Roe, Roe, Roe Your Leaky Boat


My personal view is that if you can’t convince the majority of Americans (or Arizonans or Flagstaffians or…), over multiple election cycles, then no you have no right to set the rules no matter how awesome your’s or my ideologies might be. Why do you think I keep coming back to asking about how Integral will up-level Red to Amber, Amber or Orange, Orange to Green, then finally Green to Teal? Or perhaps it just takes 12% total at Teal (assuming it’s a healthy Teal) and Rapture ignites. That’s a bit of a long shot, but maybe it would flip the switch.
Even if you could pull off a coup, a revolucion and seize power, the Amber folks will behead you eventually. You HAVE to bring them along. And at least for me, it’s the right thing to do - to bring them along of their own free will.

“not my job” is pretty cynical when you’re talking about development of humanity. And frankly I know you do look to spark that interior flame with likely everyone you meet.

Can Integral be more effective? Are their areas outside of mental health, social engineering, philosophy that would help ignite the 2nd Tier flames?
Just spit balling here, I’ve recommended “infiltrating” the major religions, instead of fighting with them. Just the Big 3 are 4 BILLION people. Even a little progress and that’s what would you say maybe a few 100M’s of people? There’s your tipping point number. Bam!


Agree, to an extent, which is one reason why the regression we are seeing around abortion laws is so concerning, considering ~70% of Americans support Roe according to Pew. And why it’s also so concerning that we have a Supreme Court that skews 6-3 toward Republicans, a party that has only won a single popular vote a single time since 1988, which means we have a Court that does not reflect the majority of American citizens’ views and values, but instead a set of less-popular ideologies that are setting the rules for everyone else.

All the more reason why I want to repeal the 1929 Reapportionment Act, as the power the House gives to the GOP is disproportionate to where the majority of the country is actually at. Which also in turn fixes the electoral college, and makes it a more direct representation of the electorate (as the House was designed to be).

Just spit balling here, I’ve recommended “infiltrating” the major religions, instead of fighting with them.

It’s odd to me that you accuse us of this multiple times, despite the fact that a sizable percentage of our 20-year archive is wrapped around integral forms of Christianity, Buddhism, etc. I suppose you’d need to be a supporting member in order to really know that, but you can thumb through our archives any time you want to :wink:

And for the record, integral is not interested in “upleveling” individuals. As LaWanna says, people can only develop at their own pace, and have that right to station themselves at whatever stage works the best for their conditions. There is nothing wrong with being amber, we just want you to be a HEALTHY version of amber.

However, Integral DOES want to support healthy systems up and down the spiral that best promote development — political systems, economic systems, educational systems, etc — and that can create a natural updraft toward later stages of complexity. We want to create better conditions that are more conducive to growth, development, and awakening for the greatest number of people. The Constitution itself is an example of this — a document that was created when only 10% or so of the world’s population was at an Orange center of gravity, but imposed upon all pre-Orange stages nonetheless. Civil Rights is another example, as newly-emerging Green values got encoded into law and imposed upon all pre-green stages. This has historically been the best way to create a sort of “pacer” for the rest of society, by laying down new laws that regulate or restrict unhealthy behaviors from previous stages, and promote growth to the highest stages commonly available.


But what about the situation in which most Americans, a majority, are in favor of a certain ‘something,’ but certain factions of the Congress with ‘veto’ power, and perhaps the High Court, are opposed to that something? Because that is the situation with abortion right now: 60%-70% thereabouts in favor of retaining Roe v Wade, and yet, there is threat (which may not come to fruition) that it will be overturned despite the will of the majority of people. In our current state of affairs, the opinion/will of even the majority of Americans is sometimes ignored.

It took MANY election cycles and 100 years of activism before women got the right to vote in the U.S. Here’s a little rundown:
1820s and 1830s–most states have allowed all white men to vote, those with and without property.
Women at this time began pushing back against what was known as the Cult of True Womanhood, the “true” woman defined as pious, a submissive wife, a mother concerned with home and family.
1848–the Seneca Falls Convention, in which abolitionist activists decreed that women are autonomous beings deserving of their own identities.
This political activism continued throughout the 1850s, lost some steam during the Civil War.
1868–The 14th Amendment is passed, extending Constitutional protection to all “citizens,” with “citizen” defined as “male.”
1869–Women begin fighting and petitioning for a universal suffrage amendment
1870–The 15th Amendment is passed, giving Black men the right to vote, but not women
1890–Women and their male supporters changed approach: instead of arguing, petitioning for equal rights and responsibilities on the basis of being “created equal,” they began to petition on the basis because they were “different from men.” (like Blacks are different from Whites)
End of the 19th century–Women won the right to vote in Idaho and Utah
By 1910, more Western states were giving women the right to vote, Eastern states not.
1916–Saw women becoming more militant, with hunger strikes, White House pickets, and some violence, with women carrying firearms, setting fires, etc.
World War 1, with women working on behalf of the war effort, gave the opportunity for women to channel the message of their being “patriotic, deserving of citizenship.”
1920–The 19th Amendment finally gave women the right to vote.

