Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Szdfan]

Ross Douhat has a good piece in the New York Times that both praises the pro-life movement and points out the challenges that the movement has going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opin ... ticleShare

While the pro-life movement has won the right to legislate against abortion, it has not yet proven that it can do so in a way that can command durable majority support. Its weaknesses will not disappear in victory. Its foes and critics have been radicalized by its judicial success. And the vicissitudes of politics and its own compromises have linked the anti-abortion cause to various toxic forces on the right — some libertine and hyperindividualist, others simply hostile to synthesis, conciliation and majoritarian politics.

The pro-life movement is inevitably bound to some kind of conservatism, insofar as a anti-abortion ethic is hard to separate from a conservative ethic around sex, monogamy and marriage.

At the same time the pro-life movement’s many critics regard it as not merely conservative but as an embodiment of reaction at its worst — punitive and cruel and patriarchal, piling burdens on poor women and doing nothing to relieve them, putting unborn life ahead of the lives and health of women while pretending to hold them equal.

This is where I’m coming from. States with the most restrictive abortion laws have the highest infant mortality rates and the stingiest public services. If government programs are ideologically unacceptable, then step up to fill the gap.

The conversation that’s happening on another thread that women are responsible for their own rapes is not encouraging.

These issues may be secondary compared with the life-or-death question of abortion itself, but they are essential to the holistic aspects of political and ideological debate. In any great controversy, people are swayed to one side or another not just by the rightness of a particular position, but by whether that position is embedded in a social vision that seems generally attractive, desirable, worth siding with and fighting for.

Here some of the pathologies of right-wing governance could pave a path to failure for the pro-life movement. You can imagine a future in which anti-abortion laws are permanently linked to a punitive and stingy politics, in which women in difficulties can face police scrutiny for a suspicious miscarriage but receive little in the way of prenatal guidance or postnatal support. In that world, serious abortion restrictions would be sustainable in the most conservative parts of the country, but probably nowhere else, and the long-term prospects for national abortion rights legislation would be bright.

[Josh]

First and foremost, I'm happy for the decision because I believe it will save the lives of innocent unborn children. I'd love to see the pro-life camp follow up by quickly promoting more robust social support for those who now will carry their babies to term. Although this is a morally correct opinion in my view, it must also be recognized as a socially and economically disruptive one as well - one that will especially put poor women in a bind.

Secondly, as an Anabaptist, I find distasteful the partisan crowing on the right and raging on the left...and my instinct is to steer clear of it and quietly give thanks, like I do whenever Caesar decides for justice.

I see it this way as well.

It is sobering how oblivious it is to celebrate babies being brought to term and into this world by people who did not want them. I am not at all negating the child's right to life, but these are children whose parent(s) would murder them if given the chance.

At the heart of this are moral issues.

There are some unclear medical issues that concern me as well. Like missed miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. What about events where a mother is very sick and she either undergoes an emergency preterm c section or induction? It happens. Will these still be an option? What of very young girls who are raped and not physically strong enough to carry and birth a child? (Rapists need to be prosecuted more than they are, I think.)

It should be obvious that partial birth abortion and the like are medically unnecessary and morally wrong.

I just can't rejoice. There is so much hurt in this world and it is complicated.

I support the death penalty and summary execution for rapists.

However, I can certainly rejoice at babies not being murdered.

[ken_sylvania]

Ross Douhat has a good piece in the New York Times that both praises the pro-life movement and points out the challenges that the movement has going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opin ... ticleShare

While the pro-life movement has won the right to legislate against abortion, it has not yet proven that it can do so in a way that can command durable majority support. Its weaknesses will not disappear in victory. Its foes and critics have been radicalized by its judicial success. And the vicissitudes of politics and its own compromises have linked the anti-abortion cause to various toxic forces on the right — some libertine and hyperindividualist, others simply hostile to synthesis, conciliation and majoritarian politics.

The pro-life movement is inevitably bound to some kind of conservatism, insofar as a anti-abortion ethic is hard to separate from a conservative ethic around sex, monogamy and marriage.

At the same time the pro-life movement’s many critics regard it as not merely conservative but as an embodiment of reaction at its worst — punitive and cruel and patriarchal, piling burdens on poor women and doing nothing to relieve them, putting unborn life ahead of the lives and health of women while pretending to hold them equal.

