[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Great Algerstonia]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Texas fired back at the Biden administration’s challenge to its nearly complete ban of abortions in a response brief filed Thursday asserting the government’s lawsuit was out of bounds, while also suggesting the court take another look at the validity of its landmark abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[…] The Biden administration then sued to challenge the law and U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, blocked SB 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Only 48 hours later, the Fifth Circuit, seen by many as the most conservative appeals court in the country, overturned Pitman's ruling in a 2-1 decision.

On Monday, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's order that has allowed the law to continue to be enforced.

In its response filed Thursday, Texas claims the DOJ lacks equitable cause and jurisdiction to sue Texas over SB 8. The government alleges the law violates the 14th Amendment, but Texas argues the right to an abortion is not required by law.

“The idea that the constitution requires states to permit a woman to abort her unborn child is unsupported by any constitutional text, history, or tradition,” the brief states.

The Department of Justice suggested the high court could bypass the Fifth Circuit and hear arguments in the case. Texas says that if the court decides to take that route, it should consider overturning Roe and Casey.

“The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey,” the response brief states. “Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test …. If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Good work, Texas.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Texas fired back at the Biden administration’s challenge to its nearly complete ban of abortions in a response brief filed Thursday asserting the government’s lawsuit was out of bounds, while also suggesting the court take another look at the validity of its landmark abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[…] The Biden administration then sued to challenge the law and U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, blocked SB 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Only 48 hours later, the Fifth Circuit, seen by many as the most conservative appeals court in the country, overturned Pitman's ruling in a 2-1 decision.

On Monday, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's order that has allowed the law to continue to be enforced.

In its response filed Thursday, Texas claims the DOJ lacks equitable cause and jurisdiction to sue Texas over SB 8. The government alleges the law violates the 14th Amendment, but Texas argues the right to an abortion is not required by law.

“The idea that the constitution requires states to permit a woman to abort her unborn child is unsupported by any constitutional text, history, or tradition,” the brief states.

The Department of Justice suggested the high court could bypass the Fifth Circuit and hear arguments in the case. Texas says that if the court decides to take that route, it should consider overturning Roe and Casey.

“The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey,” the response brief states. “Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test …. If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Here’s to hoping SB8 and that other law whose peddlers also asked the SCOTUS to overturn Roe get the smackdown they so royally deserve.

[San Lumen]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Texas fired back at the Biden administration’s challenge to its nearly complete ban of abortions in a response brief filed Thursday asserting the government’s lawsuit was out of bounds, while also suggesting the court take another look at the validity of its landmark abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[…] The Biden administration then sued to challenge the law and U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, blocked SB 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Only 48 hours later, the Fifth Circuit, seen by many as the most conservative appeals court in the country, overturned Pitman's ruling in a 2-1 decision.

On Monday, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's order that has allowed the law to continue to be enforced.

In its response filed Thursday, Texas claims the DOJ lacks equitable cause and jurisdiction to sue Texas over SB 8. The government alleges the law violates the 14th Amendment, but Texas argues the right to an abortion is not required by law.

“The idea that the constitution requires states to permit a woman to abort her unborn child is unsupported by any constitutional text, history, or tradition,” the brief states.

The Department of Justice suggested the high court could bypass the Fifth Circuit and hear arguments in the case. Texas says that if the court decides to take that route, it should consider overturning Roe and Casey.

“The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey,” the response brief states. “Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test …. If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Good work, Texas.

I think its very possible the court overturns Roe.

[Sundiata]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.

[Sundiata]

I trust you're aware that your moral recommendations are not going to carry any weight with anyone.

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

[Sundiata]

You have no problem "morally" recommending a surgery even more irreversible.

Controlling women is perfectly moral, remember.

By that logic, control wouldn't stop at women or men but all of nature itself. Something is wrong with where you're starting on the issue.

[Thepeopl]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -lifespan/

Fathers live longer with less children

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/stati ... epage=true

Its dutch, but:
Children of smaller families fare better (education, financial and social area) than children of large families.

The big exception: only child. They aren't as successful than children with a (few) sibling(s).
Probably because they never get to teach others at a young age. Because if you can explain something, you yourself have a better grasp of the matter.

[Sundiata]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -lifespan/

Fathers live longer with less children

Sure, a correlation is there. But we should really be trying to extend life by reducing the certain causes of a short lifespan: disease, lethal violence, material deprivation. We can do that without abortions or vasectomies. That study has good historical value being relegated to the 1800s, not much more.

[The Alma Mater]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

So celibacy is evil ?

[Neanderthaland]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

I never thought I'd hear a Catholic suggest that priests don't perpetuate good. But there you go.

[Sundiata]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

So celibacy is evil ?

On the grounds that it doesn't perpetuate life? No.

I need more information to answer your question better.

[Sundiata]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

I never thought I'd hear a Catholic suggest that priests don't perpetuate good. But there you go.

That's an interesting take but unfortunately mistaken.

[Neanderthaland]

I never thought I'd hear a Catholic suggest that priests don't perpetuate good. But there you go.

That's an interesting take but unfortunately mistaken.

It's a logically consistent take. Not that you'd ever admit it.

[Sundiata]

That's an interesting take but unfortunately mistaken.

It's a logically consistent take. Not that you'd ever admit it.

Logically consistent in what context? A healthy priest isn't sterile or voluntarily so. Also, their celibacy is not for the purpose of sterility, the opposite in fact.

[The Alma Mater]

So celibacy is evil ?

On the grounds that it doesn't perpetuate life? No.

Why not ?

That's an interesting take but unfortunately mistaken.

It's a logically consistent take. Not that you'd ever admit it.

