Question from a political dum-dum (me): I'm seeing a lot of talk about codifying Roe v. Wade into law. What does that mean exactly?

The implications of defining the 'personhood' of a fertilized egg are already manifesting in the push in some states to legally classify abortion as homicide.  Some of the less obvious ones is that this could also criminalize certain miscarriages which are not intentionally induced, and although there was the brief outrage over a Texas case last month which was quickly dropped, it's clear that the SCOTUS ruling will allow future cases to go forward.  But even more concerning that those cases is that this narrow definition of the fertilized egg as a person with legal rights may also result in restrictions on the practice of in vitro fertilization, because the method involves creating a surplus of fertilized eggs, the majority of which will not result in viable pregnancies.  In the logic of this personhood, this is equivalent of creating dozens of "conceived souls" which will be destined to be discarded.  Several religious anti-abortion groups have already long been opposed to the procedure.

And that's because these kinds of religious people who adhere to scriptural literalism (let's call them..."textualists"?) have not amended their concept of 'conception' on pace with modern advances and discoveries in biology.  In fact, the IVF procedure actually is a very close approximation of the biological process of conception.  Just as the majority, a surplus, of fertilized eggs in IVF are eventually flushed out by failing to implant in the uterus, similarly, under natural conditions, 2/3rds of a woman's fertilized eggs (embryos) are flushed out with no chance of becoming viable fetuses.  If we assume that the Abrahamic view of conception, that a fertilized egg = a soul, is correct and part of God's divine design, then the inescapable conclusion is that God intended for the vast majority, 2/3rds. of all created souls, are destined to limbo, which seems to be about as cruel a conception of God as only the cruelest zealous despot could conceive.  The alternative to this is maybe to consider the possibility that medieval ascetics may have had a less than perfect understanding of the female reproduction system.

But this won't stop today's crusading zealots from imposing their own cruel sexual anachronisms onto what will be mostly be the poorest and most vulnerable women in the country.

Jinnistan wrote:

The alternative to this is maybe to consider the possibility that medieval ascetics may have had a less than perfect understanding of the female reproduction system.

It turns out that I've once again been too kind to our religious zealots by assuming that they knew what they were talking about.  Turns out that the blame doesn't lie with our "medieval ascetics" after all for this flawed conception of conception.  It's already well known that the subject of abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, but there is sufficient evidence of the sanctity of the seed, the prohibition of every form of sexual behavior which is not in the service of procreation, to assume the moral position of abortion.

Interestingly, though: "It wasn’t until 1869 that the Catholic Church took the position that life begins at conception."  "Indeed, until after the Civil War, most of the Roman Catholic clergy advised that the unborn were only 'ensouled' (in today’s parlance, had achieved 'personhood') at quickening*, and abortifacients with names like Uterine Regulator and Samaritan’s Gift for Females were widely and often legally available."  (*"Quickening" refers to the period when a mother begins to feel the fetus shift, or kick, in the womb, usually around the 15th or 16th week.)  "Abortion opponents have since combined that edict with medical advances like ultrasounds and the public’s squishy belief in DNA determinism to elide the difference between a five-day-old blastocyst, an eight-week-old embryo and a five-month-old fetus."

There may be a reason why Alito had to go back to medieval jurisprudence (ie, "common-law authorities") to support his anti-abortion position including the 17th century judge Matthew Hale who literally burned witches.  (Not a good look, Sam.)  And then passed of this example for why abortion rights are not "deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions".  (Like slavery was?)  And, of course, in Alito's dissent of Obergefell v. Hodges, he used the same phrase refering to saxe-sex marriage as not a part of our nation's history and traditions.

What comments can even be made about this current situation your country has gotten into? It's a fucking embarrassment. In every way that everyone already knows. A disgrace.

Rampop II wrote:

crumbsroom wrote:

What comments can even be made about this current situation your country has gotten into? It's a fucking embarrassment. In every way that everyone already knows. A disgrace.

Words fail. It's a dark time for the republic. A sobering reminder of how many European "settlers" were deranged religious fanatics who "believed that the state should protect and promote true religion and that religion should influence politics and social life."

I thought that's why we had a revolution.

