouble, exacting a cost from their opponents / oppressors, until the cost rises to the point where it outweighs the benefit to the o/o to continue whatever it is they're doing. It is not a contest of ideology, manners, righteousness, or popularity; it's a contest of will and interest. Loud shouting is usually annoying, and therefore may be a useful tool, but in most cases it's only a beginning.
No kidding. What a shit show of silliness.
I think the protests are nothing more than an attempt to stir up the blue base before the midterms, and a significant number of protestors are paid to be there.
This is complete and utter nonsense.
A good friend of mine’s unemployed son is currently being paid to carry a protest sign. I did know what cause he’s protesting; could be pro or con. Paid protesters are all too real.
I seriously doubt this happened.
Your name is strangely appropriate.
LOL! You don't think! That's your problem.
The decision wasn't even over whether abortion was right or wrong, but whether the federal government, via the courts, can make it legal.
The SCOTUS is wrong. Women have the inherent right to control their lives that includes ending a pregnancy, it is not granted by the government at any level as explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. The ONLY role that the courts are granted the power to play as per Article III is to ensure that rights are not infringed and thus whether a law is constitutional or not.
That’s just step 1 of the conservative plan here.
We know this because they’re literally telling us:
‘Red States eye restrictions on interstate travel for abortion services’
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/red-states-eye-restrictions-on-interstate-travel-for-abortion-services
For conservatives, this was just the first step towards a nation-wide, court-decreed ban on abortion on the basis of ‘life begins at conception’. Next will be an interstate case to move to the next leg of the race. Whatever it takes to get a case before the Supremes where they will rule on the question of whether life begins at conception or not.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Don't be stupid. The Dobbs decision self there is no :right of "privacy" arising in the Constitution related to abortion. It had nothing to do with the "federal government", with or without the courts. Don't be an idiot.
The court had no authority to nullify the right to abortion. If they believed it to be improperly ruled as under the unenumerated right to privacy, ironically, privacy is not an enumerated right, then they should have placed it where it belongs, under the Ninth Amendment.
besides, the Dob bs court did nothing to abortion. Did you pass the 4th grade?
Man, you are dim.
You see the same exact thing with Citizens United. People hate it but don't realize that if it went the other way, government could simply outlaw your speech before an election.
If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
Luckily (and this has been pointed out many times to you), the court did no such thing - they simply (correctly) stated the states were the ones with the power (thank you 10th Amendment).
Wrong. The SCOTUS did nullify a woman's right as it threw the issue back to the states to decide, which makes it a privilege. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Therefore, Dobbs is unconstitutional on its face.
Said the mansplainer who will NEVER need an abortion.
Hey, I'm a man, and as I understand it, I can get pregnant, so I have every right to have an opinion.
And 'mansplaining' is a horribly adolescent misandrist term only used by birthing people when they're on the wrong side of an argument.
Tosser.
Is that kind of like 'wanker'?
If not, what am I tossing?
Hey, don't worry, we now have a judge who doesn't even know what a woman is!
Did you just assume his gender? You bigots never learn, do you?
His name is Jon, he self identifies as an "old guy" and proclaimed himself "a man" so I guess you could say it was just a wild guess, Jackass.
Your name is News Nut and your response to his post was… interesting, at minimum.
Do you identify as a retard? Asking for a friend.
And your "name" means you're either a devil or a "pathogen–host interaction search tool", with the emphasis on "tool". Bugger off.
Congratulations. Did you Google that yourself?
I’m so proud.
actually i understand completely what the ruling was about; it is about christians setting up a theocratic state under the guise of states rights or the ruling was decided incorrectly. the majority opinion cherry picked data, if they had gone back to 1776 the statement would have noted that abortion prior to quickening was legal in the US when the constitution was ratified but that would have interfered with their preordained decision
🤣🤣🤣
Seriously.
Spot on! That ruling is unconstitutional on its face for a number of reasons, among which is what you describe.
"encourage divineness amongst the readers"
If only the media were to actively encourage divineness amongst its readers. Guru media.
I agree, but do you know why or have an opinion on why the Supreme Court decided to make this decision now? It's a highly charged political issue and in the midst of all that is going on, couldn't they have waited? Like do it next year. I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states.
Because the state of Mississippi brought a case that they accepted and ruled on. I don't know that anybody has tried bringing the case for review before, but I may be wrong. As RGB said, this past ruling was on shaky ground, and Congress should have made it an enumerated right decades ago.
Thanks. I found a good article on it. This issue was taken up rather late last year. I wish they would have waited. I'm not against people taking to the streets to voice their objections, but I have had my fill of marches, screaming voices and banners.
"I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states."
Wrong. All rights are constitutional issues as government's role is t protect them, not nullify them as explained in the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist #84 and the Ninth Amendment. The court's ruling unconstitutional on its face as it has no authority to nullify rights.
Gosh, I wonder why you're not on the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh wait, never mind, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Really? You wonder about that? However, I am correct on this.
The media doesn't understand? The most depressing part is that people like you don't understand!
The SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to do what it did, nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life that includes ending a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus itself becomes a being, when its brain develops the capacity for mind.
Alexander Hamilton explained this in The Federalist #84 (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0247):
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which16 they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
And that fear led to James Madison adding the Ninth Amendment to protect unenumerated rights (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background), such as the right to privacy, the right to self-defense, the right to live in the neighborhood of your choice, etc:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The media should discuss what the SCOTUS did on these points. Article III grants the SCOTUS no authority to do what it did!
Ah, Jeffey, your idiocy arises again! You must be the dumbest shit out there. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life". It merely said the US Constitution does not include a right to privacy such that laws cannot be enacted regulating abortion.
You really are one of the worst Trolls commenting here.
But Jeff quoted a guy who had a musical written about him.
Checkmate!!!
LOL!
shouldn't that musical be cancelled for cultural appropriation?
The idea a person, despite humble origin and a myriad of flaws both personal and professional, can rise above their station and do more than anyone bargained for? By staying true to their principles the best they know how, forge a legacy worth remembering, whatever the shortcomings?
That perhaps, so that we may even improve on it to form a more perfect union?
Please. Culturally expropriate the every living shit out of that. I insist.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This!
LOL! You're a true idiot. Read The Federalist #84 and the historical background of the Ninth Amendment and deal with the facts laid out by the founders on this or don't post.
You know, I disagree with Hamilton here.
