GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starterGrandAdmiral
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
That's not what the eh is referring to. You know me better than that.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
To be clear, the eh was about the country surviving. It's not the end of the world. It will be a painful tug of war, but it's coming sooner or later.
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
No, this anti-abortion round, starting around the election of Reagan, is rooted in religion. Other anti-abortion movements were rooted in other things. For example, Doctors/men wanting to take the birthing industry away from midwives/women.
Abortions would become criminalized by 1880, except when necessary to save a woman’s life, not at the urging of social or religious conservatives but under pressure from the medical establishment – and the very organization that today speaks out in support of abortion access, Reagan explained.
The abortion ruling no one knew about: Georgia's 20-week ban
In the Supreme Court’s latest case, the American Medical Association voiced disapproval of the Texas abortion law when it joined the amicus brief led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Laws that impede the freedom of physicians to provide care using their best medical judgment are not supported by the AMA.
The association, an AMA spokesman said, “seeks to limit government interference in the practice of medicine and oppose government regulation of medicine that is unsupported by scientific evidence.”
Back when it was still a fledgling organization, however, it began a crusade in 1857 to make abortion illegal, Reagan wrote. The impetus was manifold. Some of it came “out of regular physicians’ desire to win professional power, control medical practice, and restrict their competitors,” namely midwives and homeopaths.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html
Last edited:
J-DONK
Well-known member
Offline
Abortion became a big wedge issue while desegregation was being enacted. What really kickstarted the "Religious Right" wasn't Roe V Wade, but losing tax exempt status at their schools.
This is an old politico article that goes in-depth on this topic:
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
www.politico.com
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
I knew they, the religious right, were responsible for getting Reagan elected but it does make sense in retrospect that desegregation would have a lot to do with it given the politics of the time.Abortion became a big wedge issue while desegregation was being enacted. What really kickstarted the "Religious Right" wasn't Roe V Wade, but losing tax exempt status at their schools.
This is an old politico article that goes in-depth on this topic:
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
Last edited:
wardorican
Well-known member
Offline
sorry, I messed up that post.. wrong like.
https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...abortion-discussion.90178/page-90#post-298167
I mean, I'd rather not post it twice, just go back to that post.
I was questioning your assertion.
brandon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,021
- Reaction score
- 5,246
Offline
Quite the moderate position you have there.
But I don’t understand how something that is actively being put into proposed law is a red herring.
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
Not so sure I believe that 2nd sentence...regardless this is not an "Eh, we will survive" moment for many women if this BS goes forward.....poor choice of words there IMO
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
I don't believe it either. Very recently Sen. Graham said "use my words against me" in regards to supreme court vacancies:
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' "
and yet when the time came again, he conveniently did the opposite.
'Use My Words Against Me': Lindsey Graham's Shifting Position On Court Vacancies
Before he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, the South Carolina senator said a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled during an election year. His position has changed.
www.npr.orgI recall he was up for re-election and... it got a lot of air time... end result? he got re-elected once again.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
I already explained it. You misconstrued what I said. Women suffering =/= survival of the country. You're the one who suggested the country wouldn't survive and I responded to that.
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
I guess I don't remember saying the country won't survive, in fact I'm pretty sure I never said that....
V Chip
Truth Addict
Offline
I'll back you on this: not all anti-abortion (sorry, but this issue is about abortion, not "life") people come to their position from a religious background. The vast majority do, but not all.
bdb13
Well-known member
Offline
I agree, though having very religious Christian conservatives on the Court IS pretty obviously why this is about to be overturned. Absent overly-religious Justices and I'm certain things would be vastly different here.
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
What is the anti-abortion, non religious reasoning for prohibiting woman from accessing legal/safe abortions if they make that choice?
bdb13
Well-known member
Offline
My dad's not very religious at all and he's pretty against abortion. He basically thinks it's a life early on and shouldn't be terminated and you deal with the consequences of the decisions you make.
Edit: He'd be OK with exceptions for rape/incest I believe or mother's life in danger.
I'm not sure if he'd be against bans that don't make exceptions.
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
I guess I would ask you dad which decision? Having sex? or Having a baby? Because if the decision is about having a baby, then I would definitely say that the woman who choose to have an abortion, are indeed making a decision in that regard and dealing with those consequences.
If the decision is "having sex", then pregnancy is only one such possible result of having sex. There are many other possible results from sex, many good and some bad. In the events of the bad ones, say getting syphilis from having sex, should the person also have "deal with the consequences" by not being allowed by law to access medical treatment or care?
That doesn't seem like a very stable basis for constitutional law or restricting bodily autonomy, privacy and medical treatment.
V Chip
Truth Addict
Offline
@Farb (and others who might want to chime in)
I have a hypothetical situation. You say you are against all abortions, and that the life created at conception/fertilization is one that should be protected by the state. I realize you have some wiggle room (re: the ectopic pregnancy issue) but by and large you are against anything that will result in the loss of an embryo, correct?
What would you say to a woman/couple who wants to have a baby, but they are having problems with miscarriages? Obviously miscarriages are natural for the most part -- something is wrong in the development of the fetus and the body rejects it, either because the fetus is "dead" or for some other reason the body expels it (FYI in many miscarriages, the fetus is still "alive" in that it would still have a detectable heartbeat). Let's say this woman/couple go to the doctor to find out if they can find a cause for the miscarriages, and in this case they do find out that no matter what the woman does, there is a 85-90% chance she will have a miscarriage again.
