Abortion or the day Roe died

[Renascent]

Are they acting as religious fanatics against the non-fanatics or as men against women? (Which would be odd as genders are mixed on both sides of the court opinion.)

I can never tell when you're being serious or just contrarian for the hell of it.

Do you honestly feel that it must be either/or? No one is likely to doubt that there are voices on both sides of the issue from more than one gender pool.

But the matter of abortion -- whether someone wants to pedantically argue its legal/moral/biological merits or perils -- is still being discussed by a lot of loud-ass dudes in positions of power and influence who want a say in what to do with the Negroes (whoops) farm equipment (oops), baby-making machines (well, shit), uteruses of America.

I'm sure they are all speaking from a very well-meaning place. Polls and ... science.

Yea.

[dw]

Are they acting as religious fanatics against the non-fanatics or as men against women? (Which would be odd as genders are mixed on both sides of the court opinion.)

I can never tell when you're being serious or just contrarian for the hell of it.

Do you honestly feel that it must be either/or? No one is likely to doubt that there are voices on both sides of the issue from more than one gender pool.

But the matter of abortion -- whether someone wants to pedantically argue its legal/moral/biological merits or perils -- is still being discussed by a lot of loud-ass dudes in positions of power and influence who want a say in what to do with the Negroes (whoops) farm equipment (oops), baby-making machines (well, shit), uteresus of America.

I'm sure they are all speaking from a very well-meaning place. Polls and ... science.

Yea.

I honestly don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you think only a trifling minority of people at all levels of the pro-life movement are women you are wrong.

Is this something pro-choice people believe?

[Renascent]

Are they acting as religious fanatics against the non-fanatics or as men against women? (Which would be odd as genders are mixed on both sides of the court opinion.)

I can never tell when you're being serious or just contrarian for the hell of it.

Do you honestly feel that it must be either/or? No one is likely to doubt that there are voices on both sides of the issue from more than one gender pool.

But the matter of abortion -- whether someone wants to pedantically argue its legal/moral/biological merits or perils -- is still being discussed by a lot of loud-ass dudes in positions of power and influence who want a say in what to do with the Negroes (whoops) farm equipment (oops), baby-making machines (well, shit), uteresus of America.

I'm sure they are all speaking from a very well-meaning place. Polls and ... science.

Yea.

I honestly don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you think only a trifling minority of people at all levels of the pro-life movement are women you are wrong.

Is this something pro-choice people believe?

No, we're not quibbling over whether or not there are women who oppose abortion for whatever reason.

We're quibbling over whether or not the fact that said anti-abortion women exist (which no one involved in this thread has disputed, so far) negates the arguable possibility that, on some level, abortion is a men versus women issue for a lot of people. It is also a "religious" issue because a lot of people deem it so. It is a multi-faceted issue, but -- much like the Civil War -- pretending that it is/was solely a matter of states' rights (or merely a logistical dispute, or a thinking man's philosophical question) seems willfully tone-deaf.

I was alluding to your take on @murphyreedus's observation about your comment. Whereas you don't feel the comparison to the states' rights argument -- in the context of the Civil War -- was warranted, I'd beg to differ.

Suggesting that there is no "men versus women" component to abortion rights, as they exist(ed) in the United States, is a lot like suggesting the Civil War was really about whether men from the North had the right to tell men from the South how to harvest their crops and what kind of machinery they could use. The whole conflict just introduced problems that didn't exist previously, such as whether or not the Negroes knew what to do with pesky shit like "freedom" that might otherwise have been too burdensome for their bodies to bear.

Denying the lived reality for a lot of people out there by saying that abortion rights has nothing to do with men's collective dominion over uteruses -- just because you, in your assumed magnanimity, are only worried about the scientific ethics of abortion (I'm only using you as an example here) -- really stinks of some high-horse, tone-deaf silliness.

I'll use my imagination here and guess that it's gotta suck for a lotta women to hear some dude -- whether a senator, judge, local dickhead pastor, or whatever -- weigh in (with authoritah!) on when and how their vaginas should be policed because of some fucking beliefs about God (for example).

It's probably not dissimilar to listening to white dudes ramble on about what poor Blacks should do to better themselves, in other corners of the internet.

[aurelius]

@aurelius

Way too hand wavey.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. What is hand waved is supporting a largely religious, anti-liberty position because people that lived over a hundred years ago agree with it.

[dw]

@Renascent

But what "men's collective dominion over uteruses" are you referring to that does not require the pro-life movement to be very clearly a movement of men? Do you have the same opinion about anti-abortion voters in for example Latin American countries where a high percentage of both men and women are Catholics that believe abortion is a sin?

To me your words seems like a fantastical characterization of the situation, borrowed from a context of feminist theory that few would seriously endorse.

Also I do not know what you mean about pedantic or high minded ethical debate that is supposed to be a cover for some illicit desire to have "dominion over uteruses", as I think none of these are common causes of the opinions people hold about abortion.