This is where I’m coming from. States with the most restrictive abortion laws have the highest infant mortality rates and the stingiest public services. If government programs are ideologically unacceptable, then step up to fill the gap.

The conversation that’s happening on another thread that women are responsible for their own rapes is not encouraging.

These issues may be secondary compared with the life-or-death question of abortion itself, but they are essential to the holistic aspects of political and ideological debate. In any great controversy, people are swayed to one side or another not just by the rightness of a particular position, but by whether that position is embedded in a social vision that seems generally attractive, desirable, worth siding with and fighting for.

Here some of the pathologies of right-wing governance could pave a path to failure for the pro-life movement. You can imagine a future in which anti-abortion laws are permanently linked to a punitive and stingy politics, in which women in difficulties can face police scrutiny for a suspicious miscarriage but receive little in the way of prenatal guidance or postnatal support. In that world, serious abortion restrictions would be sustainable in the most conservative parts of the country, but probably nowhere else, and the long-term prospects for national abortion rights legislation would be bright.

I suppose you are fully aware that have you have mischaracterized what was said about some rapes in other thread? And simply don't care?

[Falco Underhill]

Ross Douhat has a good piece in the New York Times that both praises the pro-life movement and points out the challenges that the movement has going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opin ... ticleShare

While the pro-life movement has won the right to legislate against abortion, it has not yet proven that it can do so in a way that can command durable majority support. Its weaknesses will not disappear in victory. Its foes and critics have been radicalized by its judicial success. And the vicissitudes of politics and its own compromises have linked the anti-abortion cause to various toxic forces on the right — some libertine and hyperindividualist, others simply hostile to synthesis, conciliation and majoritarian politics.

The pro-life movement is inevitably bound to some kind of conservatism, insofar as a anti-abortion ethic is hard to separate from a conservative ethic around sex, monogamy and marriage.

At the same time the pro-life movement’s many critics regard it as not merely conservative but as an embodiment of reaction at its worst — punitive and cruel and patriarchal, piling burdens on poor women and doing nothing to relieve them, putting unborn life ahead of the lives and health of women while pretending to hold them equal.

This is where I’m coming from. States with the most restrictive abortion laws have the highest infant mortality rates and the stingiest public services. If government programs are ideologically unacceptable, then step up to fill the gap.

The conversation that’s happening on another thread that women are responsible for their own rapes is not encouraging.

These issues may be secondary compared with the life-or-death question of abortion itself, but they are essential to the holistic aspects of political and ideological debate. In any great controversy, people are swayed to one side or another not just by the rightness of a particular position, but by whether that position is embedded in a social vision that seems generally attractive, desirable, worth siding with and fighting for.

Here some of the pathologies of right-wing governance could pave a path to failure for the pro-life movement. You can imagine a future in which anti-abortion laws are permanently linked to a punitive and stingy politics, in which women in difficulties can face police scrutiny for a suspicious miscarriage but receive little in the way of prenatal guidance or postnatal support. In that world, serious abortion restrictions would be sustainable in the most conservative parts of the country, but probably nowhere else, and the long-term prospects for national abortion rights legislation would be bright.

I heard people can vote on it in individual states now.

[Szdfan]

I suppose you are fully aware that have you have mischaracterized what was said about some rapes in other thread? And simply don't care?

I don’t think I’m mischaracterizing what was being said. I’m aware that there were some qualifications made, but my sense is that people were saying that women were at least “somewhat” responsible for getting rape. I think your “Detroit car theft” analogy does get into the territory of victim blaming, regardless of your qualifers.

And then there’s this doozy:

Women who don’t want to get raped should avoid being around rapists. Simple as that.

How would you characterize this comment?

[Ken]

Ross Douhat has a good piece in the New York Times that both praises the pro-life movement and points out the challenges that the movement has going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opin ... ticleShare

While the pro-life movement has won the right to legislate against abortion, it has not yet proven that it can do so in a way that can command durable majority support. Its weaknesses will not disappear in victory. Its foes and critics have been radicalized by its judicial success. And the vicissitudes of politics and its own compromises have linked the anti-abortion cause to various toxic forces on the right — some libertine and hyperindividualist, others simply hostile to synthesis, conciliation and majoritarian politics.

