Hey, there! Log in / Register
Rally on the Common at 5 p.m. and in Copley Square at 6
By adamg on Fri, 06/24/2022 - 2:19pm
You know why. Details on the Copley rally.
Also rallies at Town Hall in Arlington, Monument Square in Concord and Hastings Park in Lexington, also at 5 p.m.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
First, fuck all you idiots who refused to vote for Clinton in 2016 general election because you preferred Sanders. Did you want to see abortion overturned? Did you want gun laws struck down? Because that's exactly what was promised and exactly what you got.
Secondly, protests are fine but the only way abortion and other democratic ideals will become law is if politicians who support these things win, win, and keep winning. Whatever it is the democrats are doing, it sure isn't working. And because the GOP is now anti-democracy, the hill just got a whole lot steeper.
Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot
And it’s hard to watch. We fall into a recession, which is all but guaranteed, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the dems.
First fuck you who wants to and/or is compliant with the slaughter innocents.
Hence why I’m so upset about the gun decision on Wednesday.
Some women who seek abortions may need a gun very soon.
Abortion is a "democratic
Abortion is a "democratic ideal"???!!! Wow.
Support for privacy and individual autonomy
Support for privacy and individual autonomy is absolutely a democratic ideal. Anything else is authoritarian.
Privacy and individual
Privacy and individual autonomy, check - marry, don't marry, own property, seek to become pregnant, decide not to become pregnant, etc...
Killing other human beings isn't a private and individual manner.
There's another life (or lives) involved - through no choice of their own, with no voice, but with the same right to life that you and I and that pregnant woman all have.
Someone else IS involved already - so it's already not private and not individual.
'Private, individual, and autonomous' denies due process. How can that be democratic?
Licensed arbitrary killing of a certain subset of the population - how is that anything other than authoritarian? (even without the racist underpinnings of parts of the abortion-provider industry)
You’re imbuing rights on non-humans at the expense of actual humans.
It is SO much easier to deny
It is SO much easier to deny human rights by first denying that they're humans, isn't it?
Why do you think fetuses are human and deserving of rights? Why does the fetus’s right to bodily autonomy matter more than the mother’s? I’m genuinely curious about your belief.
I am traveling today and can
I am traveling today and can't stop to write a thorough reply right now. I do appreciate your serious question and I will try to sit down at the keyboard tonight (depending on arrival time) and try to give you a serious answer.
Okay. Late arrival and early
Okay. Late arrival and early start the next day, but finally circling back around to it...
When a child is born, it is definitely human.
Before being born - a minute before, an hour before, a day before... - it is also human. If you could examine the two side-by-side, whatever scrutiny you apply to the one would show the same result for the other. (just with one being a tiny bit more grown than the other)
There isn't any transformative mechanism during birth - no flash of energy from the cervix during labor/delivery that changes "not-human" into "human". Good thing, too - all the C-section deliveries over the last century-plus would mean there have been a lot of non-humans walking around.
I never said it did.
However, I do say that the child's right to life matters more than anything short of the mother's life
Tell me how that works
Tell me how that works, please. Specifically, tell me who is allowed to determined that the mother's life is in danger. Tell me what their qualifications are. Tell me how they will make their determination. Tell me that they're on call 24/7 so that if immediate intervention is needed, their decision will not delay treatment by one single fucking second.
Tell me how that works.
Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is not itself a fatal medical condition.
If the mother has some other medical condition (injury, disease...) that is potentially fatal, the question is what can be done to treat that. Killing the baby doesn't treat the potentially fatal medical condition - it just eliminates the parallel condition of pregnancy which might be aggravating the fatal condition.
Medical practitioners, medical science, best practices... Are able to say if there are treatments for a condition that do not present any undue risk to the life of the baby.
IF there is in fact some sort of medical condition that cannot be treated in any other way but at risk (even 99 to 100% likelihood of death of the baby)... Medical ethics already allows for that. Doing what is necessary to save the life of the mother without targeting the life of the child. It's an example of what's called double effect.
The scenario I've seen described is traumatic injury or fast developing cancer in the womb which requires immediate extensive surgery or radiation. It is done to save the life of the mother, not deliberately targeting anything happening in the womb, but accepting that as a likely consequence.
So... Who? Medical practitioners.
At doctor offices and hospitals. Really, they've got the "24/7" thing worked out.
For explaining. This sounds like an awful lot of reasoning around the third trimester. What about the first trimester, which is where 90% of abortions are actually performed? (Only 4% are performed after 16 weeks, the fetus isn’t viable outside the womb until at least 20 or 24 weeks — in MA abortion after 24 weeks is allowed only in cases of life or health endangerment or there is a lethal fetal anomaly.)
And I agree with lbb’s point that the decision about the woman’s health is best left up to the woman and her doctors, certainly not Republican legislators.
For starters, the question
For starters, the question was about being human, not about viability.
It's certainly not just a third trimester question. Medical achievement has advanced enough the viability has moved into the second trimester in exceptional cases.
IF we were to judge primarily by viability, the situation of viability having moved and continuing to move would mean we have moving goal posts. The more practical approach in the absence of any better defining and discernible physical benchmark would be to use the discernible benchmark we have - conception.
...and viability isn't the be-all and end-all. Human beings have rights regardless of viability.
As far as "life or health of the mother" goes - I agree about LIFE. Health, however, tends to set up a loophole big enough to drive a truck through without Storrowing. What in the mother's health rates over the life of the baby?