To me you seem to be missing the much more obvious and widespread basis for pro-life opinions, namely the belief that abortion is wrong and murder or something akin to murder. Typically but not necessarily rooted in religious upbringing.

Whether you share this opinion or not seems unremarkable to me. But that you (seemingly) and other progressives literally can't imagine that some people just see abortion as wrong, as most people see murder as wrong, without having recourse to theories of gender oppression to explain these stated opinions, seems bizarre to me.

And as I mentioned earlier it's also inconsistent with the claim that this is all about religious bias. I assume you believe that people are capable of Christianity or whatever religion sincerely. Why does their stated belief that abortion is a sin defy belief?

If your response is again that these things can be explained with multiple factors, I am sure that is true. But I happen to think the male oppressionist explanation is a terrible fit... for starters you almost have the same percentage of men on both sides of the issue (I think it's something like 55/45 vs 45/55).

[Renascent]

But what "men's collective dominion over uteruses" are you referring to that does not require the pro-life movement to be very clearly a movement of men?

I guess you'd balk if I used the word "patriarchy" or something akin to it.

I don't think there needs to some standing army solely made up of men to illustrate or legitimize the "theory" of patriarchal oppression for the skeptics.

Do you have the same opinion about anti-abortion voters in for example Latin American countries where a high percentage of both men and women are Catholics that believe abortion is a sin?

Yes, I do.

I don't think very highly of "because some really dead old men said so" as sound logic or the primary guiding principle of my moral leanings. But others may do as they wish, within reason, I suppose.

To me your words seems like a fantastical characterization of the situation, borrowed from a context of feminist theory that few would seriously endorse.

Yeah, you'd definitely balk at the mere idea of "patriarchy" as a centuries-old tool of oppression.

But I'm fine with this.

And now I'm questioning whether I should give a shit about entertaining the majority who would not endorse such a view.

I'll hang out in my bubble, and they can hang out in theirs (as long as I can breathe in mine). It does suck when the shoulders rub together, though.

Also I do not know what you mean about pedantic or high minded ethical debate that is supposed to be a cover for some illicit desire to have "dominion over uteruses", as I think none of these are common causes of the opinions people hold about abortion.

I stand corrected.

But we should make vasectomies illegal. God thinks it's mutilation (He told me this himself in a wet fever dream).

To me you seem to be missing the much more obvious and widespread basis for pro-life opinions, namely the belief that abortion is wrong and murder or something akin to murder. Typically but not necessarily rooted in religious upbringing.

Whether you share this opinion or not seems unremarkable to me. But that you (seemingly) and other progressives literally can't imagine that some people just see abortion as wrong, as most people see murder as wrong, without having recourse to theories of gender oppression to explain these stated opinions, seems bizarre to me.

No, I get it. Some people oppose abortion for reasons unrelated to religion.

But don't tread on me, and all that shit.

And as I mentioned earlier it's also inconsistent with the claim that this is all about religious bias. I assume you believe that people are capable of Christianity or whatever religion sincerely. Why does their stated belief that abortion is a sin defy belief?

It definitely doesn't defy belief. Who needs fiction for entertainment and fear when you could just refer to life on earth instead?

People can have their sins and all that. Great. But not every sin is rooted in some infallible, universally-accepted logic.

I don't consider masturbation or anal penetration a sin.

If your response is again that these things can be explained with multiple factors, I am sure that is true. But I happen to think the male oppressionist explanation is a terrible fit... for starters you almost have the same percentage of men on both sides of the issue (I think it's something like 55/45 vs 45/55).

For all the dismissing of the tired, old "feminist" argument, I think you miss the point entirely (hint: it has nothing to do with gender ratios among the "opposing side").

[GrainsAndGains]

The pro-life movement is male-dominated and exists for the benefit of men. It originated from a church with 100% male leadership, and was co-opted rather cynically in the United States by Evangelicals to further a right-wing political project that is also dominated by men. It doesn't matter that some women are on board - there wouldn't be a movement to begin with without a highly patriarchal society where controlling women has been normalized.

[dw]

@Renascent

If there is a clear male interest with respect to abortion rights wouldn't you expect a much stronger gender skew with respect to opinions about abortion?

If there is not a clear male interest, how do you know "patriarchy" has anything to do with it at all?

Also how do you account for the difference in abortion regulations of various societies, or within the same society across time, all of which are presumably subject to "patriarchy" and some of which are literally patriarchies (for example the ancient Jews who reportedly were pretty liberal about abortion)?

Hopefully I haven't scandalized anyone with the high question: statement ratio of this post.

[Renascent]

The pro-life movement is male-dominated and exists for the benefit of men. It originated from a church with 100% male leadership, and was co-opted rather cynically in the United States by Evangelicals to further a right-wing political project that is also dominated by men. It doesn't matter that some women are on board - there wouldn't be a movement to begin with without a highly patriarchal society where controlling women has been normalized.

