Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law

[bluescreen]

It's not so simple though. I know women who hold these views (because I had a religious upbringing), and they genuinely feel that the evil non-Christian world has sanctioned the killing of babies. They're not trying to control other people, they're trying to save children from mass infanticide. They feel extremely sad about all the babies killed and dedicate themselves to ending the murder.

The arguments against this position are usually technical ones about when a fetus becomes conscious and so on. I do think a lot of that misses the point. Firstly, we can't objectively decide when a baby becomes a human, because really this is a socially determined decision. Many cultures by practicing post-birth infanticide have essentially declared that someone is not a human until they are socialised as human. We find leaving babies out to die in the bush as shocking as anti-abortion campaigners find abortion. It's quite difficult to objectively declare that anyone is right on this. Secondly, the dislike of abortion among many women is deeply emotionally felt, so these arguments about when consciousness is achieved just cut no mustard at all. What they've done is prioritised their emotional feelings for innocent babies over their emotional feelings for women whose 'mistakes' make them less instantly lovable. And every person in Britain who finds dogs more lovable than people (quite a lot in my experience) is doing the same thing. It's quite easy to love 'innocence' over the messiness of human adulthood.

For the record I am in favour of the current guidelines in most developed countries for when a fetus/baby becomes a human, but to some extent it's a utilitarian decision about how best to reduce suffering. That seems very cold to some people, particularly if the preacher told them a human begins from when the sperm meets the egg. The preacher's intentions may well be about control, but I don't believe that's the main thing that causes anti-abortion feeling to propagate itself among women.

Eh? Where did I suggest the debate wasn't nuanced? I'm well aware of the arguments that look at the foetus as if it were a life with rights independent of its host - see the article Pickman's model quoted above for a good short history of how the campaign developed. But any argument that seeks to deny the pregnant woman agency in the matter is not exactly a feminist argument, is it.

 

[frogwoman]

I think the dogs thing is a good point though but probably not a discussion for this thread, but it's a similar thing to pet charities getting more money than women's refuges etc.

 

[Sue]

It's not so simple though. I know women who hold these views (because I had a religious upbringing), and they genuinely feel that the evil non-Christian world has sanctioned the killing of babies.

I was brought up Catholic/went to Catholic schools etc so I'm well aware of all this.

They're not trying to control other people, they're trying to save children from mass infanticide. They feel extremely sad about all the babies killed and dedicate themselves to ending the murder.

Whether they're trying to or not, denying women access to abortion is controlling women.

 

[Brainaddict]

Eh? Where did I suggest the debate wasn't nuanced? I'm well aware of the arguments that look at the foetus as if it were a life with rights independent of its host - see the article Pickman's model quoted above for a good short history of how the campaign developed. But any argument that seeks to deny the pregnant woman agency in the matter is not exactly a feminist argument, is it.

But again you're kind of suggesting that women get involved in campaigning against abortion because they are tools of the patriarchy, and there's truth in that. It's worth understanding from their point of view too though. To the extent they see it as about controlling people it's just the kind of 'control' that makes it illegal for you to kill your neighbour, whether it be of the woman choosing it or the male doctor carrying it out. Society relies on stopping people murdering each other, right?

 

[Pickman's model]

Society relies on stopping people murdering each other, right?

no. if it does rely on that it's doing a remarkably bad job of eradicating murder

 

[Ax^]

But again you're kind of suggesting that women get involved in campaigning against abortion because they are tools of the patriarchy, and there's truth in that. It's worth understanding from their point of view too though. To the extent they see it as about controlling people it's just the kind of 'control' that makes it illegal for you to kill your neighbour, whether it be of the woman choosing it or the male doctor carrying it out. Society relies on stopping people murdering each other, right?

oddly enough in the us the same people screaming that every fertalised egg is sacred tend to have no objection to the state murdering people for committing crimes

 

[frogwoman]

But again you're kind of suggesting that women get involved in campaigning against abortion because they are tools of the patriarchy, and there's truth in that. It's worth understanding from their point of view too though. To the extent they see it as about controlling people it's just the kind of 'control' that makes it illegal for you to kill your neighbour, whether it be of the woman choosing it or the male doctor carrying it out. Society relies on stopping people murdering each other, right?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

[frogwoman]

But again you're kind of suggesting that women get involved in campaigning against abortion because they are tools of the patriarchy, and there's truth in that. It's worth understanding from their point of view too though. To the extent they see it as about controlling people it's just the kind of 'control' that makes it illegal for you to kill your neighbour, whether it be of the woman choosing it or the male doctor carrying it out. Society relies on stopping people murdering each other, right?

