Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Y'all, I ask the guy one simple question and then go to bed... lol

@Peace They've all pretty much made my point for me. I will address one thing, however. You said:

"Nope. I want consistency.

If university staff members should be able to advise others about abortion on campus, then university staff members should also be able to use the n word or talk about Christianity on campus.

Consistency is the key here, not some liberal agenda."

First, there is a difference between discussing topics (in this case, abortion and Christianity) and using hateful racial slurs. The former is an exchange of ideas. The latter is not. It simply creates a hostile environment. That is the epitome of consistency.

Secondly, nobody is barred from speaking about Christianity to my knowledge. Can you show me where this is happening?

 

[Peace]

Y'all, I ask the guy one simple question and then go to bed... lol

@Peace They've all pretty much made my point for me. I will address one thing, however. You said:

"Nope. I want consistency.

If university staff members should be able to advise others about abortion on campus, then university staff members should also be able to use the n word or talk about Christianity on campus.

Consistency is the key here, not some liberal agenda."

First, there is a difference between discussing topics (in this case, abortion and Christianity) and using hateful racial slurs.

Not when it comes to Free Speech, which is my point.

 

[coldseat]

I want to live in a country that doesn't condone the slaughter of our unborn. The Left has gotten all too comfortable with it.

And I want to live in a country that respects a woman's authority, autonomy and agency over her own body, both when they're pregnant and when they're not. The right has gotten too comfortable forcing it's religious beliefs on all of society.

You were once in a womb too, you know.

No argument there.

You mean you'll take nationwide Marxism instead. No thank you, I want to live in a free country.

I mean that I'll take our liberal democracy that we've had for the last 250 years over an autocratic dictator. Your version of America is not a free country, it would be no different than living in Russia, Iran or China, just with Christian fundamentalist in charge and making the rules.

Just in case you need a definition of a liberal democracy:

Liberal democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Peace]

And I want to live in a country that respects a woman's authority, autonomy and agency over her own body, both when they're pregnant and when they're not. The right has gotten too comfortable forcing it's religious beliefs on all of society.

And I want to live in a country that can distinguish between the value of life and needless slaughter. The Left has gotten too comfortable with selfishness and mindless destruction.

I mean that I'll take our liberal democracy that we've had for the last 250 years over an autocratic dictator. Your version of America is not a free country, it would be no different than living in Russia, Iran or China, just with Christian fundamentalist in charge and making the rules.

No, you mean you'll take change that Barack Obama and other Marxists can believe in. What you want has NOTHING to do with what the Founding Fathers wanted.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Not when it comes to Free Speech, which is my point.

Your point lacks any effort at critical thinking on any level. Every employer, public or private, has the right to bar certain things. Hate speech is a pretty common thing to bar for obvious reasons.

And you still didn't support your claim that people can't talk about Christianity.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And I want to live in a country that can distinguish between the value of life and needless slaughter. The Left has gotten too comfortable with selfishness and mindless destruction.

No, you mean you'll take change that Barack Obama and other Marxists can believe in. What you want has NOTHING to do with what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Can you define Marxism and then demonstrate how Obama's views fit into that ideology?

 

[brandon]

Somebody will challenge this one.

If university staff members should be able to advise others about abortion on campus, then university staff members should also be able to use the n word or talk about Christianity on campus.

Not when it comes to Free Speech, which is my point.

I decided to do a bit more digging, as this particular tweet seems to be the basis for much of this discussion, and it provides scant details. According to https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/26/abortion-classroom-discussion-and-the-university-of-idaho/, the tweet is discussing the University of Idaho's attempted implementation of HB220 which intends to prevent the use of public funds in Idaho from being used to promote abortion.

The specific guidance from the University is as follows:

Classroom Discussions. Classroom discussion of the topic should be approached carefully. While academic freedom supports classroom discussions of topics related to abortion, these should be limited to discussions and topics relevant to the class subject. The laws discussed above, specifically including those addressing promoting abortion, counseling in favor of abortion and referring for abortion, will remain applicable. Academic freedom is not a defense to violation of law, and faculty or others in charge of classroom topics and discussion must themselves remain neutral on the topic and cannot conduct or engage in discussions in violation of these prohibitions without risking prosecution.

The article above brings up an important point about academic freedom from the AAUP Principles:

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.

I think a discussion of abortion in trigonometry class, for instance, and especially one that promotes one side or another of the argument, would be hard to justify, not just with the law, but within the accepted standards of academic freedom. There's very little link between that discussion and trigonometry.

But Obstetrics? Gynecology? Political science? Literature? History? There are tons of applications where the merits of abortion is directly applicable to the subject matter being taught, and teaching in an entirely neutral fashion should not be required vis a vis academic freedom.

As it relates to the n-word? There are also applications where the n-word could be used in direct application to the subject matter, including political science, literature, etymology, African-American studies, and history. Obviously, the professor would want to tread lightly, use the word as little as was absolutely necessary, and would provide the right space and context necessary to treat the subject matter with the gravity it deserves. I think the level of nuance required is such that professors should probably just stick to saying "n-word" to be safe, which is already difficult enough to deal with.

