|
Post by frazer on Jun 25, 2022 12:09:43 GMT -5
My god, it's so easy for men to discuss this subject.
Some years ago, a very close friend had an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg grows outside the uterus. It cannot survive, and the mother is at risk of extremely serious - even life-threatening - complications. The pregnancy was planned, and she was devastated. Thank goodness she was at least able to have the pregnancy terminated, legally and professionally.
It seems that this might not be an option for women in some states in the future. Which is a tragedy.
There are many reasons why a woman or girl might need an abortion.
None of these reasons are any of my damned business.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,390
|
Post by Tamarack on Jun 25, 2022 12:22:30 GMT -5
Some of the more restrictive laws enacted by, or presently pushed by, theocratic authoritarian Republican* governors and legislators make no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the woman. Under these conditions, a teenage girl raped by her uncle is forced to bring the pregnancy to term and raise the child in an abusive household in the presence of the rapist. This is the "pro-family" position.
With fetal heartbeat laws, a woman suffering a miscarriage sits and bleeds if there is still a detectable fetal heartbeat, even if there is no hope for survival of the fetus. It is illegal for medical professionals to perform an aspiration or dilation and curettage to treat the miscarriage and allow the woman to heal. A pregnant woman diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer is denied an abortion and therefore denied chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Likely neither the woman or fetus will survive to full term. If she has other children they will be orphaned. This is the "pro-life" position.
*No apologies for using these terms. I think they are accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Jun 25, 2022 16:16:37 GMT -5
As usual, I should know better than to participate in a thread like this one. There are many people in this world whom I love and respect who do not share my convictions on this issue. I fully own up to the realization that my convictions are antiquated and out of touch with modern culture, but I’m not particularly bothered by that. I also find it completely immaterial that I am a man, rather than a woman, with convictions on this subject.
I think there are 2 discussions going on in this thread. One is regarding the Supreme Court decision to reverse Roe v. Wade. Now, I’m not an attorney; I’m just a guy who can read, and I think a person has to do some pretty impressive interpretive gymnastics to find protection for abortion in the text of the Constitution. I mean, I just don’t see it there. I don’t see anything that says a law or amendment supporting abortion couldn’t be passed, but I just don’t think there is anything currently in the Constitution or amendments that protects abortion. So, in that sense, I am pleased that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. I think it corrects an over-reach in interpreting the Constitution.
The other discussion is about abortion itself. I’m as anti-abortion as they come. And before anyone asks for clarification, I’ll just say it: no, I don’t think women (or anyone else) should have an opportunity, just by virtue of the fact that a life currently resides within their uterus, to decide to end that life. I know all the arguments about rape, violence, and incest, but I agree completely with John that this is arguing from the extreme to try to support the typical. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are done simply because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, or because someone powerful in her life doesn’t want her to be pregnant. To be brutally honest, I think that most folks who clamor for “reproductive rights” really mean, deep down, that they want the right to have sex without consequences. That seems an inadequate reason to have the power to end a life, at least to me. And if it is wrong for a person who is in a position of power over another life, especially if that life is innocent, to take that life for no reason other than the benefit of the powerful person, then it is certainly my business to try to prevent that from happening.
I certainly agree that there must some latitude in cases of medical emergency or certain other tragic circumstances. Sometimes tragic things happen, and horrible choices must be made.
Of course, I’m biased. I’m the result of an unintended pregnancy in an unwed mother in the mid 60’s, when that sort of thing was not considered acceptable. I was exactly the sort of fetus that is involved in the overwhelming majority of abortion decisions. I’m the one whose parts could very well have ended up in a trash bag somewhere. If that had happened, would it really matter? Would the world be very much different now? Who can say? After all, it’s a wonderful life, right? If nothing else, you folks would have one less friend. Not to mention, there are 4 children and 3 grandchildren who would not exist, and the world has yet to see what they might accomplish.
So there, I’ve had my say. I’m not trying to argue with anyone, and I certainly don’t hate (or even dislike) people who disagree with me. I’m not even trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m just representing my point of view. Feel free to ignore it.
Also feel free to argue with it, but please know that I will not respond. I have no desire to argue; I just want to share my view. All the best to you, whatever your opinion on this issue.