Pshaw.

D knows this already. We're just fucking around.

[dw]

The pro-life movement is male-dominated and exists for the benefit of men. It originated from a church with 100% male leadership, and was co-opted rather cynically in the United States by Evangelicals to further a right-wing political project that is also dominated by men. It doesn't matter that some women are on board - there wouldn't be a movement to be on board to begin with without a highly patriarchal society where controlling women has been normalized.

Quite a lot of assertions here that could be taken up, including the problem that prohibitions of abortion have of course preceded the American pro-life movement.

But I would like to address just one. What is the benefit for men of the pro-life movement and why do so many men act against this interest?

[alek]

But we should make vasectomies illegal. God thinks it's mutilation (He told me this himself in a wet fever dream).

No offense; I'm just looking for any excuse to post it again.



Edit:

I don't consider masturbation or anal penetration a sin.

Shit. Sorry, man. I didn't see this before I posted the video above because this would have triggered it, too.

[GrainsAndGains]

The pro-life movement is male-dominated and exists for the benefit of men. It originated from a church with 100% male leadership, and was co-opted rather cynically in the United States by Evangelicals to further a right-wing political project that is also dominated by men. It doesn't matter that some women are on board - there wouldn't be a movement to be on board to begin with without a highly patriarchal society where controlling women has been normalized.

Quite a lot of assertions here that could be taken up, including the problem that prohibitions of abortion have of course preceded the American pro-life movement.

But I would like to address just one. What is the benefit for men of the pro-life movement and why do so many men act against this interest?

Because not all men benefit from patriarchy. The ones at the top do, but I would argue that most do not. Just because men are in charge doesn't mean that ALL men get to be in charge.

As for the benefits of the pro-life movement - it's pretty inarguable that the male-dominated Republican party wouldn't have been the dominant political party in the United States for most of the most 20 years without the reliably pro-life voting bloc.

[Renascent]

If there is a clear male interest with respect to abortion rights wouldn't you expect a much stronger gender skew with respect to opinions about abortion?

Not necessarily. As you stated, there is a very large contingent of pro-lifers who have uteruses.

I still think men have a much louder voice in all this than we should. In all seriousness, banning vasectomies would hardly level the "battlefield," figuratively speaking.

If there is not a clear male interest, how do you know "patriarchy" has anything to do with it at all?

Bruh.

C'mon, D.

Quit playing.

Also how do you account for the difference in abortion regulations of various societies, or within the same society across time, all of which are presumably subject to "patriarchy" and some of which are literally patriarchies (for example the ancient Jews who reportedly were pretty liberal about abortion)?

I think the term "patriarchy" can still function as a descriptor without the negative connotations. It doesn't necessarily have to imply oppression of a different gender, same as "matriarchy" doesn't have to imply hostility towards men.

A patriarchy doesn't have to include some form(s) of fem oppression, but it can (and often does). Which is why we're even arguing this slant to begin with.

[Hiphopapotamus]

They're just getting started:

"Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights."

https://news.yahoo.com/justice-thomas-s ... 17580.html

[JonA]

I guess the theme for this court's session is "Maybe you should codify these rights by amending the constitution"

[Hiphopapotamus]

I guess the theme for this court's session is "Maybe you should codify these rights by amending the constitution"

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the Constitution already addresses this in the 9th amendment. Rights do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in order to be protected by it.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[5hout]

They're just getting started:

"Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

A concurrence, joined by no one, to a majority opinion that discards this in at least 4 separate locations. You might think "doth protest too much", but Justice Thomas is a well known author of loan dissents/concurrences that go nowhere.

Old man yells at cloud.

[dw]

Just an aside, not bearing on the rest of the discussion in this thread...

Can you imagine what a bombshell of a news item this would have been if the draft had not been leaked a month ago or whenever it was? People just waking up to this...

[aurelius]

A concurrence, joined by no one, to a majority opinion that discards this in at least 4 separate locations. You might think "doth protest too much", but Justice Thomas is a well known author of loan dissents/concurrences that go nowhere.

Old man yells at cloud.

Are you referring to the conservative justices that stated Roe was established precedent? As the dissent points out, these Justices are liars and hypocrites that do not follow the logic of their own legal reasoning.

Originalism is a bad joke. Cherry picking the opinions of dead men that agrees with yours is garbage legal reasoning. And the Roe decision goes against the very reasoning presented in the majority's decision in the recent gun opinion. This court is garbage and has lost all legitimacy. Fasten your seatbelts, the ride only gets bumpier from here.

[aurelius]

I guess the theme for this court's session is "Maybe you should codify these rights by amending the constitution"

Already posted the 9th amendment (which the Dobbs decision completely ignores).

And what authority does the Constitution grant the court? Let's check out article III, section I:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

What? The Constitution does not grant the Court the power of judicial review? I wonder what did...Marbury v. Madison. The legal reasoning behind Roe is a fragile house of cards that threatens the very credibility of the Court.