• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Social progress rollbacks

Obstetrically, pregnancy has been calculated from the date of the last menstrual period. This means if a woman has a completely regular period, they will be 4 weeks pregnant before they miss their period. If they're less regular, it will take even longer to realize it.

Under the 6 week law, that would give you a maximum of 2 weeks to get an official test (no agency will accept a home pregnancy test), find a doctor, find the money, and quite possibly have to travel across the state to a clinic. Many states restricting abortions require 2 or more visits, and/or an ultrasound.

So, how many women will be able to arrange all that (and the time needed off work) in two weeks or less? For an embryo that's just started to be distinguishable as a mammal, is smaller than a raisin, and is frequently miscarried without ever knowing of the pregnancy?

The 12-week cutoff date is usually chosen because that's when the techniques become more complicated and somewhat higher risk (though still much lower risk than completing a pregnancy). Many laws therefore use 12 weeks as the basic cut-off date and anything after that needs to be for reasons of health or fetal disease & deformity. Much of that is because genetic testing generally can't be done much earlier than that. At 20 weeks it's pretty much only if it has a high risk of killing the mother or the fetus has zero chance of viability.

That last part is pretty much compassionate abortion. Imagine what it's like spending another 20 weeks walking around visibly pregnant, knowing that the fetus won't survive birth, *can't* survive birth.

My sister got a small taste of that - her first pregnancy died in utero at about 5 months, just after she'd started showing. Usually the body goes into labor on its own in this case, but hers didn't, so they had to do what would be considered a second-trimester abortion - if the fetus's heart were still beating. She only had to deal with a couple of weeks of the visible pregnancy with known bad outcome, but it was enough.
 
blutoski said:
I would bet real money that this is exactly what will happen over the next 4 years. Trump will likely be able to appoint 3 supreme court judges, which will hear a challenge to RvW and issue a new ruling that would at least remove federal oversight and leave it as a state issue. Activists can then focus their attention at the state level to pitch for criminal code changes to make abortion illegal.

It's even possible Congress will pass a federal ban, if they feel not enough states make abortion illegal. ie: if ban initiatives repeatedly fail in California.
Click to expand...

To my way of thinking "a woman's right to privacy" is pretty much BS. The right to control one's own body seems better logic.

And I still think a male ought to be able to decide not to have a child either, post conception, like women do. Not forcing the woman either way, just denying it's future care is his responsibility. Don't males have a right to privacy too?
 
I Am The Scum said:
It makes more sense to patch a pot hole than to ask a hundred drivers to go around it. I'm pointing out a repetitive communication error, in the hopes that it will not be corrected.

I asked you if I am wrong. You did not answer that question.



If this is incorrect, I'd really like to know.
Click to expand...

Rational discussion on the topic is taking place, so I must conclude that "any possibility of rational discussion" has not been "destroyed" and that "this", therefore, is not a "reliable" method for doing so.

That you are not engaging in any rational discussion is your own decision.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
To my way of thinking "a woman's right to privacy" is pretty much BS. The right to control one's own body seems better logic.

And I still think a male ought to be able to decide not to have a child either, post conception, like women do. Not forcing the woman either way, just denying it's future care is his responsibility. Don't males have a right to privacy too?
Click to expand...

Nature decided to put the bulk of the risks and responsibilities of procreation on women. We can't change that (yet?). So we put more weight in what the person who must bear the burdens wants than the person who can (absent any laws) walk away scot free.

If men don't want to be financially responsible for their offspring (since we can't really legally enforce making them emotionally responsible), they have the 'right' not to engage in behaviors that will lead to impregnation.

Which of these is the greater concern to address:

The desire to have risk-free sex and avoid any consequences for it, naturally increasing the consequences that must be faced by their sexual partner.

The desire to have control over one's own body.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
To my way of thinking "a woman's right to privacy" is pretty much BS. The right to control one's own body seems better logic.

And I still think a male ought to be able to decide not to have a child either, post conception, like women do. Not forcing the woman either way, just denying it's future care is his responsibility. Don't males have a right to privacy too?
Click to expand...
I am absolutely in your court on this point. Not from a "privacy" standpoint, but from an equality standpoint.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
"It prevents rational discussion!" -people who responded to the epithet, but ignored everything else about the post
Click to expand...
I get your point, but wouldn't it be better to make it accurate and refer to him as the Groper in Chief so people can't cite a single inaccuracy?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I get your point, but wouldn't it be better to make it accurate and refer to him as the Groper in Chief so people can't cite a single inaccuracy?
Click to expand...

My experience has taught me that there's no amount of accuracy or qualifiers that will ever satisfy a nay-sayer who has no interest in actually engaging with the broader topic of discussion. They will either zero in on every subtle incongruity they can or, finding none, move on to a more target-rich environment :9.
 
It is impossible to predict how much legal change will come about. Even a nut-job on SCOTUS might decide to up his/her game once faced with the responsibility. What has undoubtedly changed is the sense of white empowerment, the sense of freedom to express racist hatred, and the real effect the many small ways in which the resulting and open disdain toward others is and will be expressed. Laws and so on are palliatives; the real deal is daily life. That will sound like nothing at all to a white racist who has no inkling of what real discrimination is - mere liberal moaning - and yet is all-telling to those on the receiving end.

