If I understand what you’re getting at, wouldn’t it be about 9 months old?
fredrichlaricciasays
No, you miss the point. IF we really believed life begins at conception, then we would have to redefine our definition of age. Good luck trying to do that! Our culture unwittingly acknowledges life begins at a baby’s first breath by celebrating their first birthday one year from THAT time.
johntmaysays
We would also have to require all citizens of child bearing condition to register with the state, monthly, to prove that they are not carrying a citizen.
SomervilleTomsays
I think you mean all non-citizens of child-bearing condition, but I get your point and it’s a good one.
The same people who claim that life begins at conception also strive mightily to end birthright citizenship.
johntmaysays
Well, I will refer to the Constitution’s wording in the census that calls for all persons, not citizens or non-citizens. Yes, they will want to end birthright citizenship – and be forced to interpret the Constitution to limit the presidency to all persons conceived in the USA.
SomervilleTomsays
Not just conceived in the USA, but conceived of CITIZENS in the USA.
It’s just insanity, which is not surprising since the proponents are both insane and also actively against any sort of rationality or reason.
Christophersays
Not to mention that birthright citizenship is based on a clause that clearly states, “All persons BORN or naturalized…” (not “conceived”).
Christophersays
A typical pregnancy lasts nine months. Therefore, if we calculate life as beginning at conception then the first breath comes at the nine-month rather than one year mark.
fredrichlaricciasays
The Dobbs decision to criminalize abortion by voiding Roe is this fascist Courts’ fraudulent attempt to substitute superstition masquerading as religion in violation of the separation of church and state principle.
jconwaysays
I think the bigger issue is that Democrats abandoned the 50 state strategy and ceded so many legislatures over the last two or three decades. Having faith in the court upholding Roe while allowing it to move further and further to the right was not a good strategy. Neither was the major pro choice organizations infighting over unrelated woke politics when they should have been fighting on behalf of real women and their rights. The right beat us in the long game and was ready to go with trigger laws and extremist legislation.
The one positive that may come out of this is a new coalition of the majority that no longer takes Roe for granted and fights like hell to recover these rights. Not a single student was willing to take the anti-abortion side during a summer school civics lesson I taught today, so teacher had to play devils advocate. I think there is a real sea change in attitudes on this issue that can galvanize a reasonable majority in the fall.
Keith Bernardsays
You are assuming that the law is logical. If it were, we wouldn’t need courts to interpret it.
Christophersays
I wouldn’t go that far. There is no way that even the most logical of laws can account for or predict every nuance, circumstance, etc. to which the law in question might apply.
fredrichlaricciasays
, If men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM.
Christophersays
If men were the ones getting pregnant I suspect they would not be the ones making the rules.
SomervilleTomsays
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
johntmaysays
These sorts of remark do not help the cause. They imply that men, and only men, are the force behind abortion restrictions. Again, 58% of men supported Roe while 38% of women cheered when it was struck down by a panel of judges that included one women and two other judges that were approved by eight female senators.
As liberals/progressives/Democrats we criticized the Right for its labeling of Muslims as terrorists, explaining that the events of 9/11 were but a small number of them and that a majority of Muslims are peaceful. But we are quick to label “Men” and “White Men” in particular as evil oppressors.
True, man cannot get pregnant but they are affected by this decision. The father of a raped daughter, the husband of poor family that depends of two incomes to make the rent whose wife just got pregnant and may lose her job, sending the family into homelessness, and other examples of how men are affected by this decision might explain why a majority of men want to protect the right to choose.
I can only imagine how protests against the Vietnam War would have been if they labeled it “Men Against The War” and excluded or minimized women protestors on the grounds that women were not being drafted into service and therefore, deserve no voice.
SomervilleTomsays
I fear you miss the point of these.
Like it or not, men dominate our society and dominate our legal system.