There's that girl going viral right now talking about "old white men", which is fine except the fact of Clarence Thomas and Amy Comey Barrett, or the fact that two of the white guys aren't exactly "old" yet, which is precisely the problem given they're likely to be there for another 25-30 years.  Again, these simplistic cliches don't actually help anybody.  But it is apt to put the onus on religios fundamentalism, which is truly the one thing they all have in common.  "Old thinking", if you will, and it's the thought that counts.

There's a couple of other things about that viral girl that got on my nerves.  The obvious one being that in today's 'climate' I can't say anything about that fantastic top she was wearing.

No, the real problem is that there's been a whole lot of articles and headlines this week trying to somehow make Biden and the Dems into the culprits.  Why don't they do more?  Yo, progressives, maybe if you did more, than maybe you'd have more fucking seats in Congress to pass some shit.  Liberals and leftists tend to be pathologically masochistic, and it's easier to slap each other around than it is to focus on those who truly need to get slapped.  If progressives had a better understanding of real practical politics, then not only would they have won more elections (Nina), they would understand intuitively that this kind of counterproductive internecine bitching is exactly what Republicans want us to be doing.  You think it's a coincidence that these stories are getting so much play from the same media which has already given Pubs the trophy for the midterms?  You want to know why Dems are feckless?  Because they don't know how to prioritize their agenda and focus their anger.  Biden is not the fucking target.  There are so many people who should be, but the default of blaming Biden for everything ("Thanks O'Biden") is a pretty big reason why there's no actionable plan on the table yet.

And while we debate the short-term things - and there's pros and cons to all of them - there's really only one sensible path forward which should be clear and simple.  Vote all of the Republicans out.  We know the numbers.  If the youth gets out and votes this midterm, we could achieve the commanding majority that can pass some real legislation.  We already know what a Republican congressional majorty entails.  McConnell has already said that he will stonewall everything - nominees, budgets, regulations.  McCarthy has already pledged to pass the Heartbeat Protection Act, which would prohibit all abortions after 6 weeks federally (oh, did you believe them about that whole 'state's rights' thing?).  They'll get rid of the fillibuster anyway.  Jim Jordan, set to chair the Judiciary committee, has vowed to subpoena Fauci.  A counterinvestigation into the Jan. 6 committee is certain.  And I honestly have little doubt that things like Social Security and Medicare are going to be up for grabs.  That's the kind of wake-up call that these recent SCOTUS moves should inspire.  With these kinds of stakes, why are we bullshitting?  Cuo buono, this cynicism?  Let's stop both-sides-ing this outrage and focus on what matters.  It's time for these kids to put their money where their mouth is.  Prove 'em wrong and vote 'em out, and then we can all dunk Marianne Williamson in a tank together and see if she floats.

Last edited by Jinnistan (6/29/2022 10:42 pm)

(I'm tempted to say something about the Leviticus 19:28 prohibition on tattoos, except that I really don't care about Leviticus, but I'll point it out anyway because he seems to.)

I stand awestruck by the fortitude of your stomach. That's a lot of evil to sit through.



Wow man, a fucking 10 year–old. 

What planet am I on. 

Rock wrote:

As a wise man once said, you absolutely under any circumstances do not have to hand it to the Taliban.

It seems that it would be a lot more simple if we can just agree that patriarchal theocrats are assholes and should be shunned from civil society regardless of what color skin they have.  Then I wouldn't have to be so mean.  (This is why I can't deal with having a twitter account.) 

I'm completely okay with the Taliban reference. Maybe hyperbolic, but only barely.
I believe that even before the rise of Trump, I was telling people if the Republican Party ever took the reigns off and were allowed to govern as their God-Fucked Id dictates to them, we are looking at a bunch of Evangelicals in clean white shirts driving around decimated American cities, with their rocket launchers pocking out of the backseat windows of their SUV's. Back then I was basically only speaking in a worst case scenario, that I didn't think would ever actually manifest, but truly believed that this was essentially what was in the heart of a large segment of Bible thumping right wingers. Because, let's not kid ourselves, why would those who take religion rabidly and dogmatically really be all that different from those who do so in the Middle East. Maybe if America's educational system wasn't total dogshit there might be a buffer, but.....
But Trump was clearly the worst case scenario brought to life. His legacy is he took the camoflauge off of who these people are. Legitimized the awfulness that was laying only barely dormant in their hearts. And now I think it is fairly clear that American Taliban is not a remotely unfair moniker.
 

Last edited by crumbsroom (7/12/2022 9:53 am)