US Supreme Court, women's bodily autonomy cancelled

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:00:15 GMT mids said:

I think it's a lazy argument. The real argument is over whether or at what point a foetus is a "person" and therefore deserves protection and I think it's a hard argument so a lot of dimbos go for "babykiller" or "women controllers" (even though they can't say what a woman is because they're not biologists).

You think it’s a lazy argument because you have a tendency to support misogyny. When you consider that abortion laws actually mean giving corpses greater rights over their bodies than women it’s not that lazy.

[mids]

The state pretty much takes over your corpse when you die. It strictly limits what can be done with your body.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:08:06 GMT mids said:

The state pretty much takes over your corpse when you die. It strictly limits what can be done with your body.

I.e the state honours wishes I express over my body. If I refuse to be an organ donor on death the state does not override that decision. Even though taking my organs and making them available for the biological use of others would have zero impact on me in death.

Yet living me does not have that same right over my uterus. Foetuses have greater rights to make use of that uterus than the living human the uterus is part of. There is no argument (in my opinion) which justifies that.

[mids]

I'm not disagreeing with you over abortion so there's no need to explain. I'm just pointing out that while shrieking about the Handmaiden's Tale might make you feel better, it's a shite argument and might go some way to explaining why you lost. Do, as the kids say, better.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:16:36 GMT mids said:

I'm not disagreeing with you over abortion so there's no need to explain. I'm just pointing out that while shrieking about the Handmaiden's Tale might make you feel better, it's a shite argument and might go some way to explaining why you lost. Do, as the kids say, better.

“I lost”? I’m not a Yank you crazy man. And none of the civilised US states have changed anything….at your age to refer to a complex discussion as “you lost” is strange. Also I have no made any comparison to the Handmaid’s Tale so your implication that I have is even weirder. (I would not make that comparison as while I don’t agree with the forced birth position I don’t think it is based wholly in misogyny. There are feminist problems life groups after all.)

You really need to start maturing. It’s not normal to be this childish at your age. Engaging with what people say and not what you think they said will help you on this journey.

Incidentally we don’t agree on abortion as I don’t support term limits.

[mids]

You've become hysterical.

[flatandy]

Jun 27, 2022 12:16:36 GMT mids said:

it's a shite argument and might go some way to explaining why you lost...

Yeah, this doesn't add up because allowing abortion is popular across the board in almost all countries where it's allowed, and even in most of the more backward US states. "We" "lost" in the US supreme court because of a 50 year long legal and political strategy that had almost nothing to do with making actual arguments against abortion and everything to do with legalistic mumbo-jumbo (see Jimbo's defence of this not on actual serious grounds but because "states should have the right to make healthcare law"), and ways of packing the US courts. "We" "lost" mostly because Democrat politicians weren't anything like as cynical and corrupt, and because there's no equivalent on the left of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:33:28 GMT mids said:

You've become hysterical.

This is that misogyny I was referring to.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:34:37 GMT flatandy said:

Jun 27, 2022 12:16:36 GMT mids said:

it's a shite argument and might go some way to explaining why you lost...

Yeah, this doesn't add up because allowing abortion is popular across the board in almost all countries where it's allowed, and even in most of the more backward US states. "We" "lost" in the US supreme court because of a 50 year long legal and political strategy that had almost nothing to do with making actual arguments against abortion and everything to do with legalistic mumbo-jumbo (see Jimbo's defence of this not on actual serious grounds but because "states should have the right to make healthcare law"), and ways of packing the US courts. "We" "lost" mostly because Democrat politicians weren't anything like as cynical and corrupt, and because there's no equivalent on the left of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.

But to be clear I am not even sure what the left “lost” given that no Democrat states that I can see have rolled back abortion.

It’s the right that wants it illegal everywhere and they are nowhere near making that a reality.

[mids]

Jun 27, 2022 12:37:51 GMT Repat Van said:

Jun 27, 2022 12:33:28 GMT mids said:

You've become hysterical.

This is that misogyny I was referring to.

Truth=/= misogyny.

[mids]

Jun 27, 2022 12:34:37 GMT flatandy said:

Jun 27, 2022 12:16:36 GMT mids said:

it's a shite argument and might go some way to explaining why you lost...

Yeah, this doesn't add up because allowing abortion is popular across the board in almost all countries where it's allowed, and even in most of the more backward US states. "We" "lost" in the US supreme court because of a 50 year long legal and political strategy that had almost nothing to do with making actual arguments against abortion and everything to do with legalistic mumbo-jumbo (see Jimbo's defence of this not on actual serious grounds but because "states should have the right to make healthcare law"), and ways of packing the US courts. "We" "lost" mostly because Democrat politicians weren't anything like as cynical and corrupt, and because there's no equivalent on the left of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.

50 year strategy? There have been Republican presidents in the past 50 years but it's only the last few years that anything has actually been done and that last few years has coincided with a ramping up of the performative Handmaidens Tale hysteria.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:42:45 GMT mids said:

Jun 27, 2022 12:37:51 GMT Repat Van said:

This is that misogyny I was referring to.

Truth=/= misogyny.

