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 > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 15)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2021, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Conservatives have been progressively exchanging it for a delusion which justifies racism by saying “what I do is not racist”. I see this delusion as dominant.
A version of this is “If this were racist/misogynistic, then racism/misogyny would be everywhere!”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2021, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
but I agree with you that most know exactly what they are doing.
I’m actually saying the opposite. That they’re far less aware than it looks.

Just as someone who is schizophrenic doesn’t recognize their delusion, or to use another neurological condition as an example, how autistic people can’t recognize their autism.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
A version of this is “If this were racist/misogynistic, then racism/misogyny would be everywhere!”.
This I don’t think I’ve seen.
     
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
Jul 19, 2021, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Oh… I was confused. I get it now. Sorry about that!

This delusion justifies racism by saying “racism is okay”

Conservatives have been progressively exchanging it for a delusion which justifies racism by saying “what I do is not racist”. I see this delusion as dominant.

If only because it’s much easier to hide racism from oneself rather than hide it from everybody else.

This is how we measure progress with conservatives.
"FBI crime statistics" has become a meme on Reddit because they so often get pulled out to "prove" that black people are more prone to violence, ergo there's a good reason that police have far more negative interactions with black people, ergo it makes sense that more black people are in prison, addicted, or in other low social positions.

They believe that we live in a just and fair society, so all outcomes must by definition be just and fair outcomes.

So then you look at the history of our society and the racism it was founded on, you can demonstrate that it was not and is not a just and fair society, and all of a sudden Fox News is yelling about CRT ruining our children.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2021, 12:32 PM
 
Working backwards, what is the difference between “you can demonstrate that it was not and is not a just and fair society” and “showing a delusional person facts will cure them of their delusion”? I don’t see a difference, and would expect both to fail for the same reason.

Is not the delusion “we live in a fair and just society” an improvement over the delusion “black people are genetically inferior”?

I often see the FBI crime statistics meme accompanying the “you’re the real racist” formula. It pins violent crime on the Democrats, who run the cities where most violent crime occurs. This is used as evidence the (white) Democratic Party elites aren’t interested in improving the lot of minorities, but rather keeping them captive thralls of the party who they sic on the conservative boogeyman.
     
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
Jul 19, 2021, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Working backwards, what is the difference between “you can demonstrate that it was not and is not a just and fair society” and “showing a delusional person facts will cure them of their delusion”? I don’t see a difference, and would expect both to fail for the same reason.
It's the "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" conundrum.

My take is that it's not binary - you're not into or out of the delusion, you're just captive to it to varying degrees. And the depth of captivity is highly affected by external factors, like mass media consumed, social media algorithms, physical social circle, workplace, and more. So the local news station choosing to highlight gang violence or instances of black crime (though it may be proportionally less than similar white crime) would drive someone deeper. Facebook maximizing engagement by triggering outrage and reinforcing certain viewpoints would drive someone deeper. Being exposed to viewpoints of people within your same race, ethic, and level of wealth would reinforce those viewpoints and drive someone deeper.

Showing a deluded person facts won't cure them. But there are a lot of sources of misinformation that are driving people deeper into delusion that could be addressed.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2021, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It's the "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" conundrum.
The only solution to this conundrum I am aware of (other than medication) is one must make arguments that are at least partially consistent with the delusion.

Of course, that can’t happen unless the person making the argument believes the positions are rooted in delusion in the first place. My experience is most liberals don’t believe conservative positions are rooted in delusion, they believe they’re rooted in malice.

To be clear, I’m not blaming liberals for that. Conservatives don’t think they’re delusional, so why would liberals think it? Without the delusion model to explain the behavior, malice is the most reasonable explanation.

I should add, conservatives need to explain liberal behavior to themselves, and the way they explain it is malice.

When both sides believe the other is acting out of malice, a never-ending feedback loop of outrage is to be expected.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2021, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My experience is most liberals don’t believe conservative positions are rooted in delusion, they believe they’re rooted in malice.
It’s hard not to believe malice is at the heart of conservative politics when you look at stuff like the batch of bills the Texas state senate voted on this last week.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2021, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only solution to this conundrum I am aware of (other than medication) is one must make arguments that are at least partially consistent with the delusion.
Would you do that in other circumstances as well? I don't think making delusional beliefs part of your argument is a good strategy.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When both sides believe the other is acting out of malice, a never-ending feedback loop of outrage is to be expected.
I think it is important to look not at claims, but at things that actually happen, e. g. in a legislative context, are there any laws that are passed? In the context of voting laws, the answer is a clear yes. When it comes to e. g. trans women in bathrooms predating on women, then I am not aware that this has actually happened in real life.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
sonu jain
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2021, 05:47 AM
 
just for yesterday news Supreme court ordered on kerala government of Bakri idd festival. and say that not any granted facility to anyone and not celebrate festival any of.

source : google.in
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2021, 12:34 AM
 
Do other countries have a supreme court? Otherwise it seems as if the US supreme court is overstepping bounds there in Bakri.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2021, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Would you do that in other circumstances as well? I don't think making delusional beliefs part of your argument is a good strategy.

