SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[fhtagn]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

Lol

If you think trans men and AFAB non-binary people can't get pregnant, you're denying biology.

I don't think that's what he's saying lmao

[Figueira]

If you really, really want to make sure you're inclusive of trans people, why not just say "pregnant people"?  Why do we need to invent an almost deliberately alienating new term for this?

Again, I would just go with "people" in this case, since there's clearly no way that a non-pregnant person could have an abortion, so there's no need to specify that they're pregnant.

I have no idea what the purpose of using "bodies" is, but I'm fairly confident that it isn't more trans-inclusive than "people". "Birthing" is just an awkward term, especially when we're talking about abortion where the main point is that you aren't giving birth.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

If you really, really want to make sure you're inclusive of trans people, why not just say "pregnant people"?  Why do we need to invent an almost deliberately alienating new term for this?

Again, I would just go with "people" in this case, since there's clearly no way that a non-pregnant person could have an abortion, so there's no need to specify that they're pregnant.

I have no idea what the purpose of using "bodies" is, but I'm fairly confident that it isn't more trans-inclusive than "people". "Birthing" is just an awkward term, especially when we're talking about abortion where the main point is that you aren't giving birth.

Can I just say that in a thread of reactionary takes and attacks: that was beautiful, Figueira. 

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

how the hell did we get from discussing abortion to arguing over the proper terminology of what to call someone who is trans and pregnant?

[OSR stands with Israel]

how the hell did we get from discussing abortion to arguing over the proper terminology of what to call someone who is trans and pregnant?

It’s USGD and as Fhtagn said we need 50 pages on here . So guys which two posters are going in the ring next

[fhtagn]

how the hell did we get from discussing abortion to arguing over the proper terminology of what to call someone who is trans and pregnant?

It’s USGD and as Fhtagn said we need 50 pages on here . So guys which two posters are going in the ring next

I need a reason to break out the popcorn.

[Agafin]

how the hell did we get from discussing abortion to arguing over the proper terminology of what to call someone who is trans and pregnant?

This thread is over 30 pages long. This is remarkably on-topic considering that.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

The real question though is will this help Biden in Texas in 2024


Discuss with maps

Loving County is Safe D now

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

[Horus]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

Funny you say this because you spend all of your time here concern trolling, criticizing BRTD and apologizing for Russia instead of focusing on bodily autonomy.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

Yall ceded the issue of bodily freedom in 2020.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

What's your opinion of Glenn Greenwald and jfern?

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

What's your opinion of Glenn Greenwald and jfern?

I don't care. It's weird that you care.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Here’s my take on abortion.  I spent a long time thinking about this many years ago and came up with a position that works for me.  It may not work for you.  I encourage you to do your own thinking about it.

First, I am not considering religious arguments because I am not a religious person.  If you have an opinion on abortion that stems primarily from religious reasons, don’t waste your time and mine trying to persuade me with it.  Despite what some extremely religious people I know believe, it is entirely possible to come up with sound standards of right and wrong that are not based on any religion.  But that’s a topic for another day. 

Second, some of my opinions have been formed by things that happened to people I know.  Other parts have been formed by my efforts to think through the issue logically.  Obviously, every person knows different people and everyone has different experiences, so one might argue that a person shouldn’t take into account such personal experiences in forming an opinion on such an important issue.  I would counter that our personal experiences necessarily influence our world view, and that how people are personally affected is an important aspect of such a personal issue, so using such personal experiences can only help in considering the issue.

Abortion is a complex issue.  It’s not clear-cut what is right and wrong.  If it was a simple problem it would have been solved long ago.  There's a common saying in my profession, which is engineering: every complex problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and utterly wrong.  This is how I view simple "solutions" to the question of abortion.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the unnecessary or unjustified taking of a human life is wrong.  So the question becomes: when does human life begin?  If someone believes that human life does begin at the instant of conception, then it is logical to see how that extends to a belief that abortion is murder except in extreme circumstances.  My belief is that a fetus in an advanced stage of pregnancy is undeniably a person.  Late-term abortions should be prohibited, except in extreme circumstances such as the mother’s life being endangered by continuing the pregnancy.  However, I also believe that a fetus in an early stage of pregnancy is NOT yet a person; they are a potential person, but they are not one yet.  They could not survive outside the womb. 

So I believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy isn’t yet a person, while one in the late stages definitely is.  At some point in between the two, we must have the beginning of personhood.  How should we define this in legal terms?  What I eventually thought about was the other end of life: a person can be legally dead even while the body is still functioning to some degree, if their higher brain function has irreversibly stopped.  Applying this principle to the beginning of life, we can say that personhood starts with the beginning of higher brain function.  But the problem at the beginning of life is that we can’t hook up an EEG to a fetus in the womb like we can to a person who’s dying.  The best that can be achieved is a time-based cutoff. 

From what I read at the time (a long time ago, and later research may have refined these numbers) co-ordinated brain function begins at around 22-25 weeks of pregnancy.  To add a safety margin, I chose 20 weeks as a cutoff point.  If you want to add a further margin and go down as low as 16 weeks, I can go along with that.  Old English common law, which was the foundation for the laws of the English colonies that became the U.S., allowed abortion until the time of “quickening”, i.e. when the baby starts to move detectably.  This typically happens between 16 and 25 weeks, which matches up well.  However, anything like 6 weeks is too short.  It’s quite possible that pregnancy won’t even be detected that early.

In summary, I believe that a fetus is not yet a person until higher brain activity starts, and it is reasonable to define a time threshold for this somewhere in the range of 16 to 22 weeks.  Until that point, abortion should be freely available.  Afterward, I would prohibit abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger.  In that case, abortion should be permitted at any point.  (This is colored by one of those experiences that happened to someone I knew; never mind the details.)  For some of the other exceptional cases:

If it is discovered after the cutoff point that the child will be severely defective…this is a tough one.  I’m inclined to say that abortion should be allowed, but I don't feel completely firm about this.  However, if it’s outlawed then the government should provide some support for the child after birth.

Rape or incest: if the pregnancy is discovered before the time cutoff, which it should be in the vast majority of cases, there’s no problem; all abortions would be allowed in that time frame.  If for some reason the pregnancy is not discovered until later, and it was caused by rape or incest, I would allow the abortion.  Forcing someone to carry a rapist’s child is wrong (another one based on experiences of someone I know).

As I said earlier, these views are solely my own.  I put in a lot of time thinking about them and I’m content with them.  Your mileage may vary.

[Hindsight was 2020]

how the hell did we get from discussing abortion to arguing over the proper terminology of what to call someone who is trans and pregnant?

This thread is over 30 pages long. This is remarkably on-topic considering that.

Seriously the Georgia run off last year turned into Jon Ossoff gay erotic fanfic by page 15

[Ferguson97]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

Lol

If you think trans men and AFAB non-binary people can't get pregnant, you're denying biology.

I don't think that's what he's saying lmao

Alright then what is he saying

[Person Man]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

I actually have a funny story about something like this.

Go on, tell us more. I'm trying to see if we get 50 pages by the weekend.

OK. I had this roommate that said he was slightly annoyed with me when I was asking for things like “may I please  have this or that” and instead told me to tell him to give me this or that instead. One day, I told him when I wanted something “to STFU bitch and give me this or that before I kill you”. It was pretty funny.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

What's your opinion of Glenn Greenwald and jfern?

I don't care. It's weird that you care.

I ask because I dump on Trump and Republicans all the time but those dipsh!ts never do and used the excuse there's no need to attack Trump because tons of people do that constantly and of course Glenn loves to deflect any attacks on Trump by bringing up George W. Bush (...from the same party that I've never voted for in my life....who I voted against as my first presidential vote ever) yet jfern is a beloved and worshipped poster here and Glenn is absolutely worshipped by the anti-Democratic left who has an immense cult who believe he can never be criticized ever.

[John Dule]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

Oh damn well. We're gonna have to sacrifice a tad bit of inclusivity to properly message this very important, winning issue.

And throw AFAB, genderqueer, gender non-binary, gender non-conforming, genderfluid, enbie, AQUA, alloromantic, androgynous, trans, omniromantic/omnisexual, pansexual, polygender, varioriented, questioning, intersex, homoflexible, genderpivoting, MOGWAI, dwarven, quasi-dysphoratic, transnivorous, queer-pending, homonutritious, TUNA, TERF, neurosexual, lesbionic, spectraromantic, furkin, and TANSTAAFL people under the bus?!?! No way, Josx̄!

[Ferguson97]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

Oh damn well. We're gonna have to sacrifice a tad bit of inclusivity to properly message this very important, winning issue.

And throw AFAB, genderqueer, gender non-binary, gender non-conforming, genderfluid, enbie, AQUA, alloromantic, androgynous, trans, omniromantic/omnisexual, pansexual, polygender, varioriented, questioning, intersex, homoflexible, genderpivoting, MOGWAI, dwarven, quasi-dysphoratic, transnivorous, queer-pending, homonutritious, TUNA, TERF, neurosexual, lesbionic, spectraromantic, furkin, and TANSTAAFL people under the bus?!?! No way, Josx̄!

That would certainly be a mouthful, which is why I suggested we should just use the all-encompassing term "people" instead.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I swear this site has a obnoxious pocket of posters with a deeply unhealthy distain for trans people.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

What's your opinion of Glenn Greenwald and jfern?

I don't care. It's weird that you care.

I ask because I dump on Trump and Republicans all the time but those dipsh!ts never do and used the excuse there's no need to attack Trump because tons of people do that constantly and of course Glenn loves to deflect any attacks on Trump by bringing up George W. Bush (...from the same party that I've never voted for in my life....who I voted against as my first presidential vote ever) yet jfern is a beloved and worshipped poster here and Glenn is absolutely worshipped by the anti-Democratic left who has an immense cult who believe he can never be criticized ever.

Ok. That's still irrelevant.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I swear this site has a obnoxious pocket of posters with a deeply unhealthy distain for trans people.

This forum is probably more liberal on those issues then the general public

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I swear this site has a obnoxious pocket of posters with a deeply unhealthy distain for trans people.

This forum is probably more liberal on those issues then the general public

True.

[Cashew]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

No idea? I would have though the objectification would be self evident.