Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that while she supports Roe vs. Wade, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target   (chron.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Ginsberg, University of Chicago Law School, abortions, judicial restraint, abortion opponents, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

1657 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 5:10 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-12 08:44:13 PM  

vygramul: OK, by why do other pro-choicers choose to call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion?


There are at least three people in this very thread who have used the phrase "anti-choice". Wouldn't it make more sense to ask one of them directly rather than have me speak on their behalf?
 
2013-05-12 08:48:55 PM  

Curious: Milo Minderbinder: I think you miss her point. By virtue of the decision, the policy debate was largely taken out of the equation. Those favoring choice no longer had to defend choice on the merits, but just had to point to the decision. Ginsburg is saying this throws the democratic process a curveball, a disrupting method to reach a position we would have (hopefully) come to democratically; in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.

she's entitled to her opinion but IMO it was always there but just got a lot louder with the advent of rabid partisan politics in recent years.


I was a kid back then. My experience was clearly anecdotal, but from what my kid's ears heard, race (civil rights) was a million times more of an irritant than abortion. And I grew up in a northern state.

Many adults around me were incandescent that "coloreds" considered themselves equal as citizens. And thought they could live in the same neighborhoods!

When people were angry about women, it was when women expected to be able to work after marriage, as professionals, not be treated as a piece of ass, be respected, be paid fairly.

Red-faced, frothing RAGE.
 
2013-05-12 09:05:14 PM  
How about a national registry of pro-life folks committed to adopting a potential abortion regardless of sex or race?

Until then, STFU.
 
2013-05-12 10:14:47 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: OK, by why do other pro-choicers choose to call them anti-choice rather than anti-abortion?

There are at least three people in this very thread who have used the phrase "anti-choice". Wouldn't it make more sense to ask one of them directly rather than have me speak on their behalf?


So you're saying that you don't know WHY "anti-choice" is used. Despite this professed ignorance, you felt informed enough to make an assertion about it earlier:

"Nobody's going around claiming "choice" in and of itself to be something sacred. Everybody knows which one specific choice is being referred to here, except perhaps somebody immigrating to the US from some non-English speaking country who's learning all of this for the first time."

And guess what? Everyone knows what one specific life is being referred to here, too.
 
2013-05-12 10:33:02 PM  

Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?


Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.
 
2013-05-12 10:41:25 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?


RON PAUL
 
2013-05-13 01:38:46 AM  

vygramul: And guess what? Everyone knows what one specific life is being referred to here, too.


As I already explained, "pro-life" isn't a shorthand for specific kinds of lives to the exclusion of others - it really is based on a set of ideas about life in general (what they believe human life to be, at any rate), which is why questions about the death penalty will always be pertinent (and indeed, many of them actually are against the death penalty for that very reason).

And as for the ones that aren't against the death penalty you may (as I also said earlier) be satisfied by their rationalizations, but you should at least be able to see why the question about the death penalty isn't a pointless diversion, unlike some random troll demanding to know why someone who supports abortion rights doesn't also support gun rights.
 
2013-05-13 02:11:33 AM  
Wrong people.  Roe is meaningless!!!! Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the holding everyone has attributed to Roe for the last fourty years.

/technically correct
//the best kind of correct
///slashies!!!
 
2013-05-13 04:10:12 AM  

quatchi: Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?

Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.



Come on. We're losing sight of the real victims in all of this. Deadbeat dads. All those harlots and painted ladies shake their beehinds for the menfolk, and they powerlessly have to shove their peener in without a hint of thought or foresight. The woman has to take full responsibility of all birth control. Forcing men to pay their child support for their unwanted spawn is the greatest injustice since the Bataan Death March down the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz. MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!!
 
2013-05-13 05:54:01 AM  

stoli n coke: quatchi: Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?

Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.


Come on. We're losing sight of the real victims in all of this. Deadbeat dads. All those harlots and painted ladies shake their beehinds for the menfolk, and they powerlessly have to shove their peener in without a hint of thought or foresight. The woman has to take full responsibility of all birth control. Forcing men to pay their child support for their unwanted spawn is the greatest injustice since the Bataan Death March down the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz. MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!!


You didn't even read the arguments did you? The other guy was arguing that women shouldn't be responsible for anything other than going in for an abortion when they find out that they got pregnant. Being pregnant isn't something that should be treated as a cancer that you cut out and discard on a whim.
 
2013-05-13 08:17:48 AM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: And guess what? Everyone knows what one specific life is being referred to here, too.

As I already explained, "pro-life" isn't a shorthand for specific kinds of lives to the exclusion of others - it really is based on a set of ideas about life in general (what they believe human life to be, at any rate), which is why questions about the death penalty will always be pertinent (and indeed, many of them actually are against the death penalty for that very reason).