I think it is important to look not at claims, but at things that actually happen, e. g. in a legislative context, are there any laws that are passed? In the context of voting laws, the answer is a clear yes. When it comes to e. g. trans women in bathrooms predating on women, then I am not aware that this has actually happened in real life.
I’m a little lost here.

Would I do that in other circumstances? What other circumstances are we talking about? If the circumstance is “dealing with someone who’s delusional” I don’t see another choice.

I’m totally lost on the second bit. How do we get from the very general point I was addressing (you can’t reason someone out of something they didn’t reason themselves into) to the very specific looking at bathroom laws?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2021, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Do other countries have a supreme court? Otherwise it seems as if the US supreme court is overstepping bounds there in Bakri.
In other Supreme Court news, guy who said cow pee isn’t a cure for COVID got sprung.

https://indianexpress.com/article/no...d-nsa-7411613/
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2021, 02:07 PM
 
T-minus 7 days.

My Nerf gavel is at the ready.



Edit: we’ll see what happens with the Texas law, but on the Mississippi abortion case (begins December 1st), I’m putting in my prediction the conservatives (not including Roberts) uphold the Mississippi law.

This probably means they also flip Hellerstedt and Russo.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2021, 11:27 AM
 
Moving the abortion talk over here.

Judge orders Texas to suspend new law banning most abortions

In a 113-page opinion
Words! Words! Words!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2021, 04:13 PM
 
My favorite argument from this decision is that Texas government may have the authority to pull this shit on the people of Texas, but they don’t have the authority to pull it on Federal inmates in Texas, who have their rights protected directly by the Constitution and are shielded from State interference.

Ironic.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2021, 01:23 PM
 
Its back in effect again.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2021, 02:58 PM
 
The panel didn’t share their reasoning, so there’s not much for me to go on other than their previous rulings.

Judge Ho is singled out for an opinion calling abortions a “moral tragedy”.

I think I understand why people take issue with this, and I’m not going to knock anyone who does, but I feel compelled nonetheless to point out he’s not wrong.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 03:57 PM
 
So, one day lag, but I got my first freak-out text about Roe v. Wade getting flipped.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 10:01 PM
 
What's surprising about that?
Getting a nomination by the Federalist Society requires a stance against abortion, and all Supreme Court judges appointed by Republican Presidents have close ties to the Federalist Society. So it seems clear that the best-case scenario for people who want the right of women to choose to be upheld is new restrictions on abortions, e. g. by inventing and requiring a new legal test. And there is a very real chance Roe vs. Wade will be repealed. I don't think this is alarmist at all.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 12:17 AM
 
I see it as highly unlikely they will flip Roe v. Wade based on this current case. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Abortion will be more restricted than it is now. That’s almost a given.

What kind of test are you imagining?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I see it as highly unlikely they will flip Roe v. Wade based on this current case. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
If I were a betting man, I’d say the odds are 30 % for a repeal, 67 % for restrictions and 3 % for the status quo.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Abortion will be more restricted than it is now. That’s almost a given.
Agreed. The people who will suffer are poorer women. Anyone with money can travel to another state or find a doctor who would perform an abortion. (This is just hyperbole, a Mexican ex gf of mine told me how she accompanied one of her friends to a back alley doctor to have an abortion performed. Another Mexican friend’s dad is a doctor. He told her that if shit happens, she can always come to him and he’ll find someone qualified who’d perform the abortion. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.)
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What kind of test are you imagining?
I don’t know, but I reckon any addition restriction should be based on a new (legal) test. It just seems clear that this is the way the wind is blowing. I cannot think of any test I find reasonable, but that’s because I find restrictions to abortion unreasonable as a whole.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 01:24 AM
 
The most straightforward way I can see to restrict it is to overturn the two abortion decisions we’ve had in the last 10 years. That’ll make it more restrictive than it is now.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 03:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The most straightforward way I can see to restrict it is to overturn the two abortion decisions we’ve had in the last 10 years. That’ll make it more restrictive than it is now.
Maybe. But I am not convinced the conservative majority on the Supreme Court needs to go the easy route here. All options are on the table, I think, and I don’t know what to expect to be honest. I can make good cases* for many of the outcomes, including a straight-up reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Chipping away at abortion rights to make so hard for abortion providers that they have to pass the proverbial camel through the eye of the needle. The only case I find to be extremely unlikely is that the Supreme Court simply stays the decision of the lower court — all they would have had to do is not take the case.


