Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 378: My name is FD(A), and I Approve this Topic.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pentagon announces that the War in Afghanistan ended at 3:29 ET yesterday.

https://twitter.com/GingerGibson/status/1432441695854071808

~~~

War against Science and Democracy still going strong though. PA GOP County Executive candidate says: "Forget going into these school boards with freaking data. You go in to these school boards to remove them. I'm going in with 20 strong men and I'm gonna give them an option - they can leave or they can be removed."

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1432166542683279362

---

the war in afghanistan: about 212000 people dead, no improvement

thanks bush

---

omg this topic isn't outraged about untrue bullshit how terrible

---

This topic not being outraged about me breaking my toe the other day doesn't surprise me.

Edit for correction: I just stubbed it.
---

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1432827993743892480

McCarthy is threatening the telecom and social media companies not to comply with the 1/6 committee request to preserve relevant records, claiming it would violate the law (has not responded to media questions about what law) and that "a Republican majority will not forget."

A threat that, of course, is in violation of federal law itself.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1432835292042436610


---

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/texas-abortion-law/

Roe V. Wade could cease to functionally exist tomorrow. And no major news outlet is talking about it. This is the way they can get rid of Roe without saying they've done it.

---

That anyone can sue you over assisting with an abortion provision is just completely over the top absurd

The only thing like it I can remember is a (failed) CA ballot prop from a few years ago that would require condoms in porn and had bounties to encourage people to report violations

---

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1432824617253670916

---

UltimaterializerX posted...

This topic not being outraged about the service dogs left behind doesn't surprise me.

Edit for correction: "Contractor's working dogs."

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/afghanistan/2021/08/31/no-the-military-did-not-leave-its-working-dogs-behind-dod-says/

---

It was brought up just before, but it really does deserve some more in-depth detail on how fucking odious and absurd that Texas abortion law is, because the batshit insane and cruel provisions aren't just cruelty for cruelty's sake - they're the key component.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulations-texas.html

Quick primer for those not aware: The law bans abortion after six weeks and empowers individuals to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion - not just the doctors or providers, but anyone who provides financial assistance, even the Uber driver who might drive a woman to a clinic. And if their lawsuit is successful, the individual is to be rewarded up to $10,000. And the individuals empowered to sue under this law? They don't have to have any connection to the matter, or demonstrate any injury from it, they don't even have to be from Texas.

Now, this is right off the bat blatantly unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Casey guarantees the right to an abortion at any time before viability so six weeks is just obviously unconstitutional. Six weeks is before many women even know they're pregnant as well so it's no surprise that Texas (and other red states) have moved it that far back as a way to in-effect outlaw abortion entirely.

But let's look at that "other red states" bit. Texas isn't the first to pass an abortion ban at 6 weeks. But all the other attempts to do so have been enjoined in federal court because, again, it is just flagrantly unconstitutional. So let's go back to the whole "$10k bounties for vigilantes to sue anyone involved in an abortion" provision there. That's not just some "cruelty is the point" thing thrown in there because the GOP could. That's the key component of the Texas law.

The whole purpose of that provision is so they can argue a fucking crazy legal "argument" that federal courts don't have jurisdiction to act against this law because it's not the government enforcing the law here, it's the vigilantes they just deputized. And abortion providers lack standing to sue because "they have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone." That's an actual quote from the actual legal argument by the Texas AG (who btw cleared himself of any wrongdoing in an entirely unrelated matter the other day.) Never mind that this bill empowers people to sue without being able to prove injury themselves or even be connected to the matter in any fucking way.

Anyway, even after all this, a district court was like "yeah bro not buying this shit" and ordered a hearing on whether to enjoin the law. ...And then the Fifth Circuit (which was super conservative before Trump stacked it even further) overruled that and ordered that hearing be called off. That's what prompted the emergency appeal to SCOTUS to enjoin the law which it... did not do. (It's Alito specifically who is in charge of this case.) So once again SCOTUS uses its shadow docket to radically pursue it's partisan, ideological goals without a word of explanation or accountability.

In theory SCOTUS can still act on the emergency appeal but the fact that it didn't is absolutely chilling since the result was the law going into effect and basically outlawing abortion in Texas in defiance of Roe in all practical senses.

Honestly, I'm 99% sure the gameplan here by Texas, the Fifth Circuit, and probably the conservative wing of SCOTUS is to just tie up legal challenges to the Texas law in the legal system which will take time because SCOTUS already agreed to take up Mississippi's suit next term where they requested the court to overturn Roe. Now, I don't know if they do that literally, but 100% I believe they kill it in as a practical matter by giving the okay on these draconian kind of bills where states can basically add whatever insane restrictions they want and as long as it isn't technically illegal in its entirety (like imagine a bill going even further and banning abortion after three days or something as an example) it's cool. But there might be enough true believers on the court now to just formally kill it now, who knows.