When a group is the dominant group, then the group will and should be criticized for the actions it takes or allows.
johntmaysays
Ah, so Muslims were the dominant terrorists on 9/11, in Afghanistan, and Iraq….so we ought to agree with President Trump’s Muslim ban and criticize Muslims as a group? Well, sorry, I can’t go that route.
jconwaysays
Is there any context for any of this? Who is attacking pro-choice men? I do not see anti-male rhetoric, I see anti-hypocrisy rhetoric levied against the right wing male snowflakes who won’t take a quick shot in the arm or wear a mask because of their bodily autonomy but have no problem taking it away from women facing a far more serious bodily change. The Herschel Walkers of the world who have secret kids they won’t pay for but deny women the right to choose. Those are the men feminists are rightly going after. Allies are cool, but we should also recognize that it is not our bodies that are on the line.
johntmaysays
Have you missed the posts that read along the lines of “If men could get pregnant they would change their position on abortion?” Really? 58% of men support Roe and if they could get pregnant, they would be against Roe?
And what of the 38% of women who cheered the taking down of Roe? Why are they given a pass on this?
SomervilleTomsays
…58% of men support Roe and if they could get pregnant, they would be against Roe?
If those men actually OPPOSED Roe, they would have stopped the anti-choice movement in its tracks.
And what of the 38% of women who cheered the taking down of Roe? Why are they given a pass on this?
They’re not being given a pass.
The correct assertion here is that the opinion of women matters less than the opinion of men because men dominate the power structure of 2022 America and women do not.
Men dominate the wealth distribution. Men dominate the power distribution. The overwhelming majority of corporate executives and directors are male. The overwhelming majority of elected officials are male. The overwhelming majority of judges are male.
The statistics are easy and transparent — women constitute about half of the population. They do not have anywhere NEAR 50% representation in any of the power and wealth distributions that matter.
The facts about this are clear and compelling.
SomervilleTomsays
What portion of the 72% of women who do NOT cheer the taking down of Roe are Catholic?
How much influence does the Roman Catholic Church in the US have over the laws of the US?
What influence does ANY woman have over the stance of the Roman Catholic Church?
How many of those 58% of men who support Roe are members of the Roman Catholic Church? How many of those Roman Catholic men demonstrated in front of Roman Catholic parishes on Sunday mornings forcing attendees to run a gauntlet of pro-choice men?
How many of those Roman Catholic men refused to contribute to their church while it so egregiously discriminates against women?
johntmaysays
More than one third of women in the USA do not support Roe. A majority of men in the USA support Roe. Approaching this as a men versus women issue just makes it more difficult to win.
SomervilleTomsays
Your refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming domination of men in today’s culture makes your your recommendations irrelevant.
SomervilleTomsays
This comment is irrelevant to anything said about abortion, pregnancy, and choice on this thread.
If I understand what you’re getting at, wouldn’t it be about 9 months old?
No, you miss the point. IF we really believed life begins at conception, then we would have to redefine our definition of age. Good luck trying to do that! Our culture unwittingly acknowledges life begins at a baby’s first breath by celebrating their first birthday one year from THAT time.
We would also have to require all citizens of child bearing condition to register with the state, monthly, to prove that they are not carrying a citizen.
I think you mean all non-citizens of child-bearing condition, but I get your point and it’s a good one.
The same people who claim that life begins at conception also strive mightily to end birthright citizenship.
Well, I will refer to the Constitution’s wording in the census that calls for all persons, not citizens or non-citizens. Yes, they will want to end birthright citizenship – and be forced to interpret the Constitution to limit the presidency to all persons conceived in the USA.
Not just conceived in the USA, but conceived of CITIZENS in the USA.
It’s just insanity, which is not surprising since the proponents are both insane and also actively against any sort of rationality or reason.
Not to mention that birthright citizenship is based on a clause that clearly states, “All persons BORN or naturalized…” (not “conceived”).
A typical pregnancy lasts nine months. Therefore, if we calculate life as beginning at conception then the first breath comes at the nine-month rather than one year mark.
The Dobbs decision to criminalize abortion by voiding Roe is this fascist Courts’ fraudulent attempt to substitute superstition masquerading as religion in violation of the separation of church and state principle.
I think the bigger issue is that Democrats abandoned the 50 state strategy and ceded so many legislatures over the last two or three decades. Having faith in the court upholding Roe while allowing it to move further and further to the right was not a good strategy. Neither was the major pro choice organizations infighting over unrelated woke politics when they should have been fighting on behalf of real women and their rights. The right beat us in the long game and was ready to go with trigger laws and extremist legislation.
