I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
Of these, I'd say the first is the only one upon which the strength of the anti-abortion movement stands. Without it, there would be no mischief-makers or cynical political bandwagonners. While there are certainly some who believe in 2 and 3 (and RBG was in the 2nd camp, so this is not just a Right/Left, fundamental Christian thing), these are very small beer compared to the faith-based opponents.
Much of conservatism is based around concepts of purity, and hence absolutionism. Abortion is an ideal issue on both counts for social and religious conservatives.
And here is a point I think you are missing - this is not really about the women or being anti-women from their perspective (I know, I'd have a hard time convincing my wife of that too), but about purity. Which is why such people can hold the seemingly contradictory position of being pro-life and pro-death sentence. It is not about life, but purity.
And yet that desire for "purity" never extends to men and controlling their sexual desires and activities or punishing them for it. Odd that.
So I think being anti-women is a very significant part of it, even if it gets dressed up in a "purity" argument.
I certainly do not subscribe to that view myself and do not wish to defend them. But I think you are wrong to suggest that the purity issue is only a fig-leaf for being anti-woman or is indeed limited in its application to sexual and gender issues.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
Seeing something and linking it to a historic person is the weak link in the chain. Frankly almost every historic country house has a grey lady, often named as X or Y etc. And some ghosts have multiple claimed locations. They must have a busy afterlife.
Our link between the bloke ghost and "Jim" is that we asked who it was using a spirit box programme and got "Jim" as an answer. A bit of digging finds a gravestone describing a James Shives who died at work here. May not be him, but need to call him something as he lives here with us. Don't want to assign a name to the disembodied girl, but the ghost cat is called "Misty"...
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
I think even BJ would realise he'd be on very shaky ground there.
Johnson is relatively pro choice. Hunt is actually more pro life and has said he wants to reduce the time limit to 12 weeks as in France and Italy for example.
If Rees Mogg becomes Tory leader then he opposes abortion outright in all circumstances so the Conservative Party would switch to a clear pro life position under his leadership
No it would not.
You may change your views whenever the current leader changes in order to keep in lockstep with the leader, but the rest of the Party does not.
The Conservative Party is a big tent party that has for an extremely long time reasonably viewed abortion as a conscience matter, not a whipped one. Not even JRM would change that and if he did he'd lose millions of voters and even he's not that foolish.
Rees Mogg is a hardline Conservative as much as Corbyn was a hardline Socialist when he was Labour leader.
There is no doubt hardline Socialists comprised a greater percentage of Labour members and voters and indeed MPs when Corbyn was Labour leader and hardline Conservatives including pro life Conservatives would also gain greater influence if Rees Mogg was party leader
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
I take issue with the idea that written constitutions take rights issues out of the realm of democracy. They do not. Constitutions are created and ratified by democratic processes, are open to amendment through a democratic process. A deliberately difficult democratic process, admittedly, in order to protect those rights deemed fundamental from societal fads or the short-term political interests of certain groups.
And yet here we have a right that has existed for half a century being removed by judicial fiat in a decision less convincing, and far more partisan, than the one it condemns.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
I agree. It is the advantage those who are religious have over the likes of me. If life starts at conception it is clear cut. Otherwise it is a random date. Unfortunately I am not religious so I have that dilemma.
I've not heard a response from those who believe life starts at conception of birth control that prevents splitting cells embed in the womb which strikes me as abortion.
SFAICS there is no specifically religious insight that helps or hinders the debate. The belief in the significance of human life is generally held by secular and religious people. Everyone, religious and secular, believes that a person kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is committing an even worse atrocity than otherwise and therefore believes that the unborn have rights and that we all have duties towards them. I can't see how religion helps at all in deciding in cases involving the unborn where there is a balance of rights and duties to consider.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing seen regularly at both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
Interesting. In the early seventies there was an excellent BBC drama, written by Nigel Kneale, called The Stone Tape. Central to that was the premise that ghosts were somehow recordings of people from the past who somehow become recoded into their surroundings.
As discussed in the Fortean Times's latest issue (are you a reader?). Not seen the Stone Tape, but will try to seek it out at some point. Dr Who revisited this twice, in Day of the Daleks and much later in Hide. The latter has a haunted house, a pyschic researcher thrown into the mix. I hadn't realised that the writer may have used Neale as an inspiration.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
Of course it's got nothing to do with 'gender equality'. Whatever could that possibly mean in the context of pregnancy? It's about the right to life of the foetus, which, given the premise, clearly overrides any inconvenience or distress to the woman, exactly as it would in the case of murder of an infant or a disabled person.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
Whatever could it mean in the context of a pregnancy? It means that women are their own independent person, just as men are, so any "foetus" by definition is not. It is not an independent person until it is born, it may be viable, but until it is born and can breath on its own it is not an independent person, but the woman is.
It is an utterly unreasonable premise in itself. A foetus never has an inviolable right to life, only a person does and the person becomes a person at the moment of birth.
I don't agree with that, although I suspect we have the same view on the solution. You always see stuff more black and white than me. In my view the mother, the baby and the father all have rights at all stages of a pregnancy. These rights conflict so compromise has to be made. Reluctantly for the unborn child and the father the balance of those right should be with the mother.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
Of course it's got nothing to do with 'gender equality'. Whatever could that possibly mean in the context of pregnancy? It's about the right to life of the foetus, which, given the premise, clearly overrides any inconvenience or distress to the woman, exactly as it would in the case of murder of an infant or a disabled person.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
Whatever could it mean in the context of a pregnancy? It means that women are their own independent person, just as men are, so any "foetus" by definition is not. It is not an independent person until it is born, it may be viable, but until it is born and can breath on its own it is not an independent person, but the woman is.
It is an utterly unreasonable premise in itself. A foetus never has an inviolable right to life, only a person does and the person becomes a person at the moment of birth.
Presumably OK to knock them on the head any time in the first couple of years, then? Or does food independence not count?
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yes. This is actually one of the situations where I find the opposing view easy to understand, as the premise is clear.
I support a woman's right to choose and to have control of their body, but I regard abortion as a necessary failsafe, rather than a good in itself.
The morality on the anti-abortion side has the appeal of simplicity, but on the pro-choice side it's more complicated. Not many people celebrate abortions.
Yes, in some ways I find the opposing view easier to understand than my own view.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
Exactly. There are some fundamentals which should reside above and beyond. A government shouldn't be able to (eg) ban women from owning property regardless of its ability to get such a law on the books. For me, a general criminalizing of abortion is in that category. A woman's right to choose on this (with limits) was an essential and hard won social reform. It's something which underpins the whole notion of gender equality. Take it away and you kiss goodbye to any semblance of that. Women officially become a lesser grade of being sharing ownership of their bodies with the state.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
I think even BJ would realise he'd be on very shaky ground there.
Johnson is relatively pro choice. Hunt is actually more pro life and has said he wants to reduce the time limit to 12 weeks as in France and Italy for example.
If Rees Mogg becomes Tory leader then he opposes abortion outright in all circumstances so the Conservative Party would switch to a clear pro life position under his leadership
In perpetual opposition for the duration, that wont of course matter.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
I take issue with the idea that written constitutions take rights issues out of the realm of democracy. They do not. Constitutions are created and ratified by democratic processes, are open to amendment through a democratic process. A deliberately difficult democratic process, admittedly, in order to protect those rights deemed fundamental from societal fads or the short-term political interests of certain groups.
And yet here we have a right that has existed for half a century being removed by judicial fiat in a decision less convincing, and far more partisan, than the one it condemns.
I am not sure how that comment is a sequitur to mine, which was to challenge the idea that Constitutions take rights out of the realm of democratic processes.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
Of these, I'd say the first is the only one upon which the strength of the anti-abortion movement stands. Without it, there would be no mischief-makers or cynical political bandwagonners. While there are certainly some who believe in 2 and 3 (and RBG was in the 2nd camp, so this is not just a Right/Left, fundamental Christian thing), these are very small beer compared to the faith-based opponents.
Much of conservatism is based around concepts of purity, and hence absolutionism. Abortion is an ideal issue on both counts for social and religious conservatives.
And here is a point I think you are missing - this is not really about the women or being anti-women from their perspective (I know, I'd have a hard time convincing my wife of that too), but about purity. Which is why such people can hold the seemingly contradictory position of being pro-life and pro-death sentence. It is not about life, but purity.
And yet that desire for "purity" never extends to men and controlling their sexual desires and activities or punishing them for it. Odd that.
So I think being anti-women is a very significant part of it, even if it gets dressed up in a "purity" argument.
I certainly do not subscribe to that view myself and do not wish to defend them. But I think you are wrong to suggest that the purity issue is only a fig-leaf for being anti-woman or is indeed limited in its application to sexual and gender issues.
It may not be a fig leaf for some but it is one for some of those who oppose womens' rights.
The desire to control women is a very very longstanding and widespread one, found in pretty much all societies and amongst all classes and groups and very often wrapped up in concerns about purity and honour. Hard often to disentangle the two.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
I agree. It is the advantage those who are religious have over the likes of me. If life starts at conception it is clear cut. Otherwise it is a random date. Unfortunately I am not religious so I have that dilemma.
I've not heard a response from those who believe life starts at conception of birth control that prevents splitting cells embed in the womb which strikes me as abortion.
SFAICS there is no specifically religious insight that helps or hinders the debate. The belief in the significance of human life is generally held by secular and religious people. Everyone, religious and secular, believes that a person kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is committing an even worse atrocity than otherwise and therefore believes that the unborn have rights and that we all have duties towards them. I can't see how religion helps at all in deciding in cases involving the unborn where there is a balance of rights and duties to consider.
Coincidentally see my most recent post which covers my position on the balance of rights.
Of course there is a difference between those that have religious views on when life begins and those that don't. The kick in the stomach example is accurate but not typical. A non religious person does not object to birth control that aborts splitting cells, or fertilised eggs in a test tube destroyed as required by law once they get to a certain level of splitting. To certain religious people that is killing a human being as it is post conception.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Because you can only start from the premise that a foetus is an "independent life" by stripping women and only women of their own bodies.
If a woman's body is her own, no foetus can ever be an "independent life". So with that premise you're denying women their own body as their own, which of course is a tremendous problem if you supposedly believe in gender equality.
Of course there is the view that it isn’t only women who are birthing parents.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing seen regularly at both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
Interesting. In the early seventies there was an excellent BBC drama, written by Nigel Kneale, called The Stone Tape. Central to that was the premise that ghosts were somehow recordings of people from the past who somehow become recoded into their surroundings.
As discussed in the Fortean Times's latest issue (are you a reader?). Not seen the Stone Tape, but will try to seek it out at some point. Dr Who revisited this twice, in Day of the Daleks and much later in Hide. The latter has a haunted house, a pyschic researcher thrown into the mix. I hadn't realised that the writer may have used Neale as an inspiration.
I haven’t read it for many many years.
Day of the Daleks also has the temporal paradox of the guerillas coming back in time to blow up the house with Sir Reginald (hosting the peace conference) in effective caused their own history of enslavement.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
Of course it's got nothing to do with 'gender equality'. Whatever could that possibly mean in the context of pregnancy? It's about the right to life of the foetus, which, given the premise, clearly overrides any inconvenience or distress to the woman, exactly as it would in the case of murder of an infant or a disabled person.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
There's a respectable debate to be had about controls (eg reasons and term limits) but here we're talking about an absolutist ban on abortion in many states. I get the logic chain you point out but I find it a noddy one.
The link to gender equality is surely obvious. It involves the empowerment of women and this does the opposite. It disempowers women. Makes them less free.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
Of course it's got nothing to do with 'gender equality'. Whatever could that possibly mean in the context of pregnancy? It's about the right to life of the foetus, which, given the premise, clearly overrides any inconvenience or distress to the woman, exactly as it would in the case of murder of an infant or a disabled person.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
Whatever could it mean in the context of a pregnancy? It means that women are their own independent person, just as men are, so any "foetus" by definition is not. It is not an independent person until it is born, it may be viable, but until it is born and can breath on its own it is not an independent person, but the woman is.
It is an utterly unreasonable premise in itself. A foetus never has an inviolable right to life, only a person does and the person becomes a person at the moment of birth.
I don't agree with that, although I suspect we have the same view on the solution. You always see stuff more black and white than me. In my view the mother, the baby and the father all have rights at all stages of a pregnancy. These rights conflict so compromise has to be made. Reluctantly for the unborn child and the father the balance of those right should be with the mother.
I don't view the father as having any rights at all pre-birth.
Parental rights post-birth is a different matter, but its the woman's body and so she and only she has rights over her own body. When my wife was pregnant her body remained her own and I don't believe that I had any rights over her body whatsoever.
Comments
There is no doubt hardline Socialists comprised a greater percentage of Labour members and voters and indeed MPs when Corbyn was Labour leader and hardline Conservatives including pro life Conservatives would also gain greater influence if Rees Mogg was party leader
this thread is a ghost of its former self
Continuity zerocovidians.
Ghost botherers.
UFO fanciers to complete the set?
The desire to control women is a very very longstanding and widespread one, found in pretty much all societies and amongst all classes and groups and very often wrapped up in concerns about purity and honour. Hard often to disentangle the two.
Of course there is a difference between those that have religious views on when life begins and those that don't. The kick in the stomach example is accurate but not typical. A non religious person does not object to birth control that aborts splitting cells, or fertilised eggs in a test tube destroyed as required by law once they get to a certain level of splitting. To certain religious people that is killing a human being as it is post conception.
Day of the Daleks also has the temporal paradox of the guerillas coming back in time to blow up the house with Sir Reginald (hosting the peace conference) in effective caused their own history of enslavement.
The link to gender equality is surely obvious. It involves the empowerment of women and this does the opposite. It disempowers women. Makes them less free.
Parental rights post-birth is a different matter, but its the woman's body and so she and only she has rights over her own body. When my wife was pregnant her body remained her own and I don't believe that I had any rights over her body whatsoever.