Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[MT15]

I linked to a group that is pretty radical left and are also radically pro-life so they are not a religious group.

What does 'pro-life' and all it entails mean to you?

You brought up something that has been brought up before on here. Why is the psychological and physiological toll after an abortion is so great? The argument is that it is a clump of cells. Do those same damages take place after you surgically remove a spot on your skin that might be cancerous? Physiological maybe to an extent of wound care at the most but surely not a psychological toll? Because is the is act of destroying a life, a fundamental and hardwired survival instinct of the human condition.

Just because one radical (your word) group says so does not mean you can extrapolate their opinion to 95% of biologists. There is no way that statistic isn’t being twisted by your side.

 

[coldseat]

Just because one radical (your word) group says so does not mean you can extrapolate their opinion to 95% of biologists. There is no way that statistic isn’t being twisted by your side.

The human lifecycle does indeed begin at conception. So a biologist who says human life begins at conception would be technically correct. But that doesn't mean that the fetus is "alive" as we understand it in coloquial terms. It doesn't mean the fetus is a person or a baby. It obviously doesn't mean that that fetus is capable of sustaining life on its own. It doesn't mean the fetus is deserving of legal protection equivalent to that of the woman who is carrying the fetus. No where in the original constitution or its meaning does it codify or even hint that a fetus at conception is due legal protections of life. That's an invention of the right wing establishment.

 

[DaveXA]

Just because one radical (your word) group says so does not mean you can extrapolate their opinion to 95% of biologists. There is no way that statistic isn’t being twisted by your side.

I'd actually like to see the source of the claim.

 

[DaveXA]

The human lifecycle does indeed begin at conception. So a biologist who says human life begins at conception would be technically correct. But that doesn't mean that the fetus is "alive" as we understand it in coloquial terms. It doesn't mean the fetus is a person or a baby. It obviously doesn't mean that that fetus is capable of sustaining life on its own. It doesn't mean the fetus is deserving of legal protection equivalent to that of the woman who is carrying the fetus. No where in the original constitution or its meaning does it codify or even hint that a fetus at conception is due legal protections of life. That's an invention of the right wing establishment.

I belive life begins at conception. I don't think there's a lot of dispute on that point. The question is whether the fetus deserves legal status or protection. The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother to survive. Of course, that's still mostly true after birth, so some other criteria would need to be considered for establishing legal protection and/or personhood. I tend to think there should be some benchmark for protecting the unborn, but at the same time, from a legal standpoint, allow doctors and mothers to make hard decisions about how to deal with unwanted pregnancy. I don't envy mothers in that position, and I'd rather allow mothers and doctors deal with it and not the government.

Fwiw, I feel like there should be a line at some point, I don't know if that's beyond first trimester or second, or whatever. The line is ultimately somewhat arbitrary, but idk how to decide that.

Clearly there's no easy solution to this or it would have been resolved a long time ago. I tend to think Roe vs Wade should be allowed to stand, even if I don't agree with abortion from a moral standpoint.

 

[Incumbent]

I would tend to agree with you on most of that. I will push back and say that all the instances you provided are so rare as to almost make them an anomaly.

I also don't believe in punishing the offspring for the 'sins of the father' or so to say.

Life begins at fertilization, or so say 95% of biologists, so you are correct in that the real debate should be at what point does the baby receive legal rights? I contend that the right to life trumps the right to consequence free sex or an easier life.

Thank you for the response.

That health risks to the mother and violence against women and girls happens at all should be enough to enact and preserve policies that protect them in those situations. No woman should have to die because of somebody else's ideas of the importance of when life starts. And to say that offspring shouldn't be punished for the "sins of the father" is to say that women, and girls, should be.

No woman should ever be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that she does not want, and especially one that has been forced on her without her consent. Mandating away the rights of women to have agency over their bodies, preventing them from making reproductive decisions, and blocking access to safe medical care, runs contrary to the core ideals of liberty and free will.

Deciding when life begins ignores a lot of other considerations and doesn't go far enough as a basis to strip child-bearing capable women of their rights and self-determination. Believing that life begins at fertilization shouldn't also mean that a woman's rights end at fertilization.

