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

[The New California Republic]

I'm sure it will be. But it's probably not unconstitutional.

I'm legally required to sign that I received and read financial wellness information to take out a mortgage on a new home. This isn't that different.

I wonder if it could count as forced speech or association. Also, which hotline and how is that hotline being controlled?

The phone number will coincidentally have the international number code for the Vatican at the start of it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'm sure it will be. But it's probably not unconstitutional.

I'm legally required to sign that I received and read financial wellness information to take out a mortgage on a new home. This isn't that different.

I wonder if it could count as forced speech or association. Also, which hotline and how is that hotline being controlled?

Inb4 half the internet goes and bogs the hotline down in spurious calls.

[Kexholm Karelia]

'Pro-Life Activist' convinces mother not to abort and is now objecting to now being put down as preferred placement citing financial and health reasons.

The irony is utterly hilarious.
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/202 ... she-saved/

Funny how they just stop caring about babies once they are born and might start costing the moral crusaders money.

Who’s "they?"

[Katganistan]

March for life was held virtually this year, however some demonstrations did happen physically

I think this protestor speaks volumes
(Image)

She speaks for one person: herself.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

March for life was held virtually this year, however some demonstrations did happen physically

I think this protestor speaks volumes
(Image)

I think this pic speaks volumes about the bloodily absurd volumes of pompous, arrogant pontifications we are inundated with on an hourly basis.

[Galloism]

I'm sure it will be. But it's probably not unconstitutional.

I'm legally required to sign that I received and read financial wellness information to take out a mortgage on a new home. This isn't that different.

I wonder if it could count as forced speech or association. Also, which hotline and how is that hotline being controlled?

Forced association probably wouldn't work if the workers on the other end are government employees, but it might if they aren't. Typically you can't pull the forced association card if you have to deal with a government employee to receive a service (think about getting a permit to have a yard sale, for instance - if you live in a place that requires a permit for a yard sale, you can't say you're forced to associate with the government employee who provides the permit and gives the rules for the permit).

Forced speech also probably wouldn't work if they aren't forced to say anything in particular.

[Katganistan]

Yes, but the justification for rape is what's particularly extreme.

*shrug*. Traditionally the Abrahamic religions teach that if a woman is raped, she should be married to her rapist. It is not especially shocking that some people still think that way.

Good thing it's not the law, because were someone to force me to marry my rapist, I can guarantee I would soon be a widow.

People who get aborted go to heaven the people who abort go to hell because the child who got aborted wants justice on his mother for denying him the will to live that why they suffer internal hell fire when they die because they continue to commit murder and not repent of it and continuing to deny gods mercy.

Amazingly the Bible never says any of that. At all.

How will you feel if your a baby that got aborted by a mother and you where In heaven and you denied the will to live in the human world will you want justice against your murdering mother when she dies in the after life and her or his mother haven’t repented because your mother aborted you will you want justice on your mother yes or no there is children that said yes.

Your fantasies do not count as anything relevant to this.

Now point EXACTLY to what chapters and verses in the Bible say anything about abortion. As in, "Genesis 1:1" and the quote, so we can look it up, instead of going on a wild goose chase for info we all know is NOT there.

Oi Vey.

Made this more readable for anyone having trouble: "How would you feel if you're a baby that got aborted by a mother, and you were in Heaven and you were denied the will to live in the human world? Would you want justice against your murdering mother when she dies and goes to the afterlife and she hasn't repented after she aborted you? Would you want justice against your mother yes or no? There are children that said yes."

Well A. How would something that's dead be able to exact revenge?, B. If God didn't want abortions to happen why didn't he make it so they were impossible to perform under any circumstance?, and C. What if the original Catholic teaching is still in progress and any child, miscarried fetus, or stillborn gets sent to Limbo because they couldn't be baptized and thus forgiven for The Original Sin?

