Supreme Court Draft Opinion on Abortion Rights

[Parasaurolophus]

Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?

The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.

[marshwiggle]

You don't deny or denigrate identity because of a real or imagined cabal of potential perpetrators saying, "Gee whilikers, I wish there were laws and statutes that, by virtue of granting rights to those with trans or fluid identities, would enable me to rape more people."

Who's denying or negating identity? I'm pointing out that when rules that are applied are ridiculously simple to game, then people will game them. Changing the rules to not be so easy to game is one of the ways to keep the actions of the people trying to game the system from reflecting on the people who are NOT trying to game the system.

(In academic settings, that's why we come down hard on cheaters; because their actions devalue the degrees of everyone else who didn't cheat. The rules for academic integrity are an inconvenience for the people who don't cheat, but having their degrees respected is worth it.)

[financeguy]

My body, my choice?

I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!

That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say.  I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!  How dare you make light of  a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.

It's only "making light" of the abortion situation if you think those other things are frivolous. And if you do think that just because they don't affect you, why should I care about the things you value when they don't affect me? I'm not a fan of selective libertarianism, favoring to get out of other people's business entirely, including abortion. I'm all for the "my body/my choice" argument but unfortunately women in the United States are the fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners who don't exactly lend legitimacy to their statements with their actions. When women as a group largely vote for every possible infraction on my life, it's difficult for me to really give an F about your abortion rights, although I agree you should have them. Two totally different things to be in agreement with something on the one hand and on the other hand actually make any effort beyond that agreement.

So I am in the category of fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners ????  Refusing me health care if  I need an abortion or I will die is the equivalent of forcing you to wear a seat belt????

I don't know that you are, but given the small number of females statistically speaking who lean libertarian (regardless of official party) I'm saying the group overall doesn't have a great track record on individual rights vs collectivism. It's almost as if there are actual numbers that tell us what people support and you can look those up. Increased spending, regulation and mandates of a wide variety are more widely supported by females in almost all categories. You can look at specific issues but the catch all is party registration with females, not surprisingly leaning to the nanny state option. Fine, make a case for those things, but then don't at the same time tell me, my body my choice and get daddy government off my back. You start a fire, you can't expect it to only keep you warm but not potentially burn down your house or the whole village if it gets too big. You get it started and then it does what IT wants to do. This is the unfortunate price women will pay for not advocating limited government overall, since it simply will not happen situationally for anyone. You either support individual rights or eventually your own will get taken.

And yes, being forced to wear a seatbelt is of similar kind, not necessarily of degree. Enjoy that city council meeting to regulate someone's choice of shrubbery or color of their front door to their own house while railing 5 minutes later about being "pro choice." Women have let the thieves into the temple and are surprised someone is looting the place. The fact that you almost imply that my analogy is absurd due to the supposedly less "important" (to you) decision on autonomy in wearing a helmet or selling a kidney just further proves my point: If you aren't going to support the "small freedoms" how in the world do you expect a massive government to give you choice on the admittedly "big freedoms?" You have to be all in on personal choice or you won't have it.

[Istiblennius]

Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?

The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.

Is it okay if I just point out that the cherry picking logical fallacy was used this time? I've got a bingo card going.

I do completely agree that the icky prison discussion immediately went off the rails. But I also think these issues are intertwined due to the spillover (which is very real). The right of people who are not cis-male to make medical decisions about their own bodies includes both abortion and gender affirming care.

[little bongo]

Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?

The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.

Parasaurolophus makes good sense, as usual.

As for financeguy's all-in approach to individual rights, I think I can appreciate it. Where I disagree is the idea of, let's not support this essential right because there are a whole lot of other rights that we should enjoy. Plus, abortion rights are indeed an "everybody" problem, even if it might not appear so at first glance.

[little bongo]

Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?

The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.

Is it okay if I just point out that the cherry picking logical fallacy was used this time? I've got a bingo card going.

I do completely agree that the icky prison discussion immediately went off the rails. But I also think these issues are intertwined due to the spillover (which is very real). The right of people who are not cis-male to make medical decisions about their own bodies includes both abortion and gender affirming care.

Let's see... strawman, red herring, cherry picking... if you've also got concern trolling plus the free space, I'd say you have bingo. Feel free to collect your prize, a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat.