 

[SystemShock]

I linked to a group that is pretty radical left and are also radically pro-life so they are not a religious group.

Not being a religious group doesn't make the individuals of that group non-religious. Far left isn't a synonym of atheism either.

What does 'pro-life' and all it entails mean to you?

Your average pro-lifer believes human life starts at egg fertilization, that a fertilized egg/zygote has a soul, claims that life is sacred (although not all life, but for another conversation), believes the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is abstinence, believes Plan B is abortion, wants to ban all abortions, wants to imprison doctors for performing abortions...

You brought up something that has been brought up before on here. Why is the psychological and physiological toll after an abortion is so great?

I am surprised you don't know about them, considering the huge amount of pro-life literature and pro-life heath sites that describe them in gruesome detail.

The argument is that it is a clump of cells. Do those same damages take place after you surgically remove a spot on your skin that might be cancerous?

It should be obvious that there is a difference between scraping someone's skin (which is kind of meant to be damaged) and going inside an organ that's inside one's body with foreign instruments.

 

[SFIDC3]

And to say that offspring shouldn't be punished for the "sins of the father" is to say that women, and girls, should be.

This is a salient, real point that one side conveniently ignores....

 

[V Chip]

Not me. Those are some of the wild and emotional responses from those on this board that support abortion.

Sorry, you said everyone. I thought you meant everyone, not just a handful of people.

 

[Farb]

So I said, and I quote, "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men", and pointed out that "Deliberately phrasing things like this as "mammals can lay eggs," with the intention of suggesting that would mean there's some elephants going around laying eggs is, let's say, weak sauce.""

And you apparently read that and thought, "I know, I'll prove his point by doing exactly that." You've pretended that you don't understand what "trans man" means, and ignored "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men" for "men can give birth" and then literally suggested that means babies "maybe grow inside the prostate" despite the original statement making it clear that's not the case; which is much the same thing as pretending you don't know what a platypus is and suggesting that elephants lay eggs.

And this is pretty much all the people on your side of the 'argument' do. You pretend you don't know who trans men and women are, try to pretend people using terms that apply specifically to them are talking about all men and all women, and then look baffled, like a dog trying to do algebra, as if that somehow constitutes an argument to anything other than your own lack of comprehension.

Nah, I know trans people exist. I just don't believe a woman dressing up as a man makes that person a man, just as I don't believe dressing up as a sexy nurse for Halloween gives that person the knowledge to process vitals at the hospital. Just like it is impossible for a man to give birth.

You can call it whatever you like but if a human drops a baby, that person is 100% female.

 

[Farb]

I'd actually like to see the source of the claim.

I linked it a few pages back. You can also Google '95% of biologist life claim life begins at fertilizations'

 

[Farb]

Thank you for the response.

That health risks to the mother and violence against women and girls happens at all should be enough to enact and preserve policies that protect them in those situations. No woman should have to die because of somebody else's ideas of the importance of when life starts. And to say that offspring shouldn't be punished for the "sins of the father" is to say that women, and girls, should be.

No woman should ever be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that she does not want, and especially one that has been forced on her without her consent. Mandating away the rights of women to have agency over their bodies, preventing them from making reproductive decisions, and blocking access to safe medical care, runs contrary to the core ideals of liberty and free will.

Deciding when life begins ignores a lot of other considerations and doesn't go far enough as a basis to strip child-bearing capable women of their rights and self-determination. Believing that life begins at fertilization shouldn't also mean that a woman's rights end at fertilization.

I am against all abortions. I will and do understand that my staunch belief is not everyone's belief so I see no issue with allowing the voters to decide on if they want abortion and if so, to what existent. That is not possible unless Roe is knocked down.

As far the health of the mother and rape or incest, I would consider that a reasonable outlier (especially since they are so rare as to make them outliers to begin with). Again, that is part for the voters to decide, not the federal government.

 

[Incumbent]

I am against all abortions. I will and do understand that my staunch belief is not everyone's belief so I see no issue with allowing the voters to decide on if they want abortion and if so, to what existent. That is not possible unless Roe is knocked down.

As far the health of the mother and rape or incest, I would consider that a reasonable outlier (especially since they are so rare as to make them outliers to begin with). Again, that is part for the voters to decide, not the federal government.

You think people's rights are best left in the hands of voters? Our history shows that to be a bigoted and dangerous practice.

 

[Farb]

Not being a religious group doesn't make the individuals of that group non-religious. Far left isn't a synonym of atheism either.

Your average pro-lifer believes human life starts at egg fertilization, that a fertilized egg/zygote has a soul, claims that life is sacred (although not all life, but for another conversation), believes the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is abstinence, believes Plan B is abortion, wants to ban all abortions, wants to imprison doctors for performing abortions...


I am surprised you don't know about them, considering the huge amount of pro-life literature and pro-life heath sites that describe them in gruesome detail.


It should be obvious that there is a difference between scraping someone's skin (which is kind of meant to be damaged) and going inside an organ that's inside one's body with foreign instruments.

I will agree with that, but it seems an odd position for you since you lump all pro-lifers as religious. You would agree most pro-lifers are religious but you would not agree most pro-choicers are secular?

Well, you pegged me for sure. I am a pro-lifer then or even anti-abortion. Do you think only religious people practice abstinence and practice safe sex? Seems like you really want to force this to be a religious issue.

I am aware and I am also aware of the pro-choice literature that pro-choice sites that down play abortion as some sort of birth control.

Is it common to have psychological toll after having a cyst removed following a colonoscopy? It seems to me the reason that there is a psychological toll is because the person is going against a natural response to protect your young at all costs. So that by itself should help prove that abortion is in fact killing of the young. Do you think that is why the abortion industry fights against requiring an ultrasound for mothers thinking about getting one?

 

[Farb]

You think people's rights are best left in the hands of voters? Our history shows that to be a bigoted and dangerous practice.

Who do you suggest decide people's rights?

 

[Incumbent]

Who do you suggest decide people's rights?

I do agree that flaws exist throughout the system, so there aren't easy and perfect answers, but would you want your rights decided by a simple majority of the popular vote?

 

[RobF]

Nah, I know trans people exist. I just don't believe a woman dressing up as a man makes that person a man, just as I don't believe dressing up as a sexy nurse for Halloween gives that person the knowledge to process vitals at the hospital. Just like it is impossible for a man to give birth.

Firstly, that's again showing a lack of comprehension of who trans people are, and, again, your lack of understanding isn't an argument.

Secondly, no. If someone says, "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men," and you don't think trans men are men, that would make your interpretation of the statement to be "men do not have babies." It would not make your interpretation of the statement, "Men have babies and grow them in their prostate," as you said. That would be a plainly wrong interpretation that shows an inability to comprehend English and/or a desire to willfully abuse it in lieu of any actual argument.

You can call it whatever you like but if a human drops a baby, that person is 100% female.

On the contrary, you can be as narrow-minded as you like, but people will continue to respect both abortion rights and trans rights showing that they're not 'mutually exclusive', and people will continue to respect the identity of trans men and trans women.

 

[RobF]

I am against all abortions.

As far the health of the mother and rape or incest, I would consider that a reasonable outlier

When you say it's a 'reasonable outlier', do you mean it justifies an exception, and so that you're not actually against all abortions? Or do you mean it doesn't matter if those people suffer or die because there aren't many of them?

E.g. in the case of ectopic pregnancies (note: estimated to be around 1 in every 90 pregnancies in the UK, representing around 11,000 pregnancies a year. The estimates for the USA appear to be higher), are you OK with abortions for those?

 

[Incumbent]

When you say it's a 'reasonable outlier', do you mean it justifies an exception, and so that you're not actually against all abortions? Or do you mean it doesn't matter if those people suffer or die because there aren't many of them?

E.g. in the case of ectopic pregnancies (note: estimated to be around 1 in every 90 pregnancies in the UK, representing around 11,000 pregnancies a year. The estimates for the USA appear to be higher), are you OK with abortions for those?

Abortion is such a politicized and emotional issue that a lot of people either don't really understand that it is a medical procedure that often is necessary to protect the life of the woman/girl, or they simply don't care. When abortion is reduced to "murdering babies", no room is left for reason.