Roe v Wade overturned
- Thread starter BAHman
- Start date
Great decision. Does not make it illegal. If anyone could watch an abortion and be in favor of it they are a sick person. Just sayin.
It's illegal in half the States. Here's the thing, it's not about how gruesome or not gruesome the act is; it's all about a choice. Everybody has their unique situations and they shouldn't be judged for their own decisions and there are many. Me personally, a man now in my 50s, have had close calls and an abortion with past relationships. I could not imagine if that choice was not available, as neither of us at the time was ready for parenthood. Choice and rights and a woman owns all the rights of her body and what's in her body.
It's funny how most conservatives were beside themselves with outrage that THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT could 'force' them to wears face masks in public or get a COVID vaccine shot during a deadly pandemic.
So what's their reaction to this government power play into the personal lives of women? That should REALLY PISS them off, right? No, we're told it's "a great decision" for the same 'big bad government' they detested for making them...gasp!...wear a f*king mask to force a woman to become a human incubator.
What's wrong with this picture?
If anyone could watch a rape take place and be in favor of the victim being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they are a sick person. From the perspective of the fetus, there is no difference if they are product of rape, failed birth control, or consenting adults wishing to have a child. The only thing that makes them different is how we view the woman from a moral perspective.
i read that as a defense of the baby. when you say force, in an abortion the only one that is forced to sacrifice itself is the child. not that its important at this point, but my question was if there is a moral argument to be made to kill that being, and it there isnt one then is it really a moral issue?
People view a physiologically consistent procedure to abort through the lens of morality based on the specific circumstances surrounding the pregnancy.
The whole ‘morality’ argument frames the issue as if the USA was The Vatican ruled by the Pope. Last I checked, this is a democracy, not a Catholic theocracy.
There's countless scenarios where it's clearly a moral issue. I think one human imposing 9 months of involuntary servitude on another presents moral issues. But here's a more intuitive one.
Pregnancy risks re not black and white. There's huge levels of uncertainty. So imagining a scenario where you discover that carrying this baby to term will include an X% risk of death. Who gets to make that call? A woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years probably views that differently than one who already has 4 kids. There's a real risk 4 kids will grow up without a mother. This seems like a moral dilemma to me.
I highly recommend you go read some personal abortion stories. The pro-life crowd ignores the heart-wrenching decisions pregnant women have to make every day.
There was a story on the radio yesterday of a Texas woman who was suffering from an Ectopic Pregnancy (instead of implanting on the uterus, the embryo attaches to one of the woman's fallopian tubes.) The fetus cannot survive there and, if its not discovered early enough, the mother's life is in jeopardy. But guess what? The woman in this case had her life-saving procedure DELAYED because the doctors at the hospital she was at were concerned the State would consider it an abortion.
There was a twitter thread on similar issues in Missouri. The law only provides exception in the event of "medical emergency." A harvard bio-ethicist/lawer was explaining that "medical emergency" has a legal definition and it does not include "potential emergency." So in the event of an ectopic pregnancy, the opinion was that legally Dr's had to wait until the situation became emergent.
The analogy was having someone with appendicitis, but having to wait until it ruptured before you could remove the appendix.
However, this problem could be fixed by the state AG simply releasing an opinion on the issue to cover ectopic pregnancies, but he was the dude bragging about being the first state to ban abortion so we'll see how that goes.
Anyone who is in favor of a woman with an Ectopic Pregnancy WAITING until her very life is threatened before doing something about it is truly a sick person. Just sayin
Yet she doesn’t have a choice to consume crack cocaine, especially if she’s pregnant. Why do we care what she puts into her body if that unborn child doesn’t have some real and legal identity before it’s born?
Because it’s absolutely irrational to take the position that the baby is just a part of the mother’s body. In fact, 24 states and DC consider it child abuse to use illegal substance prenatal. 25 states and DC require physicians to report suspected use and 8 require testing if the doctor suspects it. Similarly, until very recently, physical crimes against a pregnant mother also incurred added penalties if not additional charges for affecting the unborn child. As it should’ve been until we sacrificed a bit of our moral compass to the alter of abortion.