---

I think abortion is a tough subject, and I could possibly convinced to support an 8 or 12 week ban that was put in place with a simultaneous massive safety net for new born children.

But of course this is 6 weeks... And has no safety net.... And has the truly preposterous bounty system.

Republicans are great at twisting legitimate concerns into draconian sexism or racism

---

masterplum posted...

I think abortion is a tough subject, and I could possibly convinced to support an 8 or 12 week ban that was put in place with a simultaneous massive safety net for new born children.

But of course this is 6 weeks... And has no safety net.... And has the truly preposterous bounty system.

Republicans are great at twisting legitimate concerns into draconian sexism or racism

There is literally no legitimate concern being twisted here. The entire point is sexism, namely that women who have sex should be punished for having sex in a way that men would never be.

---

Inviso posted...

There is literally no legitimate concern being twisted here. The entire point is sexism, namely that women who have sex should be punished for having sex in a way that men would never be.

There are a lot of religious people legitimately concerned for unborn life

---

masterplum posted...

There are a lot of religious people legitimately concerned for unborn life

It's not legitimate. Period. Even the Bible doesn't consider an unborn fetus to be a human life.

---

Inviso posted...

It's not legitimate. Period. Even the Bible doesn't consider an unborn fetus to be a human life.

OK, you can think it's not legitimate. That doesn't mean there aren't millions of people who do.

I personally don't think there is a difference between the abortion of a viable fetus and infanticide, and I think science is advancing making viability earlier and earlier which makes it pretty troubling where you draw the line

---

masterplum posted...

OK, you can think it's not legitimate. That doesn't mean there aren't millions of people who do.

I personally don't think there is a difference between the abortion of a viable fetus and infanticide, and I think science is advancing making viability earlier and earlier which makes it pretty troubling where you draw the line

I don't THINK it's not legitimate. It's NOT legitimate. Millions of people (ironically the same ones) believe that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election. That doesn't mean we need to coddle them and treat their beliefs as though they're equivalent to facts. A fetus is a non-human clump of cells, and there isn't even a Biblical justification to believe otherwise. It is rampant sexism couched in fake religious beliefs to punish women for overstepping their role in a patriarchal society.

---

I am 100% pro-choice, but "a fetus is not meaningfully alive" is absolutely an opinion, not a fact

---

masterplum posted...

OK, you can think it's not legitimate. That doesn't mean there aren't millions of people who do.

I personally don't think there is a difference between the abortion of a viable fetus and infanticide, and I think science is advancing making viability earlier and earlier which makes it pretty troubling where you draw the line

So hypothetically if we had sufficient technology to grow humans entirely in incubators/pods/etc it should be illegal to abort a zygote moments after fertilization? On account of having sufficient technology to make it viable outside of the womb?

---

Inviso posted...

and there isn't even a Biblical justification to believe otherwise.

This doesn't feel like a real point to make. You are expecting a 2,000 year old collection of stories to address life before birth? I'm sure at that time many children died during birth and it didn't warrant any special mention because that's just the way it was.

The argument is "thou shall not kill", which objectively IS in the bible. But it takes you to subjective areas like "what is alive" and "when does life begin". Which, yes, is not directly addressed in the bible, but it's lack of inclusion is not the gacha that you seem to think it is. The bible also didn't specifically address whether Blu-Ray or HD DVDs was superior, but why would it have?

---

It's always funny how men, who can't get pregnant, are very quick to jump in on the anti-choice side. It's not their bodily autonomy at stake, after all. I say all men who are anti-choice should be forcefully sterilized. That would reduce abortions. I mean I'm sure they're willing to do their part to reduce abortions at the cost of their own bodily autonomy. Or maybe it's only okay when it affects women.

---

For what it's worth, most countries that allow abortion limit it to the first trimester (around 12 or 13 weeks) unless there's a serious medical issue involved. I'd be pretty much fine with America doing the same thing if we also got rid of all the arbitrary laws designed to make actually getting an abortion so time-consuming and expensive.
---

masterplum posted...

There are a lot of religious people legitimately concerned for unborn life

If they weren't being spoonfed this idea daily they wouldn't be. They are concerned because they are being told to be concerned, not because they've acquired any knowledge on the subject.

The debate over abortion is really this, and it's obscured by people who prefer to use terminology they feel more comfortable with:

Should women have access to safe abortions performed by medical professionals
OR
Should women be forced to go underground and risk death to get an abortion or try it themselves in a riskier procedure?

---

Ashethan posted...