* What I mean by good case is not that I am in favor or against a particular solution, but given the circumstances this is a logically coherent way to get from the composition of the Supreme Court and other pertinent factors to an explanation of how the decision likely came about.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 02:31 PM
 
The number one rule in politics is “what goes around, comes around”.

If this Court flips Roe or Casey, then should the Democrats run the Senate when Thomas croaks, it gets flipped back.

Much better chance of the conservatives maintaining their gains if they don’t overplay their hand.


Edit: I shall leave the question of whether flipping Roe or Casey would lead to Democratic wins in the Senate as an exercise.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 3, 2021 at 02:52 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Getting a nomination by the Federalist Society requires a stance against abortion…
What exactly does this mean?

I think Roe v. Wade was a really crummy decision. Is that enough of a stance against abortion for me to join?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What exactly does this mean?
It means you have pre-selected judges who are against abortion. And not because the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade was flawed, but as a matter of principle. Do you think you’d convince someone like, say, David French if the Supreme Court had used a different, perhaps better way to establish a right of a woman to an abortion? No. And this is reflected in e. g. Judge Barrett’s questioning: it is clear that, surprise, surprise, she is opposed to abortion as a matter of principle.

It is like pre-selecting a jury: the verdict is decided by the selection process, not during the deliberation. That’s why I am less interested in the actual legal reasoning that is used to justify the verdict, no matter what the verdict will be.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think Roe v. Wade was a really crummy decision. Is that enough of a stance against abortion for me to join?
The Federalist Society? I’m not a member, I’m not even living in the right country nor a lawyer.
But I think the number of people who are against abortion chiefly because they did not find the reasoning in the verdict of Roe vs. Wade to be persuasive is probably extremely small. Most people are against abortion as a matter of (moral) principle. Even if there were a constitutional amendment enshrining a woman’s right to an abortion (i. e. if there were no question about the constitutionality), they’d be against that.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 3, 2021 at 09:06 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 10:08 PM
 
Which question demonstrates her opinion?

The only question I see in the news is about adoption, and I’m not sure how much I can infer about her opinion from that question.


I’m not really familiar with French.



Edit: I mean, she’s a practicing Catholic, so it should be assumed she’s personally against abortion. This is different from saying states can make it illegal.
( Last edited by subego; Yesterday at 07:13 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which question demonstrates her opinion?

The only question I see in the news is about adoption, and I’m not sure how much I can infer about her opinion from that question.
Yes, it was the exchange about adoption. I don’t think women can “simply” put up children for adoption. Even more surprising since Justice Barrett has adopted a child.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not really familiar with French.
You don’t know David French? That’s really, really surprising to me, given where you stand politically. (I’m not dinging you here, I’m just genuinely surprised.) He’s a long-term conservative columnist, a devout evangelical Christian and also a never-Trumper. He has a Blog and a podcast. He was previously on publications like The National Review.

I think you’d like him — not because I insinuate that your views match, but just the style of reasoning he employs. He is smart and articulate, and brings new perspectives to the table.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: I mean, she’s a practicing Catholic, so it should be assumed she’s personally against abortion. This is different from saying states can make it illegal.
Sure, but they are tightly connected, because your philosophical and moral outlook determine whether and to what degree you regard fetus and mothers as separate beings with individual rights. So if you pre-select Supreme Court Justices by making opposition to abortion a pre-requisite, you are selecting for an outcome. And it is not as if this is a secret, you can see this quite clearly in the present case where the State of Mississippi is swinging for the fences.

Again, I am not dinging Justice Barrett for anything she has said, I think her persona is quite immaterial. Ditto for the final reasoning the court employs.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 10:04 PM
 
My hot take on Barrett’s question is she’s being a textualist, FWIU, the part of the Roe decision under scrutiny cites the “burden of motherhood”. This can be considered distinct from “the burden of pregnancy and childbirth”. At the least, pregnancy and childbirth are only a small subset of burdens entailed by motherhood.

I’ll look out for French!

