|
Kurzon posted:Thank you. So some conservatives do propose this Yes indeed they do, because as you pointed out, it is the logical conclusion of their beliefs. Another good example is abortion bans that exempt excess embryos created during in vitro fertilization from protection. Which sounds curious, if embryos are human beings right. Ah but quote:“The egg in the lab doesn’t apply,” Clyde Chambliss, state senator and sponsor of the abortion bill, said during the Alabama legislative debate. “It’s not in a woman." Interesting. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Oct 4, 2022 |
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
The rapist benefits by having his genes spread without having to expend any resources on the kid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Thank you. So some conservatives do propose this, though it doesn't seem like a major talking point. Not to be mean but I think this post reveals some naivete in how the American legal system functions in theory versus in practice. The laws are written the way they are because of the past precedent that laws are not universally applied and enforced against all people equally, but a law that appears neutral creates the impression this isn't the case. Conservatives want to say there is a rule of law and that justice is blind even when it clearly isn't. In your example, there is no guarantee at all that a rapist will be held accountable for their actions even with clear and obvious evidence, even though the law says they should be. When people claim that anti-abortion laws are about controlling women, the claim is made with the understanding that historically the deck has been stacked against the woman in this scenario and in the favor of the rapist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Thank you. So some conservatives do propose this, though it doesn't seem like a major talking point. Race is hugely evident as those proposing these laws and championing the anti- position are largely, though not exclusively, also white/Christian nationalists who want more little white/Christian soldiers out there to stop the Great Replacement and/or fight the coming race war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Thank you. So some conservatives do propose this, though it doesn't seem like a major talking point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Zophar posted:When people claim that anti-abortion laws are about controlling women, the claim is made with the understanding that historically the deck has been stacked against the woman in this scenario and in the favor of the rapist. Also don't forget that conservatives tend to assume women lie about rape, so an abortion exemption for rape is in their minds an incentive for women to lie more so they can get an abortion. No point in banning abortion if every woman can just say "oh I was raped" and get one, amirite. It's not unusual for this to be accompanied by some strange ideas about human reproduction, for example that women can't get pregnant from rape because the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down, so to someone who believes this, the pregnancy is actually evidence that she wasn't raped. Or that In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out, because I guess swabbing semen out the vagina after intercourse prevents pregnancy. Or that rape exceptions are unnecessary because everyone can easily get Plan B which is a complete substitute for abortion. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Oct 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Thank you. So some conservatives do propose this, though it doesn't seem like a major talking point. It’s not about the specifics of any particular case, but about creating a state of affairs where women are generally unable to practice control over their own bodies. Conservatives desire this because of their hierarchical worldview, wherein men are placed over women and women must submit to their control. Bodily autonomy violates the principle that men are placed over women and women must submit to their control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? Well, it literally takes control over your own body from you, and gives it to someone else. Effectively giving you less autonomy then a corpose. HTH!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Well, it literally takes control over your own body from you, and gives it to someone else. Effectively giving you less autonomy then a corpose. Now, let's not be hyperbolic. It gives you no more bodily autonomy than a corpse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Now, let's not be hyperbolic. It gives you no more bodily autonomy than a corpse. No, a corpse can't have its body coopted to save or enable the life of another (it requires the permission of the formerly living person and their family*). A woman's body can, now. *If you want to have your organs donated, be sure your loved ones know your intentions before you can't have the conversation anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:No, a corpse can't have its body coopted to save or enable the life of another (it requires the permission of the formerly living person and their family*). A woman's body can, now. Pretty sure in most/all states if it's on your license your family can't do poo poo, as that is a legally binding document. Not sure about other countries, but it was definitely that way in Pennsylvania. E: to be clear, this is about someone wanting to donate and having their organs withheld by family, which you cannot do but seems to be a persistent myth given how often it came up when I worked in PA. From a discussion on autonomy and abortion, it is much less relevant because yes, you cannot coopt someone's organs without either their consent or the consent of their surrogate in the event that they are unable to make decisions. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Oct 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Pretty sure in most/all states if it's on your license your family can't do poo poo, as that is a legally binding document. Legally, yes - but a significant percentage of surgeons won't collect donor organs over the objections of the deceased's family regardless of what the law says. https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/news/when-the-living-and-the-deceased-dont-agree-on-organ-donation I'll admit I was wrong though - I hadn't realized that the states had universalized the set of requirements that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:We hear stories about women being forced to carry their rapist's baby to term. Who benefits from this? Not the rapist, the baby is evidence of his crime. Not the woman's family. And not woman. The only person who benefits is the fetus itself, if you buy the notion that the fetus is a human being. They do not want women to have an escape hatch, of any kind. The mercilessness proves the strength. Women must be corralled within Christian morality, and when you step outside that morality, you deserve suffering and death. Women must be terrorized into behaving properly. Hell must be encouraged to creep right up outside church's door. This is the way it has to be, and whatever must be believed or said to make it so should be believed and said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Now, let's not be hyperbolic. It gives you no more bodily autonomy than a corpse. No, I was correct. I was referring to what the poster below you said. A dead man has more right to bodily autonomy than a live woman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Legally, yes - but a significant percentage of surgeons won't collect donor organs over the objections of the deceased's family regardless of what the law says. They'll also do this if you have a living will wrt being taken off a respirator! Fun fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Very funny post to make while a bunch of conservatives - who claim abortion is murder - are defending Herschel Walker after it came out he paid for a girlfriend's abortion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Very funny post to make while a bunch of conservatives - who claim abortion is murder - are defending Herschel Walker after it came out he paid for a girlfriend's abortion. He's a good christian man doing good christian things. Like abusing his family, committing adultery with multiple people, getting divorced and remarried, having children out of wedlock...etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Very funny post to make while a bunch of conservatives - who claim abortion is murder - are defending Herschel Walker after it came out he paid for a girlfriend's abortion. only moral abortion, imperfect vessel, ect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
They aren't even bothering to disguise it this time. https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1577442950044426240
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They aren't even bothering to disguise it this time. LOL according to their logic he's an accessory to murder. I know they're hypocrites and don't actually believe what they say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They aren't even bothering to disguise it this time. They haven't for a while because they know they're an ISL SCOTUS ruling away from seizing control indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They aren't even bothering to disguise it this time. It's the same as evangelical support for Trump - as long as they get what they want politically, they don't give the slightest poo poo about the personal ethics or history of the individual candidate. As long as Walker's a reliable anti-abortion vote in the Senate, they don't care how many abortions he's involved in. A senator who would be a murderer according to their own beliefs? As long as that murderer votes for the things they want, they're fine with it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
There are really no leaders or people with coherent ideology left in the GOP, no one to say "OK, start over, this is hosed up." So the math is simple: Republicans need to compete in Georgia to have any realistic chance of controlling the Senate. No Republican wants to be the first to speak out against a candidate who was already unqualified before this, because to do so would go directly against Trump. After that you can forget your political career. All other once-mainstream right wing movements are dead, if you're not a Trumper you're not a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
The vast majority of people who are against abortion are also against contraception and would abolish the legal availability of contraceptives if they could, as well as criminalize their use. They also would criminalize sex outside of marriage, if they could. They would also obviously criminalize homosexuality. It's all fundamentally wrapped up in reasserting dominion over women and their sexuality. You rarely heard that much coming up about their particular lobby going after contraceptives because it was a somewhat unrealistic goal while they couldn't even effectively ban abortion. Once that wall was down, they started showing more of their hand. There would be no limit to how far they would go if they could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Kavros posted:The vast majority of people who are against abortion are also against contraception and would abolish the legal availability of contraceptives if they could, as well as criminalize their use. They also would criminalize sex outside of marriage, if they could. They would also obviously criminalize homosexuality. It's all fundamentally wrapped up in reasserting dominion over women and their sexuality. And Thomas was so happy to strike down Roe that he couldn't help but declare gay rights and contraceptives were next on his to-do list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