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility."
Should Alexander Hamilton had met our dear and illustrious Jeff Biss, he would've bestowed upon Biss' personage and all his heirs the title of, "King Cunt of Taibbi's Substack."
May He Reign Forever.
worship me.
Sorry, one of my kinks is deicide.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
You will do as I say you little incel loser.
lol
Internet tough guy, confirmed.
I certainly appreciate the Hamilton quote, and understand the concern. The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights.
The Court overstepped it’s authority in Row because it created a Federal law, which it has no authority to do. Should the abortion issue come before them in the context of unenumerated rights the outcome might be far different from Dobbs. My understanding (which is minimal) is that there is even some historical support of the right to an abortion. I’m sorry I don’t have a source for my reference.
The point is SCOTUS did not do something unconstitutional, in fact they restored some Federalism. It’s really easy to play this up as anti-abortion Justices forcing their ideology on the nation, and then leave out context. But that context is crucial and totally missing from the conversation. Which I think is the point. It keeps the public divided and distracted while the politicians and their Overlords do other more consequential things.
I think it was telling in the dissenting opinion that Sotomayor seemingly made no legal points and only focused on the "feels"
governance by ~~vibes~~
People's feelings about feelings (about feelings ...) do not affect the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter what Sotomayor feels, and likewise feelings about her feelings are equally irrelevant.
I'm not sure if Sotomayor has actually read the constitution.
It's out of fashion.
In liberal theory, states, being artifices, do not have rights, only powers, which are granted to them provisionally by the people and serve at their convenience.
"The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights."
Wrong. It is about the inherent right of women to control their own lives without state interference. No level of government has the authority to nullify any right. Their ruling is unconstitutional as Article II provides no power to nullify a right as explained clearly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in his Ninth Amendment.
You mean this one, here?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If the "inherent right of women to control their own lives" is retained by the people, what was the point of Roe in the first place? Sound totally superfluous.
LOL! Roe was the result of women not having their inherent right recognized.
If the Democrats gave a shit about women, they would've worked to get some laws on the books instead of using abortion as a political football.
WHAT RIGHT? That's the effing point. There is not "right" enumerated in the Constitution and the Roe decision was wrongly decided. Now it's been corrected and women who want an abortion can get one in a state that provides it. No one is stopping them. You can start a gofundme for all of those women who want to aid and abet (just as the moronic protestors screamed).
Sorry, unenumerated rights are simply a loophole to drive through pseudo-laws when a minority is trying to act in opposition to a majority, imho. Abortion should have become an enumerated right, but the fanatics on both sides of this issue prevented it from happening. I'm pro choice, but anti infanticide, which is where, I believe, the vast majority of the population resides.
The solution is for the states to pass laws, or the US Congress to do the same.
For too long, again, imho, SCOTUS and regulatory agencies (EPA big time) have bailed out our dysfunctional Congress by over reaching their roles to change society, when it should be Congress deliberating and acting.
"it should be Congress deliberating and acting"
This. There is much talk of executive overreach and judicial overreach (I, personally, am no fan of either) but they might not happen so much if Congress would just do its fucking job. The fact that it hasn't for at least 80 years might be something for a competent political scientist to explain.
Read The Federalist #84. The SCOTUS has no constitutional power to nullify any right as it did with the right to abortion. Article III provides no such power.
Sorry, but you're wrong as explained in the Declaration of Independence, rights are not granted by man, they simply exist and by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. I suggest that you read it. Women have the inherent right to abortion, it is not granted by any state, the federal government, the vote, etc. All unenumerated rights exist, such as the right of privacy, self defense, to take a walk, to read a book, to work on Saturday or Sunday, to live in the neighborhood on one's choice, etc, and are protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Ah, Jeffey, you must be one of the stupidest commenters here. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life." It said there is not a Constitutional right to abortion. If there is an "inherent right" then, OK, just talk to your state legislators about it. Some may disagree, but you are so convinced I am sure you can also convince them.
You continue to be one of the dumbest shits commenting.
LOL! You are dim. Read The Federalist #84. The state, at any level, has no power to nullify any right. The SCOTUS' ruling is unconstitutional as Article III grants it no power to nullify any right and states also have no such power.
You are truly clueless.
No, you're truly clueless.
Abortion is not an issue the Supreme Court should ever have decided, that is, not a constitutional issue. It's a decision that was meant to be determined by the states.
One might even say, by the people.
I know, but since it was not a constitutional issue, it's for the states to decide.That's what they say.
LOL! It is a constitutional issue to the extent that government has no authority to nullify a woman's right to abortion. It only has the authority to protect rights that would involve setting limits on abortion to protect the fetus when it becomes a being, a person, at the point that its brain develops the capacity for mind.
I see. Your cutoff point is "when it becomes a being, a person, at the point its brain develops the capacity for mind." Crystal clear. When does that happen? 9 months? 8? 7? 6? 5? 4? Upon emergence from the birth canal? Sometime afterward?
That is the same standard used with brain dead people so it isn't anything new. As for when that occurs in the fetus:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
Neuroscientists can determine this.
"As a first step in answering these questions, we reviewed the literature on fetal pain and fetal anesthesia and analgesia."
"Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
So fair to say you have no real answer and neither do they? Maybe we should appoint a panel of government experts to decide. Maybe we just need the right group of experts to tell us what we wish to hear?
Also, it's an entirely different question than brain-dead people as they are at the opposite end of life's journey.
Rights are central to the constitution as explained in The Federalist #84. Women have the inherent right to abortion, period. The state, government at any level, has no power to nullify rights.
I don't know where you get your information, but abortion is not a constitutional issue, and issues like gun rights are, etc. That's why it went back to the states. Roe v wade should never have been a decision the Supreme Court made. Many seem to think overturning roe v wade was a decision by the court to end abortion rights for women, it is not, but a decision to be made by individual states.
It is a constitutional issue as it is a woman's rights issue. Rights are not granted by any level of government as argued by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Dobbs is unconstitutional as proven by Alito's arguments.
The "right" to exterminate the beating heart of a person with separate DNA is given to someone by whom, by what? Nevermind, I really have no desire to engage you.
What ever you say Jeff, what ever.
The Federalist Papers aren't the law of the land.
LOL! They help identify the founders' intent. There was no intent to allow any government to deny rights.
Does the fetus have any rights?
