Roe V Wade OVerturned

Rum, beer, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:33 am

It's about control. The men who run the Church want to control their parishioners, and women are more than half of them. They also need to ensure they have more worshippers each generation, really, more and more. Tithing and all of that. The rest of the wackos are just spinoffs or just people borrowing the mode of control. Look at all the dudes here trying to justify it, even those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby GrahamB on Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:55 am

We've enabled these wackos to get their extremist views into the popular narrative because TV and radio shows often insists on the fairness of presenting both sides of an argument, it creates the false appearance of a 50/50 split in public opinion, when the truth is it's more like 90/10 in favour of reasonable people against extremists. Same thing happens with Climate Change. And now look where we are.
One does not simply post on RSF.
The Tai Chi Notebook
User avatar
GrahamB
Great Old One
 
Posts: 13555
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:30 pm

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby origami_itto on Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:31 am

Well and there is an aggressive anti-intellectualism in popular culture.
The form is the notes, the quan is the music
Atomic Taijiquan|FB|YT|IG|X|
User avatar
origami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Palm Bay, FL

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby GrahamB on Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:40 am

On June 24, Roe v. Wade was overturned and a near-total abortion ban became law in Ohio, where my wife and I practice. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal anomalies, including lethal conditions.

Diagnosing birth defects is what I do. Over the years many of my patients with lethal anomalies have elected to continue their pregnancy knowing that their child will die after delivery. These patients always have my full support. Sometimes this is in concurrence with their religious beliefs, though sometimes it’s simply meaningful for them to deliver and spend time with their child, even if only for minutes or hours. Most patients, however, elect to discontinue the pregnancy.

For these patients, abortion is now illegal in Ohio. Some people will travel out of state. However, many people will not be able to do so, particularly people of color and those living in strategically disenfranchised communities. Sometime soon, I am going to meet a patient who has no ability to leave the state, and I am going to have to tell her that her baby has a lethal condition, and she is going to have to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. It might be tomorrow. It might be weeks from now. But this is going to happen, and I cannot stop it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/opin ... d=tw-share
One does not simply post on RSF.
The Tai Chi Notebook
User avatar
GrahamB
Great Old One
 
Posts: 13555
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:30 pm

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Dmitri on Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:03 am

>:( That's just fucking insane
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9736
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Dmitri on Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:12 am

I guess I'm supposed to be one of
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.

Thanks for highlighting my point, by completely refusing to see past your beautiful, righteous nose.
Last edited by Dmitri on Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9736
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby yeniseri on Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:48 pm

To continue, this ain't about abortion.
There are those who believe that equity and justice for all in US America is a threat to the White demographic hence the current bs conspiracy of this "Replacement Theory"

It is about the dimunition of a "whote majority" in the ever increasing parity of justice, which these proponents of "replaement theory" assert they are beign discriminated against and they need to rebel.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/20 ... -dilution/
Ben Wattenburg did an excellent job of documenting this though he attempts to use "shrouded language" at times to convey to x audiences what needed to be done. Again, certain things are left out but Jane Elliott fills in the blanks for US
When fascism comes to US America, It will be wrapped in the US flag and waving a cross. An astute patriot
yeniseri
Wuji
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:41 pm

Dmitri wrote:I guess I'm supposed to be one of
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.

Thanks for highlighting my point, by completely refusing to see past your beautiful, righteous nose.


You call it a sense of righteousness, I just think it's a well considered position that I was once not as confident in. I used to more or less think as Steve does in this thread. But, I now realize that anti-abortion laws are not actually morally based, even if some people think they are.

I agree that it should be case by case. But, what you seem to fail to recognize is that's how it plays out without abortion restrictions. It will be case by case based on what the woman and doctor decide. Some women might take input from their partners, others don't have that option or may not want to. Bringing up worst-case scenario theoreticals (as Oragami Itto pointed out, these are almost always--perhaps always--theoretical) in order to falsely complicate the matter just so you can stand above and from afar the fray only gets in the way of what will actually happen on the ground to real people.

As for Windy and his typically asinine comments: you have never defended anyone's freedoms by serving in the United States military, especially if you served after WWII. Get over yourself. It's sad that so many people I know who served in the military make that their entire identity. Plenty don't, but they usually have accomplished things after the service. I have nothing against poor folks who serve to better their lives. But, a lot of people I know who were officers or came from decent homes should have known better than to join one of the modern era's most oppressive and environmentally destructive forces.

Now that SCOTUS has stripped this right, the door is open to stripping other rights. Contraception is on the table, for example. Well, that tells you right there they don't really care about "life." Again, it's about control. What more will the Court do? Well, they have signaled that they are likely to enable the states to ignore the democratic process hastening the demise of our already fractured democracy.