With religious people, I’ve found an enormous spread in terms of the lessons they take from their faith. So while their faith obviously has bearing on their worldview, I’m hesitant to draw any hard and fast conclusions on how that translates.
( Last edited by subego; Yesterday at 11:08 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And it is not as if this is a secret, you can see this quite clearly in the present case where the State of Mississippi is swinging for the fences.
If I recall the details of the case properly, no abortion provider in Mississippi will perform an elective abortion after 16 weeks. The Mississippi law says elective abortions cannot be performed after 15 weeks. Is that swinging for the fences? More like a bunt.

Morally speaking, is there a burden on a pregnant woman to make a timely decision to electively abort? If so, what’s the correct timeframe? 15-16 weeks (4 months) seems about right to me.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Most people are against abortion as a matter of (moral) principle.
Yeah, but the Federalist Society is a legal eagle club. It’s impossible to be a legal eagle without understanding on some level there’s this huge chasm between what’s moral and what’s legal.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 01:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I recall the details of the case properly, no abortion provider in Mississippi will perform an elective abortion after 16 weeks. The Mississippi law says elective abortions cannot be performed after 15 weeks. Is that swinging for the fences? More like a bunt.
I think you didn’t quite understand what I was talking about. The point of the Mississippi law was to pass something that clearly violated existing precedent, and to give the Supreme Court a chance to change precedent. And during the oral arguments the focus of Mississippi’s lawyers was not to create a new legal standard or some such. Instead, the thrust of Mississippi’s lawyer’s line of argumentation was to attack precedent. If I put myself in the shoes of an anti-abortion activist, that’s probably what I would do, too.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Morally speaking, is there a burden on a pregnant woman to make a timely decision to electively abort? If so, what’s the correct timeframe? 15-16 weeks (4 months) seems about right to me.
It seems to me that you are mostly thinking about abortions as a way to end an unwanted pregnancy. And from that perspective, your argument makes sense. But there are plenty of other reasons to perform an abortion later than that. For example, there are cases where the baby is not viable, and the new law would, as I understand it, force to carry the baby to term. That is incredibly traumatic to women (as well as the father, of course). Typically, these are wanted pregnancies. One case I am aware of concerns the case of a couple who was told that their daughter had trisomnia as well as other birth defects, which made her not viable (as in she would not live long after birth). She had the choice of having the doctors initiate labor and have her born early. Or carry her to term. The couple chose the latter option. The daughter died in the arms of the father 3 hours after birth.

Also these anti-abortion laws tend to put a lot of pressure on physicians when they want to exercise the “protect the life of the mother” clause. There have been several documented cases where women died as a result, e. g. there was a recent case in Poland. And Irelands change of its constitution to allow for abortion was in part initiated by another such case.

Thinking of abortions just from the angle of terminating unwanted pregnancies is incredibly narrow. Most of the laws are written by men who don’t really understand the full complexity and life that women face.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yeah, but the Federalist Society is a legal eagle club. It’s impossible to be a legal eagle without understanding on some level there’s this huge chasm between what’s moral and what’s legal.
The Federalist Society isn’t a legal eagle club. It is an association of conservative lawyers and legal scholars that adhere to one particular school of legal thought coupled to conservative social values. That’s fine. But I think you misread reality if you think that they are a collection of “legal eagles”, they are a power player involved in everyday politics.

Today they are probably the most powerful legal association in the US, simply because in recent decades a positive recommendation by them is mandatory for someone to be elevated to federal judgeship. All Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices have ties to it, for example.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
For example, there are cases where the baby is not viable, and the new law would, as I understand it, force to carry the baby to term.
This is incorrect. The Mississippi law allows for post-15 week procedures in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

If we’re discussing elective abortions (i.e., not health related), is around 4 months a reasonable cutoff?

I agree pressure on doctors is a legitimate concern, but not to the extent the state should be barred from restricting the procedure.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The Federalist Society isn’t a legal eagle club. It is an association of conservative lawyers and legal scholars that adhere to one particular school of legal thought coupled to conservative social values. That’s fine. But I think you misread reality if you think that they are a collection of “legal eagles”, they are a power player involved in everyday politics.

Today they are probably the most powerful legal association in the US, simply because in recent decades a positive recommendation by them is mandatory for someone to be elevated to federal judgeship. All Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices have ties to it, for example.
I was using “legal eagles” as a turn of phrase.

