Ciprian Maricon posted:

They in-fact did not consistently do something, genius. That's why the supreme court is about to blow up reproductive rights.

Bishyaler posted:

Because of our stupid two party system you end up with the former voting for the latter. Like in my state where an anti-abortion Dem is running for the House and all the pro-choice people I know are excited to vote for him because they hate the Republican who's currently in office.

Failed Imagineer posted:

Correct, abortions own. That should be the only "trivial" position

Ciprian Maricon posted:

the GOPs apostasy on the [abortion] issue.

DarkCrawler posted:

The Supreme Court is about to blow up reproductive rights because United States is not a democracy. The liberals in the U.S. consistently upheld abortion rights within the legal confines of that undemocratic system.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The hypothetical is about someone who says they personally wouldn't get an abortion, but would vote and advocate for pro-choice policies.

Not someone who is explicitly pro-life politically and votes that way in Congress.

DarkCrawler posted:

The Supreme Court is about to blow up reproductive rights because United States is not a democracy. The liberals in the U.S. consistently upheld abortion rights within the legal confines of that undemocratic system.

Willa Rogers posted:

What does it matter if they "vote & advocate" for pro-choice policies if they've already poisoned the discourse through their public disapproval?

Would public anti-LGBTQ bigotry be acceptable as a "personal view" if the bigot voted for gay rights? Obama got away with it in 2008 but we'd be appalled at it today, as we should be.

It's long overdue to change the public discourse on abortion, as well, especially since now the "settled law" looks to be further overturned, as it once was under Casey. (And that was when the discourse really should've been altered, not neutered with that "safe, legal & rare" bullshit.)

Mendrian posted:

When people say, 'that baby might have gone on to cure cancer' they're being stupid. The only way in which that is true is the notion that every child born has some % chance to be a super baby that cures cancer, so you're argument would basically be the same as a gambler trying to roll the dice a trillion times in order to win the jackpot.

VitalSigns posted:

For ordinary people if they vote for my agenda despite their personal beliefs that's great, doesn't mean they're all a good choice for vice president or senator or something, because if they're actually making the decisions themselves those personal beliefs might be a problem!

See Tim Kaine: a governor fought to ensure that lovely parents would retain the opportunity force their kids to give birth, oh but he gives lip service to their right to their own body great okay then.

I'm also happy if bigots who are personally disgusted with gay people stop caring about loving with us legally, that doesn't mean they'd make a good president or senator though what if something comes up where we need leaders to fight for our community not just go "ick gross go do your own thing I guess"

E: I mean we're dealing with this issue right now right, some of us warned that a president with a history of criticizing Roe and voting against women's rights (and with a blase attitude to women and girls' bodily autonomy in very gross public gropey ways) was a risky bet to really go for the mat for women's rights when they're under threat but no one listened to us and welp he gave up immediately

Baronash posted:

Oh word? So they repealed the Hyde Amendment, enshrined abortion rights into law nationwide, and fought hard to maintain control of the Supreme Court?

DarkCrawler posted:

Now if you accuse them of consistently not doing everything possible to arrest the naked authoritarian fascism of United States and fascist Americans, sure, lay that at their feet. But that's something that can be laid at the feet of most Americans and affects everything, not just abortion.

Willa Rogers posted:

This is clearly incorrect.

DarkCrawler posted:

The Supreme Court is about to blow up reproductive rights because United States is not a democracy. The liberals in the U.S. consistently upheld abortion rights within the legal confines of that undemocratic system.

Mendrian posted:

a.) First, there is no such thing as a 'potential' human life. When people talk about potential human life what they're usually doing is looking around them and thinking how tragic it would be if people they cared about or admired had simply never existed. The thing is, time isn't real. When people say, 'that baby might have gone on to cure cancer' they're being stupid. The only way in which that is true is the notion that every child born has some % chance to be a super baby that cures cancer, so you're argument would basically be the same as a gambler trying to roll the dice a trillion times in order to win the jackpot. In which case, I would say, your efforts would be better spent on figuring out what behaviors make children more likely to be productive and how we can improve that (e.g., wealth) or going to places where children are actively dying and trying to prevent those deaths. Thinking backwards from the notion of how sad it would be if you had never been existed is silly. The past does not exist, and neither does the future.

Baronash posted:

It's a discussion forum, arguing is just how I pass the time.