The one positive that may come out of this is a new coalition of the majority that no longer takes Roe for granted and fights like hell to recover these rights. Not a single student was willing to take the anti-abortion side during a summer school civics lesson I taught today, so teacher had to play devils advocate. I think there is a real sea change in attitudes on this issue that can galvanize a reasonable majority in the fall.
You are assuming that the law is logical. If it were, we wouldn’t need courts to interpret it.
I wouldn’t go that far. There is no way that even the most logical of laws can account for or predict every nuance, circumstance, etc. to which the law in question might apply.
, If men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM.
If men were the ones getting pregnant I suspect they would not be the ones making the rules.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
These sorts of remark do not help the cause. They imply that men, and only men, are the force behind abortion restrictions. Again, 58% of men supported Roe while 38% of women cheered when it was struck down by a panel of judges that included one women and two other judges that were approved by eight female senators.
As liberals/progressives/Democrats we criticized the Right for its labeling of Muslims as terrorists, explaining that the events of 9/11 were but a small number of them and that a majority of Muslims are peaceful. But we are quick to label “Men” and “White Men” in particular as evil oppressors.
True, man cannot get pregnant but they are affected by this decision. The father of a raped daughter, the husband of poor family that depends of two incomes to make the rent whose wife just got pregnant and may lose her job, sending the family into homelessness, and other examples of how men are affected by this decision might explain why a majority of men want to protect the right to choose.
I can only imagine how protests against the Vietnam War would have been if they labeled it “Men Against The War” and excluded or minimized women protestors on the grounds that women were not being drafted into service and therefore, deserve no voice.
I fear you miss the point of these.
Like it or not, men dominate our society and dominate our legal system.
When a group is the dominant group, then the group will and should be criticized for the actions it takes or allows.
Ah, so Muslims were the dominant terrorists on 9/11, in Afghanistan, and Iraq….so we ought to agree with President Trump’s Muslim ban and criticize Muslims as a group? Well, sorry, I can’t go that route.
Is there any context for any of this? Who is attacking pro-choice men? I do not see anti-male rhetoric, I see anti-hypocrisy rhetoric levied against the right wing male snowflakes who won’t take a quick shot in the arm or wear a mask because of their bodily autonomy but have no problem taking it away from women facing a far more serious bodily change. The Herschel Walkers of the world who have secret kids they won’t pay for but deny women the right to choose. Those are the men feminists are rightly going after. Allies are cool, but we should also recognize that it is not our bodies that are on the line.
Have you missed the posts that read along the lines of “If men could get pregnant they would change their position on abortion?” Really? 58% of men support Roe and if they could get pregnant, they would be against Roe?
And what of the 38% of women who cheered the taking down of Roe? Why are they given a pass on this?
If those men actually OPPOSED Roe, they would have stopped the anti-choice movement in its tracks.
They’re not being given a pass.
The correct assertion here is that the opinion of women matters less than the opinion of men because men dominate the power structure of 2022 America and women do not.
Men dominate the wealth distribution. Men dominate the power distribution. The overwhelming majority of corporate executives and directors are male. The overwhelming majority of elected officials are male. The overwhelming majority of judges are male.
The statistics are easy and transparent — women constitute about half of the population. They do not have anywhere NEAR 50% representation in any of the power and wealth distributions that matter.
The facts about this are clear and compelling.
What portion of the 72% of women who do NOT cheer the taking down of Roe are Catholic?
How much influence does the Roman Catholic Church in the US have over the laws of the US?
What influence does ANY woman have over the stance of the Roman Catholic Church?
How many of those 58% of men who support Roe are members of the Roman Catholic Church? How many of those Roman Catholic men demonstrated in front of Roman Catholic parishes on Sunday mornings forcing attendees to run a gauntlet of pro-choice men?
How many of those Roman Catholic men refused to contribute to their church while it so egregiously discriminates against women?
More than one third of women in the USA do not support Roe. A majority of men in the USA support Roe. Approaching this as a men versus women issue just makes it more difficult to win.
Your refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming domination of men in today’s culture makes your your recommendations irrelevant.
This comment is irrelevant to anything said about abortion, pregnancy, and choice on this thread.