If the woman still tries to get pregnant, is she immoral in your argument? She is deliberately creating new life to know that there is very little chance for that life to survive and that her body might reject it and cause what is medically called a spontaneous abortion, and in some of those cases the fetus is still technically alive (and according to some laws being written, every effort should be undertaken to keep that fetus alive in the case of these miscarriages). Some women have many miscarriages and are medically termed a "serial aborter." Are these women immoral or doing something you would consider wrong in creating all these new lives when they know it will almost certainly end up in an abortion?
Let's take that one step further in that the identification of the reason is genetic -- an abnormality like genetic diseases, or something called a translocation that will make pregnancy difficult if not nearly impossible. There is still a chance the abnormality/translocation won't affect the fetus, but the chance is small. Would a woman who rolls the dice like this be considered killing her "baby" over and over again if she goes into each possible pregnancy knowing that it is very unlikely to go full term?
If this woman/couple then decide to try IVF -- which as you know creates numerous embryos (sometimes upwards of 20-25) to be grown in a lab until they reach about 5-7 days. In IVF for those genetic reasons, those embryos are tested to see if they have the genetic condition and only those without the condition(s) are considered "viable" for implantation -- thus in some cases 80-90% of the blastocysts/embryos are simply discarded, and sometimes even the ones without a condition are never implanted and thus frozen or tossed. Are these all deliberate murders in your view as you frequently call any abortion murder (especially one with intent, as these would be)? Do you think regardless of the viability of the embryo via testing that IVF is basically a woman committing serial murder of babies? Do you realize that some of the current laws being proposed or actually passed have no exceptions for IVF, thus would render the procedure illegal? Do you think as some anti-abortion people do that a child born of IVF is an abomination and that the parent(s) are murderers?
Oh wait, this isn't a hypothetical at all. It actually happened to my (now ex-)wife and I when we were trying to have a baby for 4-5 years. We met hundreds of other people going through the same thing at our little clinic. The number of IVF babies born in the US yearly is anywhere from 50K-100K. That's a lot of embryos "murdered" for the sake of trying to have a child if your view holds up.
I have a hypothetical situation. You say you are against all abortions, and that the life created at conception/fertilization is one that should be protected by the state. I realize you have some wiggle room (re: the ectopic pregnancy issue) but by and large you are against anything that will result in the loss of an embryo, correct?
What would you say to a woman/couple who wants to have a baby, but they are having problems with miscarriages? Obviously miscarriages are natural for the most part -- something is wrong in the development of the fetus and the body rejects it, either because the fetus is "dead" or for some other reason the body expels it (FYI in many miscarriages, the fetus is still "alive" in that it would still have a detectable heartbeat). Let's say this woman/couple go to the doctor to find out if they can find a cause for the miscarriages, and in this case they do find out that no matter what the woman does, there is a 85-90% chance she will have a miscarriage again.
If the woman still tries to get pregnant, is she immoral in your argument? She is deliberately creating new life to know that there is very little chance for that life to survive and that her body might reject it and cause what is medically called a spontaneous abortion, and in some of those cases the fetus is still technically alive (and according to some laws being written, every effort should be undertaken to keep that fetus alive in the case of these miscarriages). Some women have many miscarriages and are medically termed a "serial aborter." Are these women immoral or doing something you would consider wrong in creating all these new lives when they know it will almost certainly end up in an abortion?
Let's take that one step further in that the identification of the reason is genetic -- an abnormality like genetic diseases, or something called a translocation that will make pregnancy difficult if not nearly impossible. There is still a chance the abnormality/translocation won't affect the fetus, but the chance is small. Would a woman who rolls the dice like this be considered killing her "baby" over and over again if she goes into each possible pregnancy knowing that it is very unlikely to go full term?
If this woman/couple then decide to try IVF -- which as you know creates numerous embryos (sometimes upwards of 20-25) to be grown in a lab until they reach about 5-7 days. In IVF for those genetic reasons, those embryos are tested to see if they have the genetic condition and only those without the condition(s) are considered "viable" for implantation -- thus in some cases 80-90% of the blastocysts/embryos are simply discarded, and sometimes even the ones without a condition are never implanted and thus frozen or tossed. Are these all deliberate murders in your view as you frequently call any abortion murder (especially one with intent, as these would be)? Do you think regardless of the viability of the embryo via testing that IVF is basically a woman committing serial murder of babies? Do you realize that some of the current laws being proposed or actually passed have no exceptions for IVF, thus would render the procedure illegal? Do you think as some anti-abortion people do that a child born of IVF is an abomination and that the parent(s) are murderers?
Oh wait, this isn't a hypothetical at all. It actually happened to my (now ex-)wife and I when we were trying to have a baby for 4-5 years. We met hundreds of other people going through the same thing at our little clinic. The number of IVF babies born in the US yearly is anywhere from 50K-100K. That's a lot of embryos "murdered" for the sake of trying to have a child if your view holds up.
V Chip
Truth Addict
Offline
Some people believe that life is precious no matter their religious convictions and argue that abortion is immoral regardless of any belief in god(s). Not many, but they do exist.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.