Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Roe vs Wade Overturned

Roe vs Wade Overturned
Thread Tools
MacNNFamous
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 11:45 AM
 
So much for being about "freedom", fucking cucks.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 11:59 AM
 
Judges bought and paid for. Mad at dems for allowing them to block Obamas court pick. Mad at moderate Repubs for believing (or pretending to belive) Brett and Amy when they said they weren't going to go after established law.

They stacked the court for this purpose.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 12:10 PM
 
When are people actually going to revolt? Like thousands of people not with pink hats and signs but weapons and communications systems?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
When are people actually going to revolt? Like thousands of people not with pink hats and signs but weapons and communications systems?
Turns out all of the people that think they own weapons to prevent government overreach are either entirely in favor of letting government overreach happen to the extreme detriment of its citizens (supporting law enforcement), or they're languid hypocrites (if you really believed an election was being stolen, why weren't you at the Capital on Jan. 6th, armed and ready to defend America?).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 12:33 PM
 
Is flipping this overreach? I can think of all kinds of valid descriptors for the decision, but that’s not one of them.

This is an honest question, and I apologize in advance if it has an obvious answer I’m not seeing.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
When are people actually going to revolt? Like thousands of people not with pink hats and signs but weapons and communications systems?
It’s not gonna happen, because this IS the revolt. The people with the guns WANT this to happen, and bit by bit, it’s turning the US into a fascist theocracy a la Handmaid‘s Tale, except racist.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Turns out all of the people that think they own weapons to prevent government overreach are either entirely in favor of letting government overreach happen to the extreme detriment of its citizens (supporting law enforcement), or they're languid hypocrites (if you really believed an election was being stolen, why weren't you at the Capital on Jan. 6th, armed and ready to defend America?).
Me personally I'm in the middle of nowhere, and can affect nothing. But ARMED peaceful protests with a thinly veiled threat of violence seem to have more impact than some purple haired non contributors to society screaming while holding vulgar signs.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Me personally I'm in the middle of nowhere, and can affect nothing. But ARMED peaceful protests with a thinly veiled threat of violence seem to have more impact than some purple haired non contributors to society screaming while holding vulgar signs.
It's not the guns that make them convincing.

They're holding guns because for decades, they've bought hook, line, and sinker into the bullshit the same people have been feeding them that have been orchestrating this right-wing takeover.

They don't hold weight. They simply happen to be the tiny minority that supports what is going on.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Me personally I'm in the middle of nowhere, and can affect nothing. But ARMED peaceful protests with a thinly veiled threat of violence seem to have more impact than some purple haired non contributors to society screaming while holding vulgar signs.
Apparently you've been getting lines from the same people writing Matt Gaetz's tweets.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 08:37 PM
 
I think the recent streak of Supreme Court verdicts mark a tipping point. They invented a right of concealed carry of firearms, overruling state laws with a long history (rather than e. g. narrowly overruling this particular law). They weakened the rights of people on death row with credible evidence of their innocence as well as people’s Miranda rights. Freedom of religion gets read only one way, but the wall between implied in the Establishment Clause gets sidelined. They inconsistently apply “historical standards” when it suits their purposes (why not apply it to the 2nd Amendment, but only apply it to weapons that were available in the 18th century ). They leave things to the states when according to their morals something should be forbidden. And force their views on states when something should be allowed. For as long as I can remember, American conservatives lectured American liberals on the perils of judicial activism.

Add to that things like the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice being implicated in an attempt to overturn President Biden’s election without consequences.

It’s judicial gas lighting. But if the drift between what the average population thinks and believes in drifts too much apart, things will break. Eventually, there will be backlash and it won’t be pretty. A strong, independent and respected judiciary is often a crucial line of defense when it comes to preventing democracies from sliding into authoritarianism. I think the US is losing that line of defense right now.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is flipping this overreach? I can think of all kinds of valid descriptors for the decision, but that’s not one of them.