The pro-life movement is inevitably bound to some kind of conservatism, insofar as a anti-abortion ethic is hard to separate from a conservative ethic around sex, monogamy and marriage.

At the same time the pro-life movement’s many critics regard it as not merely conservative but as an embodiment of reaction at its worst — punitive and cruel and patriarchal, piling burdens on poor women and doing nothing to relieve them, putting unborn life ahead of the lives and health of women while pretending to hold them equal.

This is where I’m coming from. States with the most restrictive abortion laws have the highest infant mortality rates and the stingiest public services. If government programs are ideologically unacceptable, then step up to fill the gap.

The conversation that’s happening on another thread that women are responsible for their own rapes is not encouraging.

These issues may be secondary compared with the life-or-death question of abortion itself, but they are essential to the holistic aspects of political and ideological debate. In any great controversy, people are swayed to one side or another not just by the rightness of a particular position, but by whether that position is embedded in a social vision that seems generally attractive, desirable, worth siding with and fighting for.

Here some of the pathologies of right-wing governance could pave a path to failure for the pro-life movement. You can imagine a future in which anti-abortion laws are permanently linked to a punitive and stingy politics, in which women in difficulties can face police scrutiny for a suspicious miscarriage but receive little in the way of prenatal guidance or postnatal support. In that world, serious abortion restrictions would be sustainable in the most conservative parts of the country, but probably nowhere else, and the long-term prospects for national abortion rights legislation would be bright.

I heard people can vote on it in individual states now.

One political parallel might be to prohibition. Both were the result of decades-long struggles by religious activists (prohibitionists and pro-lifers) and both resulted in a change a rollback of rights. An constitutional ban on liquor in the case of prohibition, and a repeal of Roe in the case of abortion. And in both cases they were imposed on a population that did not share widespread agreement. The 18th Amendment didn't stop people from drinking any more than a repeal of Roe will stop women from terminating pregnancies. And prohibition only lasted 13 years until it was repealed.

I have no idea what the future holds. But I don't imagine a policy that isn't supported by the majority of Americans will last forever. The next step for the pro-life movement is probably going to be a lot harder because it is going to require swaying public opinion on a wide scale rather than manipulating two votes on the Supreme Court.

[Falco Underhill]

I heard people can vote on it in individual states now.

One political parallel might be to prohibition. Both were the result of decades-long struggles by religious activists (prohibitionists and pro-lifers) and both resulted in a change a rollback of rights. An constitutional ban on liquor in the case of prohibition, and a repeal of Roe in the case of abortion. And in both cases they were imposed on a population that did not share widespread agreement. The 18th Amendment didn't stop people from drinking any more than a repeal of Roe will stop women from terminating pregnancies. And prohibition only lasted 13 years until it was repealed.

A repeal of Roe isn't exactly a constitutional ban. So there is still that slight difference in your example.

[Ken]

I heard people can vote on it in individual states now.

One political parallel might be to prohibition. Both were the result of decades-long struggles by religious activists (prohibitionists and pro-lifers) and both resulted in a change a rollback of rights. An constitutional ban on liquor in the case of prohibition, and a repeal of Roe in the case of abortion. And in both cases they were imposed on a population that did not share widespread agreement. The 18th Amendment didn't stop people from drinking any more than a repeal of Roe will stop women from terminating pregnancies. And prohibition only lasted 13 years until it was repealed.

A repeal of Roe isn't exactly a constitutional ban. So there is still that slight difference in your example.

Obviously it isn't an exact parallel. I admit that. As the saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

The point is that for the pro-life movement, the easy part is over. The real work now begins. And it is mainly going to involve influencing public opinion and voters rather than the composition of the judiciary. I expect that is going to be a harder task.

[temporal1]

Certainly, where gov schools and health care institutions are promoting the for-profit abortion industry, the scales will be deliberately tipped. Definitely true in the State of Chicago, in process long before this new ruling. Illinois is set up+ready to profit bigly.

[Josh]

Women who don’t want to get raped should avoid being around rapists. Simple as that.

How would you characterize this comment?

I have no control over rapists. What am I supposed to do, be a vigilante that goes and shoots them?

Women need to avoid being around rapists. The rest of us need to help identify who rapists are, and help ensure they do not have access to more victims. That is what I do.