Speaking of moving the goalposts, you’ve gone from
There’s a LONG way between those two, brother! Also “practical” my ass — my version of “practical” is “mind your own fucking business, Rob!”
Then you pull the mask off with
I’ll answer your question. Everything. When we decide that our views about when life begins matter more than a woman’s own decisions about her body and her health, that is deeply sexist — and some of us don’t play that shit.
Jesus Christ. You really did an about-face there. But I thank my lord and savior Satan every morning when I wake up that I live in MA where your bigoted views are in the minority and you have little power to enforce them.
Good day, Rob!
But the are criminal statutes
For when a pregnant woman is murdered or killed where the party is charged with killing two humans, the mother and unborn child. Can’t have it both ways.
Where did these come from? “Pro-lifers” who want to imbue rights on non-humans or confused pro-choice folks? Do some research on this and get back to me.
You have no problem, for example, putting an ice pick to the head of a seven month fetus. Sick.
literally no one is saying that. <%1 of abortions take place in the third trimester.
you sound like a fucking idiot when you resort to absurdity to make an argument.
performs *THAT* procedure?
Many abortions save lives
This decision allows laws that bar abortions to save a woman's life. In situations where the choice is whether to save the woman or the baby, the woman/family should have the right to decide what to do. In fact, different religions rule differently on what should be done in the case where the pregnancy endangers the mother so these laws go against the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion.
Women have been forced to die in cases where there was zero chance of the baby surviving but the law wouldn't allow the mother to be saved because technically it would "kill" the fetus. Children too young to safely give birth have been forced to risk their lives carrying to term after being raped by family members. Already before this ruling, women in Texas and other states had trouble getting proper care after miscarriages because they needed procedures that were similar to those used for abortions and doctors didn't dare perform them.
fuck the DNC for rigging the game and putting an establishment politician on the docket when it looked like Sanders could beat Trump.
fuck Hillary for losing to who would have been by far the worst candidate in the history of American elections if she herself didn’t fuck it up so badly.
Pro life rally?
Massachusetts will always allow abortions so a pro abortion rally makes no sense.
What do you expect people to do?
Drop everything and travel to DC this afternoon on a few hours notice to protest in a proper location? And then what, come back home on a red eye?
Maybe for once you could realize there's a bigger world than just Dot or MA...
Thanks for the input
I didn't know other places existed until you said so.
The rally will change things .
your brand of tedious, uninformed cynicism
where you consistently take the most apathetic position–i assume you think doing so imbues your online persona with an aura of wisdom–indicates that you are telling the truth with this comment
Unless Repubs win Congress and the White House
Because without Roe, they’re gonna be pushing for a national ban on abortion, regardless of state law or state constitutions. That’s what voting for Republicans from here forward means, whatever other issues you agree with them on.
Politicians can pass laws
They could pass a law saying Abortion is the law of the land anytime they like, then the court has no say in it.
But politicians like to pass responsibility on to the courts instead of doing their job.
It's the same with the 2nd amendment, some think it should be repealed but they will never try to get a constitutional convention to overturn it, they will just pass laws and the court will rule on them.
What exactly do you think they just did?
This is a stunning level of ignorance.
Roe V Wade
Was not a law it was a decision, prior judges created a constitutional right to abortion and current judges just disagreed..
Do you actually think that the Supreme Court only rules on prior court decisions, and not on the constitutionality of laws?
I'm talking about Roe v Wade, which wasn't an enacted law but an interpretation that a right to privacy included abortion.
Which politicians? Where? How many of them does it take?
"law of the land" sounds like a federal law to me. Are there any challenges to getting a federal bill passed into law?
The House and Senate
They make laws and the courts rule on them if challenged, not the other way around.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg predicted this would happen because Roe was not a properly enacted law but an opinion from justices, and could easily be overturned.
That doesn't actually answer
any of my question.
I assumed you knew the answer already.
You really are not aware of how federal laws are made and want me to explain it? Or are you saying I don't understand? .... Throw me a bone.
Let's revisit your original statement
"They could pass a law...anytime they like"
I think we both know the Schoolhouse Rock version of how a bill becomes a law.
On an issue largely divided on partisan lines, a bill needs a simple majority to pass the House and 60% majority to close debate on a bill before a simple majority vote, giving it a defacto 60% majority requirement to pass the Senate. And then the President has to sign it into law.
So are there enough votes in the Senate to readily pass any bill at any time? I don't think so.
And since you mentioned a result where the Court has no say in a law, that could only be those laws written into the US Constitution. I think we both know that the threshold for amendments to the Constitution are significantly higher than ordinary bills.Two thirds of both houses of Congress and then three quarters of states (or conventions, yes).
So I guess I just completely disagree with the level of feasibility your original statement claims about the ability to pass a law at any time that the Court could not overturn.
I was correct
You already knew, why you asked is a mystery.
I was about to tell you what the point is.
And then I realized that I don't want to give you, a person who is hostile to the idea of women's rights, any notion of what actions are going to happen to counter your reactionary bullshit.
You'll just have to read about it in the papers, I guess.
I can’t figure out a party
I can’t figure out a party that’s wants to ban something allowed by the Constitution but at the same time wants to allow a procedure that is never mentioned by it.
Guess it is time to change the Constitution.
Guess it is time...
The Constitution also doesn't mention cancer treatments, heart replacements, or woody pills, so let's get rid of those too, shall we?
Guess it is time for you to move to another planet and set up Gun-Totin' Gilead just the way you want.
Lots of things are mentioned in the Ninth Amendment