Christ, what Trumpholes! My all-time favorite bathroom graffiti was an Arizona classic:
Here I sit,
Buns a flexin'
Just gave birth
To another Texan
I saw this 40 years ago. Texas politics has devolved considerably since then.
2 Likes
Cry “ATTORNEYS FEES” and let loose the lawyers of insurance!
Unfortunately, the citizens of Texas will have to pay for the defense of this stupid law. Like so many others. No wonder we don’t have enough money around here.
4 Likes
Or vasectomy. Which is also elective, also covered generally.
Actually, that is one of my pet peeves. Obamacare mandates that long-term female contraceptives, like the IUD, norplant, nuvo-ring, etc be covered completely. But there is no such mandate for vasectomies.
Unrelated to that, I like to point out that any southern baptist (which most of these politicians are) who is opposed to abortion rights on biblical grounds is a hypocrite. The SBC officially supported full abortion rights as recently as 1976. Their position was grounded in Genesis 2:7 in which God only inserted a soul into Adam after he was fully formed.
And lastly, yesterday I was introduced to a pitch-perfect term that I will now use when talking about anti-abortion republicans - pro-birth. Because nothing else about their agenda is pro-life.
4 Likes
This was one (of many, many) things that pissed me off about the last Canadian government. They just loved passing unconstitutional laws and losing in the supreme court, or fighting things out instead of settling. Add onto legal fees the fact that court time is on public money as well. When the government fight things in court it’s paying its own lawyers, the judges, the clerks, the heating bill, etc. And that’s ignoring the opportunity cost of using the Supreme Court’s time.
It’s all just a colossal waste of resources. Though that’s especially true in Canada where you don’t have a partisan court so they ought to have known their chances of winning were zero.
5 Likes
Okay, so now lets see if companies are willing to give private insurance for abortions just to twist the noses of the social conservatives. It would be hilarious to see Abbott screech about “employee rights” being violated by an employer offering to pay 100% for a wholly optional benefit (like how some companies offer life insurance for free as a benefit). Because that would be the true test of conservatism: is it willing to accept the total consequences of its ideology. If not, they’ll pull some hypocritical nonsense, if so then they’re impotent in the face of a rising tide of social norms and values which they cannot control. Either way, they lose as they always have.
1 Like
Well that’s not exactly a fair comparison. The blood transfusion thing is purely religious, whereas being against abortion does not require religion. Unlike abortion, you can’t justify banning blood transfusions with agnostic reasoning.
Why do you think using a religious belief to control another person’s behavior is any different than using an agnostic belief?
What agnostic reasoning is being used to justify anti-abortion laws?
4 Likes
It seemed like you missed my point when you asked the first question, but with your second question it seems like you didn’t.
Unless you think “using an agnostic belief to control another person’s behavior” is somehow not exactly the meaning of “laws” to begin with?
I shouldn’t have to get into it here, but just as murder is illegal due to conclusions about the way society should best operate and self-preserve (aka nonreligious reasoning), abortion can be. Surely you have your opinion on when personhood begins, but until science better understands that, your opinion on that point is just as arbitrary as anyone else’s, regardless of popularity.
My point exactly. Beliefs are beliefs, regardless of their origin. Disregarding religious beliefs out of hand only to insist that conclusions based on opinion are somehow more valid, strikes me as wholly hypocritical, and shockingly bad logic. Especially when you’re talking about overriding choices involving things like basic bodily autonomy, medical privacy, and family planning.
Edited to add: If it’s not okay to use religious beliefs (which vary wildly from person to person and are ultimately unprovable) to impose laws into an otherwise private realm, why is it okay to use opinion, which suffers from the same flaws?
Au contrare. The opinion that personhood begins at some later point than implantation is a prerequisite to logically concluding abortion is ever okay. That opinion is arbitrary, and may indeed be influenced by religion. The reasoning that follows, however, need not be.
I’m not “insisting that conclusions based on opinion” are some how more valid, I’m insisting that conclusions based on logic are indeed more valid.
Assuming you accept that blood transfusions are a good thing, you know this is an objective scientific fact that can be concluded (via reasoning) from other such facts. That’s not merely a “belief”. The Jehova’s Witnesses’ conclusion comes from the line of reasoning, “taking another’s blood is [against my religion] therefore blood transfusions are wrong and ought to be illegal” which is still perfectly good reasoning (as all laws should rely on) up until you inspect the initial premise (the religion).
Again, this is not about using religious beliefs or opinions to justify laws. It’s about preventing exactly that.
1 Like
“Personhood” is a relatively new concept, one designed expressly to imbue what has always been understood as the possibilty of a person with the status of a born human. Fertilized eggs and fetus are not people. That is fact, not opinion.
Personhood, as a concept IS opinion. It is no more logical than religious belief. Using it as a basis for laws that affect real people’s lives is most certainly using opinion to justify laws.
2 Likes
Trumpcare passes in Texas!
I didn’t want to get into an abortion debate here, but I simply use “personhood” to denote the status of having rights such as the right to live. That’s not an opinion, it’s a label. You can think personhood does not ever exist, but that’s still an opinion, and the label still does its job.
Labels are indeed logical and words are of course used to justify laws, and are all that ever will. They are no less real than the people that use them.
“fetus are not people; that is fact, not opinion” well you just opined on personhood and then contradicted yourself.
Citation please. The fact that language ad labels exist and are used when writing laws does not in any way validate or legitimize the way any given person may use them.
Applying that “label” to zygotes is a defacto opinion.
I did no such thing. Laws defining zygotes and fetus’ as people continue to be struck down in court. “Personhood” does not universally apply, nor is it accepted in the medical realm. That is not an opinion, it is fact.
ETA:
As with any unsettled matter of opinion that has major effects on an individuals’ life and well being, and minor if any effects for the rest of us, the best posdible outcome is to allow each person their own opinion as it applies to themselves.
1 Like
Hell, I saw that at UT-Austin. In Waggoner Hall, IIRC (Philosophy Dep’t.)
“Kill the poor, not the unborn.” (saw that in Factheet Five circa 1990)
1 Like
The discussion of extra insurance overlooked that rape and pregnancy also happens to minors. So, parents in Texas may need to consider getting this insurance for their daughters.
1 Like
We can have democracy. But maybe not career politicians or unaccountable representatives. The whole system of incentive needs an overhaul.
1 Like
“Personhood” is not a scientific question.
Zygotes, embryos and foetuses contain human DNA from the moment of conception. But that means nothing; you’ll also find human DNA in hair trimmings, skin flakes, nail clippings and shit. It is not a relevant consideration.
Perception, consciousness and cognition are things that develop gradually, both before and after birth. They all develop upon a spectrum of gradually increasing ability, not as a binary exists-or-not type of feature. There is no objectively clear line to mark personhood, as personhood is a social relationship rather than a physical attribute.
“At what point do we consider an organism sufficiently developed to be admitted into the category of personhood?” is an ethical question, not an empirical one. And one that does not negate the personhood of the woman whose womb it might be occupying, regardless of the answer.
4 Likes
Applying that “label” to zygotes is a defacto opinion.
I agree. I never said it wasn’t. I said it being a label in the first place was the fact.
“Personhood” does not universally apply,
Um, what? Apply to what?
nor is it accepted in the medical realm
Of course not, that would require it to be a medical issue in the first place.
Laws defining zygotes and fetus’ as people continue to be struck down in court.
Okay, obviously you already forgot the part where I said what I was using “personhood” as shorthand for, since courts labeling anything as people is not even relevant. So I’ll just stick with the long form, “possessing basic human rights, such as the right to live”.
We all acquired this property at some point in our development. That’s a fact, not opinion. The only “opinion” is exactly what point that actually was, and any one opinion on this question is arbitrary by nature, unless informed by 1) science or 2) religion. Of course, only the former would be an acceptable basis for creating laws, which apply to everybody. However the available knowledge does not yet give us a clear enough answer to remove the “arbitrary” bit from any given position.
Hope that clears it up for you.