At the very least be honest and state that you are in favor of ending human lives deliberately for whatever the reasons are. Let’s have the debate honestly about whether the value of the killing balances against taking an attitude that some human lives aren’t human or worthy of life.
You want an "HONEST" debate?
First off, we're talking an EMBRYO or a FETUS. Prior to the 9th week of pregnancy it's considered an embryo and a fetus after that point. The earliest a fetus is considered viable is around 24 weeks. The vast majority of abortions occur by the 13-week. So this 'aborting babies' is nothing more than dishonest bullsh*t.
Secondly, no one is "killing" a life that hasn't been born yet. This is more dishonest bullsh*t from the anti-abortion crowd they spew to influence the discussion.
The very notion that a 13-week fetus somehow trumps a woman's right to control her own body is beyond ridiculous. If your religious beliefs are such that you believe otherwise, that's fine. To each his or her own. But you don't get to push your beliefs on everybody else who doesn't look at it the same way you do.
embryo and fetus are stages of human life, just like infant and toddler or even senior citizen.
They are stages of human development, whether they are human life at that point is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
Kind of a weird line of reasoning. Yes we have illegal drugs and a failed drug war. Yes there is a debate to be had about whether we should be restricted from putting certain substances in our body. But a woman can also CHOSE to do a myriad of other activities like smoking, drinking alcohol in excess, heck, bouncing belly first on a trampoline. The cumulative total of these actions determines the outcome of the pregnancy.
Let me ask you this. Say you have 3 pregnant women, one is in a high risk pregnancy. Let’s say she has a 25% risk of serious adverse effects or death from carrying the pregnancy to term. A second was raped. A third is homeless and has absolutely no means for caring for a child or even getting the prenatal care necessary to successfully maintain a pregnancy. Oh, and she’s an alcoholic. Let’s say we can know 100% that each of these pregnancies will end in at least a “somewhat” healthy human life. Which of these pregnancies do you mandate must be carried to term? None? All? Let’s say the baby is put up for adoption in all cases so from their perspective there is no difference whatsoever. Does that change things?
Drug use isn't a great analogy here. The debate is when does the state have a "compelling interest" in interfering with personal medical decisions. You can certainly argue that protecting human life is a compelling interest. But even if you decide that the rights of the pregnant woman win out in regards to choice, you can still argue that the state has a compelling interest in preventing pre-natal drug use.
Why? Because babies born with impairments as a direct result of using drugs become a burden on the entire community. So it's not illogical to say "retaining the pregnancy is your choice, but choosing to keep the pregnancy to term imposes societal costs, therefore we can impose regulations."
Thats poor analogy I won’t even respond to that. But I will be honest with you, I have no problem and so does most Americans (check the polls) with ending the life of a fetus or embryo or whatever you wanna call it, in the time frame allowed, should the women chose to do so.
you are going down a pretty scary road here. its not a stretch to call that thought process nazi-like.
Yeah, the last 50 years where this was law of the land, has been just like nazi Germany or something.
you are going down a pretty scary road here. its not a stretch to call that thought process nazi-like.
Just remember Cubs. You’re dealing with a sick individual who just wants to antagonize people and has been banned twice for it
"Because babies born with impairments as a direct result of using drugs become a burden on the entire community. So it's not illogical to say "retaining the pregnancy is your choice, but choosing to keep the pregnancy to term imposes societal costs, therefore we can impose regulations."
i find that thought process pretty dangerous. i dont see valuing human life as a societal cost no matter what.
This is a red herring. The vast majority of abortions in this country have nothing to do with any of these hypothetical cases. I have no issue arguing the merits of any of the extreme cases, or even the main issue honestly, but to try to force the argument into the fringes to justify the common is manipulative.
Especially when we cannot argue about the variables honestly. It’s about the soul of a society and it affects far more than ending the one human life.
Exactly. You can’t answer the question, because doing so is evidence that this is in fact just a moral issue to you. Also, you have no idea why the vast majority of abortions occur as the woman is not required to disclose a reason.
Shuckster, back in 2019 you said you could agree with a law banning abortions at 10 weeks. You thought it was a fair compromise between conception and viability. But now, it sounds like you’re against any law that prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Is your new position based on a better understanding of fetal development or a political backlash to the Dobbs opinion?
Alabama Abortion Bill
lol I love how this guy writes a thousand words to do everything possible to avoid his own comments. That 37 week old child in the womb? Not alive! It's not alive until God comes down and blows a soul into its' nostrils, since Shookster knows EXACTLY how and when God gives us souls. [roll]
ucf.forums.rivals.com
Then I guess you think our entire legal system is a product of Nazism or you just didn't understand my point.
Making it illegal for pregnant women to do things that we know harms development is a logical position for government to take. Since you sound pro-life I'd assume you'd support regulating the behavior of pregnant women in the interest of the unborn child, so I'm guessing you just didn't understand what I was saying.
And when I say "Compelling interest" iI mean it in the sense that's actually a legal thing - not my own random word salad...
Compelling State Interest
A government regulation that impairs First Amendment rights must meet a higher standard of need — defined as a "compelling government interest” — to be considered constitutional.
www.mtsu.edu
I'm against this bullsh*t court decision to overturn Roe v Wade and the trigger laws that are making all abortions illegal, including in cases of rape or incest!
As far as my 2019 statement, my preference would be to return things to the way they were: with the majority of States allowing abortions up to 23 weeks. But I'm okay with a lower number in this age of medical miracles as long as whatever number is set, gives women: 1)the time to realize she's pregnant for crying out loud; and 2) the time to take stock of her situation and decide if an abortion is a consideration. In hindsight, 10 weeks now sounds awfully low to me (the vast majority of abortions occur between the 10th and 13th weeks) but some compromise between 13 and 23 weeks seems reasonable.
A couple of nights ago I was driving while listening to the Right-wing "Patriot" radio show on Sirius. The host was trying to make it sound like during Roe v Wade, those pro-choice folks were evil encarnate 'cause they aborted "babies" aaaaaaaaall the way up to mere moments before birth -- which is yet another crock full of the bullsh*t dishonesty the anti-abortion crowd use to emotionally charge the general public and sway them to their religious ideology.
i get what ur saying, but your post took it to the point of collective benefit for society at the cost of individual life. im pro life, but not to the point that i would be willing to sacrifice the life of one to save another. and to be honest, none of this would be an issue if liberals hadn't pushed the issue all the way 2 partial birth abortion. roe would have gone unnoticed forever if not for casey and how the bounds kept being pushed.Then I guess you think our entire legal system is a product of Nazism or you just didn't understand my point.
Making it illegal for pregnant women to do things that we know harms development is a logical position for government to take. Since you sound pro-life I'd assume you'd support regulating the behavior of pregnant women in the interest of the unborn child, so I'm guessing you just didn't understand what I was saying.
And when I say "Compelling interest" iI mean it in the sense that's actually a legal thing - not my own random word salad...
Compelling State Interest
A government regulation that impairs First Amendment rights must meet a higher standard of need — defined as a "compelling government interest” — to be considered constitutional.
This is a pretty slick maneuver, Crazy. You purchased a keyboard without shift or caps lock keys. You had me fooled completely.
Every one of those babies should have a shot at life and who the hell are we to deny a life it’s chance because it’s mother is a degenerate or made bad life choices? And to do so with no due process, which is a hallmark of our freedom?
No reason is recorded intentionally because the abortion lobby doesn’t want to have an honest conversation. There are actually laws against collecting such data. In fact, there are all kinds of laws/regulations banning any information or questioning that might give a woman second thoughts when going through the procedure to kill her baby.
One side wants an honest conversation and the other side wants to control the language and dehumanize the victim which makes it far from an honest conversation. I don’t have a religious position on this and I am perfectly fine considering a societal impact position. But it needs to be a full, open, and honest conversation. If we are going to say that we are going to end innocent lives because it is better for society and that is our cultural position, then let’s make that position as clear and unambiguous as possible and that includes stating all of the undesirable aspects.
Similar threads