Here's what I'm really trying to get at. I think that the position of "unfortunate but necessary" (and especially "unfortunate, necessary, and rare") existing without pushback allows for a lot of the incremental steps we've seen that have limited access to abortion over the years. Other posters have done a better job of outlining those, but I'm referring to policies like parental notification, onerous limitations on the number of weeks before which you can still receive one, restrictions on location of clinics, etc. Because when certain groups oppose abortion, and the other party only limply permits it, it's not hard for the folks who really care about it (the anti-choice ones) to strip away these rights in everything but name.

e: ~snip~ nvm, nobody here is arguing this

DarkCrawler posted:

DarkCrawler posted:

The Supreme Court is about to blow up reproductive rights because United States is not a democracy. The liberals in the U.S. consistently upheld abortion rights within the legal confines of that undemocratic system.

Now if you accuse them of consistently not doing everything possible to arrest the naked authoritarian fascism of United States and fascist Americans, sure, lay that at their feet. But that's something that can be laid at the feet of most Americans and affects everything, not just abortion.

The two party system is hosed but so is FPTP, the Senate, the Electoral College, seat apportionment, political judiciary and every other thing that makes the American system advantageous to a minority and lovely for the majority.

Aramis posted:

This is the only point on which we (barely) disagree. The problem with this, especially for someone like me who's in the "not human until conscious" camp, is that we already account for potential human life via the notions of viability, late-term considerations, etc... That makes the "There is no such thing as a potential human" argument really though to get through. I'd rather go for "A potential human has/would have no value worth fighting for in the first place" , which is basically saying the exact same thing.

DarkCrawler posted:

Want to elaborate?

quote:

The liberals in the U.S. consistently upheld abortion rights within the legal confines of that undemocratic system.

VitalSigns posted:

No they didn't?

They confirmed a bunch of anti-abortion judges when they held the senate, they passed on protecting abortion rights in federal law every time they've had a majority since Roe (a law that under the draft decision would be constitutional), they've refused to make the court more democratic by packing it or even by appointing enough judges to make up for the stolen seat, unlike conservatives liberal judges haven't opportunistically resigned to ensure their replacement with a like-minded judge. They voted for a bunch of poo poo like partial birth abortion bans and federal funding restrictions, and worse on the state level

DarkCrawler posted:

And that is all great if you're dealing with a system where you have the choice between anything that isn't "will vote for abortion rights" and "will vote against abortion rights". You don't have that choice because the system is hosed. It is a system that requires, among many other things, for a political block to either a) see a previous party collapse or b) use very dirty, immoral and ruthless methods to take over a party in order to exert political power.

A) isn't happening because the liberals of the Democratic Party do B) very effectively. If the left wants to have candidates who meet other requirements than "votes for abortion rights" it needs to do B) as well. There are many historical models as to how to achieve that, including in the history of the United States.

Taking your ball and going home only helps if that will actually collapse the party. It won't because like said - the left doesn't have any power over the party. Right now the six or so people you have in government who can be said to be reliably left are not the result of political genius and cutthroat maneuvering and leftist political machines but basically perfect coincidences of constituencies far more left than America in general + a charismatic candidate.

DarkCrawler posted:

No one listens to you beyond that because they have no incentive to do so, one way or other.

Aramis posted:

I really want to walk away from this, because I feel bad for kicking the hornet's nest. But I did bring this upon myself, and I feel like I should meet effort with effort.

This is the only point on which we (barely) disagree. The problem with this, especially for someone like me who's in the "not human until conscious" camp, is that we already account for potential human life via the notions of viability, late-term considerations, etc... That makes the "There is no such thing as a potential human" argument really though to get through. I'd rather go for "A potential human has/would have no value worth fighting for in the first place" , which is basically saying the exact same thing.

Mendrian posted:

I'm not sure how these things contradict.

When we talk about the viability of pregnancy, what are we really talking about? A woman decides to carry a baby to term, and wants to know what the odds of that happening successfully are. This isn't a measure of a 'potential human' because that person does not yet exist. It is discussing the odds of pregnancy and childbirth, nothing more.

Viability is the calculated assessment of risk and life in the face of the reality of pregnancy. 'Potential humanity' is the notion that an unborn child will one day have thoughts and feelings. I don't think those things are related.

Aramis posted:

I'm not sure I follow. Why would that life have value worth taking a risk for if not for its potential to become a person?