Exactly. Which is why I called it “misogyny”.
You have a tendency to reach for it.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:46:25 GMT mids said:

Jun 27, 2022 12:34:37 GMT flatandy said:

Yeah, this doesn't add up because allowing abortion is popular across the board in almost all countries where it's allowed, and even in most of the more backward US states. "We" "lost" in the US supreme court because of a 50 year long legal and political strategy that had almost nothing to do with making actual arguments against abortion and everything to do with legalistic mumbo-jumbo (see Jimbo's defence of this not on actual serious grounds but because "states should have the right to make healthcare law"), and ways of packing the US courts. "We" "lost" mostly because Democrat politicians weren't anything like as cynical and corrupt, and because there's no equivalent on the left of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.

50 year strategy? There have been Republican presidents in the past 50 years but it's only the last few years that anything has actually been done and that last few years has coincided with a ramping up of the performative Handmaidens Tale hysteria.

If you think it is only the last couple of years that Republicans have been agitating to roll back Roe vs. Wade you are deluded.

If you really think that Republicans were fine with abortion laws but then decided to make changes because a few people dressed up as characters from a novel you are especially deluded.

[mids]

And where did I say that? You must learn to read and understand what you're reading. It's the same story; understand it, don't just hear what you want to hear. It's why you keep losing.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 12:56:04 GMT mids said:

And where did I say that? You must learn to read and understand what you're reading. It's the same story; understand it, don't just hear what you want to hear. It's why you keep losing.

You’re not reading your posts are you.

“ There have been Republican presidents in the past 50 years but it's only the last few years that anything has actually been done and that last few years has coincided with a ramping up of the performative Handmaidens Tale hysteria.”

“ I'm just pointing out that while shrieking about the Handmaiden's Tale might make you feel better, it's a shite argument and might go some way to explaining why you lost.”

[voice]

so while you lack any knowledge of of the history of why and how this ruling came about you persist in pretending you know what you're talking about. This was absolutely a 50 year political long game, in the first few years following RvW there was little religious opposition and little main stream political opposition, the GOP was broadly in support of Roe and even the Southern Baptists agreed life began at birth, something about the bible saying god made Adam then once he was finished breathed life into his nostrils, so the religious nuts at that time said life began at first breath. This slowly changed and by the early 80's it was beginning GOP policy to get justices to overturn Roe, Reagan, who actually signed legal abortions in CA when he was gov was forced to recant and say he was wrong, the religious nuts started saying life began at ejaculation, the terrorist wing of the anti-abortion movement started killing Dr's and so on and so forth. It became the explicit policy of the right to end womens bodily autonomy and have the state have the final say over what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Sure its dressed up by idiots as States right, but as I mentioned earlier in the same week as Roe fell, the court also decided States were not fit to decide gun laws in their states, so its a bollox argument this was about states rights.

And yes this is absoluty about controlling women, either implicitly or explicitly, there's a sh*t load of mens rights crap attached to this as well

(to mids)

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:01:26 GMT voice said:

so while you lack any knowledge of of the history of why and how this ruling came about you persist in pretending you know what you're talking about. This was absolutely a 50 year political long game, in the first few years following RvW there was little religious opposition and little main stream political opposition, the GOP was broadly in support of Roe and even the Southern Baptists agreed life began at birth, something about the bible saying god made Adam then once he was finished breathed life into his nostrils, so the religious nuts at that time said life began at first breath. This slowly changed and by the early 80's it was beginning GOP policy to get justices to overturn Roe, Reagan, who actually signed legal abortions in CA when he was gov was forced to recant and say he was wrong, the religious nuts started saying life began at ejaculation, the terrorist wing of the anti-abortion movement started killing Dr's and so on and so forth. It became the explicit policy of the right to end womens bodily autonomy and have the state have the final say over what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Sure its dressed up by idiots as States right, but as I mentioned earlier in the same week as Roe fell, the court also decided States were not fit to decide gun laws in their states, so its a bollox argument this was about states rights.

And yes this is absoluty about controlling women, either implicitly or explicitly, there's a sh*t load of mens rights crap attached to this as well

(to mids)

Mids is a troll though. Which is why his lack of knowledge of history has never stopped him commenting.


And you are spot on re: the manosphere and mens rights groups absolutely latching on to this from a position of controlling women’s bodies. It’s nonsensical for their groups to argue in favour of “financial abortions” while being this gleeful are the backwards states rolling back access to legal abortion and putting in place forced birth policies.

[voice]

also the bit in Clarence's ruling that next on the agenda for the far right chritian nationalists was marriage equality, access to contraception and a raft of other rights the right hate (though oddly not inter-racial marriage that was decided on very similar grounds, wonder why that is Clarence?) he explicitly said if cases came before the courts they would strike down as many of the rights gained in the past centaury as possible.

[mids]

How many SCJ's that were antagonistic to R vs W were specifically put in place to overturn it during the presidencies of Reagan or the Bushes?

[Repat Van]

Statements by the “losing side” (not my terminology) who actually have to deal with the impacts of this decision:

www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2022/06/24/grave-consequences-medical-journals-and-professional-groups-condemn-supreme-court-decision-overturning-roe/amp/

“ Major medical journals and professional societies — including those for pediatricians and gynecological and obstetric doctors — condemned the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the nation's landmark abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade, warning the decision will risk patient safety and increase mortality.”