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

[San Lumen]

Banning abortion after six weeks means you’ve outlawed it. Most women don’t know that are pregnant at six weeks.

It’s a technicality but yes. They, meaning the court, wants to undermine Roe not overturn it.

And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.

[Thermodolia]

It’s a technicality but yes. They, meaning the court, wants to undermine Roe not overturn it.

And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.

Not really. Because they can claim that Roe isn’t overturned that Roe is still protected. That you can abort out of state and whatever.

Sure it wouldn’t be perfect but it would do enough to keep the democrats from scoring a PR victory

[San Lumen]

And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.

Not really. Because they can claim that Roe isn’t overturned that Roe is still protected. That you can abort out of state and whatever.

Sure it wouldn’t be perfect but it would do enough to keep the democrats from scoring a PR victory

How would they not score a PR victory? It could easily be spun as overturning it and placing an undue burden. Many would see it that way.

[Genivaria]

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

So far noone has been able to, the anti-choice side of the issue simply has no leg to stand on.

[The Alma Mater]

So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

So far noone has been able to, the anti-choice side of the issue simply has no leg to stand on.

That is untrue - one person argued that there is a special obligation between mother and child that does not exist amongst others.
Which is something I disagree with; but at least they had an answer.

[The New California Republic]

If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.

[Esternial]

If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

So you're endorsing child labor and marriage, considering the rights to marriage and work?

[Godular]

If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

The rights of the fetus are irrelevant to this concern as you are seeking to give the fetus rights beyond those of born persons. You seek to allow the fetus to use another person's body and resources for its own ends, whether the owner of that other body consents to the arrangement or not. Either you seek to treat the fetus as more-than-human right up until it passes through the birth canal, or you seek to treat the woman as less.

It is you who dehumanizes, one way or the other.

[Thepeopl]

Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

Emphasis mine.
So, you support pregnant women when they learn they are pregnant? You'll give them money and housing, free health care because human life in the womb "should be favoured ". They get free healthy food, birthing and parenting classes. And daddies too. They receive the same benefits and time to bond with the unborn. Great! Because if you do that, you'll see abortion rates going down.

Sadly I must conclude that no state whatsoever does favour the unborn. Nor born children.

Until they do, let's keep safe abortions easily accessible and proper sex education with free contraceptives given to children/ young adults.

[Betoni]

If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.

Banning abortion isn't the same as giving rights to a fetus. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity. So the question is not about the fetuse's rights vs the mothers. It's about the mothers rights period. Plenty of jurisdictions have and do restrict persons right to bodily autonomy, as in very late abortions etc. So it's clearly not inconceivable that a law would do so. IMO, it's as stupid to argue about the fetuse's non-existent rights as it is to compare the early forms of ones offspring to a parasite or a fully developed and born legal person. It comes down to weather you think the mother has the right to abort their pregnancy and at what stage does that right end. Simple as.

[The New California Republic]

You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.

Banning abortion isn't the same as giving rights to a fetus.

It is, it's de facto giving the fetus the right to use the body of another against their will. That's a right that no other person has.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity.

Given the pro-life crowd very frequently want the fetus to be considered a person, the question of it being a legal entity in this context is very pertinent, hence why we need to speak in terms like this.

[Sundiata]

I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

This wasn't true the last time you said it, either.

It's been true since the first.

[Sundiata]

I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

No, no. I'd think it should be illegal even if I were an atheist for practical reasons.

[Elwher]

There are at least three separate discussions going on here, not counting the various offshoots that always crop up.

First, is abortion something that should be unregulated, controlled (and if so, when), or banned?

Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?

Third, should Roe be the law of the land?

The first hinges too much on morality or personhood to ever be settled by discussion, only laws will do so and they will leave some people unhappy with the result as their deeply held beliefs will be compromised by whatever the law is.

The second is dependant on one's position on the first; for the most part, the anti-abortion folk like it because it works and the pro-abortion folk do not like it because it works.

The third is the only one I have a strong opinion on. I do not think Roe was correctly decided, and my opinion on abortion does not enter into my reasoning. All other medical procedures are set by state legislatures or state boards of health. Abortion is a medical procedure, just like any other even if it is more controversial. It should, therefore, be the duty of the several states to regulate it, not the Federal government. Roe was Federal overreach and the occasionally proposed Federal ban on abortions would be equally invalid.

[The New California Republic]

A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

No, no. I'd think it should be illegal even if I were an atheist for practical reasons.