Notable here is the amber ethnocentrism, a white male “us” vs. both black and female “thems.”
Notable also is the evolution of the activism: from peaceful marches, petitioning, speaking to members of Congress, redefining the “true” woman, to arguing on behalf of being “created equal,” to arguing on behalf of being “different from men,” to militancy/some violence, to messaging their patriotism.
Notable also is that oppressed people at some point, women included, usually resort to militancy if other tactics have not borne fruit.

You may be right about “the Amber folks will behead you eventually.” Through de-choice-ing you.


You’ve left out that SCOTUS nominees are approved by the Senate, not appointed by a Monarch or Popular vote Parliament.

Imposed upon makes it sound like the people did not agree. I do agree that the founding fathers were much more learned than the average colonial, but what they drafted was approved by the people. To imply that it was “imposed upon” might be taken as an attempt to invalidate?
Or to pave the way for perhaps a new “imposed upon” by the DNC? Sadly that modus operandi is extremely difficult to pull off now. BY DESIGN the intent is structural changes require approval through multiple election cycles, not a flash in the pan one shot snap transformation.
The structure is definitely there but does require typically 2 to 6 years to accomplish . But good news is that great ideas are not flash mobs but clearly sustained progress.

Agreed. This is how it works. Gain majority approval, which might not be on my or your desired timeline, promulgate the legislative updates and viola progress has now become old hat, established law. And we are on to the next big thing.


And they are first nominated by the President, whose EC votes are predominantly determined by the number of reps in the House. Currently we have what is effectively an affirmative action program for conservatives in the House, the EC, and the executive, which allows less-popular ideologies to gain disproportional power and set the rules for everyone else.

And this has negative effects for both parties, and more importantly, to our society as a whole. It makes it so that the left needs to overcome nearly insurmountable odds to rise above the structural rigging that the right has created in order to get anything at all accomplished (which often results in extremism), and it also prevents the right from evolving their ideas in order to make them more palatable to the majority and more competitive in the marketplace of ideas (which often results in extremism).


Approved by white male property-owning people. I point this out not to apply today’s standards to 1788, but because Justice Alito’s draft opinion re: Mississippi and Roe speaks to there being no Constitutional argument for abortion. We should keep in mind that women were not a part of that Constitutional process, or governance in general, so of course there’s nothing there that might speak to or about women, or any woman’s concerns.


But this is my point — it doesn’t always happen this way. For Civil Rights, only 10% of the population held these Green values, and it certainly did not reflect the country’s majority opinions about race and equality at the time. However, our political leaders at the time rightfully noticed that these new sets of values were on the ascendency, and were wise to encode them into law (largely because of the deeply upsetting conditions that were suddenly being projected into everyone’s living room via network television, which provided a window of opportunity to draft a new set of laws.) [And of course, they were also able to convince enough modern Orange that this is a natural extension of their own humanitarian value code.] But I think we can agree that this was a very positive emergence, as it allowed society to step forward into a greater, more inclusive set of values.

As for abortion, only ~30% of people want to deviate from the Roe status quo, and that number has been declining over the years. And yet conservatives feel perfectly justified in overriding this 50-year precedent (after explicitly stating they wouldn’t in their confirmation hearings). Which, according to your own words, you should not agree with, because these conservatives were not able to “convince the majority of Americans over multiple election cycles” and therefore “have no right to set the rules, no matter how awesome your ideologies might be.”


Correct. Women’s suffrage, which other than very spotty occurances throught the world was championed by Western nations in primarily 20th century.
While I’ve never been a slave owner, I don’t think I’m disqualified from taking a moral stance today on slavery. Now that I identify as a woman and birthing person Sundays thru Wednesdays surely my concerns are valid on abortion, right?
Too bad Obama and the DNC majority government didn’t pass legislation when they were in a dominant position. Our system is very straight forward to support such legislation. Leftist could easily draft very straight forward bills similar to Colorado or Oklahoma or Texas and gitter done before midterms.


