Virginia strikes again - abortion clinics must pass hospital standards

[Martin_Hyde]

@raventhief

What if it could be shown , conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt (to whatever level of satisfaction you currently have that abortion reduces the number of Democrats) that those “wards of the state” would not only be more likely to voteD, but could indeed become passionate progressive activists, swaying other voters? I mean, they would have only survived infancy thanks to the welfare, nanny state, Big Government- style of government; that kind of start to life could kindle a passionate activism.

Would you support such a proposed law in that case?

Consider it in conjunction with legal abortion, not replacing it. Twice as much political gain for your side!

No, you can’t justify killing a born newborn. I’m generally 100% against elective abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

[iiandyiiii]

@Martin_Hyde

I don’t favor it because it would result in fewer Democrats, I explained already that I favor legal abortion because it’s societally necessary due to practical concerns. And that I would “tepidly” support it if that were all, but the demographic benefits mean I’m a pretty enthusiastic supporter.

You wrote (exact quote): “FWIW, I favor legal abortion anyway–it means less poor people and less unwanted babies, and importantly less Democrat voters”

That’s what you explained already, and highlighted the importance of your support due to “less Democrat voters”. But you also said it was because of “less poor people and less unwanted babies” – infanticide might also result in this… so leaving aside Democrats, if legal infanticide would mean “less poor people and less unwanted babies”, why wouldn’t you support it, since those are the same reasons for which you favor legal abortion?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Martin_Hyde

Absolutely no practical argument would be present for allowing newborns to be killed–they can just become wards of the state.

What’s the likelihood of wards of the state growing up to be poor? Or being poor as kids, too, for that matter.

[Kimstu]

@Martin_Hyde

No, you can’t justify killing a born newborn. I’m generally 100% against elective abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

You mean, you think such abortions ought to be illegal?

'Cause fucked if I can figure out at all by this point what on earth you mean when you say you’re “against” something.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kimstu

You mean, you think such abortions ought to be illegal?

'Cause fucked if I can figure out at all by this point what on earth you mean when you say you’re “against” something.

Whatever it is?

[Kimstu]

Well yeah, I get the general gist that when Martin Hyde says he’s against something, that implies that he has some kind of negative feeling or opinion about it.

But does it mean he thinks it’s not a good idea but up to the individual, or outright wrong and indefensible, or ought to be illegal, or what? He has muddied those waters so thoroughly that he’s turned the discussion into basically a guessing game.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, Christopher Hitchens had no problem announcing he was “squeamish” about abortion. I respect him nonetheless since he recognized, and often cited, that an effective means to remedy poverty was, as he called it, the empowerment of women, including giving them control over their reproduction.

I gather he’d preferred they use contraception rather than abortion to achieve this, but no matter.

[MindsEye_Watering]

@Martin_Hyde

I’m generally 100% against elective abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

Then don’t have one.

[Anaamika]

@Not_Carlson

Also, a tip of the hat to someone who chose to take the high road.

Thank you. I’ve learned not to wrestle with pigs in the mud.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Kimstu

Well yeah, I get the general gist that when Martin Hyde says he’s against something, that implies that he has some kind of negative feeling or opinion about it.

But does it mean he thinks it’s not a good idea but up to the individual, or outright wrong and indefensible, or ought to be illegal, or what? He has muddied those waters so thoroughly that he’s turned the discussion into basically a guessing game.

I’m sorry that complex moral/legal opinions confuse you.

1. I view all abortion as immoral if the fetus is healthy and the mother is medically able to carry to term safely.

2. A subset of abortions, I think should be legal.

3. Another subset of abortions (those after 12 weeks or so, based on the existence of a developed albeit simple brain structure) should be illegal.

I view marital infidelity as universally immoral. I don’t think it should ever be illegal.

Morality/Legality aren’t the same, and it’s weird you confuse them.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@asahi

I don’t see how you can say that abortion is essentially a gravely immoral form of homicide, almost like another form of infanticide, and then pivot and say that there are benefits to society.