D) Why would a child in heaven want revenge, they are in heaven. See this is the weird thing, using the line of thinking that any aborted fetus ends up in heaven creates a rather interesting issue, namely why would you not be pro-abortion if that is the case. A fetus automatically goes to heaven, a born child does not. Heaven is forever, it is eternal perfection while life on earth is so short as to be non-existent when eternity is considered. Why would you ever risk your child's chance on heaven by actually giving birth to them?

How does that have anything to do with the comment. Still wondering why you are not pro-abortion given your belief that feti automatically go to heaven.

Fetus when dead in the after life is not alive is raised in heaven as a human child as baby because god is merciful god helps aborted babies from mothers who aborted them raises them to be gods servants.

Once more, this interpretation appears absolutely NOWHERE in the Bible.

While you do not believe in eternity, no it would not be wrong because they would be in heaven...or are you saying heaven is like being imprisoned? I mean far be it from me to comment on how bad heaven is, but I thought it was supposed to be this perfect place.

Every baby that gets aborted in heaven by their mother the baby goes to heaven while there mother committed murder so the fetus transforms into a child where it can play with heavenly toys including playing instruments like the lute when they grow they become warriors of god and fight against Satan in judgement day.

That definitely is not in the Bible.

Is the past tense of smite smited or smote?

I've heard smote, smited and smitten all used in past tense so take your pick. English sucks yo.

https://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/smite.php
What can I say... I'm an English teacher, you know.

Goose is geese.
But mongoose is mongooses.

English makes no sense sometimes! >_<

The singular form of kudos is kudos. The plural of kudos is kudos.

Same for sheep and deer.

This is what confused me in 1987 when televangelist Oral Roberts announced to his flock if they didn't send 8 million in donations God would call him home. Isn't that what all Christians should want?

[The Marlborough]

I was thinking more in case of serious pregnancy complications caused by that. If a baby is the product of rape but is an otherwise normal pregnancy, it should be carried to term because otherwise it will have to face brutal mutilation and murder

Which it can't feel and can't even recognize. Honestly, if I was killed and I couldn't feel nor recognize the pain, I honestly would prefer that than suffering with a mother who (probably) doesn't want me and an absentee father who traumatized her.

You say that only because you're in a position in which it wouldn't happen. Also why does it matter if they can or cannot feel pain? Is it less bad to murder someone with congenital analgesia?

[The New California Republic]

Which it can't feel and can't even recognize. Honestly, if I was killed and I couldn't feel nor recognize the pain, I honestly would prefer that than suffering with a mother who (probably) doesn't want me and an absentee father who traumatized her.

You say that only because you're in a position in which it wouldn't happen. Also why does it matter if they can or cannot feel pain? Is it less bad to murder someone with congenital analgesia?

You have it backwards. It's the pro-lifers in the first instance that tend to use the pain argument as an argument against abortion, rather than pro-choicers using the lack of pain as an argument for it.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I would be shocked if its not challenged in court.

I'm sure it will be. But it's probably not unconstitutional.

I'm legally required to sign that I received and read financial wellness information to take out a mortgage on a new home. This isn't that different.

If the state government tries to prosecute a woman for NOT calling their hotline, and she claims she did, how are they going to prove that?

[Galloism]

I'm sure it will be. But it's probably not unconstitutional.

I'm legally required to sign that I received and read financial wellness information to take out a mortgage on a new home. This isn't that different.

If the state government tries to prosecute a woman for NOT calling their hotline, and she claims she did, how are they going to prove that?

The state isn't even going after the woman in that case. It's going after the doctor for a $5000 fine for not verifying she called the hotline.

Which is indicative of our societal views, btw. Even in things meant to restrict women, we prefer to target people around her for punishment and not her. Because women don't have agency you see.

(They actually do have agency - I'm expressing a common societal approach, not actuality.)

[The Marlborough]

You say that only because you're in a position in which it wouldn't happen. Also why does it matter if they can or cannot feel pain? Is it less bad to murder someone with congenital analgesia?