This is an honest question, and I apologize in advance if it has an obvious answer I’m not seeing.
You are looking at this very narrowly. We should take Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion very seriously, other in part long-standing precedents will likely be targeted next, including the legality of contraceptives, consensual sex between same-sex partners and gay marriage. It is clear that these are next.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 09:49 PM
 
If not Loving and Brown.. And yes, if they go too far, it won’t be pretty. Add to this the Texas GOP stuff (abolishing the civil rights act and equal protection clauses, secession) and FL threatening to secede, this starts to look like 1860.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2022, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
If not Loving and Brown.. And yes, if they go too far, it won’t be pretty. Add to this the Texas GOP stuff (abolishing the civil rights act and equal protection clauses, secession) and FL threatening to secede, this starts to look like 1860.
Yes, that, too.
I haven’t had a chance to digest the majority opinion (through various commentary), but if the main reasoning is similar to the leaked draft, not just the verdict, but also the path SCOTUS is traveling on is dangerous.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are looking at this very narrowly.
Yes. Because I’m challenging a specific descriptor.

Is this individual decision overreach, and if so, how?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 01:30 AM
 
I wouldn’t use overreach, there are other descriptions I find more apt.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 01:43 AM
 
Same.

That’s why I was questioning it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 01:51 AM
 
however, I just don’t think arguing about this point of all is particularly relevant or interesting.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 07:24 AM
 
Roe
Obergefell
Lawrence
Griswold
Brown

Though, I think Brown already has one foot in the grave given the decades-long war against public schooling the right has been waging. A far-right government will almost certainly gut the Education department, or refocus it on further pushing privatization. You can say “bye bye” to Title IX, too.

I think departments like the EPA, HUD, Labor, etc. are in serious danger of kneecapping (if not elimination), too.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
however, I just don’t think arguing about this point of all is particularly relevant or interesting.
Umm… noted?

Should you feel someone is forcing you to argue the point, tell me, and I’ll ask them to stop.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 07:34 PM
 
I'm struggling to see how an abortion ban isn't a flagrant violation of church and state. Clearly pro-lifers will argue its not a religiously motivated thing, but even more clearly, it very much is. Certainly the ban before first trimester.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm struggling to see how an abortion ban isn't a flagrant violation of church and state. Clearly pro-lifers will argue its not a religiously motivated thing, but even more clearly, it very much is. Certainly the ban before first trimester.
I think this is one of the big weaknesses of the justification: the draft opinion* claimed that no analysis was done on the morality when Roe vs. Wade was decided, something the Justices in the majority wanted to fix. This is a huge weakness in the argument. The other is that they derive rights for unborn life. The 14th Amendment defines citizens of the US as either natural born or naturalized, for example, and giving rights to unborn life (something that obviously isn’t in the Constitution either) is a big step. Fetuses are neither naturally born nor naturalized, and deriving/clarifying their rights means you are deriving rights from the principles of the Constitution. Reads like selective literalism/textualism to me, whatever suits your argument in that instant.

No matter how you slice it, abortion is not an easy matter, neither for the pro life nor the pro choice side.

* I haven’t found a good legal analysis, and don’t want to wade through
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm… noted?

Should you feel someone is forcing you to argue the point, tell me, and I’ll ask them to stop.
Well, I think it is relevant to point out when you are missing what is actually important. (We all do that from time to time, I have done it plenty of times, too.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
It's not the guns that make them convincing.

They're holding guns because for decades, they've bought hook, line, and sinker into the bullshit the same people have been feeding them that have been orchestrating this right-wing takeover.

They don't hold weight. They simply happen to be the tiny minority that supports what is going on.
I think you missed my point. Instead of pink hats, women should get armed. They could have a peaceful protest with 50,000 armed people and surround certain buildings, to make a point.

They could even peacefully not let anyone in or out of that perimeter.

If the police wanna escalate, well, that's on them. But they rarely escalate armed crowds.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No matter how you slice it, abortion is not an easy matter, neither for the pro life nor the pro choice side.
That's a load of horseshit. If PRIVATE DECISIONS made by individuals don't affect you, SHUT. THE FUCK. UP.

It does not affect you.