Sometimes immoral things come with benefits.

I had an immoral friend like that once.

[Martin_Hyde]

@iiandyiiii

You wrote (exact quote): “FWIW, I favor legal abortion anyway–it means less poor people and less unwanted babies, and importantly less Democrat voters”

I clarified my position in post #153.

[iiandyiiii]

@Martin_Hyde

I clarified my position in post #153.

What about my other question:

“…you also said it was because of “less poor people and less unwanted babies” – infanticide might also result in this… so leaving aside Democrats, if legal infanticide would mean “less poor people and less unwanted babies”, why wouldn’t you support it, since those are the same reasons for which you favor legal abortion?”

Why do you support legal abortion despite believing it is morally equivalent to infanticide, but oppose legal infanticide?

[Kimstu]

@Martin_Hyde

I’m sorry that complex moral/legal opinions confuse you.

1. I view all abortion as immoral if the fetus is healthy and the mother is medically able to carry to term safely.

2. A subset of abortions, I think should be legal.

3. Another subset of abortions (those after 12 weeks or so, based on the existence of a developed albeit simple brain structure) should be illegal.

I view marital infidelity as universally immoral. I don’t think it should ever be illegal.

Morality/Legality aren’t the same, and it’s weird you confuse them.

Actually, what’s confusing me is your confusion of morality and legality.

According to you, all abortions are immoral to the point of being literally equivalent to infanticide, which you consider about the worst form of murder there is. Yet you believe that some abortions should be legal anyway, despite being just as immoral as the kinds you want to be illegal.

The reason that most abortion-rights supporters are okay with abortion being legal while infanticide is illegal is that we think infanticide is far more immoral than abortion. You, on the other hand, consider all abortion to be just as immoral as infanticide.

And yet you support (some) legal abortion, not because you think that women have some kind of right to bodily autonomy which overrides other people’s personal moral views (which is why most of us oppose criminalizing various acts, such as marital infidelity, that we consider immoral but none of our business), but just because you think our society needs to get rid of unwanted and/or potentially Democratic babies.

Yet later-term abortion and infanticide, which would also get rid of unwanted and/or potentially Democratic babies, you don’t think should be legal, even though according to your own statement they are not more immoral or more equivalent to murder than the early-term abortions which you do think ought to be legal.

In short, your views on this subject are a massive spaghetti-tangle of illogic and inconsistency, and any rational person is bound to find them confusing.

[Martin_Hyde]

@iiandyiiii

What about my other question:

“…you also said it was because of “less poor people and less unwanted babies” – infanticide might also result in this… so leaving aside Democrats, if legal infanticide would mean “less poor people and less unwanted babies”, why wouldn’t you support it, since those are the same reasons for which you favor legal abortion?”

Why do you support legal abortion despite believing it is morally equivalent to infanticide, but oppose legal infanticide?

I’ve answered this exact question several times.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Kimstu

Actually, what’s confusing me is your confusion of morality and legality.

According to you, all abortions are immoral to the point of being literally equivalent to infanticide, which you consider about the worst form of murder there is. Yet you believe that some abortions should be legal anyway, despite being just as immoral as the kinds you want to be illegal.

Correct, because there is no meaningful way to stop abortion.

The reason that most abortion-rights supporters are okay with abortion being legal while infanticide is illegal is that we think infanticide is far more immoral than abortion. You, on the other hand, consider all abortion to be just as immoral as infanticide.

Correct summary of it, but I don’t view legal abortion as a moral issue, it’s a legal issue.

And yet you support (some) legal abortion, not because you think that women have some kind of right to bodily autonomy which overrides other people’s personal moral views (which is why most of us oppose criminalizing various acts, such as marital infidelity, that we consider immoral but none of our business), but just because you think our society needs to get rid of unwanted and/or potentially Democratic babies.

No, I already explained the totality of why I support legal abortion. You’re not accurately representing my reasons here. I’ve repeated it multiple times at this point after you guys started questioning me, to clarify and more fully explain my beliefs–the real world isn’t so simplistic that anyone’s beliefs can be easily expressed in a sentence here or there. There’s a wide range of divergent beliefs within “pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps.

