Worthy of Better, Stronger Together for Reproductive Rights bundle live on itch.io

Quoting: TherinSWell, here.

Quoted from: https://www.healthline.com/health/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-brain#anatomy

Around week 5, your baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop. Your baby’s brain is part of the central nervous system, which also houses the spinal cord. There are three key components of a baby’s brain to consider. These include:

Cerebrum: Thinking, remembering, and feeling occurs in this part of the brain.
Cerebellum: This part of the brain is responsible for motor control, which allows the baby to move their arms and legs, among other things.
Brain stem: Keeping the body alive is the primary role of the brain stem. This includes breathing, heartbeat, and blood pressure.
/end quote

It looks like the argument about the point at which a baby is considered alive is after the 5 week mark, which is about 1 week after pregnancy symptoms develop (I think. I'll never have children so I don't pay attention to that).

This could be a serious argument. But it is misleading. Yes, pieces of the brain do exist at this point. But they are not functioning. They do gradually start to from this point, but function begins in the brain stem, which is not a site of consciousness; early fetal movement is caused by brain stem activity. Front brain stuff doesn't start to be active until quite late.

Of course, as I said before, one could argue about this. People could, for instance, argue with abortion providers or with women who need abortions. But the TherinS of the world instead want to jail them. They figure that while Conservatives can make up their minds about this, women needing abortions cannot, they should be ruled by Conservatives. Because that's freedom.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: SalvatosAnd just like that, another debate is aborted without consideration for its potential because someone didn't feel like carrying it on

Debate?? This is just people spewing opinion. No-one is going to change minds on this stuff. Not only isn't this place to do it, I know that words won't change people's blinkered opinions on this stuff.

I mean, half the replies I started reading, thought "christ on a stick", skimmed the rest for personal attacks, then tried to forget. Everyone who has access to this site... they're all (myself included) so unbelievably privileged, we have no right to voice our opinions on this subject. We lack the context and (hopefully) life experience of being able to contribute to this "debate".

Thank you for moderating this. I agree no one is going to change their mind on this from this conversation alone, but the cumulative effect of these conversations all over do have an impact as does seeing people who are (likely) not affected at all by this standing up for those that are; it can mean a lot for others in this community.

Thank you again for moderating it.

Quoting: scaineEveryone who has access to this site... they're all (myself included) so unbelievably privileged, we have no right to voice our opinions on this subject. We lack the context and (hopefully) life experience of being able to contribute to this "debate".

Only people without Internet access can have opinions on abortion or politics?

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: scaineEveryone who has access to this site... they're all (myself included) so unbelievably privileged, we have no right to voice our opinions on this subject. We lack the context and (hopefully) life experience of being able to contribute to this "debate".

Only people without Internet access can have opinions on abortion or politics?

Ah, is that what I said? Not really, but you're right, it was poorly worded. I was suggesting that this law change will affect the least privileged people. Those with no recourse. People so far from our existence that it's crass to have strong views about "what it must be like" to have this change forced.upon them.

Hopefully that's a clearer explanation of what I was trying to say.


Last edited by scaine on 6 July 2022 at 6:08 pm UTC

Quoting: denyasis

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TherinS

Quoting: GBGamesAnd yet the rhetoric keeps getting repeated, and it sounds so innocent and earnestly about freedom when in fact it is often double-speak for driving the opposite outcome.

In a country that claims to value freedom as a whole, it makes no sense to say "And we'll turn it to the states to let the people decide if YOU get to have the same freedoms." We, in fact, tried that, and it turned out to be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, that is the POINT of free states allowing its citizens to vote how they want thier state run, within the confines of some basic rules set in place at a Federal level. No one is being forced to remain in thier state (there's 48 easy to travel to) or being prevented from traveling to another state.

If one city decides jaywalking is legal and another decides its punishable by jail time, then don't jaywalk in the illegal areas. Nothing is keeping you from walking all you want, but jaywalking is viewed differently in the two cities. If the population of one city wants to make jaywalking legal, then vote into office the officials who will make that legal.

This decision is, in SPIRIT, no different than the example of jaywalking. The people can now vote for/against it as they wish and majority rules.

So hypothetically, what about repealing the second amendment and let each state decide on guns, gun control and even total gun ban?

Up until the most recent Supreme Court Decision, gun control was largely left up to local jurisdictions. Even down to the city level. Some cities banned handguns. Others required registration of firearms or set rules of the discharge if guns. States still set age restrictions, prohibitions, carry requirements, and licensing. What's legal in one city is not in another with regards to guns. If you have a license to carry in your state, it does not mean another state will honor it. If you are allowed to carry in your state without a license, you'll still need one to carry in a state that has a license requirement.

...Not confusing at all....

Over the last 20+ years, a lot of restrictions have been removed, often by courts or legislatures, but it's still very much locally controlled. The most recent decision combined with the ideological makeup of the court does throw into question how many of those regulations will still exist in the future, but for now, each state can regulate guns independently to some extent.