If you support limiting choices in ANYTHING that does not affect you at all, you're a fucking asshole that hates freedom.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2022, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
That's a load of horseshit. If PRIVATE DECISIONS made by individuals don't affect you, SHUT. THE FUCK. UP.

It does not affect you.
That’s how I look at it, too. However, all sides need to deal with the fact that IMHO there are shades of gray. Just because in my opinion this is something the woman has to deal with doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s why the decision to keep a pregnancy or not is hard for most women. For none of the women I know who have had a pregnancy terminated early (willingly or not, i. e. I am including miscarriages) was that an easy decision — if they had a decision at all.

Admitting this is not necessarily an argument for ending legal abortions, quite the contrary. I’m saying that women already have dealt with these shades of gray ever since abortions were a thing. But people in favor of banning abortions have for the most part not dealt with these shades of gray at all, trying to make it black-and-white when it isn’t.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
If you support limiting choices in ANYTHING that does not affect you at all, you're a fucking asshole that hates freedom.
That’s another instance of selling selectively enforced principles as intellectual purity.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
I think you missed my point. Instead of pink hats, women should get armed. They could have a peaceful protest with 50,000 armed people and surround certain buildings, to make a point.
I don’t think this is a recipe to improve anything. Quite the contrary, it’ll continue throwing the US in internal turmoil and could lead to an escalation.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 02:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Well, I think it is relevant to point out when you are missing what is actually important. (We all do that from time to time, I have done it plenty of times, too.)
What’s important to me is trying to better understand the points people make. In fact, I consider it the most important thing.

Do you maintain this is unimportant? I would rather assume you didn’t.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 05:18 AM
 
I never claimed it was unimportant. I’m saying that focusing on such small details make us lose focus of what is really important. It isn’t just the recent SCOTUS decisions, what is dangerous is the (inconsistent and dangerous) reasoning that was used.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I never claimed it was unimportant. I’m saying that focusing on such small details make us lose focus of what is really important. It isn’t just the recent SCOTUS decisions, what is dangerous is the (inconsistent and dangerous) reasoning that was used.
I have faith in your ability to maintain focus. Should that faith be misplaced, I recommend ignoring my question.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 02:59 PM
 
Standing anywhere with guns is by definition not „peaceful“.

Either the gun is carried with intent to use it, or it is completely useless for making a point.

There is no middle ground.

50,000 people with guns standing at a government building is not a peaceful protest. It is an assembled army.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 03:51 PM
 
Perhaps this will finally wake up Republican women. As (mostly) Republican officials attack their rights, I've been expecting a pushback for years. But in each election, Republican women act as doormats. Their candidates walk over their rights, but they still vote loyally for those very same candidates. Stockholm syndrome maybe.

Perhaps because the courts protected their rights anyway. But with SCOTUS corrupted, that is no longer the case. Taking rights away from 51% of the population should cause the victims to push back. Hopefully I'll live to see the doormats wake up and vote against the bad candidates. Even when their husbands vote for those candidates.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 05:01 PM
 
Not if they take their vote!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Hopefully I'll live to see the doormats wake up and vote against the bad candidates. Even when their husbands vote for those candidates.
Women being doormats was essential to the survival of the species until about 200 years ago, give or take. The impulses which cause it, for both men and women, are hardwired into our biology. Rooting that out will be an ongoing process taking many centuries.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Women being doormats was essential to the survival of the species until about 200 years ago, give or take. The impulses which cause it, for both men and women, are hardwired into our biology. Rooting that out will be an ongoing process taking many centuries.
I think this is mostly an a posteriori justification. Our two closest relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos. The former have a patriarchic society, the latter a matriarchic one. Evidence shows that prior to farming, societies were much more egalitarian. So I think the evidence shows it is less biology and more cultural, i. e. something we can change much more easily.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Perhaps this will finally wake up Republican women. As (mostly) Republican officials attack their rights, I've been expecting a pushback for years. But in each election, Republican women act as doormats. Their candidates walk over their rights, but they still vote loyally for those very same candidates. Stockholm syndrome maybe.
Yes, but only if it starts hurting and the impact becomes clear. I. e. a lot of women will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term while others have to risk their health or lives. A lot of the knock-on effects aren't obvious yet. E. g. doctors are more reluctant or even refuse to terminate ectopic pregnancies. Common medication used to terminate those pregnancies will either be much harder to get or might even be outlawed in some states. Overall, doctors will be reluctant to terminate pregnancies in many red states even when the risks to the mother are clear. After all, it is still a judgement call whether something is “merely very dangerous” or life-threatening.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think this is mostly an a posteriori justification. Our two closest relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos. The former have a patriarchic society, the latter a matriarchic one. Evidence shows that prior to farming, societies were much more egalitarian. So I think the evidence shows it is less biology and more cultural, i. e. something we can change much more easily.
Our closest relatives…