Shannon
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 25, 2022 16:53:01 GMT -5
As usual, I should know better than to participate in a thread like this one. There are many people in this world whom I love and respect who do not share my convictions on this issue. I fully own up to the realization that my convictions are antiquated and out of touch with modern culture, but I’m not particularly bothered by that. I also find it completely immaterial that I am a man, rather than a woman, with convictions on this subject. I think there are 2 discussions going on in this thread. One is regarding the Supreme Court decision to reverse Roe v. Wade. Now, I’m not an attorney; I’m just a guy who can read, and I think a person has to do some pretty impressive interpretive gymnastics to find protection for abortion in the text of the Constitution. I mean, I just don’t see it there. I don’t see anything that says a law or amendment supporting abortion couldn’t be passed, but I just don’t think there is anything currently in the Constitution or amendments that protects abortion. So, in that sense, I am pleased that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. I think it corrects an over-reach in interpreting the Constitution. The other discussion is about abortion itself. I’m as anti-abortion as they come. And before anyone asks for clarification, I’ll just say it: no, I don’t think women (or anyone else) should have an opportunity, just by virtue of the fact that a life currently resides within their uterus, to decide to end that life. I know all the arguments about rape, violence, and incest, but I agree completely with John that this is arguing from the extreme to try to support the typical. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are done simply because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, or because someone powerful in her life doesn’t want her to be pregnant. To be brutally honest, I think that most folks who clamor for “reproductive rights” really mean, deep down, that they want the right to have sex without consequences. That seems an inadequate reason to have the power to end a life, at least to me. And if it is wrong for a person who is in a position of power over another life, especially if that life is innocent, to take that life for no reason other than the benefit of the powerful person, then it is certainly my business to try to prevent that from happening. I certainly agree that there must some latitude in cases of medical emergency or certain other tragic circumstances. Sometimes tragic things happen, and horrible choices must be made. Of course, I’m biased. I’m the result of an unintended pregnancy in an unwed mother in the mid 60’s, when that sort of thing was not considered acceptable. I was exactly the sort of fetus that is involved in the overwhelming majority of abortion decisions. I’m the one whose parts could very well have ended up in a trash bag somewhere. If that had happened, would it really matter? Would the world be very much different now? Who can say? After all, it’s a wonderful life, right? If nothing else, you folks would have one less friend. Not to mention, there are 4 children and 3 grandchildren who would not exist, and the world has yet to see what they might accomplish. So there, I’ve had my say. I’m not trying to argue with anyone, and I certainly don’t hate (or even dislike) people who disagree with me. I’m not even trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m just representing my point of view. Feel free to ignore it. Also feel free to argue with it, but please know that I will not respond. I have no desire to argue; I just want to share my view. All the best to you, whatever your opinion on this issue. Shannon I think that's outstanding, both in reasoning and presentation. Kudos.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 17:34:12 GMT -5
That's not it at all. It's not Christian any more than "Thou shalt not kill" is Christian. That is to say, it is pretty universal. I'm sure it was so before the Hebrew law. And folks with no god at all are pretty okay with it too. It's not Christian. It's biology. We know what is in the womb. I have never once (and I never will) argue for life on the basis of "souls". Never once. My argument is for human life and you can't prove that that baby in the womb is not a human. And to default to allow killing it simply on the basis that you don't know when or if it's a human is the height of hubris and inhumanity. Every culture and every society has decided that, loathsome as it may be, we still are faced with times and reasons that have to kill. We make allowances for it and we make provisions for it. We kill in wars we're forced into (and hopefully not in wars we engage in wrongfully). We kill in self defense. Many who value life greatly see capital punishment as a necessary element to enforce societal understanding of the value of life by the demonstration of a just and final punishment and removal of a murderer from society. But in every case where killing is allowed, it is our ethical and moral default to make those who want or feel the need to kill prove to society that the life or lives they want to take had or have it coming. Again, we only (at our most agreed upon ethos -- that of the religious and non alike) only enter wars we're forced into. If we institute capital punishment, the burden of proof falls to the State to prove a lack of innocence in order to take away the murderer's constitutional right to life. Until that burden is met, we deem everyone innocent. If we kill in self defense, again, we still have to prove that that is, indeed, what transpired (we just had such a case this week in Warsaw). But not so abortion. To the pro-abortion side, the default is non-innocent. No burden of proof at all. And any burden suggested is seen as "extremist". We wouldn't shoot a gun into a moving cardboard box on a sidewalk and then claim we didn't know there was a homeless man inside, but we're quite satisfied with allowing abortion at any time for any reason with the rationale (again, the very question begged) that it is a woman's prerogative to do as she wishes with her body. In fact, not only is the burden of proof NOT on the pro-choice to demonstrate that the human in the womb is not, in fact, human. It is just accepted as so. And any limitation is deemed "extremist". pro-abortion advocates have bridled at every suggested law that might lead toward demonstrating just how viable the "fetus" is. (coincidentally, Perry Henderson just celebrated his 18th birthday this week).
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 17:34:36 GMT -5
My god, it's so easy for men to discuss this subject. No, it's not.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 18:08:13 GMT -5
And how quickly we accepted the left's audacious, presumptuous slant that it is men who don't want abortions and women who want them. By far, the most ardent pro-life people I know -- the members of my family who have participated in marches, the three families in my family who foster children -- are women, not men.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 25, 2022 18:37:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 25, 2022 18:40:55 GMT -5
To the pro-abortion side, the default is non-innocent. No burden of proof at all. And any burden suggested is seen as "extremist". We wouldn't shoot a gun into a moving cardboard box on a sidewalk and then claim we didn't know there was a homeless man inside, but we're quite satisfied with allowing abortion at any time for any reason with the rationale (again, the very question begged) that it is a woman's prerogative to do as she wishes with her body. In fact, not only is the burden of proof NOT on the pro-choice to demonstrate that the human in the womb is not, in fact, human. It is just accepted as so. And any limitation is deemed "extremist". Pro-abortion advocates have bridled at every suggested law that might lead toward demonstrating just how viable the "fetus" is. The bolded portions are demonstrably not the case. First, the legal line was drawn at viability, after which point the state can regulate the procedure. See, for example, this explanation from the text of Roe: With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
. . . for the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortionThe position of pro-choice proponents (and of the authors of Roe) is not that the unborn is not human, but that until it is viable, it is not a legal person whose rights must be balanced against those of the mother. Nobody I am aware of denies that the fertilized ovum will, under the optimal circumstances, develop into a fully human person. But, "heartbeat" laws notwithstanding, a four-week fetus (about 1/4 inch long) is not anything like a fully-formed infant, except for its possession of a full set of human genes. The "extreme" views I see on display in our public arguments about abortion are the ones that equate a fertilized egg with a full-term (or even a 23-week preemie).
|
|
|
Roe V Wade
Jun 25, 2022 18:52:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 18:52:57 GMT -5
And, again, a fertilized egg is not aborted. The only reason to bring it up is to give cover to actual abortion.
|
|
|
Roe V Wade
Jun 25, 2022 18:55:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 18:55:12 GMT -5
Beyond that, you're making a case for restrictions. So, do you find them objectionable?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 25, 2022 19:27:51 GMT -5
There are those on the anti-abortion side that do indeed consider any method, procedure, or device that prevents a fertilized ovum from implantng to be abortion. This is not a secret--plenty of anti-abortion activists object to birth control methods that they consider abortifacients. I've already posted links to this effect.
As to restrictions: The questions are what kind, determined according to what standards, and enforced by whom. I accept that a viable fetus ought not to be killed--though if it means saving the mother's life or health, inducing a premature birth or performing a caesarean section is acceptable, even if it endangers the child. Before viability, I would not be in a position to dictate to doctors or women as to whether to carry to term--it's just not my call. And if it's not my call, it's not the state's call either.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 25, 2022 19:46:16 GMT -5
And if it's not my call, it's not the state's call either. Well, that's an odd equation.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 25, 2022 20:07:00 GMT -5
So remove the "if." It's not my call or the state's.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 25, 2022 20:36:33 GMT -5
So remove the "if." It's not my call or the state's. As of yesterday, it actually is the state's call. Your opinion (as well as mine and John's and Shannon's) doesn't matter except as it pertains to the political process that passes laws governing this. That's all yesterday's decision did. I understand that in general, the majority (how big a majority I'm not sure) of people will support the allowance of some kind of abortion access. So it's now properly political and open for debate. I understand Virginia is looking at 15 weeks as the cut off, similar to other states. California will probably allow abortion up to the age of 15 years. Who knows? "The age of viability" has always been not well defined and continues to fall as medical technology improves. My daughter was considered right on that edge when she was born at 28 weeks 30+ years ago. Abortion was never offered or considered (damn Catholic run hospital). Don't know what the mythical age is supposed to be now, but I know it's a lot less than 28 weeks. So will I vote for 15 weeks? Probably not. Do I think it will pass despite that? Probably, but that's a proper venue and an outcome that I can live with. And I'll bet most everyone can too.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 25, 2022 21:00:28 GMT -5
Shannon, good post. It didn't change my view but it challenged my view in a constructive way.
One reason we don't agree, I think, is that we have different views of the typical abortion. Mine is the result of hearing from and about women I knew, mostly when I was much younger, who'd had them. I never heard an explanation that I considered irresponsible. I also remember thinking that I wasn't the person who had to live with the decision so what I thought about it didn't matter much anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 25, 2022 22:43:08 GMT -5
It's interesting that one way that citizenship is determined is whether or not 'a person' is born in the US. For this, being born is when personhood happens, and also citizenship.
Maybe it will happen that you only need to be conceived on US soil in order to be a citizen? The 14th says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Will the unborn have citizenship extended to them, or are they people/human without yet being citizens?
For tax reporting, if a woman is pregnant (with twins!), they're people? With all the rights, protections, and so on? So they could be claimed as dependents on a tax return, even before they were born? Wouldn't not being able to claim them ("they're not people yet") be a violation of their rights?
|
|
|
Roe V Wade
Jun 25, 2022 23:00:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Jun 25, 2022 23:00:55 GMT -5
It's interesting that one way that citizenship is determined is whether or not 'a person' is born in the US. For this, being born is when personhood happens, and also citizenship. Maybe it will happen that you only need to be conceived on US soil in order to be a citizen? The 14th says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Will the unborn have citizenship extended to them, or are they people/human without yet being citizens? For tax reporting, if a woman is pregnant (with twins!), they're people? With all the rights, protections, and so on? So they could be claimed as dependents on a tax return, even before they were born? Wouldn't not being able to claim them ("they're not people yet") be a violation of their rights? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 26, 2022 5:28:41 GMT -5
That's a beautiful and moving post, Shannon.
I come from the other end of things, having participated in an abortion, once at my urging and one against my will. It's one of my great regrets in life. I know I have been forgiven by God, by Christine, and by Nancy when she was alive. But it still hurts.
There are several YouTube videos by abortion survivors that are worth viewing for anyone who cares to hear that side of the story.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 26, 2022 8:36:20 GMT -5
Some very good insightful posts in this thread.
|
|