Jaxyon posted:

Eye surgery is a risk that I'm taking because I might want to see better and the odds are good I will and I value my eyes.

Getting that surgery is my choice.

Aramis posted:

I'm not sure I follow. Why would that life have value worth taking a risk for if not for its potential to become a person?

haveblue posted:

That’s not what “viability” means in this context. Viability is the point at which if the fetus is removed from the uterus and rushed to the NICU, odds are it’ll pull through and continue developing. With modern medicine this is around 24 weeks. The moral calculus changes at this point because it is in theory capable of becoming an independent human without making further demands on the woman previously carrying it. Before this point it is definitely not capable of this and if it is removed from the uterus there is no known way to stop it from dying.

Jaxyon posted:

Eye surgery is a risk that I'm taking because I might want to see better and the odds are good I will and I value my eyes. There is still some dangers and I need to take them into account and that will influence my decision.

Getting that surgery is my choice.

No other person has any say in it, or abortions.

DEEP STATE PLOT posted:

jesus loving christ, with all the goddamn things going on right now this dumb motherfucker decides that this is what actually matters?

joe biden is going to lose in historic fashion in 2024

haveblue posted:

That’s not what “viability” means in this context. Viability is the point at which if the fetus is removed from the uterus and rushed to the NICU, odds are it’ll pull through and continue developing.

Discendo Vox posted:

Multiple things can happen at once, and messages can have multiple audiences. It is unlikely that this speech was first scheduled today.

haveblue posted:

That’s not what “viability” means in this context. Viability is the point at which if the fetus is removed from the uterus and rushed to the NICU, odds are it’ll pull through and continue developing. With modern medicine this is around 24 weeks. The moral calculus changes at this point because it is in theory capable of becoming an independent human without making further demands on the woman previously carrying it. Before this point it is definitely not capable of this and if it is removed from the uterus there is no known way to stop it from dying.

Mendrian posted:

Thanks, I felt like I was missing some context.

I'm not sure that changes the point but I appreciate it.

Aramis posted:

The point was that I was using the medical concept of viability to argue that "There is no such thing as a potential human" is a weak argument, and if you're going to go down that road, I'd rather just acknowledge that there is little to no value in a potential human worth risking a woman's well being for.

Discendo Vox posted:

Jaxyon posted:

The fact that it wasn't changed last minute to take advantage of the climate is extremely damning.

Poor politics and poor optics.

Aramis posted:

The point was that I was using the medical concept of viability to argue that "There is no such thing as a potential human" is a weak argument, and if you're going to go down that road, I'd rather just acknowledge that there is little to no value in a potential human worth risking a woman's well being for.

Discendo Vox posted:

No, it isn't. It is in fact possible for there to be multiple constituencies and multiple messages on multiple subjects. People with other views (including people who don't know about or care about Roe!) exist and are also audiences. Just because you don't find them sympathetic doesn't mean they don't matter.

Discendo Vox posted:

No, it isn't. It is in fact possible for there to be multiple constituencies and multiple messages on multiple subjects. People with other views (including people who don't know about or care about Roe!) exist and are also audiences. Just because you don't find them sympathetic doesn't mean they don't matter.

Discendo Vox posted:

No, it isn't. It is in fact possible for there to be multiple constituencies and multiple messages on multiple subjects. People with other views (including people who don't know about or care about Roe!) exist and are also audiences. Just because you don't find them sympathetic doesn't mean they don't matter.

Aramis posted:

I'm not sure I follow. Why would that life have value worth taking a risk for if not for its potential to become a person?

Jaxyon posted:

I never said it's impossible for multiple messaging strategies to exist.

You're arguing against a strawman.

I said this is poorly timed and planned, and should have been changed even if it was last minute. If you'd like to disagree with me, feel free to engage with my viewpoints instead of viewpoints that you would like me to hold.

Discendo Vox posted:

You demanded that the subject of the existing speech be changed. Just because you are not the audience does not make the existence of a different, previously scheduled speech to another audience on another topic incorrect.

quote:

As with the discussion of Kaine earlier, you are not the universe, and there are other audiences and constituencies that these people are also trying to communicate to.

Discendo Vox posted:

You demanded that the subject of the existing speech be changed. Just because you are not the audience does not make the existence of a different, previously scheduled speech to another audience on another topic incorrect. As with the discussion of Kaine earlier, you are not the universe, and there are other audiences and constituencies that these people are also trying to communicate to.