1) Never developed weapons
2) Never had the pressure to explore and bring back foreign diseases
3) Are on the verge of extinction because we killed them all

The comparison isn’t apt.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Our closest relatives…

1) Never developed weapons
Chimps have been seen to use spears for hunting other mammals.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
2) Never had the pressure to explore and bring back foreign diseases
New diseases are of course part of the ecological pressures of any species, including primates.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) Are almost all dead because we killed them
True, but I don't think there is a gendered component to that. Are bonobos fairing worse because they have a matriarchic society?

I was only mentioning chimps and bonobos to show that two species which are most closely related to humans have very different societal structures. So thinking that patriarchic societies are biologically determined is something that needs to be justified, and you didn't do that. Especially given the evidence that prehistoric human societies were much more egalitarian, I don't think the biological component is as strong you seem to think it is. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
bstone
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 11:24 PM
 
I'll now be subject to criminal prosecution for daring to prescribe medication which causes abortion. I live in a solidly blue state however if the patient is from a GOP state and has traveled to obtain medical care then this GOP state might decide to "investigate" and even request extradition.

Let it be known the GOP absolutely doesn't care about minimal government or keeping the government out of your private life. They are the biggest hypocrites alive. May they rot.
( Last edited by bstone; Jun 28, 2022 at 09:12 PM. )
Emergency Medicine & Urgent Care.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 11:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by bstone View Post
I'll now be subject to criminal prosecution for daring to prescribe medication which causes abortion. I live in a solidly blue state however if the patient is from a GOP state and has traveled to obtain medical care then this blue state might decide to "investigate" and even request extradition.

Let it be known the GOP absolutely doesn't care about minimal government or keeping the government out of your private life. They are the biggest hypocrites alive. May they rot.
Where my understanding for the pro life position stops is the seeming lack of interest to think of all the hard calls. E. g. the moves to introduce laws governing ectopic pregnancies, which are not viable. What moron first thought of these re-implantation laws and how could state Republicans allow this on the docket? Don't they have party members who are women or OBGYNs? (As an aside, all women I know of who had an ectopic pregnancy, including my mom, wanted to become pregnant.) Or to fight the actual causes why many women do not want to carry pregnancies to term.

Contrasting and comparing the stances of many conservatives on vaccinations is telling: all the arguments they dismiss when it comes to abortion are used to prevent “forced vaccinations” (even if that isn't what is happening), bodily autonomy, government overreach into the innermost private decisions of citizens, etc.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2022, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Chimps have been seen to use spears for hunting other mammals.

New diseases are of course part of the ecological pressures of any species, including primates.

True, but I don't think there is a gendered component to that. Are bonobos fairing worse because they have a matriarchic society?

I was only mentioning chimps and bonobos to show that two species which are most closely related to humans have very different societal structures. So thinking that patriarchic societies are biologically determined is something that needs to be justified, and you didn't do that. Especially given the evidence that prehistoric human societies were much more egalitarian, I don't think the biological component is as strong you seem to think it is. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion.
1) What’s relevant about the development of weapons is their use on ourselves.

2) The primary vector for new diseases is travel, which other primates do not do to the extent humans do.

3) There is a gendered component to human success.