So to the point - if a trigonometry professor is espousing the all of the fantastic benefits of abortion and how everyone in the class should get one today, that professor should probably be terminated or put on probation because he should actually be teaching trigonometry and that discussion is not protected by the values of academic freedom in his classroom. If a biology professor is discussing the historical usage of the n-word as it relates to the civil rights era, that professor should probably also be terminated or put on probation because he should actually be teaching biology.

Yet there's even more nuance here. If a history professor is discussing the civil rights era and uses the n-word, but uses it only for shock value, or uses it as a direct insult to another person, that teacher should also be terminated.

TL;DR - Academic freedom dictates that professors be allowed to discuss subject matter in a non-neutral way provided the material is relevant to the subject being taught. Calling someone an n-word is not an example of academic freedom, nor is a resulting termination from using it in this context a violation of the first amendment.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I think this guy has shown enough of who he is to safely ignore. At least you can have a semi-rational conversation with Farb. Ban abortion talk from a state run university but not religious proselytizing. Middle East extremism at its finest wrapped up in the shiny package of Christianity.

 

[Peace]

I think this guy has shown enough of who he is to safely ignore. At least you can have a semi-rational conversation with Farb. Ban abortion talk from a state run university but not religious proselytizing. Middle East extremism at its finest wrapped up in the shiny package of Christianity.

Sage advice for snowflakes, to be sure.

I think ya'll better do as Saul orders. My guess is this is coming directly from the liberal hive.

 

[bird]

Yes, because that is how free speech works.

Now, if someone's using the N word while threatening violence, then that's a different issue.

Wrong. But unsurprising since you lack the capacity to understand. Businesses most certainly can regulate behavior including speech among their employees.

 

[Peace]

Wrong. But unsurprising since you lack the capacity to understand. Businesses most certainly can regulate behavior including speech among their employees.

I never said they couldn't.

What I am saying, is that if people are clamoring for abortion activists to have a voice on US college campuses then they should be clamoring for ALL groups to have a voice on US college campuses.

 

[brandon]

Sage advice for snowflakes, to be sure.

Hyper-conservative @Farb on this forum put me on ignore months ago because I hurt his feelings. I've never put anyone on ignore, even though I'm a liberal.

We'll see how long you last.

 

[Peace]

Hyper-conservative @Farb on this forum put me on ignore months ago because I hurt his feelings. I've never put anyone on ignore, even though I'm a liberal.

We'll see how long you last.

I guarantee I'll outlast you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That's simply not true. There are all kinds of laws on the books that set ground rules that aren't always obvious. Doctors are bound by numerous rules and regulations for how they administer care. And abortion rules are no exception. The laws can and should be based on doctors' and medical professional recommendations, and they can cover exceptions where the life of the mother and/or baby are concerned as well as the ethical issues surrounding medical decisions related to abortion and health care.

And these have to be defined, not just for private care, but also for federally funded services. Federal dollar spending have legal guidance and requirements attached to those dollars and if it goes to abortion, there have to be rules to allow for those dollars to be spent properly. The same applies to state funding as well.

There are already rules in many states governing that in place and those aren't going away. The question is where and how those rules and laws apply.

Legislating ethics and morality is a very slippery slope. Leave the ethics to the professionals and the oath they take to Do No Harm.

 

[DaveXA]

Legislating ethics and morality is a very slippery slope. Leave the ethics to the professionals and the oath they take to Do No Harm.

Except that there are all kinds of laws that are driven by ethics. Slippery slopes doesn't negate the necessity of having laws on the books for whatever issue.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Except that there are all kinds of laws that are driven by ethics. Slippery slopes doesn't negate the necessity of having laws on the books for whatever issue.

Not like this situation. It's wholly unnecessary because, as MT has pointed out repeatedly, every situation is already covered by existing laws/ethical codes and oaths and anything that is not covered should be between the woman and her physician. The moment we start to put up guardrails, no matter who sets them up or how well-intentioned they are, we find ourselves in a position where someone may fall through the cracks.

Abortion is healthcare, period. The government has no business telling anyone what sort of healthcare they can and cannot seek.

 

[DaveXA]

Not like this situation. It's wholly unnecessary because, as MT has pointed out repeatedly, every situation is already covered by existing laws/ethical codes and oaths and anything that is not covered should be between the woman and her physician. The moment we start to put up guardrails, no matter who sets them up or how well-intentioned they are, we find ourselves in a position where someone may fall through the cracks.

Abortion is healthcare, period. The government has no business telling anyone what sort of healthcare they can and cannot seek.

I don't disagree abortion is healthcare. That doesn't mean there are no regulations related to the issue. There are all kinds of regulations governing every level of healthcare. Abortion is no exception. And yes, there are already rules and regulations governing that. I'm not necessarily saying that there needs to be new laws, I'm just saying I think there should be a preponderance of protecting the fetus at viability. I think that's already true in most cases, and as MT stated women aren't aborting healthy, viable babies without a valid reason.

 

[zztop]

What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures

In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like

www.theguardian.com