It's worth understanding it from their pov, just as it's worth understanding that some people (often the same ones) really believe that Ukraine is part of Russia and Putin is saving the world from Nazis, or that a mask is a muzzle etc

 

[Cid]

That wouldn't work in the US. We have a right-wing lawyer's association that grooms judges in the US called the Federalist Society. If judges were appointed in that manner, the Federalist Society would make sure to appoint their own members. I think we need a liberal association of judges to counter to them to balance power.

<edited to add>
I don't believe politics doesn't enter into it on your side of the pond either. It may be more subtle, but I'm sure its there.

I would say the system is somewhat less vulnerable to influence. UK courts don't really have any law-making ability... All they can do, right up to the Supreme Court, is interpret legislation issued by parliament (or navigate the byzantine system of common law, but this is somewhat a separate issue). This is not to say they don't try, or that they can't have a substantial influence on how a particular piece of legislation is used in practice, but they are always subordinate to parliament's law-making. So if the government doesn't like the way something is playing out, all they need do is amend that legislation to clarify the point. And bear in mind here that all you need to do to pass legislation - any legislation - is get it passed through parliament, i.e a simple majority of MPs voting in favour (over-simplified, but house of lords has less influence these days etc etc).

Again, don't want to say the courts don't have political influence; if legislation is badly written, unpopular, difficult to implement etc they can have a considerable amount of power. And often governments will just allow them to get on with working out the messy details. But the kind of influence they have access to is of a fundamentally different type from that in the US. I think the way that works out in practice, combined with the relatively technical appointments procedure, just means there's a limited amount any lobbying groups, influence-peddlers etc would get out of trying to influence the process.

I'm avoiding a bunch of side issues on how that system favours the kind of people who become senior lawyers, but necessarily limited in that I don't fancy writing a book on the subject. Just a quick run-down of why it's a different issue here.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

When Biden arrived in the Senate in 1973 he thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. In 1981 he voted for a failed constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1982, he voted against the same failed constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe. In 2003, Biden voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In 2006, he stated in an interview that "I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy". From 1976 to June 5, 2019, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion (except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape).

It was only when he started his run for the Presidency that he changed his position to "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned".

Anything he does to prevent Roe v. Wade being overturned will be based on political calculation rather than personal belief, as he spent the first 46 years of his political career being solidly anti-abortion.

He claims to be a 'victim' of his Catholic upbringing and is said to be conflicted on the issue and he has always flip-flopped on women's rights.

If we are to have masters then we are very vulnerable and susceptible to their flaws and we pay dearly unfortunately.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I'm seeing news reports of a leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on abortion rights. According to the leaked draft, Roe v. Wade will be overturned.





It's going to be a very different world for young women going forward. As much as I dislike abortion personally, this makes me a bit sick. I don't know how a country can be considered free if 51% of its population doesn't have basic rights to bodily autonomy.

Democracy is a lie

 

[Sue]

He claims to be a 'victim' of his Catholic upbringing and is said to be conflicted on the issue and he has always flip-flopped on women's rights.

If we are to have masters then we are very vulnerable to their flaws and pay dearly unfortunately.

Easy to flip-flop on women's rights when you're never going to be in a position where you could be forced to carry a child for nine months (with all the associated health risks and other consequences) whether you want to or not.

 

[Brainaddict]

It's worth understanding it from their pov, just as it's worth understanding that some people (often the same ones) really believe that Ukraine is part of Russia and Putin is saving the world from Nazis, or that a mask is a muzzle etc

I guess I was talking specifically about understanding the emotional thrust of where they're coming from, and how that needn't accord with a desire for stronger patriarchy, even if a stronger patriarchy is one of the functional outcomes.

We have a narrative about how this is about controlling women, but they have a narrative about how it's a matter of the competing rights of two people, and how the stronger killing the weaker can never be the just outcome.

[PS I'm aware that referring to the language of the anti-abortion brigade could be upsetting for some people and I'm happy to stop doing it if asked. I'm doing it cos I think these attitudes can't be legislated away so it's quite important to understand them, but I realise it's more remote for me than for others here.]

 

[Pickman's model]

Democracy is a lie

democracy is coming to the usa

 

[Pickman's model]

I guess I was talking specifically about understanding the emotional thrust of where they're coming from, and how that needn't accord with a desire for stronger patriarchy, even if a stronger patriarchy is one of the functional outcomes.

We have a narrative about how this is about controlling women, but they have a narrative about how it's a matter of the competing rights of two people, and how the stronger killing the weaker can never be the just outcome.

[PS I'm aware that referring to the language of the anti-abortion brigade could be upsetting for some people and I'm happy to stop doing it if asked. I'm doing it cos I think these attitudes can't be legislated away so it's quite important to understand them, but I realise it's more remote for me than for others here.]

that stronger / weaker thing is obvs a load of auld shite when the stronger (the state) determines how the weaker (individual women) shall govern their bodies. when the main legislative proponents of laws restricting or denying abortion are men and not women.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

A timely pea...

 

[Brainaddict]

that stronger / weaker thing is obvs a load of auld shite when the stronger (the state) determines how the weaker (individual women) shall govern their bodies. when the main legislative proponents of laws restricting or denying abortion are men and not women.

There are some definite inconsistencies in their pov, as the post above this lays out. As I said before it's not just weaker vs stronger, it's innocence vs adult mistakes.

As for the legislatures being more men, it makes a bit of difference but maybe not as much as you'd think. There's only a few percentage points difference between men and women's attitudes to abortion in the US. At certain points on certain measures men have been more pro choice than women: Abortion Trends by Gender, though the general trend is for women to be slightly ahead.

 

[Poot]

I find it laughable that anyone's listening to the opinion of people without uteruses on this. A 6 week old foetus is the size of a lentil. It creates hormones that make you puke. It is a gynaecological issue.

 

[NoXion]

I find it laughable that anyone's listening to the opinion of people without uteruses on this. A 6 week old foetus is the size of a lentil. It creates hormones that make you puke. It is a gynaecological issue.

I'd like to think that restricting abortion would still be wrong, even if a majority of people with a uterus were in favour of such restrictions.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are some definite inconsistencies in their pov, as the post above this lays out. As I said before it's not just weaker vs stronger, it's innocence vs adult mistakes.

As for the legislatures being more men, it makes a bit of difference but maybe not as much as you'd think. There's only a few percentage points difference between men and women's attitudes to abortion in the US. At certain points on certain measures men have been more pro choice than women: Abortion Trends by Gender, though the general trend is for women to be slightly ahead.

i didn't say the legislatures were more men, i said the main legislative proponents were men. and if you look back to my 274 you might see i am already familiar with your link

 

[Sasaferrato]

oddly enough in the us the same people screaming that every fertalised egg is sacred tend to have no objection to the state murdering people for committing crimes

I would argue, on a purely logical basis, that there is a difference between a being incapable of crime, and someone who has murdered a family.

Your point is taken though.

 

[tim]

This is literally a bunch of white guys wanting to punish women for... existing. As others have said, the majority of the US population supports women not being forced to give birth. But one group wants to remind everyone Who Is In Charge.

Literally, if we're talking about the Supreme Court vote: three white guys, one black guy and one white woman.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Interesting article.

Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus

The fields of biology, medicine, and embryology have described the developmental milestones of humans throughout gestation in great detail. It is less clear as to when humans are recognized as people, persons, or beings with rights that are protected ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The highlighted section is not my highlighting, it is as a result of my search term which was 'When does a foetus become a human being'.

 

[Brainaddict]

Chrissy Stroop who I follow on twitter talks a lot about the 'Christian Supremacy' project of the evangelical protestant movement in the US. They see most of the social liberalisations of the 60s and after as an affront to god and themselves and are on a mission to turn them all back and ensure the US is a 'christian nation'. This is bound to the Republican project of getting voters to vote on moral rather than economic issues so that they can continue to pass the economic measures they want (that are clearly against the interests of most of their voters). It also blends into the various streams of new conservatism/alt right nonsense. And that's how you get Marjorie Taylor Greene.

 

[Cloo]

Literally, if we're talking about the Supreme Court vote: three white guys, one black guy and one white woman.

I'm aware of the demographic makeup of SCOTUS , but the force behind power overall, as in most of the developed world, is one of white men.

 

[Yossarian]

Literally, if we're talking about the Supreme Court vote: three white guys, one black guy and one white woman.

The Black guy and the white woman, like every US Supreme Court justice in history except Kagan and Sotomayor, were nominated for lifetime terms by a white man.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm aware of the demographic makeup of SCOTUS , but the force behind power overall, as in most of the developed world, is one of white men.

Men, certainly. I'm not sure what race has to do with it, though, tbh. Plenty of countries not led by white men have horrendous laws around abortion and reproductive rights generally.

 

[8ball]

A timely pea...

View attachment 321042

Do people insure babies?

 

[8ball]

Interesting article.

Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus

The fields of biology, medicine, and embryology have described the developmental milestones of humans throughout gestation in great detail. It is less clear as to when humans are recognized as people, persons, or beings with rights that are protected ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The highlighted section is not my highlighting, it is as a result of my search term which was 'When does a foetus become a human being'.

A foetus is a human being. That discussion is about whether / when it becomes a person.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do people insure babies?

It's the US, so for health insurance, yes.