I would delve further into the links you’ve posted to understand your position...except when Democratic Congressional leaders respond with “ well, then we are going to pack the courts.” .... and if the Republicans should ever sugges doing that, they’d be screaming from the rafters how unjust and “ unconstitutional “ and how dishonest “ underhanded” , etc etc etc.. it’s like watching two six year olds play “ Go Fish” changing the rules “mid stream.” 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
The Democrats are feckless. The Republicans are the enemy, but with a feckless opposition, they get away with anything that they try to get away with. The Democrats should have been arguing my points, but they haven't because they are feckless, or they are totally ignorant of Article III, The Federalist #84 and the Ninth Amendment.
Here I'd like to humbly point out Federalist #84 is an opinion, and not the law of the land.
(Gee, aren't you mad I'm actually reading up on this stuff?)
LOL! That opinion states what drove the writing of the constitution! The SCOTUS has no power to nullify rights.
I'm sorry, where does either of those passages define a "right to privacy"? And what does that actually mean? I had a real Draft Card, does "my body, my choice" apply to Draftees? I can tell you the answer to that one. No, you don't always have a choice.
The Court only decides the Constitutional Question, and the Pro-Abortion side of Roe was a stretch that was criticized by a number of Liberal Legal Experts at the time. Now that decision is back in the hands of the State Legislatures and Courts, where it should have stayed.
Progressives are all Democratic until their side loses.
You know, if Roe had been anchored in the 9th Amdt, you might have an argument. It wasn't, and surely you knew that.
LOL! It is anchored in the Ninth Amendment! It protects ALL unenumerated rights.
I don't think you've read any article you've posted.
He is a much a senile old many as Joe Biden. Really, they don't come any stupider that Jeffey!
Aha! You are stupider than me!
Jeff "end of quote, lick own asshole" Biss
That's right, you don't think.
No. 14th Amdt "substantative due process" and the right to privacy under Griswold (which save a solo concurrence also eschewed a 9th Amdt basis). Thanks for playing, you may pick up your consolation prize on the way out the door.
The constitution does not reference "privacy" therefore according to conservatives it doesn't exist. Conservatives, like yourself, ignore Ninth Amendment because you don't believe in rights, but it's there because Madison and Hamilton did and thus that is its intent, to protect all unenumerated rights.
Thanks for playing, you may pick up your consolation prize on the way out the door.
See Jeff, if you bothered to read my other comments you'd know I'm not much of a conservative, least of all the caricature in your mind.
Hamilton argued for no Bill of Rights because of the inevitable presumption that only those itemized would be protected. The 9th was offered as the weak protection it turned out to be (relative to the "privileges and immunities" that was in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution proper, but would be gutted by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse cases).
Why don't you support democracy?
Read The Federalist #84 and James Madison's argument against adding a Bill of Rights. Rights were NEVER to be determined by the vote, allowing that was termed "tyranny of the majority" and that was to be avoided.
He only supports his delusions.
FEDERAL RIGHTS, you freaking dumb shit What a troll you are.
Nope, dimwit, all rights. Rights are not granted, they simply exist, at all levels of society and government. Otherwise, they are privilege. Got it?
Hamilton could not have known about the state of medical science in the 21st Century. A fetus is considered "viable" (at least a 50% chance of surviving a premature birth) after about 23 weeks of pregnancy. The record is a bit less than 22 weeks. Roe v. Wade extended "rights" well beyond that. I have no doubt that, if he were equipped with that knowledge, Hamilto would consider late term abortions to be murder.
You'll get no where with him, since I've had some encounters with him on this issue. He defined a fetus as a thing until it has developed a mind. I doubt any woman looks at the child she is carrying as an object at any stage of her pregnancy. Even if she chooses to get an abortion I doubt the vast majority of women think she is getting rid of a thing.
I love how people claim a fetus is just a thing, not a human, clump of cells etc. If that's true then why don't pregnant women just chug alcohol and do drugs? if it's just a "thing" that doesn't feel any impacts
Until the fetus ' brain develops the capacity for mind, it is just a thing, an object, and has no legal standing.
LOL! You don't get anywhere with me because you're wrong! The same standard that must be used with the fetus is the same one used for people who suffered brain trauma. If they are brain dead or their brain is such that it cannot support mind then they are no longer considered a being, or person, and their survivors can legally kill them.
The difference between the two is that an adult who is brain dead, is brain dead no matter how long he, or she is on life support, but a fetus has the potential to develop a brain, and that brain becomes even more evolved once the child is born.
Until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind, it is an object, the same as for a braindead patient.
You don't get anywhere with ANYONE because you're a fucking cunt.
LOL! You call me what you want but no girl will let you have, incel.
"I have no doubt that, if he were equipped with that knowledge, Hamilto would consider late term abortions to be murder."
Your ability to peer into the mind of a man who was shot dead by Aaron Burr in 1804 is nothing short of remarkable. If only Hamilto were with us today, furiously legislatin'!
Through obscene and unknowable powers I happen to know exactly what Hamilton would write about Biss.
It's a brown stain on a piece of parchment, smelling strongly of feces.
I am working hard on my BURR and JACKSON musicals but for some reason I can't get any Broadway producers interested in backing my spec scripts. They be like, "It's just all about white men shooting each other and then singing songs about it," and I be like, "Well, yeah, that's American history, raw and unfiltered. Authentic."
Hot take: it was called Hamilton because Burr wasn't sexy enough.
I mean, my man gets ALL the best songs.
The fact is that rights cannot be nullified as the SCOTUS did. As governments are formed to protect rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
Therefore, the court's only path was to rule to protect the fetus' rights when it became a being, when its brain had developed the capacity for mind, which can be determined by neuroscientists (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429).
Your entire argument rests on an article where the words "may" and "probably" feature prominently and literally ends with, "If the fetus can feel pain..."
It concludes nothing about what neuroscientists can or cannot determine about a person's capacity for mind.
You're the King Cunt, for sure.
Nope. My argument rests on a definitely determinable state of brain development that neuroscientists can accurately assess.
Go talk to your mom about your cunt thing.
The proof you posted literally stated when a fetus feels pain can't be accurately assessed yet.
And the fact something feels pain proves capacity of mind?
That seems... like shaky ground.
And that is just from Ann Coulter. lol
And it's irrelevant to the fact that the SCOTUS has no constitutional power to nullify rights.
Rights simply exist.
The court has no constitutional authority to nullify rights as explained in The Federalist #84 and indicated by the Ninth Amendment.
Jesus never mentioned abortion. Not once. If it was so important, he would have. BTW, Genesis 2:7 says this, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”
Jesus isn't relevant to this discussion. Besides god killed a lot of innocents, babies, animals, adults who did nothing wrong, etc. God also had the Israelites kills babies, etc. Besides, that "breath" thing in Jewish tradition occurs at the first breath of a delivered baby.
Jesus is irrelevant to the discussion. Women have inherent, equal rights. You conservatives ae the enemy to our liberal, inclusive society.
Women have the inherent right to control their lives that includes abortion until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for consciousness, at which point it becomes a being and thus has rights. Until then the fetus is a mere object with no legal standing except as the property of the woman.
No. It is moral universalism, it applies to all beings. Religion is moral relativism.
Sex education should be taught with clarity. Unwanted pregnancies, STDs could be prevented if people engaged in sexual activities with more thought. This is probably a hopeless suggestion. But all this energy shown in the video--could some of it not be turned to better education?
Yes, perhaps less time on CRT and gender studies and more time on sex education.
That's not going to happen. Anything called "sex education" will becoming a tool for modern gender theory indoctrination and grooming.
Nonsense. The only evidence that sex education taught with or without clarity may reduce unwanted pregnancies comes from a handful of programs operating in institutional settings (like juvenile justice centers) or other therapeutic settings. Sex education generally is simply not effective. Education has far less effect on behavior than we want to believe. What does? The Brookings Institution found that 'reality T.V.' documenting the plight of teen mothers has had a significant impact on spurring contraceptive use. Who knew Jerry Springer was socially beneficial? Pew Research finds that the number of sexually active young people has declined; and those that are, are much more likely to use contraceptives. The 'morning after' pill has also become more ubiquitous. Teen pregnancies (mostly unwanted) are now the lowest since 1955 as are abortion rates since 1973. If anything, what we need is more contraceptive advertising and over-the-counter 'plan B' pills like other most other countries.
I do not think any help people can get is nonsense. Education can be in many forms. I do not think you can rely on teens to watch reality t.v. This video clip shows that lots of people care passionately and some of that energy might be put to providing education. Advertising is one way, but it is also paid for by the companies that produce their product. This is a multi-pronged concern and young men should be as concerned as young women.
The two extremist factions on abortion - the camp that wants abortion on demand any time prior to labor, and the no abortion ever under any circumstances - are the noisiest and least significant in terms of actual numbers. Yet they define the terms of debate, which is insane. And whatever compromise between those two poles is made, neither end will be happy. Tough.
The law that struck down Roe didn't even end abortion, it limited it to 15 weeks - the most common legal limit in Europe. Funny how the left doesn't want to be like Europe on that.
i am part of the left, 15 weeks is fine with me and many others. universalizing an entire group as holding a single opinion is lazy as well as inaccurate. always humorous when rationalists try to reason in public.
You:
"universalizing an entire group as holding a single opinion is lazy as well as inaccurate"
Also you:
"actually i understand completely what the ruling was about; it is about christians setting up a theocratic state under the guise of states rights"
sigh.
Did he really? Well then he's an even bigger hypocrite and fraud than I would've assumed.
Curious what criteria you passed to get “the left” card you have.
Im bewildered why anyone self identifies among the amorphous irrational political identities of the “left” or the “right.”
If you're fine with limits after 15 weeks, then you aren't part of the left-extremist camp. Would you like a cookie?
My absolute favorite unhinged take was from a woman who I saw interviewed on CNN who said that Republicans wanted to turn women into forced breeders, as in A Handmaid's Tale.
Yep Republican operatives are trolling bars where they ply young women with drinks so they wake up hung over & knocked up.
I have to say that for a group who screams loudly about their reproductive rights they seem woefully ignorant about how their reproductive systems actually work. At times it seems like they think that semen is flying through the air like dust and could, at any moment, impregnate them against their will. Almost as if they think they've had no part in their own impregnation.
Quite amusing.
Unhinged is right. Heard a woman say yesterday that her 20yo, blue state dwelling daughter now wants to both leave the country and not have children despite always having wanted children.
Wait, what? You don't want to have children because it might become harder to get an abortion in states you don't even live in?
Well, you've officially topped my example.
I can't decide if this story is made more absurd on its face or the fact that the mother of the 20yo actually repeated it on cable television. Perhaps it's better if the 20 yr old chooses not to have children -- logic can't be purchased.
Yes and here's an obvious and cheaper (more human) "choice"--hand out birth control. Or even morning after pills (yes, the other extreme is nonsense, too). Why are we paying for all these surgeries in terms of insurance rates or for Planned Parenthood who uses fungible dollars and makes us pay for it as well. HELLO people. But mostly, these laws need to be legislated.
What? Sensible solutions? Who wants those?
Ha, not many of these people, that's for sure. These progressives are insane, but the pro-lifers need to pick their battles. Handing out birth control and after morning pills would be VASTLY better than what's been happening. Though of course, the issue itself is less important than letting the people decide their own approach to it within states. Still, extreme pro lifers hurt the cause. Nothing wrong with morning after pills and birth control. And even before heartbeat rules or first trimester would be huge improvement. But at LEAST, don't fight the morning after pill. Please folks.
While I agree with you I think we both know that they will fight it.
Sorry, "humane" not "human."
Shh. Not so loud. The COVID cult will hear you.
Y'know I never thought of that angle. Covid and babies as plagues to be avoided.
Although for a crew that seems willing to boost forever while they bathe in Purell & wrap themselves in mask layer after mask layer you'd think that they'd be able to muster the energy to slip on one measly condom.
Some desires are more deeply rooted than others.
THATS WHAT SHE SAID
Probably not Mr. pierce. I think they had a long standing policy of "don't ask don't tell" that dates back to the reign of the Cuomo brothers. No one wanted to overturn that bound & ball gagged rock.
I am still trying to figure out why Cuomo had like 5 treadmills in his personal gym. Did they all tread different mills?
I think its because Cuomo would get home, tear off his meat suit & work it like Cthulhu.
After all, those extra tentacles need gym time too.
I cannot now unsee the image you just placed in my brain. Thanks.
Cuomo makes me think of Eichhorst from THE STRAIN, hair grease and all. One can envision the tentacle-tooth thing emanating from his gaping maw.