Edit: I also would like to add: The ridiculousness of again playing "Mr. Neutrality" by equating "woke" with "theocrats" is mindboggling. First, I'm not really all that woke in the pejorative sense in which you meant it. I am not for the excesses of cancel culture, nor do I go for performative gestures for their own sake as we see so often carried out by corporations and even the CIA these days (their hiring campaigns are pretty bonkers). But, even if I were the wokest of the woke, how the hell could you compare that to the starkly anti-democratic right who are making massive progress in turning back the clock, oppressing voters, seeking to destroy the environment, defending corporations as people, etc, etc, etc...This is just another example of how playing the "middle road" is just bullshit. What are woke people doing that comes anywhere close to what the right is doing? What is the left doing that comes close? Trying to fight for a living wage? Universal healthcare? Education? The environment? Yeah, real shitbags, huh?

I ain't impressed.
Last edited by Ian C. Kuzushi on Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby origami_itto on Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:26 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Dmitri wrote:I guess I'm supposed to be one of
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.

Thanks for highlighting my point, by completely refusing to see past your beautiful, righteous nose.


You call it a sense of righteousness, I just think it's a well considered position that I was once not as confident in. I used to more or less think as Steve does in this thread. But, I now realize that anti-abortion laws are not actually morally based, even if some people think they are.

I agree that it should be case by case. But, what you seem to fail to recognize is that's how it plays out without abortion restrictions. It will be case by case based on what the woman and doctor decide. Some women might take input from their partners, others don't have that option or may not want to. Bringing up worst-case scenario theoreticals (as Oragami Itto pointed out, these are almost always--perhaps always--theoretical) in order to falsely complicate the matter just so you can stand above and from afar the fray only gets in the way of what will actually happen on the ground to real people.

As for Windy and his typically asinine comments: you have never defended anyone's freedoms by serving in the United States military, especially if you served after WWII. Get over yourself. It's sad that so many people I know who served in the military make that their entire identity. Plenty don't, but they usually have accomplished things after the service. I have nothing against poor folks who serve to better their lives. But, a lot of people I know who were officers or came from decent homes should have known better than to join one of the modern era's most oppressive and environmentally destructive forces.

Now that SCOTUS has stripped this right, the door is open to stripping other rights. Contraception is on the table, for example. Well, that tells you right there they don't really care about "life." Again, it's about control. What more will the Court do? Well, they have signaled that they are likely to enable the states to ignore the democratic process hastening the demise of our already fractured democracy.

Edit: I also would like to add: The ridiculousness of again playing "Mr. Neutrality" by equating "woke" with "theocrats" is mindboggling. First, I'm not really all that woke in the pejorative sense in which you meant it. I am not for the excesses of cancel culture, nor do I go for performative gestures for their own sake as we see so often carried out by corporations and even the CIA these days (their hiring campaigns are pretty bonkers). But, even if I were the wokest of the woke, how the hell could you compare that to the starkly anti-democratic right who are making massive progress in turning back the clock, oppressing voters, seeking to destroy the environment, defending corporations as people, etc, etc, etc...This is just another example of how playing the "middle road" is just bullshit. What are woke people doing that comes anywhere close to what the right is doing? What is the left doing that comes close? Trying to fight for a living wage? Universal healthcare? Education? The environment? Yeah, real shitbags, huh?

I ain't impressed.

Martin Luther King Jr wrote:Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."


http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html
Last edited by origami_itto on Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
The form is the notes, the quan is the music
Atomic Taijiquan|FB|YT|IG|X|
User avatar
origami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Palm Bay, FL

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Steve James on Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:37 am

Imo, it's not helpful to define people. It's better to ask someone directly. Otherwise, they just become accusations that people want to defend. I think Ian and Dmitri agree on many specific issues. The debate about neutrality concerning abortion is moot because there are girls and women have no choice to be neutral when they're pregnant.

Fwiw, I think the words "neutral" and "sides" are misused because they're applied to political parties. I agree someone can complain about Rs and Ds, as if they were above both of them. But, no one really cares about that position.

If there were no parties, people would still have to vote. If someone is totally against any abortion for any reason, say so; and vice versa. There is also the option to be against some abortions, and that's not being neutral on abortion. Otoh, I think for men this is philosophical debate, when the question is a woman's control over her own body.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:24 am

Steve James wrote:Imo, it's not helpful to define people. It's better to ask someone directly. Otherwise, they just become accusations that people want to defend. I think Ian and Dmitri agree on many specific issues. The debate about neutrality concerning abortion is moot because there are girls and women have no choice to be neutral when they're pregnant.

Fwiw, I think the words "neutral" and "sides" are misused because they're applied to political parties. I agree someone can complain about Rs and Ds, as if they were above both of them. But, no one really cares about that position.

If there were no parties, people would still have to vote. If someone is totally against any abortion for any reason, say so; and vice versa. There is also the option to be against some abortions, and that's not being neutral on abortion. Otoh, I think for men this is philosophical debate, when the question is a woman's control over her own body.