You’re cherry picking your polls and positions. Radical Leftists want the “right” to suck a babies brains out while she’s crying.

I thought civil rights passed with a majority in House, Senate and was then signed by LBJ?
And then the Democrats turned around and systemically destroyed the African American family.

Any specific thoughts here? Kind of looking for your Red Line.


You’re cherry picking your polls and positions. Radical Leftists want the “right” to suck a babies brains out while she’s crying.

You are arguing against an exaggerated straw man. I understand it helps to characterize your political opposition as blatantly evil, though. The Radical Right wants to control women’s bodies, turn them into a breeding class, and punish them for having sex outside of marriage!

Any specific thoughts here? Kind of looking for your Red Line.

I think your #3 is a poison pill. Tell you what — since this frame makes bodily autonomy for females conditional, while men’s bodily autonomy remains absolute, the “sperm donor” can suck it up. A fair exchange of men’s economic autonomy for women’s bodily autonomy.

Let’s replace #3 with “robust sex education for adolescents and adults, and easy access to contraception, in all 50 states — the only methods proven to make abortions more rare” and we can continue our negotiation.


We could include a clause giving the sperm donors an option to “legally accept” the birthing decision, vs the abortion decision. If the woman chooses to abort, no one has any future obligations. If both the woman and man choose to birth the baby, then both assume the future obligations.

Is there no conflict of autonomy when the woman can make a choice impacting the sperm donors future obligations, yet the sperm donor has no choice at all in the decision process?

And yes, I think the “poison pill” is somewhat valid. Would unmarried potential birthing mothers take their sexual and reproductive choices much more consciously if there were no “safety net” so to speak?

Not evil, just the reality of what occurs in the real world when a viable fetus is aborted. How should I phrase it so it’s not taken a characterization as blatantly evil? I didn’t condemn anyone as evil - this is what you assume it means. Should we remove ourselves completely from the realities of the physio-sphere actions?

I didn’t go into the fetus dissection for sale of body parts and tissues. Is the mere mention of this considered “characterization” or “strawmanning” as well?


Don’t be coy, there was a reason you chose the phrasing “want the ‘right’ to suck a babies brains out while she’s crying”. You intentionally exaggerated the left’s view on this in order to make them sound as morally repugnant as possible. What’s another word for “morally repugnant”?

No we should not, which is why you might have mentioned that only 1.3% of abortions occur after the 21 week mark (which, just to remind, actually means 19 weeks of pregnancy, because the count begins with the woman’s last menstrual cycle, which occurs ~2 weeks before ovulation and therefore fertilization). And the vast majority of those are due to medical emergencies. Which means that 98.7% of abortions are already occurring well before anyone can “suck a baby’s brains out”.

Agreed — if the woman aborts, the man should not have to pay child support for the aborted fetus. You’ve got a deal :wink:


But we still need to codify into law the “right” the ability to suck a baby’s brains out?

Very cute :wink:


Yes, because medical emergencies happen, and we do not ever want a woman’s miscarriage or private health issues to be met with scorn and suspicion (or vigilante lawsuits), and because it makes sense to prioritize bodily autonomy as much as possible. And the good news is, this is already the case for the vast, vast majority of abortions after 21 weeks. So we have already achieved the status quo that you are looking for — post-viability abortions are exceedingly rare, and almost always done for medical emergencies. There are virtually zero elective abortions after 21 weeks, and virtually zero doctors who would be willing to perform one. Yay!

Because we want to keep this discussion anchored in facts, not feelings, right? I understand that, for many on the right, the word “abortion” makes them feel like an average abortion consists of women showing up 8 months pregnant to get their babies’ brains sucked out because they had a last minute change of heart. But those ain’t the facts, just more feelings. The reality is, that almost never happens, and when it does it’s due to serious medical risk and emergency. Time to abort your fetal strawman!


So I’m hearing your proposal for Birthing Persons Bodily Autonomoy as?

  • 1st or 2nd trimester - no restrictions - how about government funding? how about mandated override of objections to perform? how about parental consent for minors?
  • 3rd trimester - no restrictions or restricted w/ exceptions?
  • Any penalties for violation of whatever laws are broken? Or no penalties for those performing, receiving, or assisting violation of enacted laws?
  • No change in financial liability for the sperm donors.

Is this fairly accurate on your thoughts?


Thinking out loud here — how about:

  • No legal restrictions on women’s bodily autonomy whatsoever. Anything else would just be bad libertarianism.