Since both Cuomos are such ladies men I'm picturing Isabelle Adjani's tentacled lover in Possession.
We can also mention Rage Against the Machine who recently dragged themselves out of old rocker limbo to do a concert where the lead singer/millionaire activist kept using the phrase "birth givers."
Say the word bitch, say it. W-O-M-E-N. Repeat after me, W-O-M-E-N.
Birth givers...sheesh!
When I was a kitten, a quote attributed to one of the Sex Pistols went "Kill your idols before they can embarrass you."
Yea, verily. A lot of heroes outlive their best days.
On the bright side, and dumb shit Rage tells me to do can be counted with their own song lyrics.
It’s the little things.
Rage Against The Machine told me to rage against the machine and I raged. Despite all my rage, I was still just a rat in a cage.
Personal anecdote: I was in an elevator at the Plaza in Las Vegas about 20 years ago with an Asian lady probably in her 50s and she was ragin': "YOU CANNOT BEAT THE MACHINE! THE MACHINE BEATS YOU!" Funniest fucking shit ever. I will take it with me to my grave.
Also, isn't that biased, since not all menstruating persons can give birth or want to? How incredibly insensitive! I feel triggered or something.
Citizen Zach DeLaRocha and the rest of the crew need to report themselves for re-education, IMMEDIATELY!
By The Power Of Outrage! I AM OFFENDED!
If you are referring to Margaret Sanger, I don't know whether she was "rich" but she was a eugenicist (which at that time was considered to be a respectably scientific position, although far from universal), and a racist, even judged by the standards of the day.
IIRC, the public is not allowed to access her archive, as "St. Margaret" had many things to say that would not do by today's standards for secular sainthood.
Interestingly enough links that I could easily find even a couple of years ago outlining many of her unsavory words and deeds have been completely replaced with a burst of articles from various MSM outlets trying to whitewash Sanger's reputation.
Are you questioning St. Margaret? Don't you know that Big Tech has our best interests at heart and is only trying to protect us from wrongthink and disinformation?
Sanger seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Actually she isn’t. It is sometimes argued by abortion fanatics that restricting abortion is racist because black people get them disproportionately.
It’s valuable context to note that one significant reason black women were historically encouraged to get abortions was because the people promoting abortions were eugenisists who desired to disproportionately reduce the population of black people. It’s hard to argue the disproportionate number of planned parenthood’s located near black populations has nothing to do with the founder’s view that black people generally had inferior genes and should practice abortion more.
For the party that nursed the kkk to support an organization that was founded partly on reducing the population of black people shouldn’t be good optics. Maybe it should be supporting orphanages and adoption of black babies rather than funding their destruction. I mean, if it didn’t want to look like it hasn’t changed much since it fought the civil war to keep black people as slaves.
The hysteria of college educated upper middle class white females is a sight to behold. Does this fill some other empty place in their lives? Asking for a friend.
They are childless, alone and emo about it and they want other women to be childless, alone and emo about it
My BIL's name is Emo. He's definitely not emo.....
Yes, they think they’re feminists. They are not.
Personally, as a father who saw the ultrasound of the tiny baby moving inside my wife, I have a fairly mixed viewpoint on this. I do think it’s killing a baby. But I do not think the government should ever dictate what women do with their bodies. This is a life which is completely dependent on the woman. You can hate abortion and refuse to support the government interfering in a woman’s right to choose.
The statistics on this are horrifying. Black women have had 20 million abortions since Roe v Wade. And there are only 45 million black Americans. Those are genocide numbers.
But women are not baby factories living at the whim of congress and the courts. This is their basic freedom which is being attacked.
I end up thinking tolerance and understanding are going to have more positive impact than draconian laws.
By the way, YES I intentionally said “women”, not birthing people. Because only women have babies.
But before that is settled science, where do men who become pregnant stand on aborting these babies they claim to be able to have?? It obviously should be front and center in this dialog....... 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️... The Age of No Reason
"Black women have had 20 million abortions since Roe v Wade. And there are only 45 million black Americans. Those are genocide numbers."
Thank you for this major point. Unlimited abortion is one of the most racist policies in the United States today.
For at least the last half-dozen years, more black babies have been aborted than white babies, even the total black population is around 1/4 of the white population.
Now prove it's racist, that is, motivated by a theory of racial supremacy.
From Woodrow Wilson on, the position was eugenics requires getting rid of inferior races. Planned Parenthood was founded on this principle.
And Maxine Waters screaming about black women marching to get more abortions......awful.
The logical conclusion of the above seems to be that you all want to compel Black women to bear children. What happened to equal rights?
Yes, I want ALL children to be born. Parents of those children can choose adoption. I don't nor does anyone have the "right" to kill a growing, beating heart with separate DNA.
Transphobe! Just kidding!
Dialogueless politics. That’s about it. We go from one rage machine moment to the next. Feed them something they can rage against, since they’re already nuts. I mean (sorry) but look at them. Is there any other conclusion? Then, while they’re feeding, take away their real rights. Has anyone noticed censorship? Or loss of body autonomy in the form of injections or the crimes against farmers happening everywhere, along with our food supplies? The real message is “pick a side” so we can do whatever is necessary to destroy the opposition. “Dialogueless politics”. Beautiful little phrase, Matt and a perfect summation of this moment.
This is meant to be divisive and keep both sides distracted from what is really going on.
drives campaign contributions - on both sides of the aisle
prove me wrong.
It is not encouraging to see that the authors conflate _conservatism_ with the Right. The principles of the Right (at least before our vocabularies were put in the blender) were authority, power, private wealth, social status, the military virtues, and so on. While those on top usually want to stay there, in fact rightists could be radicals or moderates, classical fascists being an example of rightist radicalism. Conservatives, on the other hand, dislike change, so in a leftist polity the conservatives might wish to conserve liberalism or social democracy. The authors' confusion about political terms probably extends to their findings.
As for predicting "mental illness", that concept often means a failure to adhere to norms set by prestige groups and lacks objective meaning. It is so vulgar to respond to disagreement with a charge of "mental illness" that the Soviet Union went through a phase of practicing it, after they became embarrassed about flinging dissidents into prisons and concentration camps.
Democrats had 50 years to do something about Roe. They even had a heads up this year. Supreme Court ain’t the issue here.
Obama came into office with quite the head wind, nothing. Democrats spent every election reminding everyone who would listen that if republicans get into power Roe will go away, nothing.
