Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[bdb13]

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.

I agree.. it's just a tough thing man because 'where life begins' is an arbitrary thing to some very great extent, it just is.. and so if they view life beginning very early then abortion is going to be murder.. and it's just about impossible to bridge that gap: You think it's murder and I don't.

 

[coldseat]

@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 actually have another related question on the morality side for those who believe religiously that life begins a conception. What, if anything different, happens to the soul of fetus that is miscarried as opposed to the soul of fetus that is aborted?

 

[bdb13]

@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've never thought of that I'm sorry you've had to go through that.

Bringing that into the mix here is brilliant though. But no seriously, do we charge her with murder after the 4th purposeful pregnancy that was miscarried?

 

[Farb]

Was wondering about this and to what degree these new anti abortion laws are violations of the 13th amendment
Not everyone on the right will be shamed by a pro-slavery charge, but maybe enough

How can one connect the dots between slavery/gun control and abortion?

 

[Farb]

I don't get that sense....I also think you are being incredibly naive here, I think if Roe is overturned you are going to see a real uptick in violence....

My only hope (and it is a faint one) is that the Republican party eventually implodes.....one of the few things Larry Hogan is right about is that the party needs a new and better direction....

I do think you are right. And I also find it odd, but telling that the left's answer to politics has currently been violence. The simple fact that you seem to think/hope that the violence will lead to the silencing of your political dissenters is something out of the facist play book, no? Is mob violence not the end of democracy?

 

[Farb]

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.

So you are asking me if I really think there is an active crime wave or are you asking me why and if I think liberal politics add to that crime spike?

 

[Farb]

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.

And I think that is were all of this ends up. States will pass laws that ban abortions but does makes exceptions.

As with any negotiation, you start by asking for more than you actually want and work at a compromise. I want a full ban, but I see this as a best case scenario.

 

[Farb]

@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.

Yeah, that sucks man. Sorry to hear it. I know a lot of couples that have struggled to have children too. Some got lucky and some adopted. It is a rough situation.
But to answer you questions. No, in my book, there is nothing wrong or immoral about that at all. Life will find a way and all that.
About that IVF and the 'killing' of the 'weak' or non-viable, to be honest, I have never thought of it. Now the quick run through in my mind, my tentative answer would be no, that is not an abortion. The embryos in question are not in the mother.

Now a separate discussion could be had on whether I think creating embryos in a lab is ethical or moral.

 

[Farb]

I actually have another related question on the morality side for those who believe religiously that life begins a conception. What, if anything different, happens to the soul of fetus that is miscarried as opposed to the soul of fetus that is aborted?

I would guess nothing. Do you think something different happens to a soul depending if they die of old age or are killed in a war? I don't.

 

[V Chip]

Yeah, that sucks man. Sorry to hear it. I know a lot of couples that have struggled to have children too. Some got lucky and some adopted. It is a rough situation.
But to answer you questions. No, in my book, there is nothing wrong or immoral about that at all. Life will find a way and all that.

Thanks, and that's good to hear.

About that IVF and the 'killing' of the 'weak' or non-viable, to be honest, I have never thought of it. Now the quick run through in my mind, my tentative answer would be no, that is not an abortion. The embryos in question are not in the mother.

Now a separate discussion could be had on whether I think creating embryos in a lab is ethical or moral.

Well I think it's important to have, as some of the current bills either passed or in progress do not address this issue at all and thus in some cases make IVF illegal. Would you think IVF is immoral and thus should be illegal?

BTW, not all of the embryos (blastocysts) created are non-viable when they are either frozen (for potential future use) or discarded. In our case they were (what looked promising with many eggs harvested and implanted -- expecting at least 2-5 "usable" blastocysts -- turned into only one being viable and implanted, which reduces the chances for a successful pregnancy but turned into my daughter ) but in many or even most cases they aren't.

 

[wardorican]

So you are asking me if I really think there is an active crime wave or are you asking me why and if I think liberal politics add to that crime spike?

Both are fine questions. And why do you think Republican policies and controlled cities that have high crime are vastly different than the liberal/Democrat ones?

 

[SFIDC3]

I do think you are right. And I also find it odd, but telling that the left's answer to politics has currently been violence. The simple fact that you seem to think/hope that the violence will lead to the silencing of your political dissenters is something out of the facist play book, no? Is mob violence not the end of democracy?

The response above is so rife with hypocrisy that I don't no where to begin....my point remains when the SC starts to take away rights that the vast majority of the country are in favor of, something is going to give....and it should....

Political dissenters? What a f'in joke....The end of democracy is when the political system (in this case the SC) goes against the will of the people....if this happens it won't stop at abortion....

 

[coldseat]

I would guess nothing. Do you think something different happens to a soul depending if they die of old age or are killed in a war? I don't.

To be honest, I don't know what happens to any soul after death or if we even truly have a soul. I know I don't believe the dogma that the Catholic church teaches (since that's what I know). I haven't really found a cohesive beliefs system that speaks to me as truth, given that I don't think its something we can prove. At least not with our current knowledge. But I leave room in my beliefs/thoughts for things that I can't understand or fully comprehend. It seems to me that we have deeper capacity of existence than just our flesh, bones, cells and DNA, where love, hope, compassion, forgiveness, grace, ect. come from. I'm okay calling that a soul, but that is more of a feeling and not something I can prove.

I guess the reason I asked is because one of the things we're taught as Catholics was that one of the reason we needed to protect life from the moment of conception was because the souls of aborted babies couldn't get into heaven because they weren't baptized and only baptized souls could get into heaven. I never agreed with that belief even at the heights of my involvement in the church because it never made sense to me. What about all of the miscarried babies or just babies who weren't Christian/Catholic? It just didn't make since that they would all be stuck in limbo or purgatory. That was never really addressed, more so glossed over.