  • Instead, draft new legislature that extends incremental bodily autonomy (“personhood”) for developing fetuses. The degree of “personhood” is dependent upon the degree of wholeness, beginning with viability (because a nine month old fetus is “more whole” than a four month old fetus, and therefore receives greater personhood.)

There, now we’ve gotten away from the need to legislate restrictive conditions for women’s bodily autonomy. They get absolute autonomy over their bodies, just like we expect men to, but that bodily autonomy must now be negotiated with that of the developing fetus. Which still allows the termination of the fetus if/when the mother’s health is at risk, because the woman is afforded more wholeness, more personhood, more autonomy. No restrictions on the mother, but increasing personhood for the fetus.

Which, by the way, has other consequences. The fetus can be claimed as a dependent for tax purposes. Child support begins in the womb. Fetuses become American Citizens before they are born, as long as they were conceived on American soil :wink:

how about government funding?

It’s a medical procedure, so I have no problem with the government funding it as much as any other medical procedure. A woman should not be forced into medical bankruptcy because of an ectopic pregnancy.

how about mandated override of objections to perform?

I don’t know what this means.

how about parental consent for minors?

I’m fine with doctor’s consent. Why would we ever want a 12 year old who was raped by her father, to need her father’s permission to abort? Why would we ever force ANY 12 year old to bear and raise a child, for that matter? (Groomers, that’s who.) No, I say for this age group, automatic abortion (with doctor’s consent).

3rd trimester - no restrictions or restricted w/ exceptions?

No legal restrictions on women’s bodily autonomy. Increased incremental protections for the fetus’ autonomy. Left to the doctor’s discretion, because they are in the best position to decide, and because we don’t want women who have had a miscarriage to be brought into court. I trust the doctors here, not the lawyers.

Any penalties for violation of whatever laws are broken? Or no penalties for those performing, receiving, or assisting violation of enacted laws?

No, women should not be penalized for having abortions. Because miscarriages exist. Why would we want women to prove their miscarriage was not an abortion in a court?

No change in financial liability for the sperm donors.

Again, I don’t understand the argument you’re trying to make. Is this saying “if women can chose to get an abortion, then no man should ever have to pay child support”? Or are you arguing that a man should be able to say “I wanted her to get an abortion, so therefore I should not have to pay child support?”


Beautiful history @LaWanna

Thank you for capturing. It’s not something that I’ve seen laid out so concisely.
I know much of this is abhorrent from where we stand today (slavery, etc), as we ourselves stand upon this progress to look back. I do think it important that we contextualize the progress (or injustices if you like) based on the times at which they have occurred.
Would you characterize the US as an impediment, a laggard, about average, front edge or leading edge for equal rights for both women and blacks throughout history?
What parts of the planet in the current moment would you consider as leading edge, about average, laggard, or impeding equal rights for both women and blacks?
Do you think our rate of change decade by decade is increasing, staying about the same or slowing? And for humans and human societies, is there a maximum rate of change?

You wanted a direct answer on if I think Amber’s majority preferences should be allowed to rule. My point on “Amber folks will behead you” is that it’s critical you build consensus. But I do see what I think is your point that sometimes people need to be “led forward”. Only caution is this has to be done with sincerity and honoring all, or it won’t stick.

If I could provide a bit of personal recommendation it would be for the “progressives” to often express awareness of the amazing progress being made - just as you’ve done - and perhaps the occasionally expression of gratitude for the progress to our society. What would it be like if progressives authentically worked allay fears (perceptions) that the “radicals” are more than willing to “burn it all down”?


Hey, you should read my 8 Zones of Racism piece, because I did exactly that :wink:


Thanks for the clarity Corey.

Is your “redline” not to be crossed or is there anything you could accept somewhere between “sanctity of life” and “complete Bodily Autonomy”? Or is it all or nothing for you?


is there anything you could accept somewhere between “sanctity of life” and “complete Bodily Autonomy”?

I thought I was doing that, by suggesting that bodily autonomy also gets extended incrementally to the developing fetus? Isn’t that some meaningful acknowledgement of “sanctity of life”? It seems to me I am not the one playing “all or nothing” games — for example, I understand that the word “incremental” may be problematic, but is anything short of all-or-nothing “the fetus should be given 100% personhood from conception” acceptable to you?

And as someone who often champions libertarianism and individual rights, do you find the problem of limiting women’s bodily autonomy as challenging as I do? Does it register as a concern? The right to bodily autonomy seems to be one of those “self-evident truths” that comes online at Orange, though it is often enforced by Green these days.