Since you aren't an atheist it's impossible to know that for sure, since at the moment your fundamental framework for being against abortion is religious, and thus you will also be trapped in that framework even when trying to think what it'd be like looking at it from the other side.

[The New California Republic]

Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?

...but it's not avoiding a SCOTUS review at all, as it is getting looked at next month...

[Esternial]

A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

No, no. I'd think it should be illegal even if I were an atheist for practical reasons.

Hard to tell. Your moral perspective is in part influenced by your religious views. Lacking those...ball could roll any direction. My catholic upbringing has also given me certain morals and ideals I may otherwise not have or I might prioritize them differently.

[Isles of Eamhna]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity. So the question is not about the fetuse's rights vs the mothers. It's about the mothers rights period.

this is correct imo

[Spirit of Hope]

There are at least three separate discussions going on here, not counting the various offshoots that always crop up.

First, is abortion something that should be unregulated, controlled (and if so, when), or banned?

Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?

Third, should Roe be the law of the land?

The first hinges too much on morality or personhood to ever be settled by discussion, only laws will do so and they will leave some people unhappy with the result as their deeply held beliefs will be compromised by whatever the law is.

Laws come from discussions, so yeah we should discuss it. That said, the answerer to a morality question for the law is easy, don't enforce one persons morality on another. Simply put if you think abortions are immoral, don't get one. But making abortion illegal means that someone who thinks abortions are moral can't get one. Since an abortion doesn't harm you, you shouldn't get to tell people if they can do it or not.

The second is dependant on one's position on the first; for the most part, the anti-abortion folk like it because it works and the pro-abortion folk do not like it because it works.

I mean I would hope anti abortion folk care about the rule of law and not making contrived laws designed specifically to go around the rule of law. But as evidenced by this thread some people care more about winning their moral victory than about maintaining the rule of law that allows them to have their moral victory.

The third is the only one I have a strong opinion on. I do not think Roe was correctly decided, and my opinion on abortion does not enter into my reasoning. All other medical procedures are set by state legislatures or state boards of health. Abortion is a medical procedure, just like any other even if it is more controversial. It should, therefore, be the duty of the several states to regulate it, not the Federal government. Roe was Federal overreach and the occasionally proposed Federal ban on abortions would be equally invalid.

Abortion is how a person handles their private body, the state has no business interfering with how a person handles their private body. The 14th Amendment means that the constitutional protections that apply to the federal government also apply to the states. The federal government didn't overreach, the courts said states can't violate peoples constitutional rights.

[Katganistan]

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.

Yes, yes, we all know that The Handmaiden's Tale is a dream come true for men who can't WAIT to control women.

It's a dystopian novel, in case you were unaware.

Indeed. I agree religion was always, and will always be a decisive and even bloody topic.

For the record I don't think religion is bad in itself; like almost everything it is fine unless it's harming people.

And forced pregnancies harm people.

That's what you claim.
Priests who are celibate and don't physically procreate have fruitful lives.
Sterile made fathers are sinning because voluntary stopping physical procreation.

I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.

Really?

I thought the purpose of our lives, according to the Bible, was worshiping God? And that marriage was, in fact, a distraction from this purpose. And that celibacy was, in fact, the preferred state so as to carry on this purpose....

What if preserving a particular human life would lead to suffering of it or even others in the future?

What if someone tries to murder me? Am I allowed to kill in self-defense? Would that make my actions somehow moral?

So much of life is suffering but we shouldn't end it preemptively. In the instance of combat, it's better not to intend the killing of an opponent.

Just lie back and die, Esternial. It's immoral to kill your murderer/rapist in self-defense.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.

Leviticus 21:16
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles

So if you follow only old testament, disabled ppl aren't submitted to heaven. Aren't allowed to worship.

Isaiah 56:3-5
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off

Jesus contradicts this in new testament.

I agree. If you are a Christian, you would mainly follow New Testament teachings, as Jesus is the centre of the religion. The Old Testament only speaks of a Messiah, not exactly Jesus’ teachings.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.

Really?

I thought the purpose of our lives, according to the Bible, was worshiping God? And that marriage was, in fact, a distraction from this purpose. And that celibacy was, in fact, the preferred state so as to carry on this purpose....

Never heard truer words. The Church’s biggest mistake was trying to intervene in marriage. Should’ve just focused on worship.

[Katganistan]

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

My liver is begging for mercy.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.
Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

Drink? I’ll have a Scotch please.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

My liver is begging for mercy.

Non-Alcoholic Strawberry Daquiris are available for those with beleaguered livers… like mine.