The debate over abortion is really this, and it's obscured by people who prefer to use terminology they feel more comfortable with:

Should women have access to safe abortions performed by medical professionals
OR
Should women be forced to go underground and risk death to get an abortion or try it themselves in a riskier procedure?

This is it, really. Banning abortion is not going to stop abortion, it's just going to kill more women.

---

Let's make sure we're clear here - rich men will still be able to get abortions for their mistresses. This is designed to punish women who don't have those kinds of resources available to them.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This doesn't feel like a real point to make. You are expecting a 2,000 year old collection of stories to address life before birth? I'm sure at that time many children died during birth and it didn't warrant any special mention because that's just the way it was.

The argument is "thou shall not kill", which objectively IS in the bible. But it takes you to subjective areas like "what is alive" and "when does life begin". Which, yes, is not directly addressed in the bible, but it's lack of inclusion is not the gacha that you seem to think it is. The bible also didn't specifically address whether Blu-Ray or HD DVDs was superior, but why would it have?

The main argument against abortion is supposed to be biblical and faith-based. But the Bible specifically refers to unborn fetuses as property, rather than people, when determining the punishment for their destruction. An altercation that results in the destruction of an unborn fetus is considered worthy of a monetary fine for destruction of property, whereas the death of the mother is considered murder, and warrants the death penalty. As usual, people like to cite the Bible as justification for their regressive beliefs, but they haven't actually read it. So they just get told that "abortion bad" and demonize anyone who either gets and abortion, or supports the practice. It's a lot easier to hate your opponent if you're able to label them all as monsters and murderers.

---

Republicans are consistently more concerned with unborn life than born life, so as always on brand.

---

Inviso posted...

I don't THINK it's not legitimate. It's NOT legitimate. Millions of people (ironically the same ones) believe that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election. That doesn't mean we need to coddle them and treat their beliefs as though they're equivalent to facts. A fetus is a non-human clump of cells, and there isn't even a Biblical justification to believe otherwise. It is rampant sexism couched in fake religious beliefs to punish women for overstepping their role in a patriarchal society.

It doesn't matter if there's biblical justification or not. (Bitter water abortion, anyone?) We shouldn't legitimize these 'biblical' arguments, because our laws are wholly secular. It doesn't matter what the bible has to say about anything. Most of the ten commandments would be unconstitutional as law. The ones we do have as laws, are the really obvious stuff that other cultures (even secular cultures) agree on.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

It doesn't matter if there's biblical justification or not. (Bitter water abortion, anyone?) We shouldn't legitimize these 'biblical' arguments, because our laws are wholly secular. It doesn't matter what the bible has to say about anything. Most of the ten commandments would be unconstitutional as law. The ones we do have as laws, are the really obvious stuff that other cultures (even secular cultures) agree on.

I don't think we should consider them either. But it's always frustrating when people try to claim their beliefs are biblical in nature, but then the Bible contradicts what they believe entirely.

Reminds me of when discussion of evolution came up in regards to Vlado's nationalism topic, and people pointed out that, scientifically, all humanity began from Ethiopia and expanded outward. He denied this for reasons, but then biblically, all humanity spawned from Adam & Eve, so there's really no justification whatsoever for him believing that humanity doesn't have a single common ancestor, other than just wanting to be racist and exlusionary.

---

Also 'thou shalt not kill' is very loose for a lot of people.

George Floyd? Totally okay to kill him!
Philando Castille? Fair!
Tamir Rice? Well he was a VERY tall 12 year old. What do you expect?
Drones that kill civilians? Well that's just the cost of war!
"Kill the Gays" is a pretty popular chant among a minority of Christians but it's still there.

---

Once someone says they have beliefs or do something because of religion, you can pretty much stop paying them any mind.

---

Seanchan posted...

Once someone says they have beliefs or do something because of religion, you can pretty much stop paying them any mind.

This isn't a purely religious topic. I'm agnostic. I don't think infanticide is any different whether it is 10 minutes after birth or 10 minutes before birth.

The question is at what point before birth it becomes infanticide and that is something nobody can answer.

---

masterplum posted...

This isn't a purely religious topic. I'm agnostic. I don't think infanticide is any different whether it is 10 minutes after birth or 10 minutes before birth.

So there's no difference between murdering a baby outside of the womb, and an abortion to save a woman's life 10 minutes before birth? Interesting take, I suppose.

Or perhaps for a better comparison:

An abortion due to health of the baby itself. Like the case of Dana Weinstein, who's baby would constantly seize if she were born.

---

masterplum posted...

This isn't a purely religious topic. I'm agnostic. I don't think infanticide is any different whether it is 10 minutes after birth or 10 minutes before birth.

The question is at what point before birth it becomes infanticide and that is something nobody can answer.