Sorry for the double post.

To some extent yes, but I'm talking total control. AKA allow all the blue states (and some more) to 100% outlaw guns and enforce extreme border checks to make sure that no gun from "allow states" could flow through. Just curious how the "states rights" advocates would stand behind that.

But it's quite moot anyway since we all know that once the GOP gets majority control and a new president the whole issue of states rights will be dropped like a hot potato and abortions will be outlawed on a federal level. That have been their stated goal since long ago and all the talk about "states rights" right now is only empty semantics.

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: denyasis

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TherinS

Quoting: GBGamesAnd yet the rhetoric keeps getting repeated, and it sounds so innocent and earnestly about freedom when in fact it is often double-speak for driving the opposite outcome.

In a country that claims to value freedom as a whole, it makes no sense to say "And we'll turn it to the states to let the people decide if YOU get to have the same freedoms." We, in fact, tried that, and it turned out to be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, that is the POINT of free states allowing its citizens to vote how they want thier state run, within the confines of some basic rules set in place at a Federal level. No one is being forced to remain in thier state (there's 48 easy to travel to) or being prevented from traveling to another state.

If one city decides jaywalking is legal and another decides its punishable by jail time, then don't jaywalk in the illegal areas. Nothing is keeping you from walking all you want, but jaywalking is viewed differently in the two cities. If the population of one city wants to make jaywalking legal, then vote into office the officials who will make that legal.

This decision is, in SPIRIT, no different than the example of jaywalking. The people can now vote for/against it as they wish and majority rules.

So hypothetically, what about repealing the second amendment and let each state decide on guns, gun control and even total gun ban?

Up until the most recent Supreme Court Decision, gun control was largely left up to local jurisdictions. Even down to the city level. Some cities banned handguns. Others required registration of firearms or set rules of the discharge if guns. States still set age restrictions, prohibitions, carry requirements, and licensing. What's legal in one city is not in another with regards to guns. If you have a license to carry in your state, it does not mean another state will honor it. If you are allowed to carry in your state without a license, you'll still need one to carry in a state that has a license requirement.

...Not confusing at all....

Over the last 20+ years, a lot of restrictions have been removed, often by courts or legislatures, but it's still very much locally controlled. The most recent decision combined with the ideological makeup of the court does throw into question how many of those regulations will still exist in the future, but for now, each state can regulate guns independently to some extent.


Sorry for the double post.

To some extent yes, but I'm talking total control. AKA allow all the blue states (and some more) to 100% outlaw guns and enforce extreme border checks to make sure that no gun from "allow states" could flow through. Just curious how the "states rights" advocates would stand behind that.

I saw a similar suggestion recently: All those states should remove tax exempt status from churches, and see how enthusiastic "states' rights" advocates were about that.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: scaineEveryone who has access to this site... they're all (myself included) so unbelievably privileged, we have no right to voice our opinions on this subject. We lack the context and (hopefully) life experience of being able to contribute to this "debate".

Only people without Internet access can have opinions on abortion or politics?

Ah, is that what I said? Not really, but you're right, it was poorly worded. I was suggesting that this law change will affect the least privileged people. Those with no recourse. People so far from our existence that it's crass to have strong views about "what it must be like" to have this change forced.upon them.

Hopefully that's a clearer explanation of what I was trying to say.

Yes, thank you. I still feel like that's a broad assumption to make about everyone who visits the site, because even lower middle class people could have a very challenging time e.g. taking time off work to travel to another state or country to get the necessary procedures, not to mention the social fallout, especially in states that offer bounties for intel on women who get abortions.

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: scaineEveryone who has access to this site... they're all (myself included) so unbelievably privileged, we have no right to voice our opinions on this subject. We lack the context and (hopefully) life experience of being able to contribute to this "debate".

Only people without Internet access can have opinions on abortion or politics?

Ah, is that what I said? Not really, but you're right, it was poorly worded. I was suggesting that this law change will affect the least privileged people. Those with no recourse. People so far from our existence that it's crass to have strong views about "what it must be like" to have this change forced.upon them.

Hopefully that's a clearer explanation of what I was trying to say.

Yes, thank you. I still feel like that's a broad assumption to make about everyone who visits the site, because even lower middle class people could have a very challenging time e.g. taking time off work to travel to another state or country to get the necessary procedures, not to mention the social fallout, especially in states that offer bounties for intel on women who get abortions.

It can get way worse than "social fallout". In Texas there is "Texas Senate Bill 8" that allows any private citizen in Texas to sue anyone who may have helped facilitate an abortion.

And

QuoteThe National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.

Now the Biden administration have said that they would fight any such attempts since it would violate the federal interstate commerce rights, and that is probably why they have moved on to instead allow private citizens to make civil suits since that would no longer be the state violating the interstate commerce rights.