Are the Democrats really interested in Roe?! Or just re-election?
Add immigration reform to the list. Dems had a supermajority in 2009 and could have easily peeled off a few republicans but instead we got Obamacare battles.
Precisely right. Dems have used the abortion issue (specifically the imminent overturning of Roe) as a bogeyman to scare up votes in every election in my living memory. Seems no one clued them in to what happened to the gender-nonspecific individual who cried 'Wolf!' - but since it is one of those issues that gets people to ballot boxes who might not otherwise vote, I can't conjure what the Republican's strategy is here. Unless there isn't one, and all those rich old fucks in Congress are just ready to watch the country burn from the decks of their yachts.
Does the "my body my choice" philosophy extend to Covid vaccines?
Crickets.
That’s my next response to my doctor when she offers up another jab. Herd immunity is clearly not attainable, vaccines do not prevent contracting the disease, so , like, NO, I’ve had enough with the false science.
What I find interesting is the people who try to claim that vaccines are different because the decision affects other people. But let's say we accept that and leave aside any questions of whether the decision to have an abortion also affects other people, all that they are actually saying is that they believe bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, and it can be overruled in certain situations.
So anyone who accepts that needs to also accept that "bodily autonomy" is not an argument for abortion rights. The argument has now become "do other factors override bodily autonomy in this case"?
There could be competing rights. For example, we may believe in the right of free speech but still suppress incitement, "fighting words", "shouting fire in a crowded theater", and so forth. Bodily autonomy, even if not absolute, could be considered such a right. The government (or the people, mob, etc.) would then have to justify invading and overriding the right in question. I'm not taking that position, I'm just pointing out that it's sort of rational.The assumption that the government etc. have the right to seize control of people's bodies for an arbitrary purpose, especially one whose main support is religious, has not been justified and is not rational if you start out with the assumption that the powers of the government etc. are to be limited.
Yes absolutely. The point is just that anyone claiming “my body, my choice” as an argument is full of crap. The argument is: under what conditions (if any) does “my body, my choice” get overruled by other rights when it comes to abortion? Anyone unwilling to have that discussion and who is just throwing out mantras shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Well, one could be an absolutist: "Under no conditions may my body or parts of it be seized or controlled by the government, the people, institutions, whatever. That's equally rational (from my point of view) because a person might well desire that because of the way the self is constituted as it arises in nature. The principle would apply not only to abortion but to contraception, sex change and other medical procedures, drug use, including both medicinal use (like vaccines) and recreational use, torture, and the death penalty. Have I left anything out?
How about lockdowns? Forcing people to remain in the homes. Incarceration in general? I’m not sure of an argument that would make death penalty a bodily autonomy issue but not incarceration.
Many boundaries can be drawn between the self and the external world. The physiological boundary of the body (that is, a person's skin) seems like the last and most interior, unless we're going to talk about brains in vats and other fictive concepts. Imprisonment and lockdowns could be interpreted as being outside that innermost boundary. Actually, to actually remain alive requires several liberties, powers or resources not contained in the body, like being able to breathe, drink, eat, rest, and so on. Since prohibiting (or requiring) abortion invades the innermost limits of the body, it invades all the other limits as well. The death penalty and torture also invade those limits in a way that imprisonment doesn't _necessarily_.
Absolutely.
Or the war on drugs?
No one loves the War On Drugs any more. Why do you ask?
The current president and vice president have both made a career out of the war on drugs, and they aren't doing anything to stop it at the federal level even today. So, I'd say plenty of people love the war on drugs, they've just stopped saying it outloud.
The current president and vice president are cynical rightists (assuming the president is still cognitively capable of cynical rightism). Their supposed opinions have no bearing on the present discussion.
lol
I can understand the passion of anti-abortion activists -- 'murdering innocent children!' and all that.
But the pro-abortion activists? I mean, the prospect of traveling across the state line for abortion? How can you get riled up so much about that? Sorry, but their outrage seems completely phoney...
Because it costs money. For large percentages of women seeking abortions, it's a LOT of money, not to mention time off from work, etc. Not arguing, just answering your question. As far as the hysterical outrage, I don't think it's phony; it's just dipshit stupid. Who responds to hysterical outrage? No one with a brain...
Abortion costs money. About a grand these days, I guess?
A bus ticket from Salt Lake to Vegas costs less than a hundred. And how often do you need to buy one? What's the big deal?
You're imagining folks have money in a country where the average person can't scrape together $400 cash (documented in a broad nationwide study) to handle unexpected contingency cost. For the un-average person, that means they're broke all the time, and pre-cashing they're paycheck at the currency exchange, and not even really living paycheck to paycheck. Also, with rents being what they are now, most renters are paying 50% or more of their pay to have a place to live. In fact, current credible studies show that (essentially) no one can afford to rent a 1 BR apartment without going backwards financially.
That's the big deal. And like I said, I'm not arguing the point, I'm just pointing out how it IS a big deal for lots of folks.
Oddly enough, the average person does have a $400 cell phone.
Oh yeah…Don’t get me started on the stupidities involved in all this. You could also probably include all those people that ain’t got $400…are all tatted out in full arm sleeves.
What better use for a $400 phone than to take pictures of my latest $400 tattoo so I can post it everywhere? PS: You'd better pay for my abortions, fascist!
Tattoo parlors are a going business in my 'burg. Had I any entrepreneurial verve I would start one. They are everywhere but there still don't seem to be enough.
This one has always baffled me. Being a Luddite, I didn't get a cell phone until 2007 when they became cheaper than landlines. The bums in the bum park across the road don't have housing, but they all have iPhones. Priorities!
It shouldn’t baffle. Folks ain’t too bright, with financial illiteracy a top fiver in the the list of stupidities.
I don't know. My point is: the cost of abortion itself is several hundred bucks. To the hypothetical woman you're talking about here it's already a big deal. The $80 bus ticket doesn't seem to make a lot of difference.
In fact, restrictions and outright bans in some states might just turn abortion into economy of scale: fewer providers with higher volume, and, therefore, lower prices.
"fewer providers with higher volume, and, therefore, lower prices"
Amazon Prime Abortions
Sure, maybe, but now we're talking about something else. Back to financials...
These hypothetical woman are not hypothetical, credible studies have shown it's real money to a LOT of people.