Hi Steve. I think is some ways you may be right. I will also preface this by saying that I do respect you very much. I'm impressed by your discourse and thoughtfulness.

That said, and while I do often think that it is best to talk about specific issues/policies vs party, it is also important to recognize that there is a connection between the evangelical right and what is happening. It is a total package they are going for, so some form of generalization is useful and necessary here.

Now, I will also say that I don't think that D and my disagreement is at all an R vs D debate. I don't think that D is a republican. Rather, he is the sort of centralist that King warned about. As far as I know, D is an independent. I am not a Democrat, and won't vote to support them as I don't live in a swing state (out of strategic concerns, I would vote for them if it was going to affect the electors).

To be clear, I don't think D is neutral, I just think he is posing as such. Talk about righteous posturing--and gutlessness at that. Why would you just imagine a bunch of scenarios that don't exist to deny peoples' freedoms? Why constantly defend the anti-democratic right wing by equating a politically powerless group of people who pursue a select kind of identity politics? Why try and conflate them with the true left who want the thing I clearly laid out above? Because it's all a smoke screen for not wanting to admit that you really are sypathetic to oppression and right wing theocracy.

In my opinion, the Democrats are feckless pieces of shit for the most part. I won't vote for them. But, I do vote. Locally and nationally. But, in a dissolving democracy, voting is not enough. That's all I'll say about that here.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Steve James on Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:33 am

As you point out, not choosing the Dems or the Repubs is not remaining neutral. I think people exaggerate what the other political party is for. I'm more interested in what a political party is against. I don't complain about what the Dems fail to accomplish. If there were no political parties, the people would be the same.

Um, don't get me wrong. I don't believe in any party or think any candidate is going to be a savior or make things the way I want.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby origami_itto on Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:13 am

Steve James wrote: Otoh, I think for men this is philosophical debate, when the question is a woman's control over her own body.


I don't believe we need to make the distinction. It's about all human being's control of their own body, women and men and nonbinary. I may not have a womb, but it doesn't matter. Her womb is hers. She is the only authority over what it should be used for. Nobody else has the right to overrule that authority. Not the government, not a man who happened to impregnate her, not the child she's carrying, to put it in the most empowering terms for the fetus.

If the fetus was a fully born and embodied human being and their existence depended on committing another person to servitude for 9 months and permanent bodily change, no authority on earth can or should compel that service.

Why then should we ignore her right to autonomy for a potential that hasn't even been realized?

It's about control, and the more we allow them to control any of us the more they feel emboldened to increase their control over all of us.
The form is the notes, the quan is the music
Atomic Taijiquan|FB|YT|IG|X|
User avatar
origami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Palm Bay, FL

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Steve James on Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:17 pm

I totally agree that it's about control. I expect that some of the most ardent "pro-life" men have asked women to have abortions -just as I know there are pedophile priests and incestuous fathers.

I also agree that it should be up to the woman, just as I believe that everyone should decide whether to wear a mask. That doesn't mean I agree.

Anyway, there are no women participating in this discussion, but it's not hard to find women who don't mind these laws. Am I on their side? I won't generalize about the people because they support them. I'll criticize them for other things :)
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Roe V Wade OVerturned

Postby Quigga on Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:46 am

A small list that comes to mind is:

- abortion is a procedure that no one is going to od willy nilly. neither a woman nor a doc. serious malpractice occurs.
- pregnancy is no joke. try squeezing a living watermelon out of your arsehole that you were force to have / didn't want in the first place that could kil you. at the very least your body probably will be changed from the experience, and not so little.
- a kid always brings massive changes in life course with it. responsibility is no joke, single parent life is hard. or maybe you'll be forced to stay in a abuse relationship or something similiar.
- from the fathers side: you could give them the right to abandon fathership and costs of upbringing from the getgo, wtih loss of all possible future visitation rights. some call it fairness, some call it hurt toxic masculinity. personally i dont know, i'm just observing
- in some cultures staying virgin is important so they do anal... win win?
- a outright ban will force people to use unsafe procedures
- Jordan Peterson says a countries best predictor of future wealth development is how well women are treated within that society. that sounds sexist what i say: man worked to buld the best society for women from the dirt, women made that society worthwhile for living in the first place. it's a win win. now we are maximizing freedom of choice in our society - an experiment never done before
- we have to supply our lords with their abortion baby creme, duh
- we are moving towards making parenthood a choice much more than a neccessity, at least in richer parts of the world. more room for questions, insights and discussion
- the few decades of continious peace resulted bc everyone was not doing well after the wars. one suffering one strife. we lost the common purpose or goal, and forgot that we're united in our suffering. anywhoo i'm just somebody talking to myself on the web so carry on as usual
Quigga

 

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests