|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 24, 2022 22:15:36 GMT -5
If you don’t consider a fertilized egg a human being with rights what other reason is there to completely ban abortion from the point of conception? If you say OK abortions are allowed before six weeks of pregnancy it’s a cop out. Does something magically change at that time? Not really but maybe the fetus starts looking a little more human and it’s a lot easier to live with scraping out an amorphous mass of cells than something starting to get limb buds.
I am not a fan of terminating a healthy pregnancy but see only two options that make any sense. One is a complete ban on abortion from the moment of conception or leaving the decision up to the woman and her doctor to the point of potential fetal viability outside the uterus. Somewhere around 22-23 weeks gestation.
I don’t think you can just arbitrarily declare a time when magically the fetus has rights. It’s gotta be either right away at conception or when they have the potential to survive a premature birth.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 3:57:29 GMT -5
You're insisting that an extreme interpretation is the norm in order to justify abortion as birth control. You're very uncompromising.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 4:01:14 GMT -5
If you don’t consider a fertilized egg a human being with rights what other reason is there to completely ban abortion from the point of conception? If you say OK abortions are allowed before six weeks of pregnancy it’s a cop out. Does something magically change at that time? Not really but maybe the fetus starts looking a little more human and it’s a lot easier to live with scraping out an amorphous mass of cells than something starting to get limb buds. I am not a fan of terminating a healthy pregnancy but see only two options that make any sense. One is a complete ban on abortion from the moment of conception or leaving the decision up to the woman and her doctor to the point of potential fetal viability outside the uterus. Somewhere around 22-23 weeks gestation. I don’t think you can just arbitrarily declare a time when magically the fetus has rights. It’s gotta be either right away at conception or when they have the potential to survive a premature birth. Legal proof to the contrary. You're insisting that an extreme position is the norm in order to justify abortion as birth control. But what most consider abortion never takes place on a two-celled stage. At that point nobody even knows there is a pregnancy. The "two-celled embryo" is simply a red herring. It's not the issue. I think the reason the pro-abortion side of the debate was comfortable with the status quo and bad law via Roe v Wade is because it side stepped a democratic process that would have put them on the unpopular side of the viability issue. With the bad Roe v Wade decision the true moral and ethical debate was held at bay.
|
|
|
Post by concertinagirl on Jun 25, 2022 5:26:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Mr. Carlin on this issue. I watch what's going on, and it seems like conservatives are OK with the idea of the courts (why not legislatures?) not controlling their gun rights (militia my ass), but it's OK for the courts to control the uteri of their wives and daughters.
I will not be available for any Q&A. Have a nice weekend.
I have seen this video before. Hated it then. Still do.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 5:55:36 GMT -5
but it's OK for the courts to control the uteri of their wives and daughters. This is the begging of the question that simply will not be dissuaded by reason. The issue isn't what wives and daughters can do with their uteri. They already decided that at the point of agreeing to sexual activity. What we are insisting on is that they do not have the right to destroy their progeny's uteri by killing them. We, in fact, insist that our wives and daughters have the absolute control over their uteri. Any act to the contrary would be rape. But once they are pregnant, it is no longer just our wives and daughters. It is our child inside them.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 25, 2022 6:05:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand the hand-wringing. Doesn't the decision simply return the issue to the democratic political process?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 25, 2022 6:27:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand the hand-wringing. Doesn't the decision simply return the issue to the democratic political process? Yes it does but the Democrats can't trust the democratic process.The real question is when can a human being be killed for being inconvenient.
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Jun 25, 2022 6:38:49 GMT -5
In a war!
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 25, 2022 7:35:33 GMT -5
I think it was Gloria Steinem, women's lib advocate, who said something like "Women's lib was invented by men to make it easier to get laid". Roe v Wade was a large part of women's lib.
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Jun 25, 2022 8:22:39 GMT -5
I never had a problem getting laid before Gloria came along.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jun 25, 2022 8:38:42 GMT -5
I never had a problem getting laid before Gloria came along. That's cuz you could COOK!
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 25, 2022 8:54:23 GMT -5
You're insisting that an extreme interpretation is the norm in order to justify abortion as birth control. You're very uncompromising. I don’t think it’s that extreme John. Many states have now banned abortion “from the time of conception”. I would think this has to include pills and devices that prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum. If not I would see it as inconsistent with the premise that spawned the law. What are your feelings about how a law banning abortions in a particular state should be written? It’s going to be a big issue now in legislatures across the country. (Damn, I swore I would never get into an Internet debate ever again and here we are )
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 25, 2022 9:05:39 GMT -5
Gloria Steinem, Time Magazine March 2020 "A belief in equality, without division by sex or race, is now held by a huge majority in public-opinion polls. But a stubborn minority of Americans feel deprived of the unearned privilege of that old hierarchy and are in revolt. The time of greatest danger comes after a victory, and that's where we are now." time.com/5795657/gloria-steinem-womens-liberation-progress/
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 25, 2022 9:25:58 GMT -5
Haha, saw what you did there!
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 25, 2022 9:35:43 GMT -5
"I'm not sure I understand the hand-wringing. Doesn't the decision simply return the issue to the democratic political process?"
I'm not wringing my hands but I think it's an unwise decision.
In my view, abortion is always a bad choice, but sometimes it's the least bad choice available. Who decides whether it is or isn't? Before yesterday, individual women made the decision. Now, legislative majorities will, without regard to an individual's particular circumstances. I don't think the government ought to be making these decisions. It should be left up to individuals. Obviously, many people here disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 25, 2022 10:12:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 25, 2022 10:15:11 GMT -5
Here's another one I saw on fb:
The Founders decided that Clarence Thomas's marriage was illegal. Who is he to over rule them?
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 25, 2022 10:18:44 GMT -5
If I had to pick a politician who I thought was most likely to have paid for one, or more, abortions the president who appointed the last three conservative justices would be near the top of my list. (And, yes, Clinton would be on my speculative list.)
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 25, 2022 10:29:22 GMT -5
PS: I haven't really argued with anyone. Those who think abortion is invariably murder SHOULD try to outlaw it. I respect their view. But I don't share it. I can't see a discussion here bridging that gap.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 25, 2022 11:28:25 GMT -5
John: I don't know where you're getting your information about the legal and medical issues, but the fully-human*-from-fertilization position already informs one wing of anti-abortion culture and leads to a willingness to ban not only "morning after" pills but contraceptive methods such as IUDs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Not all current abortion-banning laws include these methods, but I have been hearing calls for such bans for years**. And given the depth and degree of scientific-medical ignorance of state legislators (and their fear of the ferocity and persistence of anti-abortion culture), I do not doubt that we will see proposed legislation for precisely such bans--in fact, some legislators (Idaho, Missouri, Louisiana) have already flirted with limitations or outright bans, and Texas already limits access to or use of "Plan B" medication. * And in Catholic and related theologies, already ensouled. ** Here's a 14-year-old Guttmacher posting documenting the contraceptives-as-abortifacient position: www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-words-contraception-abortionAnd a recent post from the Pew Trust: www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control
|
|