A quick Google says the average Neolithic woman bore 8 to 10 children. Many a pro-lifer would celebrate a return to this form of egalitarianism.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 12:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) What’s relevant about the development of weapons is their use on ourselves.

2) The primary vector for new diseases is travel, which other primates do not do to the extent humans do.

3) There is a gendered component to human success.
I think you're unnecessarily complicating things. Our nearest surviving relatives have patriarchic and matriarchic societies. We haven't had complex tools long enough for instincts to form around them. So it's a reasonable comparison, without inventing complex rules why the comparison must be completely invalid.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
A quick Google says the average Neolithic woman bore 8 to 10 children. Many a pro-lifer would celebrate a return to this form of egalitarianism.
This remains possible today, but would be damned expensive. Childcare is not free, and delivery costs are high too. Not to mention college. Your movie business is far more lucrative than I'd guessed. Congratulations on the kids, and the huge profits.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 01:32 AM
 
The doormat strategy didn’t form around tool use. It formed around nature relentlessly trying to kill us. For the species to thrive, we needed high birth rates to make up for the high mortality rates. While the development of tools made it easier to survive the perils of nature, they made us a much greater peril to ourselves, and continued the need for high birth rates to make up for the high mortality rate.

In my opinion, this pressure did not relent until the discovery of industrialization and germ theory.



Phun phact: my mother is one of 8 children. I have an in-law from that generation who’s one of 14.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The doormat strategy didn’t form around tool use. It formed around nature relentlessly trying to kill us. For the species to thrive, we needed high birth rates to make up for the high mortality rates. While the development of tools made it easier to survive the perils of nature, they made us a much greater peril to ourselves, and continued the need for high birth rates to make up for the high mortality rate.
But your analysis falls flat on its face.
Birth rates amongst the poor remained and remains higher, and it is with access to birth control and modern medical care that the average number of children decreased, not because of the invention of tools. Hunter-gatherers had tools. As did farmers living in ancient Egypt, the Roman Republic or the Middle Ages. You can also see this in the here and now, and compare fertility rates in Africa across my life time. When I was born in 1981, in much of Africa the fertility rate was around or above 7 children per woman. Compare that to 2020 where the average ranges from 2.1–5.7 with the exception of Niger, where it is 6.7; from the looks of things, the average is now closer to 4.5. Not surprisingly, among the best performers are the (relatively speaking) richest states, the Maghreb states in the north and South Africa and Botswana in the south. Those numbers are comparable with the US's fertility rate in the 19th century.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A quick Google says the average Neolithic woman bore 8 to 10 children. Many a pro-lifer would celebrate a return to this form of egalitarianism.
That isn't too far off of the fertility rate in poor countries just last century as well as during some parts of the Middle Ages.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In my opinion, this pressure did not relent until the discovery of industrialization and germ theory.
This is not consistent with the data.

That's the thing with simple explanations, very often they are simply wrong.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) There is a gendered component to human success.
Arguably yes, we just disagree on the prefactor of the correlation here. Statistically speaking, having women in the work pool greatly increased the number of people who are contributing their intelligence and skills. Modern machines nullify the physiological advantage many men have in most areas of business. In many important businesses, skills many typically think of as “female” are a huge asset.


PS Guys, please don't call women doormats.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 03:06 AM
 
Okay, instead of “doormat” I’ll use “enslaved baby generator”. That’s what a woman is when it’s demanded she aims for births in the double-digits.

This demand has been placed upon women for all but the briefest moment of humanity’s existence. The primary role for women in the advancement of humanity has been as slaves.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This demand has been placed upon women for all but the briefest moment of humanity’s existence. The primary role for women in the advancement of humanity has been as slaves.
Again, what evidence do you have for that?
Most of human history is not recorded. And I'm gonna repeat myself: in times before humans cultivated plants, evidence shows society was much more equitable. That is, women were likely not subservient to men. (One potential explanation for why that changed is inheritance that came with agriculture and agricultural land.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by bstone View Post
I'll now be subject to criminal prosecution for daring to prescribe medication which causes abortion. I live in a solidly blue state however if the patient is from a GOP state and has traveled to obtain medical care then this blue state might decide to "investigate" and even request extradition.