My personal issue is that there is no nuance in the religious held position of "life starts at conception". Of course it's a very tricky, fraught, personal subject. But when someone says "the Bible says..." and refuses to see anything beyond that, well, it gets me very annoyed.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I started that tangent...

That Texas law pisses me off. They should make the tattlers have to take and raise the kid. That would solve everything!

---

Dancedreamer posted...

An abortion due to health of the baby itself. Like the case of Dana Weinstein, who's baby would constantly seize if she were born.

Inflicting physical and emotional pain on the mother and child is the point.

If they actually cared about the child they should be all for free daycare, free healthcare, things in society the would actually care and have help for the child and be beneficial for the parents as well.

Fostering and adoption needs a complete overhaul as well if we were actually looking out for these kids, but because it costs money, and would raise taxes, it starts affecting the people's pockets then well once that baby is out, they don't care.

We all know this.

The science behind what constitutes life is picky, nuanced and a whole lot more involved then I care to talk about, but they aren't looking for viable solutions beyond just keeping the baby alive at all costs, once it's out, they don't give a shit, because they never gave a shit in the first place.

---

More details on the Texas law:

https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1433102356946685953?s=21

straight-up evil shit

---

Dancedreamer posted...

So there's no difference between murdering a baby outside of the womb, and an abortion to save a woman's life 10 minutes before birth? Interesting take, I suppose.

Or perhaps for a better comparison:

An abortion due to health of the baby itself. Like the case of Dana Weinstein, who's baby would constantly seize if she were born.

Nice strawman there. I didn't give a hypothetical of the mother's life being in danger

---

Sorozone posted...

If they actually cared about the child they should be all for free daycare, free healthcare, things in society the would actually care and have help for the child and be beneficial for the parents as well.

This 100%

---

Inviso posted...

I don't think we should consider them either. But it's always frustrating when people try to claim their beliefs are biblical in nature, but then the Bible contradicts what they believe entirely.

it is interesting how a lot of people who claim to be christian and point to the bible to justify their beliefs evidently have very little knowledge of what the bible actually says. this is obvious when they just go "THE BIBLE SAYS" without referring to specific bible verses.

spoilers: the bible never says same-sex marriage is wrong either.

---

the only passage in the bible that I can think of about abortion is basically pro-abortion (Numbers 5:11-31)

also, lol @ the idea that religious people are necessarily "legitimately concerned for unborn life."

as butterfly of digable planets put it: "they don't really give a damn about life/they just don't want a woman to control her body/or have the right to choose."

---

Sorozone posted...

Fostering and adoption needs a complete overhaul as well if we were actually looking out for these kids, but because it costs money, and would raise taxes, it starts affecting the people's pockets then well once that baby is out, they don't care.

My oldest is adopted, and she was a stork drop (the adoption term for a child that is matched for adoption after they were born). The adoption agency did the following: Took a phone call from the birth mother. Drove 4 miles to the hospital and showed her adoption profiles. Contacted us after we were matched (which was later that day). Gave us some paperwork to sign when we went to their office. Gave us a list of lawyers to contact to complete the legal portion of the adoption.

What we were charged by that agency: $21,000.

There was also another $3,000 in legal fees, and $1,000 in fees from a local agency that did our home study to make sure our house was suitable for a child (the original agency wanted another $4,000 to drive two hours each way to do the home study, and we told them no).

---

masterplum posted...

Nice strawman there. I didn't give a hypothetical of the mother's life being in danger

Nearly every abortion that occurs in the third trimester is related to the health of the mother, or the child. So it's not so much a strawman as exposing your true intentions.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Nearly every abortion that occurs in the third trimester is related to the health of the mother, or the child. So it's not so much a strawman as exposing your true intentions.

My true intentions? If you agree that an abortion immediately before birth is infanticide, that means at some point prior to that abortion became infanticide and we are just arguing about when it is.

Dont give me bullshit about my true intentions. I think the government should support the children after they are born and I think men should be held just as accountable if not more than women given they dont have to go though labor

---

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1433278317269028865?s=21

JFC

Actual link to the opinions:

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1433280766574739456?s=21

As I read it SCOTUS very well could (and I would guess will) uphold a stay if the right people are being sued (i.e. one of the vigilantes). Of course, as the dissent points out, many TX abortion clinics are halting providing abortions in the first place because of the threat of these lawsuits, and the majority is basically saying tough luck if your rights are being stolen by intimidation

---

I feel like I bring this up way too frequently, but I have friends that I have gotten in arguments with because I am a reliable democratic voter even though democrats don't really fit into my ideals and they think I am selling out. These same people are now throwing a hissy fit on Facebook right now and I fear I might say something that could end our friendship entirely.

---

What's the hissy fit over

This is important to deciding the fate of the friendship

---