Interesting. Assume an organisation strongly promotes breeding, but also actively causes people to die.
@Sundiata: Is the organisation good if it causes more births than deaths ?

[Neanderthaland]

It's a logically consistent take. Not that you'd ever admit it.

Logically consistent in what context? A healthy priest isn't sterile or voluntarily so. Also, their celibacy is not for the purpose of sterility, the opposite in fact.

Neither produces life. Your premise is that sterility is bad because it doesn't produce life. Neither does celibacy.

The only difference between the two is that one still gets to have sex. Its very obvious that sex, and sex without consequences, is exactly what the Catholic church objects to. Despite their protestations to the contrary.


And it's so obvious that everyone realizes it, except for those who have a religious obligation to pretend they don't. If you could get outside yourself for one second, you would see it too.

[Sundiata]

Why not ?

Because their lives are so fruitful. I think you're missing an important component.

[Alcala-Cordel]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

The most shallow thing about this isn't so much this ridiculous view in itself but your insistence on forcing it upon everyone. But then again, screwing people over is justified because your god said so, right? And you know you've picked the only real god anyone with different opinions just needs to open their eyes, right?

At the heart of it the driving force behind this bullshit is the same thing that drives the Taliban.

[Neanderthaland]

Why not ?

Because their lives are so fruitful. I think you're missing an important component.

Sterile people can't live fruitful lives?

That's a cruel thing to say.

[Necroghastia]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

you have no grounds to say this whatsoever after the heinous shit you have advocated
forced sterilization for thee but not for me amirite

[Sundiata]

Logically consistent in what context? A healthy priest isn't sterile or voluntarily so. Also, their celibacy is not for the purpose of sterility, the opposite in fact.

Neither produces life. Your premise is that sterility is bad because it doesn't produce life. Neither does celibacy.

The only difference between the two is that one still gets to have sex. Its very obvious that sex, and sex without consequences, is exactly what the Catholic church objects to. Despite their protestations to the contrary.


And it's so obvious that everyone realizes it, except for those who have a religious obligation to pretend they don't. If you could get outside yourself for one second, you would see it too.

Celibacy can absolutely create life but not if one's end is celibacy. The means of celibacy to create life is a good thing.

Before we continue, do you have any questions so far? The goal or end of priestly celibacy is not to avoid birth or the creation of life, for example.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Abortion is somehow removing the fetus before it is born right ?
If you don’t think the fetus is alive, then abortion is just contraception.
But if you do think the baby is alive, that’s where the main argument is.
So I ask this question.
How can we know, if, and ultimately when the fetus becomes a baby ?
I would argue that is the point abortion goes from contraception to Something much tricker.
But it seems, the only answer is a religious one, and until we get a better answer, we can’t let the religious beliefs of some, govern all.
So then, the question is, when does the fetus become a baby ?

And then I guess the follow up question would be, if it does turn out to be a baby, alive, during pregnancy ,then what ? (If it’s not then it’s just contraception, and the argument agents contraception is a different one).

Let’s assume it is for a moment, just because it would be a done deal otherwise.
Let’s assume that a living person, is some how connected and taking from another person, to stay alive.

Maybe someone is in a coma, and to not die, someone has to be hooked up to the machine to keep them alive, at risk to themselves. And that they are the only match.

Can the state force them to go, and go to the machine.
What about if they woke up, and were connected while unconscious, (as many unintentional births happen).
Can the state force them to not leave ?

One would be forcing someone to help.
The other would force someone to keep helping.

If we look at legal precedent, nobody is required to jump in front of a bullet for someone else. Even if they have a bullet proof vest and are at lower risk. To stop helping, to let go of the person who is dangling from a cliff though might be different.

And what about the fact that baby has never known life, would that make a difference. What if they are expected to have a genetic defect. These start to become cold calculations about the utility of life. Is the reason why one chooses abortion a factor of it being allowed or not? (Like I wanted a girl not a boy). What about if the baby threatens the life of the mother. Trade one life for another ? Do the right of a person who exist trump the rights of someone who may or may not exist, or would not exist yet ?
(Most people seem to agree that if the baby threatens the mother then abortion is ok)


If we can answer these questions, I believe we can answer abortion.
Of course, the answers to many are possibly philosophical and we may never be able to answer them.

Personally, I would argue that the baby should be protected after a brain is developed, as that is what we know to contain the soul in some way, and that if after, the mother wants an abortion, we should have a system set up where they can safely remove the baby, at no cost to the mother, and then the baby would grow in the hospital and eventually go to an orphanage.
That’s the only way I can think of that preserves the rights of the mother and the (potential) baby.

I’m curious to see what other people think about this. I’m afraid there may very well be no good answer. But maybe technology could help.

(And in lieu of a good answer, one way to help may be to avoid the issue, by keeping it from coming up more, like increased contraception)

Of course this is in a perfect world, in our not so perfect world, besides the merit of abortion itself, it has been used to take away the rights of women.


Anyways, these are my thoughts. (I fully acknowledge they are in no way perfect)
“How to find a solution where everyone can be happy, or how to find the moral answer, without religion”

[The Reformed American Republic]

But then again, screwing people over is justified because your god said so, right? And since you know you've picked the only real god anyone with different opinions just needs to open their eyes, right?

As it was for over a thousand years unfortunately. What do you think happened to the pagans in tribal Europe who did not accept the new thing known as Christianity? The Protestants under bloody Marry, etc?

Sundiata basically wants to return to doing things that way. Not by going as far as burning people (as far as I can tell), but you know what I mean.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I'm against Abortion

Maybe you’re pro choice though like me?

[Sundiata]

Because their lives are so fruitful. I think you're missing an important component.

Sterile people can't live fruitful lives?

That's a cruel thing to say.

In the context you're thinking maybe. Explain further.