And as for the ones that aren't against the death penalty you may (as I also said earlier) be satisfied by their rationalizations, but you should at least be able to see why the question about the death penalty isn't a pointless diversion, unlike some random troll demanding to know why someone who supports abortion rights doesn't also support gun rights.


Wait - are you serious? Aside from the abortion issue, once you remove the Catholics, just what generalized respect for life is it that typical conservatives have, even in their own minds?
 
2013-05-13 09:38:08 AM  

Jegred2: stoli n coke: quatchi: Jegred2: Why should the government pay for abortion?

Because it ultimately saves money by ensuring that there are less women with children on on welfare and more babies being born to women who A) feel financially capable of taking care of them, who B) want them and C) can plan for them by using their access to medical health services is the answer I think you might appreciate.

Its not the governments job to fix a problem caused by irresponsibility. By that logic the government should provide me with free condoms and spermicidal lube on the taxpayers dime.

It's not the government's job to slut shame or be run by any book of religion, it's business is to provide the best infrastructure, defense, public schools, justice system, fiscal policy and responsible government it rationally can.

Insurance companies have crunched the numbers and know that an abortion is way cheaper than a live birth and the subsequent health care access.

If you really cared about the taxpayer dime you would be first in line to support taxpayer funded abortion.

But that's not what this is really all about for you, is it?

It's not about the "birth" part with you so much as it is the "control" part methinks.

/The tipoff there was the I word.


Come on. We're losing sight of the real victims in all of this. Deadbeat dads. All those harlots and painted ladies shake their beehinds for the menfolk, and they powerlessly have to shove their peener in without a hint of thought or foresight. The woman has to take full responsibility of all birth control. Forcing men to pay their child support for their unwanted spawn is the greatest injustice since the Bataan Death March down the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz. MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!!

You didn't even read the arguments did you? The other guy was arguing that women shouldn't be responsible for anything other than going in for an abortion when they find out that they got pregnant. Being pregnant isn't something that should be treated a ...


People cut out and discard cancers on a whim?
 
2013-05-13 10:11:20 AM  
Derpa derpa. Arguing on the internet etc etc.
 
2013-05-13 01:30:14 PM  

vygramul: Wait - are you serious? Aside from the abortion issue, once you remove the Catholics, just what generalized respect for life is it that typical conservatives have, even in their own minds?


Since I still have no farking clue what it is you're trying to say here, I'm just going to repeat what I've already said so far:

- I started out in this thread by objecting to a troll doing the usual "Why abortions but not guns, lol" routine
- You mentioned people asking pro-lifers about the death penalty, implying that it was somehow equivalent
- I point out why that's not the case, i.e., because pro-lifers do indeed claim to base their philosophy around ideas about the sacredness of "life" in general that encompasses all people (or rather, what they imagine "people" to be), whereas pro-choicers do not base their philosophy around some grand theory of "choice" that covers the right to own a firearm

That's the extent of the discussion that I came to this thread to have. If you have some specific disagreement with that (e.g. if you believe either the pro-life or the pro-choice philosophies to be based on something else entirely), then you should state it directly.
 
2013-05-13 01:45:40 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: Wait - are you serious? Aside from the abortion issue, once you remove the Catholics, just what generalized respect for life is it that typical conservatives have, even in their own minds?

Since I still have no farking clue what it is you're trying to say here, I'm just going to repeat what I've already said so far:

- I started out in this thread by objecting to a troll doing the usual "Why abortions but not guns, lol" routine
- You mentioned people asking pro-lifers about the death penalty, implying that it was somehow equivalent
- I point out why that's not the case, i.e., because pro-lifers do indeed claim to base their philosophy around ideas about the sacredness of "life" in general that encompasses all people (or rather, what they imagine "people" to be), whereas pro-choicers do not base their philosophy around some grand theory of "choice" that covers the right to own a firearm

That's the extent of the discussion that I came to this thread to have. If you have some specific disagreement with that (e.g. if you believe either the pro-life or the pro-choice philosophies to be based on something else entirely), then you should state it directly.


People use "anti-choice" because they want to impart a perception that what their opponents are against is "choice" and the connotations thereto. They like the fact that the implication escapes the boundaries of mere abortion. Their objection to choice in other contexts matters as a result.

You disagree, but you also say you don't understand them. Which is a strange disparity. You're trying to have it both ways.
 
2013-05-13 01:58:58 PM  

vygramul: People use "anti-choice" because they want to impart a perception that what their opponents are against is "choice" and the connotations thereto. They like the fact that the implication escapes the boundaries of mere abortion. Their objection to choice in other contexts matters as a result.

You disagree, but you also say you don't understand them. Which is a strange disparity. You're trying to have it both ways.


I didn't say I don't "understand" them; I said that I don't care about what terms they use to describe their opponents. I also don't care when pro-lifers say things like "anti-life" - when I take issue with them, it's with the incoherence of their philosophy as a whole, and not these stupid little marketing strategies.

As such, I'm not going to bother trying to explain what they do or don't mean by it, since it's not relevant to the one thing I came to the thread to talk about (the absurdity of the "abortions therefore guns" logic). If the "anti-choice" thing is still bothering you (and it looks like it is), you should take it up (as I suggested earlier) with one of the several people in this thread who actually do use the term.
 
2013-05-13 02:11:36 PM  

Por que tan serioso: Wrong people.  Roe is meaningless!!!! Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the holding everyone has attributed to Roe for the last fourty years.

/technically correct
//the best kind of correct
///slashies!!!


Came here to say this. Since 1992 Casey, not Roe, has been the controlling law.

Quick side note about Roe - there's a rumor that Chief Justice Burger changed his vote. The decision was going to be 6-3, with the Chief Justice in the minority. As per SCOTUS rules, the senior justice in the majority chooses who writes the majority opinion if the Chief Justice is not joining the opinion. That senior Justice would have been William Brennan, who was about 50,000x the legal mind of Justice Blackmun, and he would probably have written the decision himself. By joining the majority Burger didn't effect the outcome (it would have then been 6-3 without him) but he got to make sure that the decision would not be written by Brennan, who would have written a more legally cogent and persuasive decision better able to withstand scrutiny.
 
2013-05-13 02:58:21 PM  

Biological Ali: vygramul: People use "anti-choice" because they want to impart a perception that what their opponents are against is "choice" and the connotations thereto. They like the fact that the implication escapes the boundaries of mere abortion. Their objection to choice in other contexts matters as a result.

You disagree, but you also say you don't understand them. Which is a strange disparity. You're trying to have it both ways.

I didn't say I don't "understand" them; I said that I don't care about what terms they use to describe their opponents. I also don't care when pro-lifers say things like "anti-life" - when I take issue with them, it's with the incoherence of their philosophy as a whole, and not these stupid little marketing strategies.

As such, I'm not going to bother trying to explain what they do or don't mean by it, since it's not relevant to the one thing I came to the thread to talk about (the absurdity of the "abortions therefore guns" logic). If the "anti-choice" thing is still bothering you (and it looks like it is), you should take it up (as I suggested earlier) with one of the several people in this thread who actually do use the term.


Except it goes DIRECTLY to your objection.

Say a pro-choice person were to say, "Yes, I mean they're against choice in general and I'm for choice in general." Then attacking them for their lack of gun stance makes total sense. And if a pro-lifer says, "I only mean it in terms of abortion," then attacking them for a death penalty stance makes NO sense.

You can't argue that you both don't know what people mean by "choice" and then argue with certainty that attacking them for a lack of choice in other contexts is wrong.
 
2013-05-13 03:33:02 PM  

vygramul: Except it goes DIRECTLY to your objection.

Say a pro-choice person were to say, "Yes, I mean they're against choice in general and I'm for choice in general." Then attacking them for their lack of gun stance makes total sense. And if a pro-lifer says, "I only mean it in terms of abortion," then attacking them for a death penalty stance makes NO sense.


Sure, except in the real world, neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers are saying these things. When a pro-lifer is asked abou the death penalty, it goes to something that is at the heart of the pro-life philosophy itself, whereas the justification you made earlier about asking a pro-choicer about guns seems to be based not on their actual philosophy, but rather, on what you believe to be the "connotations" associated with a term that some of them use to describe their opponents. This looks like a massive stretch to me, but even if you don't agree with that, you should at least be able to see how they are two entirely different conversations.

I get that you're trying to make a "both sides do the same thing" argument, but it really doesn't apply here. A proper analogue to the "Abortions therefore guns" trolling would be if somebody asked a pro-lifer something like "Hey, you say you're pro-'life', so I guess you're against swatting mosquitoes too", in terms of being something that deliberately misstates the person's position to the same degree.

vygramul: You can't argue that you both don't know what people mean by "choice" and then argue with certainty that attacking them for a lack of choice in other contexts is wrong.


I never said I don't "know" - I "know" perfectly well. What I said was that I don't care enough to get into that particular argument, as it has no bearing on the point I was making.
 
Displayed 19 of 219 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report