We've already seen restrictions on contraception post-Dobbs in certain states, on the basis that attorneys for certain hospitals are concerned about getting sued by the state (ie. Missouri, which I believe has the most restrictive laws against abortion in the US now).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Do any of these laws banning abortion make the man an accessory to murder if he pays for it, because if it's genuinely about protecting life yeah Walker should be in jail no different than if he paid for his girlfriend to hire a hitman. Of course if it's just about controlling women then yeah sure make him a senator why not, can't blame a guy for wisely saving himself from being trapped into paying 18 years of child support.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do any of these laws banning abortion make the man an accessory to murder if he pays for it, because if it's genuinely about protecting life yeah Walker should be in jail no different than if he paid for his girlfriend to hire a hitman. Every state that does it are loving cowards. As far as I know none of them have sought to apply their murder statutes to performed abortions. They might have made it a crime, but none have actually gone the distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Every state that does it are loving cowards. As far as I know none of them have sought to apply their murder statutes to performed abortions. They might have made it a crime, but none have actually gone the distance. Do you mean abortions already performed? Because post facto laws are extremely Unconstitutional* and even the handmaiden would probably rule against a law that tries to criminalize past abortions under Roe as murder. * I am aware that something as minor as "directly violates the US Constitution" is not enough to stop a lot of the FedSoc shitheads in the judiciary. Especially in the 5th circus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Murder, no. Manslaughter? Yeah that poo poo is already happening. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544 quote:When a 21-year-old Native American woman from Oklahoma was convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage, people were outraged. But she was not alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Do you mean abortions already performed? Because post facto laws are extremely Unconstitutional* and even the handmaiden would probably rule against a law that tries to criminalize past abortions under Roe as murder. Sorry for being confusing, they were two separate issues. People who claim to believe abortion is murder should believe that Walker deserves (morally) to be in jail even if it's not legally possible because of ex post facto laws. Not only do they support him, which is not consistent with their beliefs that would label him a murderer, I was wondering if any of them are actually trying to criminalize actions like his going forward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I mean going forward. If he were in Texas, he'd be a viable target for an SB 8 lawsuit, does that count? Hell, it may be possible to sue him in Texas under SB 8 even though he's not in Texas and none of the alleged conduct took place in Texas
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I know they're hypocrites and don't actually believe what they say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Hypocritical laws that they selectively enforce against their enemies is a selling point. To their audience this is a bonus because look at how much of a flex it is. They know its bullshit. You know it's bullshit. But that woman in Oklahoma is still being prosecuted. So gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Yeah. I used to think it was a good idea to throw their hypocrisy in their faces, until I realized they pride themselves on their hypocrisy. They are actually gleeful about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
I mean it's all helpful if someone comes in like "gee guys why won't you consider that conservatives just have deeply held moral values regarding the sanctity of unborn life" because they can't revel in the gently caress-you hypocrisy of it all without giving up the gimmick. But yeah in general it doesn't matter because the laws are about hurting people they don't like. If someone on their team has an abortion that's fine, because they can do it and then they're gonna turn around and send you to jail for the same thing, which makes you even madder so all's the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do any of these laws banning abortion make the man an accessory to murder if he pays for it, because if it's genuinely about protecting life yeah Walker should be in jail no different than if he paid for his girlfriend to hire a hitman. It DependsTM. The common-law rule is that a baby has to be born alive before homicide laws apply, but in 38 states there are fetal protection laws that protect unborn children to various degrees. Some of them don't apply to acts committed by the mother, some of them carve out exceptions for abortions performed with consent of the mother, some of them carve out narrower exceptions for "legal abortion" and could apply post-Dobbs, etc. If you're in a state where a fetus is defined as a person for purposes of homicide, and there's no exception for abortion or other state-level protections for abortion, you could theoretically charge a mother for intentionally causing the death of a fetus by obtaining an abortion, and could probably charge an accomplice for assisting or planning or providing the means. In Georgia, abortion probably wouldn't fall under the state's feticide law because it doesn't involve injury to the mother or running her over with a boat while drunk*; you'd look at the statute specifically criminalizing abortion instead, which carries its own penalties and is pretty squarely aimed at providers. In Oklahoma, meanwhile, a mother can be prosecuted for committing a crime that causes the death of her unborn child, which is how Brittney Poolaw was charged (meth use). Practically, the effect of abortion bans is to close providers and drive abortions out of state, which makes things even more complicated. * Seriously. GA Code s52-7-12.3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577880686282919937?s=46&t=0fIGJlmF2MKfl6RS3uMeFg
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
What the gently caress does that even mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
It means that the new owner of Twitter is a fuckin moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 23:48
|
|