[Istiblennius]

Do they still make Rice-A-Roni?
I ate that for dinner probably three nights a week in grad school.

[dismalist]

Do they still make Rice-A-Roni?
I ate that for dinner probably three nights a week in grad school.

Yes.

I still eat it once or twice per month. Lean ground beef sautéed, then beef flavored  RiceA-Roni on top, to cook for 15 minutes. I recommend using only a little over half the recommended quantity of water. Then it's a tad softer than al dente.

[ciao_yall]

I don't know that you are, but given the small number of females statistically speaking who lean libertarian (regardless of official party) I'm saying the group overall doesn't have a great track record on individual rights vs collectivism. It's almost as if there are actual numbers that tell us what people support and you can look those up. (A) Increased spending, regulation and mandates of a wide variety are more widely supported by females in almost all categories. You can look at specific issues but the catch all is party registration with females, not surprisingly leaning to the nanny state option. Fine, make a case for those things, but then don't at the same time tell me, my body my choice and get daddy government off my back. You start a fire, you can't expect it to only keep you warm but not potentially burn down your house or the whole village if it gets too big. You get it started and then it does what IT wants to do. This is the unfortunate price women will pay for not advocating limited government overall, since it simply will not happen situationally for anyone. (B) You either support individual rights or eventually your own will get taken.

(C) And yes, being forced to wear a seatbelt is of similar kind, not necessarily of degree. Enjoy that city council meeting to (D) regulate someone's choice of shrubbery or color of their front door to their own house while railing 5 minutes later about being "pro choice." Women have let the thieves into the temple and are surprised someone is looting the place. The fact that you almost imply that my analogy is absurd due to the supposedly less "important" (to you) decision on autonomy in wearing a helmet or selling a kidney just further proves my point: If you aren't going to support the "small freedoms" how in the world do you expect a massive government to give you choice on the admittedly "big freedoms?" You have to be all in on personal choice or you won't have it.

(A) Do you know why that is? Because women, historically, have been at the short end of the social and political stick. They recognize the importance of community and legal support when their husband leaves them with kids to raise; when random blathering politicians decide to create laws about what medications they can or cannot take; when banks won't give them a credit card or mortgage despite having a job.  Women are the ones taking the kids to the doctor when they are sick from bad air, or dirty water.

(B) Don't worry, plenty of pols out there who scream about "limited government" are busy trying to pass laws to control school curriculum, medical care, who marries whom, ban books...

(C) There is a social cost to people not wearing seatbelts and either becoming vegetables at Medicaid expense, or dying and leaving widows and orphans.  Same with vaccine requirements in schools - there is a social cost to kids bringing and spreading communicable diseases.

(D) Uh-oh, someone is in trouble with his HOA. What did you do? I'm on the board of my HOA and have to explain that safety is the reason behind 99% of our seemingly inane rules. The remaining 1% are because some people have no taste.

[financeguy]

A) It depends on what you consider the "short stick." A lot of the men in Ukraine who are getting shot at while the women are allowed to leave would disagree.
B) I'm not a Republican either. I want both sides out of my business and yours.
C) The same is true of any medical procedure.
D) No HOA membership here. I won't be somewhere that has one since I don't want to be subjected to a busy body who decides what is acceptable "taste" on my property.

[Sun_Worshiper]

If I may throw another question into the mix (sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread): Will this affect the midterm elections and perhaps save the Democrats from losing the Senate?

[nebo113]

Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.

[downer]

The idea of a "shortage" depends on perspective.

From the point of view of reducing our carbon footprint, the fewer people the better.

It's becoming rather common for people I know to say something like "humans have had their time, that enough of us."

Those are not perspectives that Catholics are sympathetic to.

[Puget]

If I may throw another question into the mix (sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread): Will this affect the midterm elections and perhaps save the Democrats from losing the Senate?

I don't know, and it really depends on the state, but there's this:

CNN poll:

SCOTUS should NOT overturn Roe 66%
SCOTUS should overturn Roe 34%

State abortion laws should be:
More permissive 58%
More restrictive 42%

Should there be a national law legalizing abortion:
Yes 59%
No 41%

[nebo113]

McConnell is floating a national ban on abortion.

Thomas (helpmeet to Ginni) is concerned about the reputation of the Supremes.