 

[Farb]

The response above is so rife with hypocrisy that I don't no where to begin....my point remains when the SC starts to take away rights that the vast majority of the country are in favor of, something is going to give....and it should....

Political dissenters? What a f'in joke....The end of democracy is when the political system (in this case the SC) goes against the will of the people....if this happens it won't stop at abortion....

Are they taking away a right or putting it back to the states as was the original intent? There will be states that move the opposite direction and open up abortion.

What do you mean, it won't stop at abortion?

 

[Farb]

To be honest, I don't know what happens to any soul after death or if we even truly have a soul. I know I don't believe the dogma that the Catholic church teaches (since that's what I know). I haven't really found a cohesive beliefs system that speaks to me as truth, given that I don't think its something we can prove. At least not with our current knowledge. But I leave room in my beliefs/thoughts for things that I can't understand or fully comprehend. It seems to me that we have deeper capacity of existence than just our flesh, bones, cells and DNA, where love, hope, compassion, forgiveness, grace, ect. come from. I'm okay calling that a soul, but that is more of a feeling and not something I can prove.

I guess the reason I asked is because one of the things we taught as Catholics was that one of the reason we needed to protect life from the moment of conception was that because the souls of aborted babies couldn't get into heaven because they weren't baptized and only baptized souls could get into heaven. I never agreed with that belief even at the heights of my involvement in the church because I never made since to me. What about all of the miscarried babies or just babies who weren't Christian/Catholic? It just didn't make since that they would all be stuck in limbo or purgatory. That was never really addressed, more so glossed over.

That is a great question/response. Made me think and will make think about what I believe the answer to be.
Since this is a religious/catholic question, I will attempt to answer it with my limited knowledge and it will probably be incorrect in a some way.

Yes, baptism is the cleansing of natural sin and one cannot enter heaven without it according to the scripture. We also know (or we should pray to know) that God is loving and just and I personally don't think he would condemn a soul of a child who was not baptized due to death, miscarriage, abortion ect... to hell. I also don't think he would send them to purgatory either so in my mind, with him being just and loving, there has to be a place/way they make it back to him. How besides his grace and mercy, I don't know. I don't know if it takes prayers from the living or if he just deems it as a case by case (soul by soul) bases. No idea.

I tend to feel the same way about those that commit suicide.

There is a movie that I really like from the 90s (still amazes me how long ago that was, but how recent in mind the 90s was) called Purgatory. It is a western/religious/fantasy type movie with some known actors. Long story short, this little town is purgatory and all the folks, later to be known, are famous cowboys. Billy the kid, Doc Holliday, Hickock, ect.... They can't cuss, use guns, drink, sex all the good stuff of the old west. Anyway, bad guys show up (Eric Roberts) and eventually, some stand up and commit violence to save the rest of the town knowing they will go to hell. The coachman who takes the souls to heaven or hell shows up and tells the guys "The Creator is tough, but he ain't blind" and he takes them to heaven. Long rambling story short, He is merciful and fair and life is hard as intended.

 

[J-DONK]

Are they taking away a right or putting it back to the states as was the original intent? There will be states that move the opposite direction and open up abortion.

What do you mean, it won't stop at abortion?

I assume their point is what about other activists decisions? Should gay, and interracial marriage be left up to the states? What about desegregation?

You can really go down an originalist rabbit hole when debating what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" back in 1776 vs today.

 

[Farb]

Both are fine questions. And why do you think Republican policies and controlled cities that have high crime are vastly different than the liberal/Democrat ones?

I would guess, the defund the police had a significant impact on violent and non-violent crime. As the summer of love burned, those cities with mayors and councils that caved and knelt down before the progressive ACAB/Defund the police mobs probably tended to be a little worse off overall. We are still seeing these effects.

Let me ask you, that guy that charge Chappelle on stage and had a knife, should that have been assault or a misdemeanor?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

That is a great question/response. Made me think and will make think about what I believe the answer to be.
Since this is a religious/catholic question, I will attempt to answer it with my limited knowledge and it will probably be incorrect in a some way.

Yes, baptism is the cleansing of natural sin and one cannot enter heaven without it according to the scripture. We also know (or we should pray to know) that God is loving and just and I personally don't think he would condemn a soul of a child who was not baptized due to death, miscarriage, abortion ect... to hell. I also don't think he would send them to purgatory either so in my mind, with him being just and loving, there has to be a place/way they make it back to him. How besides his grace and mercy, I don't know. I don't know if it takes prayers from the living or if he just deems it as a case by case (soul by soul) bases. No idea.

I tend to feel the same way about those that commit suicide.

There is a movie that I really like from the 90s (still amazes me how long ago that was, but how recent in mind the 90s was) called Purgatory. It is a western/religious/fantasy type movie with some known actors. Long story short, this little town is purgatory and all the folks, later to be known, are famous cowboys. Billy the kid, Doc Holliday, Hickock, ect.... They can't cuss, use guns, drink, sex all the good stuff of the old west. Anyway, bad guys show up (Eric Roberts) and eventually, some stand up and commit violence to save the rest of the town knowing they will go to hell. The coachman who takes the souls to heaven or hell shows up and tells the guys "The Creator is tough, but he ain't blind" and he takes them to heaven. Long rambling story short, He is merciful and fair and life is hard as intended.

Oh no! You were converted by those awful Kirk Cameron Left Behind movies, weren't you?!?!