(no subject)

[weswilson]

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

well played. +1

[weswilson]

I'll see your troll and raise you one goblin.

[weswilson]

For context:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/07/03/texas-house-committee-passes-omnibus-anti-abortion-bill-after-cook-refuses-late-night-testimony/

[rose-cat.livejournal.com]

Nice.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be like gun stores.

[zadok-allen.livejournal.com]

Almost ruins the fun when you have to explain the punchline, doesn't it?

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I wonder how long it will troll to get banned. Can we start a pool?

[joshthevegan.livejournal.com]

*Ignoring the troll above*

I had seen pictures of this guy the other day: A middle-aged man defiantly displayed an “I regret my abortion” placard, and my question is, how does a man get an abortion?

[atheistkathleen.livejournal.com]

i saw this on facebook and like half the people commenting didn't understand what it was getting at

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Now a serious response:

1) What if the gun bill did not "close" all those gun stores, but rather shut them down temporarily until they, say, moved all the guns behind the counter, kept the ammunition locked away, and installed a computer to help with background checks? Because that's effectively what the Texas bill does.

2) What if the right to bear arms was as explicit as the right to an abortion? Namely, that the right to bear arms was created as a form of the right to privacy, or in the other direction, that a right to an abortion was an amendment in the Constitution. To assume that abortion = guns in terms of rights ignores the continuing debate on the logic and intellectual legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, many of who agree with keeping abortion legal and think the Court made a poor leap.

Terrible comparison is terrible.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Probably because it's a ridiculous comparison on a few levels.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

1) You believe that Perry and such Republicans are genuinely interested in only providing for safer abortions rather than to elimination abortion?

2) Even law that you disagree with is still the law.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You believe that Perry and such Republicans are genuinely interested in only providing for safer abortions rather than to elimination abortion?

I think if they were looking to eliminate abortion, they'd actually do it as opposed to promoting a bill that allows it for the first 20 weeks.

I also care more about what the bill says, not necessarily what the proponents believe it does or want it to do. If legislation accomplished a wishlist simply based on what people believe...

Even law that you disagree with is still the law.

Okay...

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

1) If you make those restrictions a bit more cost prohibitive to the point where the gun store was forced to either break the law or close, then we'll be a bit closer to a legit comparison here.

2) Simply because the image mentioned "2nd amendment" doesn't mean it was making a comparison or a case for or against any rights. Whether or not abortion is mentioned in the Constitution is irrelevant as the example doesn't make owning a weapon illegal. This is about limiting access by enacting unreasonable regulations. In many cases, limiting access is tantamount to a ban for a percentage of the population unable to make the trek across the state for whatever reason.

While the comparison is not perfect, it doesn't have to be. It's taking one sacred cow and replacing it with another to hopefully make the opposition think. I think you know that and were just being pedantic to pad your argument.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I think if they were looking to eliminate abortion, they'd actually do it as opposed to promoting a bill that allows it for the first 20 weeks.

Even Perry's people have at least a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law, amazingly enough.

Okay...

And that remains true whatever you think the logical failings may be. Indeed, your substantive notion of the second amendment (e.g., people can have bazookas) is perhaps weaker than the right to an abortion, as far as current constitutional law goes. Such is more debateable. Trying to deny that the right to an abortion is not as good as your interpretation of the second amendment is not okay.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you make those restrictions a bit more cost prohibitive to the point where the gun store was forced to either break the law or close, then we'll be a bit closer to a legit comparison here.

Assuming the comparison is legit to begin with, of course.

It then raises the question, however, about what makes abortion so special that basic points of medical safety don't apply, even though the same people trying to block that are in the front of the regulatory agenda to begin with. (Not to say either side is especially consistent on the matter, but one is clearly further off than the other). Even the PA grand jury that indicted Gosnell felt that the pushback against oversight led to that situation.

Simply because the image mentioned "2nd amendment" doesn't mean it was making a comparison or a case for or against any rights.

The idea behind the image is to create a false equivalence, as if the two rights should be compared in a way to create some sort of cognitive dissonance between those who hold both anti-abortion and pro-gun positions. Even a cursory look at the positions in question falsifies the attempt, but it's not stopping people from using it.

This is about limiting access by enacting unreasonable regulations.

Perhaps. But it also assumes, again, that the rights are equal. They're not.

It's taking one sacred cow and replacing it with another to hopefully make the opposition think. I think you know that and were just being pedantic to pad your argument.

If you want to make the opposition think, a better way to do so would involve actually making a comparison that holds up to even basic logic or scrutiny. This is instead a silly FB/Tumblr meme designed for limited thought and self-congratulatory backpatting by abortion advocates.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Even Perry's people have at least a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law, amazingly enough.