Let it be known the GOP absolutely doesn't care about minimal government or keeping the government out of your private life. They are the biggest hypocrites alive. May they rot.
Wait until you have to fill-out paperwork and/or testify that a woman’s miscarriage was a legit medical event vs. something she may have brought on herself (knowingly or unknowingly.) Here’s a Harpers backgrounder on the history of policing miscarriages in the US.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Perhaps this will finally wake up Republican women. As (mostly) Republican officials attack their rights, I've been expecting a pushback for years. But in each election, Republican women act as doormats. Their candidates walk over their rights, but they still vote loyally for those very same candidates. Stockholm syndrome maybe.
No chance.

https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the...s-my-abortion/

Abortion is something the "other" does. Until I need one, then the circumstances make it okay, and I probably have the means, resources, and societal leeway to get one.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Standing anywhere with guns is by definition not „peaceful“.

Either the gun is carried with intent to use it, or it is completely useless for making a point.

There is no middle ground.

50,000 people with guns standing at a government building is not a peaceful protest. It is an assembled army.
Disagree. GOP have had peaceful protest with guns hundreds of times. The police rarely start power tripping/acting like thugs/assholes when the crowd is well armed. I have a feeling that the riot police might not be called out to an armed group either, as their stupid plastic shields would suddenly be rather pointless.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
No chance.

https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the...s-my-abortion/

Abortion is something the "other" does. Until I need one, then the circumstances make it okay, and I probably have the means, resources, and societal leeway to get one.
Nail on head. They'll just look at it as some "urban city slut" problem, not "good old country girl who got knocked up by her high school football player boyfriend who now has a lucrative career in HVAC" problem.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Disagree. GOP have had peaceful protest with guns hundreds of times. The police rarely start power tripping/acting like thugs/assholes when the crowd is well armed. I have a feeling that the riot police might not be called out to an armed group either, as their stupid plastic shields would suddenly be rather pointless.
I think the police response to a peaceful BLM protest, where the participants were legally open-carrying, would be pretty damned appalling.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Again, what evidence do you have for that?
Up until the 19th century, mortality rates for different historical populations across different times are fairly consistent. Specifically, only about half those born made it to age 15. This is also the rate seen in currently existing hunter-gatherer societies.

With a mortality rate this high the population will shrink unless there are four births per woman. The fate of the population quite literally rests on women fulfilling this demand. A demand which increases with every death from war. A demand which increases if the population is to grow rather than remain static. The real number demanded is undoubtedly closer to six or eight births.

We can assume better mortality rates for Paleolithic populations. Great. Now the demand is three births at an absolute minimum, four or five being more realistic. Slavery of a shorter duration is still slavery.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 05:58 PM
 
I'm not seeing how weapons changed the dynamic between men and women.
Keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a longstanding control mechanism employed to serve the fragile male ego and most likely spectacular sexual inadequacy. Many religions still preach it, rich or poor. Your family members with countless siblings are a hangover from that if not a direct result of it.

Having debated a few of the smug right wing douchebags who are so happy with the SC right now, I have concluded that most of them arguing from the position that abortions are performed a handful of minutes before the baby would have been born naturally, the kid is enthusiastically dismembered and all the libtards have a party afterwards. They probably usually just wait for the kid to be born and then kill it anyway and lie on the paperwork, then dedicate the sacrifice to Satan and eat the baby.
This is clearly what they've been told by the usually right wing misinformation vectors (which for some reason they've all also ben programmed to deny).

Am I right in thinking that state abortion bans that overreach by failing to include rape, incest, deformity, risk to mother exceptions and/or set impractical limitations will now go on to be challenged by liberals and that some of these may end up before SCOTUS again? Do we think they will uphold these bans if they are clearly derived from religion?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not seeing how weapons changed the dynamic between men and women.
Weapons, because we use them to kill each other, increase the number of births needed to replace the population.

Like I said in the previous post, for historical pre-industrial populations the absolute minimum number of births needed for replacement was four per woman. Fragile egos don’t enter into it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,