US Supreme Court, women's bodily autonomy cancelled

[perrykneeham]

May 4, 2022 9:58:29 GMT Repat Van said:

May 4, 2022 9:12:41 GMT perrykneeham said:

You know, I am so jaded that my first thought on hearing that she'd been raped at gunpoint in Mexico was how convenient that was to her narrative. Overseas, unrecorded etc.

Of course, any victim of sexual assault has the right to be taken seriously. But lawyers? Especially rights lawyers? Dunno, it always feels like their own image and standing is much more important than the cause they claim to care about. Also, lawyers are professional liars.

Rape is breathtakingly common.

I don't doubt that it is very common.  In fact, I would be amazed if it wasn't.  That's a very sad lookout, but there are some horrible people out there an some very unhealthy attitudes and mores.

[flatandy]

Rape seems to be very, very common. Either rape is incredibly common or a large percentage of women are attention seeking liars who lie about having been raped, ye who, despite being attention seeking generally try to not seek attention and don’t go through the famously unpleasant and tortuous (and usually unsuccessful) process of reporting and trying to get their rapists prosecuted.

That said, I find that the “what about rape (and incest)” arguments for defending abortion miss almost the entire point. Yes, obviously abortion should be available for protecting womens health, in cases of rapes and incest. But if that’s where you limit and end your arguments, you’re arguing for the narrowest exemptions and allow the space for the maniacs to try and control everyone else.

[Psalms]

Liberal Lefties must really be sh#tting themselves

[mids]

That's their normal state of affairs.

[Repat Van]

May 4, 2022 13:01:06 GMT Psalms said:

Liberal Lefties must really be sh#tting themselves (rofl)

You think only liberal lefties support bodily autonomy?

Weird.

[Repat Van]

May 4, 2022 10:41:19 GMT flatandy said:

Rape seems to be very, very common. Either rape is incredibly common or a large percentage of women are attention seeking liars who lie about having been raped, ye who, despite being attention seeking generally try to not seek attention and don’t go through the famously unpleasant and tortuous (and usually unsuccessful) process of reporting and trying to get their rapists prosecuted.

That said, I find that the “what about rape (and incest)” arguments for defending abortion miss almost the entire point. Yes, obviously abortion should be available for protecting womens health, in cases of rapes and incest. But if that’s where you limit and end your arguments, you’re arguing for the narrowest exemptions and allow the space for the maniacs to try and control everyone else.

I mean I slightly get the “rape and incest” arguments solely because it’s a direct response to the forced birth crowd who say pregnancy is a consequence of a woman’s choice so she can be forced to go through with it. Clearly not true for rape / incest.

But as you said, it’s silly to even raise this as any reason a woman wants an abortion is fine. Not just the narrow few down to rape.

Although if you had a rape exemption then every woman who wants to access an abortion should just say she’s been raped and be done with.

[voice]

May 4, 2022 14:06:53 GMT Repat Van said:

May 4, 2022 13:01:06 GMT Psalms said:

Liberal Lefties must really be sh#tting themselves

You think only liberal lefties support bodily autonomy?

Weird.

No, it's really not.

[perrykneeham]

Maybe in Coathanger Joe's Bible Chastity Belt, but not in Boris'progressive, liberal Albion*.

*Not parts of East London or West Yorkshire, mind.

[mids]

Biden's bottle of gin and a hot bath bonanza.

[flatandy]

May 4, 2022 16:52:01 GMT mids said:

Biden's bottle of gin and a hot bath bonanza.

Sounds more like the pre-breakfast ritual at number 10 these days.

[voice]

Atwood, as ever, nails this whole thing. "It ought to be simple: If you believe in “ensoulment” at conception, you should not get an abortion, because to do so is a sin within your religion. If you do not so believe, you should not—under the Constitution—be bound by the religious beliefs of others."

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/supreme-court-roe-handmaids-tale-abortion-margaret-atwood/629833/

[ootlg]

I agree with Atwood's basic point but she muddies the waters bringing religion into it as an adjunct to "ensoulment".

[flatandy]

I slightly worry about Atwood’s argument. I agree with her, but I can see that if you think “ensoulment” happens at conception and therefore killing an “ensouled” foetus is wrong, you would see it as no different to murder. And we punish murder. We don’t treat murder as a matter of personal conscience. Lots of the religious crazies are presumably going to genuinely believe that each abortion is a murder and then people participating should be punished that way. I can’t see Atwood’s argument that it’s a personal choice breaking through because it doesn’t damage their logic.

[mids]

Andy's spot on here. It's absolutely rational if you think abortion is murder to want that to apply to others and not just yourself.

[ootlg]

Which brings us back to "ensoulment" or the arrival of individual life within the foetus. This usually occurs 4 - 5 months after conception; it's called the "quickening". Abortion before this period is therefore acceptable as no 'murder' is committed.

[perrykneeham]

It is odd how the Yanks are avowedly a secular state and yet rely on all that "In God we trust" hokum. It's a wierd, contradictory relationship they have with religion and I wonder if that's a function of not having an established Church.

The religious lot seems to think that they do, in fact, have a sort of natural moral primacy and that morality is the preserve of the religious. Very strange.

[perrykneeham]

Abortion is a difficult, sensitive subject but ultimately it's about personal choice.

[mids]

I'm all for abortion but I'm also aware that my arguments for it aren't particularly strong.

[flatandy]

I'm in favour of abortion because children are horrible and babies are even more horrible.

Seriously, though, the argument has to be that "ensoulment" is a nonsensical belief. Even the concept of "the quickening" seems to be pretty primitive. It's religious or mediaeval pseudoscience nonsense.

Trying to find a middle ground with the religious, trying to parse an argument that works for them as well as normal people, is almost certainly a fool's errand.

[mids]

On the other hand, the idea of a 24 week threshold isn't really any better than the quickening. Why not 26 weeks? Or 18? It also throws a spanner and cart through the works of "my body, my choice" <coughnotafter24weeksorwhateverthresholdwedecidecough>.