And yes, rioting or otherwise beefing about stuff that's a done deal is dumbshit. Time to figure out the financials, not prolong the stupidity with demonstrations very few give a shit about.
Many of them are sincerely outraged because of slippery slope arguments. They this as being a functional banning of all abortion somehow, that women with life-threatening pregnancies will be legally prevented from receiving DNCs, that women will be investigated and prosecuted for miscarriages, that contraception will be outlawed and that gay marriage will be outlawed. So they are angry at the imaginary narrative in their head (and being fed by pundits and the media, in many cases).
I can understand being concerned about a "slippery slope" possibility. Be bothered by it. Be annoyed.
But the hysteria like on that video? Meh. No "slippery slope" concern would cause that, ever.
I think that depends on how intellectually and emotionally grounded the person is. And the degree to which the current culture has taught them that having a tantrum is the best way to get what they want.
The basic principle, if only intuitively understood, is the limit of the power of government. In history, it has certainly a very slippery slope. As for tantrums, if they work, OK; if not, one must try something else.
My personal recommendation would be to start somewhere else, rather than tantrums. Protest and rioting should be a last resort, not the first.
I'm all for limiting the power of government.
There are a lot of resorts beyond protest and rioting. We'll probably be seeing some of them.
They shouldn't HAVE to cross state lines. While it's true that doing so is not a particular hardship considering the gravity of the situation, it is no one's business but the parents'.
The invasion into the privacy and personal freedoms of the individual is an overreach by a government established to protect individual liberties. They shouldn't have control over whether I smoke weed and they shouldn't have control over whether I want to mitigate a mistake.
The protests and outrage are indeed well justified. The court's decision, is not.
The court's decision in this case is entirely justified. And long overdue. The Roe decision was essentially justices writing law as if they were legislators (not that it's unique in this, this happens a lot--a lot of their previous decisions should be overturned on that basis).
I don't personally have a problem with it being left up to the states (I prefer a much, much less powerful central government generally) but if it is going to be a federal matter, that should be taken care of by the congress. It should be a matter of legislation (like so many other things) rather than judicial fiat.
I'm pro-choice and 100% support European-style abortion legality. If any state outlaws the morning after pill, that state is stupid. Etc. But that doesn't mean Roe V. Wade was a good decision (it was not) or that the SCOTUS did not reach far beyond it's remit when it decided to literally legislate from the bench (it did). I'm okay with a reasonable compromise bill by congress protecting abortion rights (some people disagree that the federal government has the right to affirmatively decide to make something "legal" against the will of the states without passing a constitutional amendment; I don't think that's the case).
But the courts decision was correct, in this case, given their actual remit.
It's the business of the parents, the baby, and all of society. Smoke all the weed you want though. No one cares.
The federal government has made it clear that it cares, even if your state government doesn't.
Mitigate a mistake huh? Smh
What's the timeline on mitigating that kind of mistake? I mean, I intended to have both my children but there have been numerous times when I've thought I had made a mistake there--so what rationale is there in imposing a post-birth limitation on a parent's "right" to mitigate a mistake?
My mother was and is a leftist, and when I was born in 1969 and she might have mitigated that mistake, given I was born a male (I mean, once she found out I was going to be part of the patriarchy), and turning into a woman wasn't a known option back at the time. Or she might have mitigated it at any other later date for any number of reasons.
I'm okay with morning after pill and IUDs in terms of preventing the implantation of the embryo, and I'm okay with a "up to 15 weeks" style compromise. But I subscribe to the old Democrat dogma of "safe, legal and rare". Should be available, rarely used, and done in hospitals of actual OBGYN clinics by medical doctors who actually exist to care for women's health rather that merely perform abortions. IMO.
But I'm also okay with the states passing laws democratically that I disagree with, from complete bans (which I very much disagree with) to abortions-up-to-the-due-date (which I also very much disagree with). That's federalism.
And frankly we'd probably already be at whatever uneasy compromise we were eventually going to arrive at, had the court not decided Roe V. Wade by literally writing legislation from the bench.
Great comment!
No kidding....so messed up.
Boo-hoo...
You must live in one of those tiny, NE shit stains.
I suspect the real story here is what a non-event this has been nationwide. There are always people willing to yell and scream. Put a camera in their face and they love it. They yell and scream louder. They color their hair and put on face paint. 100 of them look like a mob. 500 look like a mass protest. 1000 and you think they're the entire nation.
They're not. Not even close. And they rarely, if ever, shape reality.
Those who do shape reality, they do it quietly behind closed doors with money and force with no cameras or journalists watching. They never get on TV. They're not in videos. At least not as themselves. But they are, as actors, playing a role with their strings pulled by . . . drum roll please . . . . yes that's the Big Question isn't it?
I'm not at all disputing your point, but I do wonder why this stuff gets intensive media coverage now and the mass protests against Iraq War II 19 years ago (by mostly non-face-painted, non-hair-colored people) didn't.
Also, all the “good politicians” were for the war, with Hillary being at the front of the line. We can’t question Hillary or the “good people”, can we?
Well, many of us tried but failed. The "good people" are very powerful.
It will never cease to be of interest to me that Obama rode into power by questioning the "good people" and immediately became the foremost "good person."
He was, above all, a chameleonic spokesmodel for policies he didn’t formulate, understand, or care about. He is a charismatic sleazebag with his eye on where the money is at all times. He learned from Valerie, a master at the un-indictable con.
You seem to be dropping insider Chicago knowledge here.
A classic, then as now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confidence-Man
Also, free-associating: https://www.iiseagrant.org/chicagowaterwalk/cww5_rtcr_crm_riverruns.html
There’s a lot to drop.
War is good for American business. Very good. No one wanted to upset the gravy train…might be a reason.
Media coverage goes where money is. So, I’d rephrase the question to “why does this make money and Iraq war protests didn’t?”
On the other hand! . . .
sometimes big things do start out with small protests. So the idea of covering & reporting on small protests is not at all a journalistically useless idea. It's always hard to know what will become what.
Well, today is Bastille Day, so point taken. If the Marquis de Sade hadn't been using his piss funnel for a megaphone and shouting through the bars of the cell he was in (in the Bastille) urging the demonstrators on to bigger things, it wouldn't have happened.
So, a sadist was very much part of the cause of revolution. Which opens up lots of possible thoughts....