Meanwhile, here we have Dylann Roof, claiming he was acting because whites have already lost out to minorities. The only possible measures by which that might be considered true is that lunch counters and the fronts of buses are no longer white-only. Certainly no whites are lining up to harvest the many crops that Hispanics and others largely take care of, so it can't be that; white men rarely if ever show up for that kind of hard work. This mindset clearly illustrates the speed at which racist white men can hide behind any excuse for their own inability to become their dream version of themselves, no matter how wild or flimsy, rather than show moral fiber or strength of character.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
In Ohio, the state legislature has passed a law banning abortions of any fetus that has a detectable heartbeat, and they've got another on the way banning abortions after 20 weeks (the latter presumably continuing as a backup to the first). The former law would pretty much completely ban abortion given that a fetal heart rate is detectable at 6-7 weeks, which is early enough that many women might not even know they're pregnant.

So, what's next? How many more states will follow Ohio's lead in the hopes that any challenge won't reach the Supreme Court before one or more new judges have been appointed by the Rapist-in-Chief? Will states also attempt to reinstate laws against same-sex marriage? Maybe bring back anti-sodomy laws?
Click to expand...
In Louisiana the embryos are suing.
 
Not only has there been no showing of regression in other social programs, there has been no showing of regression in abortion rights. States have always proposed abortion bans, nothing astounding about one or two post election.

More TDS, it's rampant on this site.
 
casebro said:
Not only has there been no showing of regression in other social programs, there has been no showing of regression in abortion rights. States have always proposed abortion bans, nothing astounding about one or two post election.

More TDS, it's rampant on this site.
Click to expand...

You're aware that Trump takes office in January, right?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Rational discussion on the topic is taking place, so I must conclude that "any possibility of rational discussion" has not been "destroyed" and that "this", therefore, is not a "reliable" method for doing so.

That you are not engaging in any rational discussion is your own decision.
Click to expand...

You do have a point here. My original claim was too strong. I'll rephrase as saying that these types of comments are a reliable method of distracting from rational discussions. And I can say this with confidence because Babbylonian has made this "President Rapist" comment many times and on several occasions it has segued into a discussion on former president Bill Clinton. If you value these types of distractions being avoided (as I certainly do), then behaviors that tend to cause them should cease.

But I'll drop the discussion in this thread. Feel free to respond (I promise I'll read it). I might make my own, because this type of thing is increasingly important to me.

And if I came off as confrontational earlier, I apologize. I was aggravated, and ironically, hostility does tend to degrade rational discussion. I'll be more careful in the future.
 
casebro said:
Not only has there been no showing of regression in other social programs, there has been no showing of regression in abortion rights. States have always proposed abortion bans, nothing astounding about one or two post election.

More TDS, it's rampant on this site.
Click to expand...

There's little regression to find mostly by virtue of the fact that most legislatures are either not in session or abiding by typical expectations not to push forward controversial legislation in a lame duck session.

The thread ought to have included the word "anticipated" at the beginning.

Certainly the policies supported and statements made by various elected or appointed (technically 'nominated') officials should be taken into consideration as indications of what to expect or at least be watchful for.
 
applecorped said:
What were the other social progress rollbacks?
Click to expand...

Sessions has gone on record saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were total mistakes and should be scrapped. Like I said above, I am confident he's a segregationist.

This would remove penalties for excluding protected classes from commercial activities such as performing public activities (eg: marrying mixed race couples), allowing customers (eg: no blacks allowed in my business, no black tenants in my buildings) or hiring from certain demographics (eg: now i can fire all those Catholics, Jews and negroes that I've been forced by law to share office space and write paychecques to).

This was somewhat provoked by the wedding cake and marriage refusal cases in the last few years. The concept of gays as a protected class raised the question of whether the concept is an undue burden on bigots' rights. If gays aren't a valid protected class, then the argument goes, maybe neither are mixed race couples. Why one and not the other? Good question, but I have a different answer than they do.


Another one is marijuana decriminalization. The state level laws can easily be overruled by a federal ban.

Anti-sodomy laws, anti-pornography laws, perhaps even anti-contraception laws. The latter two are important to Catholics, and also consistent with Protestant Quiverful and abstinence only initiatives, so there's a lot of support. This is why "pornography is an imminent health crisis" is in the [current GOP platform]. They pitch the claim that pornography is a gateway to pedophelia, so there's a lot of support.
 
blutoski said:
Sessions has gone on record saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were total mistakes and should be scrapped. Like I said above, I am confident he's a segregationist.

This would remove penalties for excluding protected classes from commercial activities such as performing public activities (eg: marrying mixed race couples), allowing customers (eg: no blacks allowed in my business, no black tenants in my buildings) or hiring from certain demographics (eg: now i can fire all those Catholics, Jews and negroes that I've been forced by law to share office space and write paychecques to).

This was somewhat provoked by the wedding cake and marriage refusal cases in the last few years. The concept of gays as a protected class raised the question of whether the concept is an undue burden on bigots' rights. If gays aren't a valid protected class, then the argument goes, maybe neither are mixed race couples. Why one and not the other? Good question, but I have a different answer than they do.


Another one is marijuana decriminalization. The state level laws can easily be overruled by a federal ban.

Anti-sodomy laws, anti-pornography laws, perhaps even anti-contraception laws. The latter two are important to Catholics, and also consistent with Protestant Quiverful and abstinence only initiatives, so there's a lot of support. This is why "pornography is an imminent health crisis" is in the [current GOP platform]. They pitch the claim that pornography is a gateway to pedophelia, so there's a lot of support.
Click to expand...

Potential roll backs are not roll backs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom