Roe v Wade overturned

[UCFBS]

Regarding the continually insulting Cabal ... at least it's the Cooler. Sigh ...

Why don't they just let the people of each state decide for themselves?*

I see your asterisk.

It really boils down to this, civics-wise ...

• Is one's own control of one's own body and right to live how a person wants, free of the state, is an individual civil right, or not?

Plus ...

• Does the viability of a baby to survive outside the womb matter, or not?

If you say 'Yes,' then you're Pro-Choice.
If you say 'No,' you're not. Now ...

You can be against abortion, but still Pro-Choice. Otherwise ...

If you're going to believe you have to be against abortion, in how you vote, you might as well start damning yourself for voting for war or killing anyone ... as well as disarming people, or having police abuse others or so many other things.

Which brings me back to that first question ... we are in everyone's business these days. Why?

But it's funny how people think states, or even federal, think we should limit rights. The whole purpose of government -- especially in the rare case against 10th Amendment, where the state trumps the federal -- is to protect rights, not limit them.

Which is where the second question comes in ... if you think a woman must be forced by the state to take a child to term, even if it has limited or no viability to be outside her body. If that's the case, then, you're not Pro-Choice.

But don't confuse how you vote with what you believe. Otherwise ... you have voted to kill all sorts of people, foreigners, citizens, etc...

Just like people who argue against homosexuality, but ignore the fact that everywhere in the Christian New Testament, and the original Judism Testament too, homosexuality is hardly spoken of alone ... but all sorts of sexual promiscuity and other things, alongside it.

At some point ... it becomes hypocrisy. Which is what I see out of both major party platforms. Right now. Divide us. Conqueror us. Enslave us. Support the oligarchy ...

Everything we fought against the British Parliment, its Troops and even the Corporate Troops of the Hudson Bay Company, the Fur Traders, et al. too!

 

[sk8knight]

In my life it’s my child and I wouldn’t opt for an abortion. But that’s my own morality at play. Also, the day before birth convenience abortion that you like to strawman about is not an actual situation that plays out in reality.

You're right, only 1% of abortions in this country take place after 20 weeks, according the the Kaiser Family Foundation (I think they're using the CDC data from 2019). So let's take out the "day before" even though 9 states and DC now make it perfectly legal for any reason whatsoever. That 1% accounts for nearly 5,000 abortions and the causes range. Incidentally, the talking point on the other side of the equation, rape and incest, occur in less than .5% of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute. So each side's talking points are rare cases to the overwhelming majority of abortions.

91% of abortions in the US occur before 13 weeks of gestation and another 8% occur before 20 weeks. If this is true and you're talking about actual data, then why are people so up in arms about the states with 20 or even 15 week limitations? Why is there such an activist movement to normalize with the states that have no restrictions whatsoever?

You are part of a culture that defines it's standards based upon democratic agreement. Just saying "it's not my morality" is a cop out. We regulate and make things illegal that might just be someone else's morality. Why do we arrest Muslims practicing honor killings for murder? Or vaginal circumcision? Or parents for child abuse for corporal punishment?

So again, the question is that you have not answered, do you acknowledge that the baby post the point of viability is a human life whether it has left the mother or not? Secondarily, do we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect human life or not? Finally, does that responsibility to protect human life have conditions or not?

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

 

[UCFBS]

You're right, only 1% of abortions in this country take place after 20 weeks, according the the Kaiser Family Foundation (I think they're using the CDC data from 2019). So let's take out the "day before" even though 9 states and DC now make it perfectly legal for any reason whatsoever. That 1% accounts for nearly 5,000 abortions and the causes range. Incidentally, the talking point on the other side of the equation, rape and incest, occur in less than .5% of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute. So each side's talking points are rare cases to the overwhelming majority of abortions.

And I've quoted those same statistics.

Spoiler: Private Thought

Although 1 out of 200 abortions being rape/incest ... still makes me sick that it's that high ... and that's just the violated women who choose abortion.

A lot of women -- brave, loving, self-sacrificing women -- still choose to have the child after any incest or rape, because they know the child is innocent.

And that's a big reason why I trust women far more than any mob of the people!

91% of abortions in the US occur before 13 weeks of gestation and another 8% occur before 20 weeks. If this is true and you're talking about actual data, then why are people so up in arms about the states with 20 or even 15 week limitations? Why is there such an activist movement to normalize with the states that have no restrictions whatsoever?

So ... while I'm a huge Pro-Choice advocate, I will agree with you that this is not only lost right now, but ...

Progressives really need to shut up about Roe v. Wade being any time. It's not! It allows for restritions at not only after the 2nd trimester, but even some at the 1st trimester.

The Mississippi SCOTUS ruling was about 15 weeks. I don't like it, but ... it's not exactly 'overturning' Roe v. Wade as the US Mass and Social Media make it.

They are being like the 'Don't Say Gay' non-sense with Florida.

What the SCOTUS did was say States can now limit down to 15 weeks. But I don't like the overall ruling, and take issue with it.

But I'm taking issue with the actual ruling, not the 90% bullsh-- that doesn't exist.

You are part of a culture that defines it's standards based upon democratic agreement.

I have to agree with this. And I call out the GOP when they do the same too.

Just saying "it's not my morality" is a cop out. We regulate and make things illegal that might just be someone else's morality. Why do we arrest Muslims practicing honor killings for murder? Or vaginal circumcision? Or parents for child abuse for corporal punishment?

But ... I also have point out that those are a bit different.

Abortion isn't murder, legally ... again, legally. Society isn't going to break down if a woman ends the life of an unborn child like a born human already in society.

That has to be pointed out, hence why it's not murder.

And yes, I recognize it's wrong in the same regard when a person kills a woman, and the unborn child counts as a double-murder. I've long warned women to back away from that.

Same with some of the deadbeat dad stuff and red-pill swallow ... women need to stop undermining Roe v. Wade. I get tired of the hypocrisy too.

So again, the question is that you have not answered, do you acknowledge that the baby post the point of viability is a human life whether it has left the mother or not? Secondarily, do we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect human life or not? Finally, does that responsibility to protect human life have conditions or not?

Those are fair arguments. And that's why Progressives should STFU and leave the Pro-Choice argument up to us Libertarians. Because ...

The entire catalyst for this load of bullsh-- started with Virginia. Progressives arguing Roe v. Wade still applies even 10 days out of the womb.

At some point ... Progressives cause this non-sense and, frankly, the GOP and Religious Right is extremely well organized.

It's just like Progressives who vandalize faith-based businesses, let alone charities. Talk about literally 'poking the bear!' They really need to stop, because ...

It's proof that, yes, Christians are under attack!

 

[hemightbejeremy]

You're right, only 1% of abortions in this country take place after 20 weeks, according the the Kaiser Family Foundation (I think they're using the CDC data from 2019). So let's take out the "day before" even though 9 states and DC now make it perfectly legal for any reason whatsoever. That 1% accounts for nearly 5,000 abortions and the causes range. Incidentally, the talking point on the other side of the equation, rape and incest, occur in less than .5% of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute. So each side's talking points are rare cases to the overwhelming majority of abortions.

91% of abortions in the US occur before 13 weeks of gestation and another 8% occur before 20 weeks. If this is true and you're talking about actual data, then why are people so up in arms about the states with 20 or even 15 week limitations? Why is there such an activist movement to normalize with the states that have no restrictions whatsoever?

You are part of a culture that defines it's standards based upon democratic agreement. Just saying "it's not my morality" is a cop out. We regulate and make things illegal that might just be someone else's morality. Why do we arrest Muslims practicing honor killings for murder? Or vaginal circumcision? Or parents for child abuse for corporal punishment?

So again, the question is that you have not answered, do you acknowledge that the baby post the point of viability is a human life whether it has left the mother or not? Secondarily, do we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect human life or not? Finally, does that responsibility to protect human life have conditions or not?

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

There are no accurate numbers on the number of abortions due to rape. Because women are not required to disclose why they get an abortion. And many many rapes are never reported. So you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Whether I believe a life should be preserved at X weeks pregnant matters little. In reality, I’m not a doctor, I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. If you want to argue for preservation of every conceived life than at least you are consistent. If you make exceptions then you are imposing your own morality. Preserving every conceived life has its own practical limitations. Particularly in the age of medical abortions. The government doesn’t need a registry of every conception, nor would it be able to obtain one. That isn’t their role. You may think they need to ensure every life conceived is actually birthed, but that is your own morals. And it’s not a problem that can be practically solved.

The truth is that over time the number of abortions has gone down globally. While simultaneously, access to abortions has increased. This isn’t coincidental. We are living in a time of historical prosperity as well as effective contraceptions options. These factors have far more to do with limiting abortions than a ban that in 2022 is essentially toothless. The US offers almost no maternal leave. If you truly want to incentivize bringing life into this world, perhaps we should start with more social safety nets for women who choose to do so. That would have a much more profound effect. But most people who argue for “pro-life” want to turn the page about 5 minutes after the birth.

To answer you last question, I acknowledge that it is human life from the time of conception. That doesn’t mean that it is the responsibility of the government to preserve it universally.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I’ve called you out, crazy, at least a dozen times —all of which you have ignored, and you decide to play dumb and answer to this one?

Bold. Bold move.

And still the parade float comes in to defend the worthless trolls. I’m sorry: worthless racist trolls. Sigh sigh sigh sigh sigh sigh sigh

 

[UCFBS]

There are no accurate numbers on the number of abortions due to rape. Because women are not required to disclose why they get an abortion. And many many rapes are never reported. So you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

But it's data we have. It could be up to 1-3%, based on the estimated rate of rapes not reported. But that's moot. He's not wrong in his argument, which is elsewhere.

Spoiler: Politicking

In fact, I've long argued we should go for a partial Amendment to the Constitution protecting the right for women to opt for abortions when raped or the result of incest. That would really force the GOP into making the allegation that most women lie, just to get abortions, which would only backfire on them ... horrendously, even with GOP women. But that's me ... politicking to 'force the issue.'

Whether I believe a life should be preserved at X weeks pregnant matters little. In reality, I’m not a doctor, I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. If you want to argue for preservation of every conceived life than at least you are consistent. If you make exceptions then you are imposing your own morality.

But you can read Roe v. Wade, right? Because that's what we're talking about. Viability factored into their decision, including second and even first trimester. So if you're going to keep arguing Roe v. Wade, then you need to argue from that standpoint.

Even the Conservative Justices did, and the Libertarian Justices most definitely ... because they -- unlike the Progressive Justices -- care about the 'intent' of the original Justices, in the time period they did.

The bit of irony here is that they played with the idea that the other Justices could have realized that science and viability would improve. Indeed, that was also discussed a half-century ago too. Just like with the 2nd Amendment 230 years ago as well.

So ... as much as you want to say it's about morality, it's not exactly. Which is why most of your arguments fail ... and make us Pro-Choice Libertarians cringe. You're making it worse. You're undermining Roe, and not helping.

Preserving every conceived life has its own practical limitations. Particularly in the age of medical abortions. The government doesn’t need a registry of every conception, nor would it be able to obtain one.

Again, the bit of irony here is that is the case with the 2nd Amendment as well. This is where we Libertarians just go full facepalm, and wish Progressives such as yourself, would literally leave the argument to us Pro-Choice Libertarians.

That isn’t their role. You may think they need to ensure every life conceived is actually birthed, but that is your own morals. And it’s not a problem that can be practically solved.

But ... we're actually talking Roe. Roe v. Wade is how you make the case against Conservatives. And ignoring or, worse yet, misusing Roe v. Wade is what light a fire under Conservatives a few years back.

That's the difference between Progressives (or Conservatives) and Liberals/Libertarians.

The Bible for Progressives is 'Science!' (note the exclaimation -- i.e., actually not science).
For Liberals/Libertarians, it's Civics, it's individual rights, defaulting away from the state.

This means you're going to have trouble making a good case.

The truth is that over time the number of abortions has gone down globally. While simultaneously, access to abortions has increased. This isn’t coincidental.

You could make this argument about the last 35 years and guns ... until civil unrest started, and lockdowns made it worse, starting a few years ago. That isn't coincidental either.

Even accidents and other things went down, with increased safety awareness that had nothing to do with the government either. But that's another story.

We are living in a time of historical prosperity as well as effective contraceptions options. These factors have far more to do with limiting abortions than a ban that in 2022 is essentially toothless. The US offers almost no maternal leave.

Or deferment or furloughs in the case of employees. Had we had those like the EU, lockdowns and total rejection of responsibility for ensuring the economic security of the US would make us Liberals/LIbertarians far less pissed off about the lockdowns.

We could make this same argument all over. Yet you're all about 'state control' and 'state knows better,' as much as Conservatives. The irony and hypocrisy is thick here, especially in how few lives were actually saved, but how many livelihoods were destroyed, let alone the rich got richer, the middle class got poorer.

If you truly want to incentivize bringing life into this world, perhaps we should start with more social safety nets for women who choose to do so. That would have a much more profound effect. But most people who argue for “pro-life” want to turn the page about 5 minutes after the birth.

But what is a 'safety net'? How did that work out during the lockdowns?

I say we stop letting government interfere and **** around on the whims of the mob we know as the people, and leave it to individuals. Groups scare me because they don't know better than the individual.

To answer you last question, I acknowledge that it is human life from the time of conception. That doesn’t mean that it is the responsibility of the government to preserve it universally.

Yes, 100% agreed! Now you're making a solid, Liberal statement!

Now let's apply that to everything else, and end this non-sense! But nope, you're a Progressive, and you want control of other things ... by the state.

 

[DaShuckster]

The Mississippi SCOTUS ruling was about 15 weeks. I don't like it, but ... it's not exactly 'overturning' Roe v. Wade as the US Mass and Social Media make it.

That's apparently because you weren't paying attention.

The Court voted 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law AND took the opportunity the case provided them to overturn Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 vote.

I acknowledge that it is human life from the time of conception.

I don't. It has the potential to become a living, breathing, human if brought to term. Anything before 20 weeks -- when abortions actually occur -- is not viable by any medical standard you choose to use.

You're right, only 1% of abortions in this country take place after 20 weeks, according the the Kaiser Family Foundation (I think they're using the CDC data from 2019). So let's take out the "day before" even though 9 states and DC now make it perfectly legal for any reason whatsoever. That 1% accounts for nearly 5,000 abortions and the causes range.

At least you've acknowledged your original argument was disingenuous at best. Second, your "1%" is actually less than one percent and despite assertions of the remainder (your 5000 number) being an 'anything goes, abortion free-for-all,' it's actually limited to those cases where the mother is seriously ill.

If you want to talk 'morality' what number of pregnant rape and incest victims are out there? You know, the group you apparently feel perfectly comfortable with having the government force to carry to term? Any ideas on how many woman (and young girls) fall into that camp?

 

[sk8knight]

There are no accurate numbers on the number of abortions due to rape. Because women are not required to disclose why they get an abortion. And many many rapes are never reported. So you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Whether I believe a life should be preserved at X weeks pregnant matters little. In reality, I’m not a doctor, I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. If you want to argue for preservation of every conceived life than at least you are consistent. If you make exceptions then you are imposing your own morality. Preserving every conceived life has its own practical limitations. Particularly in the age of medical abortions. The government doesn’t need a registry of every conception, nor would it be able to obtain one. That isn’t their role. You may think they need to ensure every life conceived is actually birthed, but that is your own morals. And it’s not a problem that can be practically solved.

The truth is that over time the number of abortions has gone down globally. While simultaneously, access to abortions has increased. This isn’t coincidental. We are living in a time of historical prosperity as well as effective contraceptions options. These factors have far more to do with limiting abortions than a ban that in 2022 is essentially toothless. The US offers almost no maternal leave. If you truly want to incentivize bringing life into this world, perhaps we should start with more social safety nets for women who choose to do so. That would have a much more profound effect. But most people who argue for “pro-life” want to turn the page about 5 minutes after the birth.

To answer you last question, I acknowledge that it is human life from the time of conception. That doesn’t mean that it is the responsibility of the government to preserve it universally.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I agree with your third paragraph except noting that there are huge pro-life charities doing just that. I’m not sure that the Government should be doing it with their track record. Most of the social welfare programs have only worsened the case of the people they were meant to help.

 

[DaShuckster]

I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

You haven't fooled anyone with yours.

But I will give you credit for one thing: You finally admitted the "hours before birth" late-term abortions rhetoric you tried to sell here was total BS.

 

[UCFBS]

That's apparently because you weren't paying attention.

The Court voted 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law AND took the opportunity the case provided them to overturn Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 vote.

Okay, this is one of those times where I missed it and was totally ignorant of the latter. They overturned both Roe and Case, you're right. I'm now also, admittedly, guilty of being 'a sheep' and listening to the belly aching of the 6-3 ruling, and missing that other ruling.

I can admit when I'm wrong, and thank people for educating me. Thank you, sincerely. I am now off to read the various case law and analysis before I comment further on that portion.

I don't. It has the potential to become a living, breathing, human if brought to term. Anything before 20 weeks -- when abortions actually occur -- is not viable by any medical standard you choose to use.

I agree with you, completely. I don't like getting into these 'viability' debates, although both Roe and the recent ruling do. I'll have to read some more on the latter ruling and see where that comes into play, legally.

At least you've acknowledged your original argument was disingenuous at best. Second, your "1%" is actually less than one percent and despite assertions of the remainder (your 5000 number) being an 'anything goes, abortion free-for-all,' it's actually limited to those cases where the mother is seriously ill.

If you want to talk 'morality' what number of pregnant rape and incest victims are out there? You know, the group you apparently feel perfectly comfortable with having the government force to carry to term? Any ideas on how many woman (and young girls) fall into that camp?

And this is why I get tired of the Conservatives as much as the Progressives.

I'm so tired of 'morality' and 'there outta be a law' trying to enforce 'the why.' It should just be that an individual decides for their own body, and tells everyone else to STFU.

Or better yet, we ...

• Re-write the 2nd Amendment so only women can be in free militias
• Only those in free militias, not controlled by the state, can be armed
• Free militias provide defense at women's health clinics
• They are allowed to use the butt of the pisto or rifle stock against anti-abortion protestors who cross onto private property during their protests

Oh, yeah ... all the guns have to be pink, because ... it's my idea.

 

[jt_knight]

There are no accurate numbers on the number of abortions due to rape. Because women are not required to disclose why they get an abortion. And many many rapes are never reported. So you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Whether I believe a life should be preserved at X weeks pregnant matters little. In reality, I’m not a doctor, I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. If you want to argue for preservation of every conceived life than at least you are consistent. If you make exceptions then you are imposing your own morality. Preserving every conceived life has its own practical limitations. Particularly in the age of medical abortions. The government doesn’t need a registry of every conception, nor would it be able to obtain one. That isn’t their role. You may think they need to ensure every life conceived is actually birthed, but that is your own morals. And it’s not a problem that can be practically solved.

The truth is that over time the number of abortions has gone down globally. While simultaneously, access to abortions has increased. This isn’t coincidental. We are living in a time of historical prosperity as well as effective contraceptions options. These factors have far more to do with limiting abortions than a ban that in 2022 is essentially toothless. The US offers almost no maternal leave. If you truly want to incentivize bringing life into this world, perhaps we should start with more social safety nets for women who choose to do so. That would have a much more profound effect. But most people who argue for “pro-life” want to turn the page about 5 minutes after the birth.

To answer you last question, I acknowledge that it is human life from the time of conception. That doesn’t mean that it is the responsibility of the government to preserve it universally.

Great post. Thoughtful and respectful. We spend too much energy criticizing people with different opinions (instead of challenging the substance of the opinion), and respond with sophomoric memes, but rarely commend those who exercise a little self-restraint by choosing not to become an internet troll. Bravo.

It appears that their is an idea that those who oppose abortion are imposing their morality (based exclusively on religious convictions) and those who support choice are acting from a position of moral neutrality, uninfluenced by religious convictions.

I would offer that regardless of one’s position on the issue, it’s derived from one’s moral convictions which are an aggregate of religious, social, familial, and cultural influences. Therefore, it’s a rhetorical fallacy to argue against a position by dismissing the position as the product of illegitimate concern (moral/religious) because all positions derive from the same set of concerns.

So, if we can begin from the same starting point, what are the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the debate? Is there one overarching principle that could ultimately settle the issue?

For me, and this may just be me, it’s the principle that in a healthy society the stronger protect the weaker. And sometimes (or often) that obligation is created by circumstances beyond our control but honor obligates that we uphold this dynamic. Abandoning that principle writ large leads to a survival of the fittest—an unsustainable social order.

 

[DaShuckster]

So, if we can begin from the same starting point, what are the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the debate? Is there one overarching principle that could ultimately settle the issue?

Hmmmm....what could be the one overarching principle that could settle this? How about the notion that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies?

For me, and this may just be me, it’s the principle that in a healthy society the stronger protect the weaker.

For me, and this may just be me, it's the principle that a healthy society doesn't force its women to become human incubators.

 

[jt_knight]

Hmmmm....what could be the one overarching principle that could settle this? How about the notion that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies?

For me, and this may just be me, it's the principle that a healthy society doesn't force its women to become human incubators.

First, everyone can’t do what they want with their own body. Otherwise suicide would be legal. It’s not.

Second, with abortion we’re talking about two human bodies. Two heartbeats. Two minds. Two sets of DNA. An abortion kills one of those lives. So it’s not what a woman is doing with her body. It’s what she’s doing with another body.

So then you accept that the pregnant woman has the right to kill a separate and distinct human being strictly on the basis that she, the pregnant woman, is the stronger of the two persons. That’s how you resolve the dilemma.

 

[DaShuckster]

First, everyone can’t do what they want with their own body. Otherwise suicide would be legal. It’s not.

Wow. You are really going to debate the point by comparing a 13-week surgical procedure with….suicide?

Second, with abortion we’re talking about two human bodies. Two heartbeats. Two minds. Two sets of DNA. An abortion kills one of those lives. So it’s not what a woman is doing with her body. It’s what she’s doing with another body.

Baloney. At the point where 99.9% of fetuses are aborted, viability is unsustainable. Just because you choose to pervert language in order to make an emotional appeal doesn’t make it true.

So then you accept that the pregnant woman has the right to kill a separate and distinct human being strictly on the basis that she, the pregnant woman, is the stronger of the two persons. That’s how you resolve the dilemma.

This is the kind of crazy logic that led us to this point. The very notion that a 13-week fetus can be “killed” or have equal rights to the woman carrying it tells you how ‘thoughtful’ and ‘respectful’ the anti-abortion crowd really are.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

First, everyone can’t do what they want with their own body. Otherwise suicide would be legal. It’s not.

Second, with abortion we’re talking about two human bodies. Two heartbeats. Two minds. Two sets of DNA. An abortion kills one of those lives. So it’s not what a woman is doing with her body. It’s what she’s doing with another body.

So then you accept that the pregnant woman has the right to kill a separate and distinct human being strictly on the basis that she, the pregnant woman, is the stronger of the two persons. That’s how you resolve the dilemma.

Do you believe there are any exceptions to be made for an abortion at all? Because after conception there are 2 lives in all circumstances. From the perspective of the new life an exception makes no sense, right?

If you do believe in exceptions, the extent to which exceptions can be made comes down to your moral judgement of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. And in not all cases is it due to the viability of the new life. How does the US government accurately test these exceptions without an invasion of privacy? Because most accepted exceptions would have to do with either a woman’s personal medical status or a rape or something like that right? What if a medical condition makes the pregnancy high risk? Medium risk? What is the acceptable level of risk that the government would require? If we allow exceptions for circumstances of rape, what is the burden of proof to establish for this traumatic event? Is it reasonable that a woman could be pregnant from a significant other or husband as a result of an act that she didn’t give consent to? Do they now need to be charge with crimes? Does this even constitute an exception in your mind?

Since life begins at conception, is it also reasonable to regulate the morning after pill or other such post conception contraceptives that are available over the counter?

Should we also regulate legal actions that significantly increase the likelihood of a woman having a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? What about illegal actions that cause a spontaneous abortion? Is this now a murder?

How is the government to know an abortion occurs? Unlike born life, unborn life is not registered and tracked as a person. There is no practical way to track a pregnancy. And in 2022 the majority of abortions occur via a pill which can be taken without the assistance of medical personnel. How do we regulate that?

 

[DaShuckster]

Do you believe there are any exceptions to be made for an abortion at all?

Well said, hemightbejeremy.

For decades now American Catholics and ChristIan Fundamentalists have rallied together to wage their ‘holy war.’ But the focus was always on their emotional appeals and not on the consequences of getting what they wanted. And everybody else pretty much ignored them because they assumed Roe V Wade would never be overturned. But the recent SCOTUS decision has brought all the issues you’ve raised to the forefront and highlighted just how ridiculous the ruling was.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Just think: if that selfish egomaniac RBG had just retired when Obama asked her to, things might be different.

I really do enjoy seeing all the RBG memes out there on social media, however. Talk about lack of perspective...

 

[DaShuckster]

This nonsense we're now dealing with is Jerry Falwell's legacy.

If anyone here chooses to look into the history of the so-called "pro-life" movement, you'd find that it was a very calculated political ploy on the part of Jerry Falwell and other right-wing religious conservatives of his ilk to increase their leverage with the American public by moving away from their increasingly unpopular 'white nationalist' roots to a new and potentially more palatable tentpole issue..

Back in the late 1970s, the Southern Baptist Church -- yes, THE Southern Baptist Church -- along with the vast majority of other mainstream Christian churches were firmly on the side of women and their rights regarding abortions. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Roe v Wade was a bipartisan 7-2 decision on the part of the Court because it was obvious to most Republicans and Democrats that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose into a woman's most private health matters.

 

[jt_knight]

Do you believe there are any exceptions to be made for an abortion at all? Because after conception there are 2 lives in all circumstances. From the perspective of the new life an exception makes no sense, right?

If you do believe in exceptions, the extent to which exceptions can be made comes down to your moral judgement of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. And in not all cases is it due to the viability of the new life. How does the US government accurately test these exceptions without an invasion of privacy? Because most accepted exceptions would have to do with either a woman’s personal medical status or a rape or something like that right? What if a medical condition makes the pregnancy high risk? Medium risk? What is the acceptable level of risk that the government would require? If we allow exceptions for circumstances of rape, what is the burden of proof to establish for this traumatic event? Is it reasonable that a woman could be pregnant from a significant other or husband as a result of an act that she didn’t give consent to? Do they now need to be charge with crimes? Does this even constitute an exception in your mind?

Since life begins at conception, is it also reasonable to regulate the morning after pill or other such post conception contraceptives that are available over the counter?

Should we also regulate legal actions that significantly increase the likelihood of a woman having a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? What about illegal actions that cause a spontaneous abortion? Is this now a murder?

How is the government to know an abortion occurs? Unlike born life, unborn life is not registered and tracked as a person. There is no practical way to track a pregnancy. And in 2022 the majority of abortions occur via a pill which can be taken without the assistance of medical personnel. How do we regulate that?

I can’t answer every question due to time limitations but as to the main questions:

I don’t believe there should be an exception based on rape or life of the mother. Those exceptions swallow the rule. The only permissive killing of an unborn baby would be of the death was a secondary result of urgent care necessary to save the life of the mother (I.e. chemotherapy for a pregnant woman due to a cancer diagnosis).

The rapist should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The mother and child should receive all the medical and economic support to save both lives.

Morning after pills should be treated like other poison that serves no legitimate medical purpose.

If there’s evidence that a crime has been committed (abortion) then it should be treated like any other crime. There can obviously variations among the states just like there is for any other homicide.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

I can’t answer every question due to time limitations but as to the main questions:

I don’t believe there should be an exception based on rape or life of the mother. Those exceptions swallow the rule. The only permissive killing of an unborn baby would be of the death was a secondary result of urgent care necessary to save the life of the mother (I.e. chemotherapy for a pregnant woman due to a cancer diagnosis).

The rapist should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The mother and child should receive all the medical and economic support to save both lives.

Morning after pills should be treated like other poison that serves no legitimate medical purpose.

If there’s evidence that a crime has been committed (abortion) then it should be treated like any other crime. There can obviously variations among the states just like there is for any other homicide.

So a rape victim should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? What “support” do you propose? Who pays for it? If it’s a working professional who now must quit or retire (depending on the occupation), is your stance really “thems the breaks”? How do you measure the life opportunities lost for a raped woman now forced to carry out a pregnancy? You cannot. It’s like the butterfly effect.

I appreciate that you have such a hard line stance, but I cannot even begin to agree with it.

 

[redline8000]

Wow. You are really going to debate the point by comparing a 13-week surgical procedure with….suicide?

Baloney. At the point where 99.9% of fetuses are aborted, viability is unsustainable. Just because you choose to pervert language in order to make an emotional appeal doesn’t make it true.

This is the kind of crazy logic that led us to this point. The very notion that a 13-week fetus can be “killed” or have equal rights to the woman carrying it tells you how ‘thoughtful’ and ‘respectful’ the anti-abortion crowd really are.

if your are correct and 99% of abortions happen in the first 13 weeks, why does Mississippi no longer have any abortion clinics when its still legal up to 15 weeks?

 

[DaShuckster]

I don’t believe there should be an exception...exceptions swallow the rule.

A rock-solid, hard-line position is easy to take --- as long as you aren't stuck attempting to govern a nation from it. That's why we've got people routinely sending 'thoughts and prayers' to weekly mass shooting victims and saying 'them's the breaks' to rape and incest victims. Sigh, I wish I could be as righteous as our gun-toting, anti-abortion crowd.

Since jt_knight doesn't believe in exceptions for incest victims, I have to ask: Why does our society consider incest a crime? If two people love each other, why shouldn't marriage between first cousins be allowed? Or why should fathers and mothers be procecuted for incestuous relationships with their daughters and sons, particularly ones resulting in a pregnancy?

Back in the early 1990s, I once had the occasion to visit a small school in coal mining country outside of Grundy, Virginia. I still remember vividly to this day my shock at seeing the number of children there with physical deformatives which made it obvious they were the products of incest.

 

[goodknightfl]

Hmmmm....what could be the one overarching principle that could settle this? How about the notion that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies?

For me, and this may just be me, it's the principle that a healthy society doesn't force its women to become human incubators.

That is why even though I personally am pro life, I don't fight laws that allow abortions up to 13 or 15 weeks. That is plenty of time for them to get off the incubation train.

 

[goodknightfl]

Back in the early 1990s, I once had the occasion to visit a small school in coal mining country outside of Grundy, Virginia. I still remember vividly to this day my shock at seeing the number of children there with physical deformatives which made it obvious they were the products of incest.

Yeah it couldn't possibly be from living in communities and homes where coal dust, and likely lead and other contaminants being prevalent. It had to be daddy screwing his daughter and brothers n sisters mating. Hell we are not talking Biden family here.

 

[DaShuckster]

That is why even though I personally am pro life, I don't fight laws that allow abortions up to 13 or 15 weeks. That is plenty of time for them to get off the incubation train.

The majority of abortions have taken place by the 13 week -- and 99.9 percent by the 21st week (LONG before the earliest possible declartion of viability.)

Instead of continuing the status quo, we're learning from the POTUS that a 10-year old rape victim had to travel out-of-state in order to get an abortion.

Yeah it couldn't possibly be from living in communities and homes where coal dust, and likely lead and other contaminants being prevalent.

Wanna bet?

 

[hemightbejeremy]

if your are correct and 99% of abortions happen in the first 13 weeks, why does Mississippi no longer have any abortion clinics when its still legal up to 15 weeks?

Because of medical abortions.

 

[jt_knight]

Since jt_knight doesn't believe in exceptions for incest victims, I have to ask: Why does our society consider incest a crime? If two people love each other, why shouldn't marriage between first cousins be allowed? Or why should fathers and mothers be procecuted for incestuous relationships with their daughters and sons, particularly ones resulting in a pregnancy?

Back in the early 1990s, I once had the occasion to visit a small school in coal mining country outside of Grundy, Virginia. I still remember vividly to this day my shock at seeing the number of children there with physical deformatives which made it obvious they were the products of incest.

No exception for incest because you are punishing the wrong person. The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve the a death warrant. On the other hand, the incestuous rapist should be arrested and prosecuted for what he did.

(As an interesting aside, has legal abortion and the sex revolution separated sex from procreation to the extent that people engage in sex without appreciating the primary consequence of sex--the creation of new life? And how has this affected the propensity with which acts of sexual violence occur? After all, legal abortion makes unplanned pregnancies go away.)

But to a broader point that we need to acknowledge: a child conceived in hate can be redeemed in love. But the abortion lobby denies this reality and instead tells woman that an unplanned pregnancy is a life-sentence from which nothing good can come.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

No exception for incest because you are punishing the wrong person. The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve the a death warrant. On the other hand, the incestuous rapist should be arrested and prosecuted for what he did.

(As an interesting aside, has legal abortion and the sex revolution separated sex from procreation to the extent that people engage in sex without appreciating the primary consequence of sex--the creation of new life? And how has this affected the propensity with which acts of sexual violence occur? After all, legal abortion makes unplanned pregnancies go away.)

But to a broader point that we need to acknowledge: a child conceived in hate can be redeemed in love. But the abortion lobby denies this reality and instead tells woman that an unplanned pregnancy is a life-sentence from which nothing good can come.

1. Incest should 100% have an exception. Rape as well. A woman should not have to go through a pregnancy under those circumstances if she chooses not to.

2. Yes, 99.9 percent of the people out there who have sex probably don't appreciate the primary consequence of sex. They care about getting a nut off. I don't think that's very hard to understand (no pun intended).

3. I don't deny that reality but see #1.

 

[DaShuckster]

No exception for incest because you are punishing the wrong person.

There is no other person involved. If you choose to believe 'life begins at the moment of conception,' that's up to you. Forcing your personal views on everyone else is wrong in a democracy. This is not a theocracy.

The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve the a death warrant.

The "child" is a fetus in the early stages of development at the time abortions occur and... Read the following very carefully: It. is. not. viable.

The incestuous rapist should be arrested and prosecuted for what he did.

And you'd condemn the victim to the psychological trauma of carrying her rapist's (incestuous or otherwise) seed for nine months. I can't begin to imagine how horrifying that "compassionate" governmental response is to a rape victim. Today the POTUS mentioned in a speech that a ten-year old rape victim had to travel out-of-state to get an abortion since her home State outlawed them. In what world is THIS not crazy?

 

[goodknightfl]

The majority of abortions have taken place by the 13 week -- and 99.9 percent by the 21st week (LONG before the earliest possible declartion of viability.)

Instead of continuing the status quo, we're learning from the POTUS that a 10-year old rape victim had to travel out-of-state in order to get an abortion.

Wanna bet?

Hell its WV not Nebraska.

 

[DaShuckster]

Hell its WV not Nebraska.

Grundy is in Virginia actually -- albeit extreme southwest Virginia, but still VA.

If you follow the Appalacian mountains, you'll find there are some parts of West Virginia, southwest Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, northern Alabama, and northeast Mississippi that would give most middle-class Americans the feeling they were visiting a third world country.

In other words, diehard Trump Country.

 

[UCFBS]

First, everyone can’t do what they want with their own body. Otherwise suicide would be legal. It’s not.

Wow. You are really going to debate the point by comparing a 13-week surgical procedure with….suicide?

So, this is where I really am 'split' with you two, and it shouldn't be this common.

1. To @jt_knight 's point, it is a comparison that should be entertained, but ...
2. Against @jt_knight 's point, and @DaShuckster makes me cringe at times because he totally missed it ... nearly all other '1st world allies' don't make suicide a 'crime.' This includes suicides, where only one person dies (not a murder-suicide or any shooting-suicide) not counting as 'gun' (or any other 'violent') crime, which brings me to ...
3. Find me a classic, American Libertarian, or een Liberal, let alone an early American framer or lawyer, who thinks suicide should be a 'crime,' it should not and ... most of all ... only re-enforces everything that is wrong with modern, American views and even laws at-odds with liberty

Abortion (especially 1st trimester abortion) and suicide (regardless of instrument, although most successful instruments should be encouraged to avoid living w/maiming or disability), control of one's bodies, should very much be 100% individual, 0% state. I'm immutable on this too.

Dr. Kevorkian really tried to get Americans to understand this, that we need to stop making it a crime and take it seriously. There are painless ways that are very successful. But apparently that's not something Americans can tolerate in any discussion, which says things about our society.

Especially when we cheer on violence, especially in prisons.

Second, with abortion we’re talking about two human bodies. Two heartbeats. Two minds. Two sets of DNA. An abortion kills one of those lives. So it’s not what a woman is doing with her body. It’s what she’s doing with another body.

Baloney. At the point where 99.9% of fetuses are aborted, viability is unsustainable. Just because you choose to pervert language in order to make an emotional appeal doesn’t make it true.

And while I utterly disagree with @jt_knight here, @DaShuckster does his same "Assange-Russians-type' emotional outrage just like he claims @jt_knight is guilty of too ... which makes him no better.

This is why America is doomed. No more civics. No more rule of law. All emotions. @DaShuckster not only fails to realize there is a civics argument to be made against @jt_knight, but his 'viability argument' is actually carrying less and less weight in the courts as technology improves.

The argument is getting the government out of our bodies and homes. The problem? @DaShuckster and other, former W. turned Progressive Americans want guns outlawed with self-defense, and considers that 'vigilantism.' He wants state-defined press and militias, not free ones.

Authoritarianism, statism, whether you agree or not with what they are enforcing, are the enemy of freedom, period. So that's your true enemy. It's still your enemy, even when you agree with what the state is enforcing.

So then you accept that the pregnant woman has the right to kill a separate and distinct human being strictly on the basis that she, the pregnant woman, is the stronger of the two persons. That’s how you resolve the dilemma.

This is the kind of crazy logic that led us to this point. The very notion that a 13-week fetus can be “killed” or have equal rights to the woman carrying it tells you how ‘thoughtful’ and ‘respectful’ the anti-abortion crowd really are.

That's about the only civics argument you made that is true @DaShuckster . Everything else is pretty close to emotion, or in the case of 'viability,' 'legally dated.'

 

[sk8knight]

Just so we’re absolutely clear, suicide is not a crime in the US. Assisted suicide, however, is a crime in most states and most countries.

 

[UCFBS]

Just so we’re absolutely clear, suicide is not a crime in the US. Assisted suicide, however, is a crime in most states and most countries.

To clarify, 'attempted suicide' is a crime in the US, at least most states.
Differentiating from successfully 'suiciding yourself'

Spoiler

(including c/o Hillary)

is just splitting hairs.

 

[sk8knight]

To clarify, 'attempted suicide' is a crime in the US, at least most states.
Differentiating from successfully 'suiciding yourself'

Spoiler

(including c/o Hillary)

is just splitting hairs.

Attempted suicide has been decriminalized almost everywhere in the US. In the few states still referring to common law, the attempt is not prosecuted. We’ve stopped prosecuting mentally Ill people for trying to kill themselves.

 

[jt_knight]

Just so we’re absolutely clear, suicide is not a crime in the US. Assisted suicide, however, is a crime in most states and most countries.

Suicide is illegal, but we don’t treat those who attempt and fail as criminals. They are treated in a hospital—even against their will. If it were legal then there would be no legal basis to detain the perpetrator.

 

[redline8000]

Grundy is in Virginia actually -- albeit extreme southwest Virginia, but still VA.

If you follow the Appalacian mountains, you'll find there are some parts of West Virginia, southwest Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, northern Alabama, and northeast Mississippi that would give most middle-class Americans the feeling they were visiting a third world country.

In other words, diehard Trump Country.

i thought the girl was from ohio and had to drive to indiana. or are there two 10 year old rape victims at the same time?

 

[UCFloridaTech]

So a rape victim should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? ...

I don’t believe there should be an exception based on rape or life of the mother. Those exceptions swallow the rule.

How about we terminate the Rapist with their seed, and call it a day.

 

[sk8knight]

Suicide is illegal, but we don’t treat those who attempt and fail as criminals. They are treated in a hospital—even against their will. If it were legal then there would be no legal basis to detain the perpetrator.

The Baker Act in Florida and other similar involuntary commitment laws are not criminal statutes. There is no punitive aspect to those laws and they do not go through the criminal Justice system. Although law enforcement is empowered in Florida with the ability to make a Baker Act decision, they are not the only ones who can do so. Physicians, mental health professionals, and close family can also Baler Act someone.

Though the period of observation lasts up to 72 hours, all it takes is for someone to say they no longer want to harm themselves or someone else in a believable manner to get out. Some of Orange County’s homeless even use it as a free night in a bed and a meal. They get the attention of a police officer and say the right things and the Ofc has no choice but to take them to a receiving facility.

It is solely a civil action.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

The legality of suicide is not up for debate. Seems we got sidetracked somehow. For what it’s worth though, it shouldn’t be illegal.