The important part was “[i]t’s impossible to be a [turn of phrase] without understanding on some level there’s this huge chasm between what’s moral and what’s legal”.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 02:51 PM
 
Perhaps the conservatives could be persuaded by pitting their prejudices against each other. According to CDC data on abortions by demographics (2019):

6.6 abortions per 1,000 White women
23.8 abortions per 1,000 Black women
11.7 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women
13.0 abortions per 1,000 Other women

• So if abortion is outlawed, there will be proportionally more minority voters supporting Democrats in ~20 years time.

I had a harder time finding income-based abortion statistics. Here is one source - but I don't know how impartial they are. It looks like abortions are predominantly practiced among poor women. The lower their income, the more likely to have abortions.

• So if abortion is outlawed, the ranks of the poor will increase. Presumably helping Democrats in 20 years time, and swelling the Welfare ranks. Because among conservative prejudices, poor women just collect welfare checks. It's not like they work two jobs. Which I think is common, but had trouble finding sources on short notice.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 03:44 PM
 
Most conservatives are aware of this I think.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 04:43 PM
 
I also want to add the willingness to stay anti-abortion when it doesn’t serve one’s political agenda is evidence of a principled objection.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is incorrect. The Mississippi law allows for post-15 week procedures in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.
You have to go beyond the words of the text and look at consequences. They do/did have life-of-mother exceptions in Ireland and Poland, too. But there is usually no easy line and doctors usually deal with probabilities rather than certainties. These laws are usually crafted without significant input from the medical community and lead to things like inadequate definitions of things like “heart beats” and proposals for laws that would force doctors to “reimplant ectopic pregnancies.” The problem with the latter is that no such medical procedure exists at present, so what the law is asking for is literally impossible.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we’re discussing elective abortions (i.e., not health related), is around 4 months a reasonable cutoff?
No, because elective includes cases like the one I gave above: an early induction of labor was an option, so it was an elective procedure. I think this is the common misconception with the word “elective”: it seems to suggest to only cover pregnancies of women who want to choose whether or not they want to be pregnant. It gets more difficult when e. g. hereditary diseases or severe disability is involved.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree pressure on doctors is a legitimate concern, but not to the extent the state should be barred from restricting the procedure.
But that’s what overly strict abortion bans do by their nature, especially those that criminalize doctors performing “illegal abortions”.
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
Today, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
• So if abortion is outlawed, there will be proportionally more minority voters supporting Democrats in ~20 years time.

I had a harder time finding income-based abortion statistics. Here is one source - but I don't know how impartial they are. It looks like abortions are predominantly practiced among poor women. The lower their income, the more likely to have abortions.
Yup, I think that’s right — not just in the US but also other countries as well. If you live in Mexico and are poor, you have to go to a back alley doctor for an abortion, which is expensive and unsafe. If you have money and/or connections, you can get a reputable doctor to perform an abortion. If you lived in Chile and needed an abortion, you’d travel to Argentina. And if you have the means in the US, you “just” go to a state where abortions are practically speaking not banned.

To add one more thought: most Conservatives only focus on abortion, but rarely address the reasons for unwanted pregnancies or why women choose an abortion. When I was in the US, we had abstinence-only sex ed. It was so ridiculous, I refused to take that part of the exam. Half of my class already was sexually active and there was so much emphasis that “condoms don’t work” that I wouldn’t be surprised that many thought using a condom was equivalent to “pulling out early”. There is no focus on women’s health care or to fight poverty. Money is a major factor for abortions. We are reasonably well off, middle class, and kids are expensive. If you are barely scarping by, it might knee cap you and your life prospects. I think there’d be quite a bit of overlap with many American liberals.

PS A notable exception to this is David French. As an evangelical Christian, he is against abortion, but recognizes the need to attack it from all ends. And he has a more accurate idea of what pro-abortion people think.


• So if abortion is outlawed, the ranks of the poor will increase. Presumably helping Democrats in 20 years time, and swelling the Welfare ranks. Because among conservative prejudices, poor women just collect welfare checks. It's not like they work two jobs. Which I think is common, but had trouble finding sources on short notice.[/QUOTE]
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, because elective includes cases like the one I gave above: an early induction of labor was an option, so it was an elective procedure. I think this is the common misconception with the word “elective”: it seems to suggest to only cover pregnancies of women who want to choose whether or not they want to be pregnant. It gets more difficult when e. g. hereditary diseases or severe disability is involved.
We can use a different term, or a phrase. Is around 4 months a reasonable cutoff if there is no health issue with either the mother or the fetus?

Add other exclusions as you see fit.
     
 
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 09:43 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.,