Bingo. In Perstein's "Nixonland", he lays out that organizational process starting back in the 60's. The guys that put this together, no one has ever heard of. A lot of the folks currently in the news were around then, as supporters or facilitators, but it was the unknowns that made it all happen.
It is a product no one wants to buy or use, yet is indispensable. Sometimes a plague incurs a shortage.
In the absence of it, one may resort to leaves or rocks. Muslims only eat with their right hand.
I long for the day when abortion will be viewed in the rear view mirror similarly to how slavery is now perceived.
Slavery still remains very present to some people (I mean, the slavery of the western world that pretty much went away by 150 years ago).
There's also plenty of actual slavery going on outside of first world democracies but those same people so concerned about how the legacy of slavery infuses and informs everything in the present day in America and Europe seem remarkably unconcerned about ongoing slavery in the present day in Africa, the Middle-East, China and elsewhere.
Right you are. The depravity of man knows no bounds.
It knows one limit: the civilizing influences of a civilized culture. Irrespective of any flaws of Western society, deconstructing it and destroying or corrupting all its institutions is a terrible idea--for everybody. Reduced to our natural state, humans will indeed be horrendously depraved.
Sad but true
It's coming. That's perhaps the greatest benefit of the Dobbs decision. These people will start to run out of steam when sensible abortion laws get passed that generally reflect the opinions of the voters of the various states. We're not there yet, but we will be. Look at Europe and notice that this nonsense isn't happening there.
Perhaps people in the west especially the USA will figure out that "it's the system stupid!" I'm not hopeful. After the acceptance of the woke agenda and the COVID narrative and now the Ukraine narrative; I've pretty well given up hope. Of course, being an atheist All my memorable life I've never understood how anyone could believe those absurdities and I never will. People can believe anything. I do agree that changes within the system will never happen, it's just too corrupt. Millions in the streets would do it but organizing Americans is like herding cats. Things are going to get really bad in Europe, perhaps the people will take to the streets in the millions, the yellow vests in France and now the farmers in Holland might be a start.
As long Rutte does not cross the United States, he can sleep safely in his bed as long as the security forces remain on side. So far, there is no sign that his grip on the police or military is slipping.
Seems that way. A real piece of work. Well hooked into the WEF. Don't know much about him but I'm guessing he's a feckless wonder like Trudeau, not a direct bankster plant like macron or super Mario. What gives me some hope is that the french rose up a few decades ago and ran the president right out of the country. Just happened in Sri Lanka. I'm more than a little concerned about what is going to happen when Russia takes the whole Donbass by fall and the US, of course I mean the Ukraine refuses to negotiate. WWIII is a possibility then with the US election comming up soon.
The problem is that the West in general and the United States in particular have already lavished so much material, financial and moral support on the Ukrainian regime that anything less than Total Victory will be a blow to Muh American Credibility. As a result, the West has put itself in a position where it has no choice but to keep on doubling down, and every time the West doubles down, the cost of calling off the war (in terms of damage to Muh Credibility) keeps going up.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
Yeah, throw good money after bad, the MIC love's it. Throw Good lives after the dead. I wish they would teach USMC General Smedley Butlers book "War is a racket" in every grade of every American school. Take the lives and money saved from the military and the foreign adventures and rebuild the country into it's potential.
"anything less than Total Victory will be a blow to Muh American Credibility"
Iraq and Afghanistan weren't such a blow?
The fact that the disastrous results of the USA's military adventures of the past two decades merit only a handwave and are not talked about in polite company make me, depressedly, a believer in von Bismarck's maxim about a special providence for fools, drunkards, etc.
Good point. By now it is obvious to anyone with as much sense as God gave a stray cat that America is an empire in decline, and that any further damage might well be fatal.
Which is why the Empire has to go for broke, rather than go out quietly and mind its own business.
As if the tech companies would allow the organizing.
Individual cat's are very limited on what they can accomplish. Pride's of Lions and packs of wolves can accomplish much more. Homo sapiens are social animals like wolves and can accomplish much in groups. The problem is that HS can and do believe stories and the ruling classes use this to control us. How to get the masses to work and fight for their own benefits, I have no idea. Union's have been destroyed, they were the first target of Hitler and the first of the neoliberalism elite's. In collective action is strength, individual action is severely limited against the the ruling classes who use your sisters and brothers against you.
Cats are very accomplished at what we wish to accomplish.
Democracy, such a nice word, aspirational for sure. Pharaoh got his workers "no, they weren't slaves" to build his pyramids and fight in his wars using "manufactured consent" which is how the ruling classes do it today. The biggest difference other than technology between then and now is that pharaoh would forgive debts from time to time through a debt jubilee. It gave a very big practical reason for the unwashed to support him. Other rulers did the same. The Roman oligarchy put an end to that. From the Grachi brothers to Julius Caesar who tried to lessen the grip of the oligarchy it didn't end well for them. There's never been a democracy in the history of the world and the USA isn't even close, Switzerland is probably closest. "There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free" Hannah Ardent. On a practical level at the lower levels of society, China is more democratic than any Western country. That's why things are getting better for the Chinese people and worse for the working classes in the west.
I had to take a break at 7 minutes because I honestly felt like the sheer lameness was causing me brain damage.
Those activists are the most pathetic thing I've seen I've seen since Greta Thornberg yelled at the UN.
These nitwits are impossible to take seriously.
This is true even though the issue is incredibly serious.
I actually have trouble thinking of a more morally fraught social issue than abortion. But the entire public dialogue is so utterly fucking pathetic that it chased every serious person to the sidelines.
I have no idea what to do about nitwits like these activists. Maybe promise them all a sum of money if they promise to never leave their campus?
"I have no idea what to do about nitwits like these activists."
Time-travel abortions? A PKD concept.
> "We want democracy; Roberts wants theocracy"
> "This is what democracy looks like"
The level of Orwell is staggering
What I don't understand is what they think they're doing. Do they think the SC will take it all back? Say "Never mind?" It's crystal clear that the fight is now in state legislatures. It's about filing bills and lobbying for yours and against theirs. After that, it's about supporting your candidates and opposing theirs. Clowning around in the streets does none of that.
Clowning around the streets raises funds. This is all about money and stupidity. Note that 90% of the people on the streets protesting are young, probably out of work, idiots.
Nope, it doesn't. It alienates all those people they need to align with. But, that's lost on these types. Riots do work though...they make sure all those folks just trying to get through the world, that might align with them, never do.