You have it backwards. It's the pro-lifers in the first instance that tend to use the pain argument as an argument against abortion, rather than pro-choicers using the lack of pain as an argument for it.

I've seen many on the pro-killing side say the lack of pain is a reason it is morally permissible. It's actually a common argument within bioethics as to why it's permissible.

[Neutraligon]

If the state government tries to prosecute a woman for NOT calling their hotline, and she claims she did, how are they going to prove that?

The state isn't even going after the woman in that case. It's going after the doctor for a $5000 fine for not verifying she called the hotline.

Which is indicative of our societal views, btw. Even in things meant to restrict women, we prefer to target people around her for punishment and not her. Because women don't have agency you see.

(They actually do have agency - I'm expressing a common societal approach, not actuality.)

How does the doctor confirm she called the hotline? Is a call of 2 seconds enough to have called the hotline? What if the person calls and the second it is answered she hangs up? What if she doesn't have a phone? What if she is deaf? What if she is mute?

[Neutraligon]

You have it backwards. It's the pro-lifers in the first instance that tend to use the pain argument as an argument against abortion, rather than pro-choicers using the lack of pain as an argument for it.

I've seen many on the pro-killing side say the lack of pain is a reason it is morally permissible. It's actually a common argument within bioethics as to why it's permissible.

I know of very few people who are pro-killing. Those that I do know are some form of racist normally, though there are those who are strongly pro-eugenics who want to eliminate genetic diseases regardless of race. In either case, pain is unimportant to them.

[The New California Republic]

You have it backwards. It's the pro-lifers in the first instance that tend to use the pain argument as an argument against abortion, rather than pro-choicers using the lack of pain as an argument for it.

I've seen many on the pro-killing side say the lack of pain is a reason it is morally permissible. It's actually a common argument within bioethics as to why it's permissible.

Here? No, it hasn't been. The overwhelming majority of the time the argument has been brought up and discussed is because a pro-lifer has used the fetal pain argument.

[Galloism]

The state isn't even going after the woman in that case. It's going after the doctor for a $5000 fine for not verifying she called the hotline.

Which is indicative of our societal views, btw. Even in things meant to restrict women, we prefer to target people around her for punishment and not her. Because women don't have agency you see.

(They actually do have agency - I'm expressing a common societal approach, not actuality.)

How does the doctor confirm she called the hotline? Is a call of 2 seconds enough to have called the hotline? What if the person calls and the second it is answered she hangs up? What if she doesn't have a phone? What if she is deaf? What if she is mute?

Provided it's ruled constitutional (and like I said, it probably will be given the nature of the requirement), the doctor will likely add the phone call to the procedure so they can verify via records it was done.

And presumably the state will have TTY/TTD.

[Neutraligon]

How does the doctor confirm she called the hotline? Is a call of 2 seconds enough to have called the hotline? What if the person calls and the second it is answered she hangs up? What if she doesn't have a phone? What if she is deaf? What if she is mute?

Provided it's ruled constitutional (and like I said, it probably will be given the nature of the requirement), the doctor will likely add the phone call to the procedure so they can verify via records it was done.

And presumably the state will have TTY/TTD.

Sorry TTY/TTD?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If the state government tries to prosecute a woman for NOT calling their hotline, and she claims she did, how are they going to prove that?

The state isn't even going after the woman in that case. It's going after the doctor for a $5000 fine for not verifying she called the hotline.

Which is indicative of our societal views, btw. Even in things meant to restrict women, we prefer to target people around her for punishment and not her. Because women don't have agency you see.

(They actually do have agency - I'm expressing a common societal approach, not actuality.)

I guess that works. Unfortunately.

So women will be forced to listen to possibly hours of pro-life propaganda while waiting on hold, then get a robo-menu to enter their information. There should be an app for that!

[The Marlborough]

I've seen many on the pro-killing side say the lack of pain is a reason it is morally permissible. It's actually a common argument within bioethics as to why it's permissible.

I know of very few people who are pro-killing. Those that I do know are some form of racist normally, though there are those who are strongly pro-eugenics who want to eliminate genetic diseases regardless of race. In either case, pain is unimportant to them.

We have had people ITT argue against creating artificial wombs even though it would make the debate effectively null and void as women who didn't wish to continue on a pregnancy could do so without killing.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Provided it's ruled constitutional (and like I said, it probably will be given the nature of the requirement), the doctor will likely add the phone call to the procedure so they can verify via records it was done.

And presumably the state will have TTY/TTD.

Sorry TTY/TTD?

Teletype for the Deaf, and er, something.

[The Marlborough]

I've seen many on the pro-killing side say the lack of pain is a reason it is morally permissible. It's actually a common argument within bioethics as to why it's permissible.

Here? No, it hasn't been. The overwhelming majority of the time the argument has been brought up and discussed is because a pro-lifer has used the fetal pain argument.

The wider debate isn't just limited to here.

[Neutraligon]

I know of very few people who are pro-killing. Those that I do know are some form of racist normally, though there are those who are strongly pro-eugenics who want to eliminate genetic diseases regardless of race. In either case, pain is unimportant to them.

We have had people ITT argue against creating artificial wombs even though it would make the debate effectively null and void as women who didn't wish to continue on a pregnancy could do so without killing.

From what I recall it has been argued against for reasons to do with safety as well as the inequality it would create since the poor likely will still not be able to use it, as well as wonder how to support the children that result considering our already terrible foster system.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I know of very few people who are pro-killing. Those that I do know are some form of racist normally, though there are those who are strongly pro-eugenics who want to eliminate genetic diseases regardless of race. In either case, pain is unimportant to them.

We have had people ITT argue against creating artificial wombs even though it would make the debate effectively null and void as women who didn't wish to continue on a pregnancy could do so without killing.

People like me, who understand that incubators are far from perfect substitutes for a womb?

"Artificial wombs" are a futurist fantasy with no bearing on current policy. You're like the coal industry saying "don't shut us down, or we'll never be able to develop perfect carbon capture".

To say that developing artificial wombs is FAR beyond the budget pro-lifers are prepared to put up, is a gross under-statement. See the story up the page about a pro-lifer who "saved" a baby's life and then could afford to adopt it.

The debate will be null and void ... in the far future when a thing gets invented ... at someone else's expense. Well why not just drop the subject and come back in the far future?

[The Marlborough]

We have had people ITT argue against creating artificial wombs even though it would make the debate effectively null and void as women who didn't wish to continue on a pregnancy could do so without killing.

From what I recall it has been argued against for reasons to do with safety as well as the inequality it would create since the poor likely will still not be able to use it, as well as wonder how to support the children that result considering our already terrible foster system.

Once again I resort to my position that not everyone who is pro-life lives in that third world country masquerading itself as a first one known as America. Some of us actually live in countries that attempt to give a shit about its own citizens after all. Same goes with the foster system which can be reformed to work better. Of course when this was pointed out, the argument became about "Muh monies".

[The Marlborough]

We have had people ITT argue against creating artificial wombs even though it would make the debate effectively null and void as women who didn't wish to continue on a pregnancy could do so without killing.

People like me, who understand that incubators are far from perfect substitutes for a womb?

"Artificial wombs" are a futurist fantasy with no bearing on current policy. You're like the coal industry saying "don't shut us down, or we'll never be able to develop perfect carbon capture".

To say that developing artificial wombs is FAR beyond the budget pro-lifers are prepared to put up, is a gross under-statement. See the story up the page about a pro-lifer who "saved" a baby's life and then could afford to adopt it.

The debate will be null and void ... in the far future when a thing gets invented ... at someone else's expense. Well why not just drop the subject and come back in the far future?

Just because you're like 75 or something doesn't mean the rest of us are. There is a fair chance we can advance far enough by the time most of us are middle-aged and thus are not in the far-future.