Yet later-term abortion and infanticide, which would also get rid of unwanted and/or potentially Democratic babies, you don’t think should be legal, even though according to your own statement they are not more immoral or more equivalent to murder than the early-term abortions which you do think ought to be legal.

Those are due to legal concerns, not moral ones.

In short, your views on this subject are a massive spaghetti-tangle of illogic and inconsistency, and any rational person is bound to find them confusing.

Point to a) any portion that are illogical and b) any portion that are inconsistent. Nuanced/complex views aren’t a negative thing, I’m sorry I can’t boil this down to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” or “HOPE AND CHANGE”, I’m not a politician, I’m a private citizen.

Abortion is complex both morally and legally. You seem upset that I have a complex opinion on it, to me that’s akin to being upset someone has a complex opinion on free trade, globalization, U.S. immigration policy, the criminal justice system etc. Those are all complex subjects, one word or one sentence explanations would be incapable of fleshing out a mature opinion on any of them.

[iiandyiiii]

@Martin_Hyde

I’ve answered this exact question several times.

I looked and I did not find a post that explained why you support the legality of abortion but oppose the legality of infanticide.

[Bridget_Burke]

@asahi

It’s a good ruling, but I wouldn’t celebrate just yet. For one thing, this is the sort of thing that could bring out otherwise uninspired and dormant conservative voters. For another, I really don’t think there’s much the supreme court can do beyond issue their opinion. They can declare the law in Texas unconstitutional, and they can also declare similar laws similarly unconstitutional.

What these justices cannot do, however, is stop the anti-abortion rights political movement. They cannot blunt the relentless legal pressure brought on buy religious fanatics, who will continue to dare the judiciary, which they seem to have outright contempt for, to force them to stop writing these laws. There may be something in the Constitution that enables Courts to strike down laws, but there is nothing that gives judiciaries power to prevent them from proposing and outright enacting them and posing more legal challenges.

This is why democrats and progressives need to do more than just attend crowded arenas for a hip candidate every 4 or 8 years and expect their world to just magically change. We really need to put a lot more effort into mid-terms and in state and local races.

Many Texans are celebrating. And of course we expect further onslaughts from the anti-choice folks here. The Texas Observer’s round-up of responses includes this:

“This ruling is just shocking,” says Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who rails against Planned Parenthood (not a plaintiff in Whole Woman’s v. Hellerstedt) in his live presser this afternoon. Says Hillary Clinton must be stopped. (And something something women’s health.)

Dan Patrick doesn’t have nationwide fame, but he’s one of the more repellent Texas Republicans–which is saying a lot.

Of course everybody needs to pay attention to all elections, even if “off” years.

[Mama_Zappa]

@Czarcasm

As long as the right “babies” are aborted, that’s o.k. with you? :eek:

I’ll probably regret jumping on this thread, but:

• “less poor people” I take to mean “babies born only to people who choose to have children - which usually self-selects for people who feel like they can afford them”.

• “less unwanted babies”: same thing. Not that a planned (or unplanned, but wanted) pregnancy guarantees the child will really be loved and receive good parenting, but it does tip the odds a bit.

It’s interesting that the same groups that oppose legal abortion tend to be the same groups that also oppose birth control education, which strikes me as moronic beyond comprehension. Their attitude might be “just don’t have sex” and that’d be fine, but they can’t enforce that so they enforce the consequences of having sex.

We live in Virginia. With the SCOTUS ruling, that reduces one barrier but there is still the state-mandated dildo-rape procedure that has not yet been overturned. I’ve flat-out told my daughter (19) that if this situation ever arises, we are going to DC or Maryland or further, if necessary, to ensure that an already traumatic situation isn’t complicated more than it has to be.

Obviously, I hope the situation never arises - my kid knows about birth control and knows I will skin her alive if she fools around w/o taking precautions, but stupidity / birth control failure / rape happen.