You don't think that Perry's people know that this will be litigated anyway? You don't think they're aware of the case winding through Arizona that is similar? This is absolutely an attempt to bolster the position regarding viability and the discussion of fetal pain in regards to the current legal landscape. It's working within the Roe balance to update things from the last 40 years.

Trying to deny that the right to an abortion is not as good as your interpretation of the second amendment is not okay.

Do you think the right to an abortion is as robust in the text as the right to bear arms?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

I think if they were looking to eliminate abortion, they'd actually do it as opposed to promoting a bill that allows it for the first 20 weeks.

The law would eventually be struck down, of course, so they're trying to dance around the issue by passing a law that won't be struck down by the federal courts, yet effectively gets them closer to their goal. It's not a coincidence that Rick Perry was speaking about this bill, and especially Wendy Davis' effort to halt it, at the NRLC last week. This is a legal strategy by the NRTL people to winnow down the rights of women until they've effectively banned abortion outright or made it nearly impossible to get (legally, at least).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is a legal strategy by the NRTL people to winnow down the rights of women

If you still think this is about women, you're not listening. I agree this is part of a broader legal strategy, but it's not what you think.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'll rephrase even though you knew what I was getting at:

This is a legal strategy by the NRTL people to legislate their religious values upon the entire population of Texas which effectively reduces the rights of women -- especially the poor -- by removing access for many of them, including to non-abortion-related medical services.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

The idea behind the image is to create a false equivalence

That's not what I got at all, and I thought I explained why pretty clearly, though maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought. This bill doesn't ban abortion. The scenario in the image doesn't ban gun ownership. Therefore, your argument about a comparison of rights is a red herring. You seem to be extrapolating more meaning out of this image than was likely intended.

At the risk of opening a can of worms: it shouldn't matter anyway. Saying "my right is bigger than your right" isn't a logical or even a valid argument. Both are considered rights protected by the federal government with a Constitutional basis (2nd and 14th amendments). While this law may be well within the boundaries of Roe v Wade, so are the gun control laws that you so vehemently despise.

a better way to do so would involve actually making a comparison that holds up to even basic logic or scrutiny.

Replace guns with some other legal right that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, yet is a sacred cow for conservatives, if you have to in order to get the point.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

My next question would be: who cares? Is this point that the state should force us legally to not make decisions we might regret later?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I think Perry is a Christian fundamentalist, and if he could pass a law tomorrow eliminating all abortions, he would joyfully do so.

And I think that the right to have an abortion is as robust in constitutional law as the second amendment. Even you have agreed that there was a chance that your substantive notion of the second amendment could be adjudicated away rather than the right to an abortion. But this is politics and all is always fought. Frankly, I like the right-wing's odds better, but they have to win by reducing votes and gerrymandering and such.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Therefore, your argument about a comparison of rights is a red herring. You seem to be extrapolating more meaning out of this image than was likely intended.

Not at all. The image is simply saying "hey, what if we treated gun rights like the anti-abortion gun nuts want to treat abortion." The false equivalence is created right from the start, as it assumes the right to abortion is as clear and as solid as the right to bear arms.

At the risk of opening a can of worms: it shouldn't matter anyway. Saying "my right is bigger than your right" isn't a logical or even a valid argument.

This misunderstands the abortion debate on a variety of levels, from the legal viability of Roe to the text of the Constitution itself. It's not about one right being bigger than the other, but whether one of the rights exists at all.

While this law may be well within the boundaries of Roe v Wade, so are the gun control laws that you so vehemently despise.

To put Roe on the same level as the second amendment is dangerous, and assumes the rationale behind Roe is as solid legally as the rationale behind the second amendment. I'm pro-abortion and I certainly don't believe that.

Replace guns with some other legal right that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, yet is a sacred cow for conservatives, if you have to in order to get the point.

Do you have an example, perhaps?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think Perry is a Christian fundamentalist, and if he could pass a law tomorrow eliminating all abortions, he would joyfully do so.

I agree, and I'm sure he'd sign a law if one passed through.

And I think that the right to have an abortion is as robust in constitutional law as the second amendment.

Genuine question, based on what?

Even you have agreed that there was a chance that your substantive notion of the second amendment could be adjudicated away rather than the right to an abortion.

In a sense I've agreed, sure. More because the judiciary can't really be trusted rather than the text of law, though.

Frankly, I like the right-wing's odds better, but they have to win by reducing votes and gerrymandering and such.

Sigh.