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.

 

[coldseat]

These people would call themselves pro-life, but to vote for something that actually made the lives of many poor kids and families better ... nah, can't bother with that.

The studies show families used the temporary monthly stipend to pay routine household expenses, including rent, school supplies and extracurricular activities, and food — families receiving the credit reported they ate more balanced meals. (Yes, a bit more fast food was consumed compared to households not receiving the benefit — but so was more protein, fruits and vegetables.)

In fact, when Brookings compared households receiving the child tax credit with those that were ineligible, they found those who received the de facto allowance were more likely to pay down credit card bills and less likely to turn to payday loans to get by. Their chances of getting evicted were lower. They were also less likely to resort to such desperate measures as selling their blood plasma to raise cash.

Nonetheless, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), in particular, encouraged people to believe the myth of the slothful and lazy parent living high on the government hog. HuffPost reported that Manchin privately told people he believed families would use the money to buy drugs.

Manchin was far from the only villain here. Polls showed that many didn’t want to see the measure enacted permanently. (Seniors were particularly against it.) True, Americans are forever suspicious of someone receiving a helping hand — but, in this case, the people getting helped were often us, or our family members, or our friends. It just didn’t seem to matter. The fact that millions of families are now sliding back into precarious living conditions is garnering next to no outrage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/biden-child-tax-credit-success-expiration/

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

These people would call themselves pro-life, but to vote for something that actually made the lives of many poor kids and families better ... nah, can't bother with that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/biden-child-tax-credit-success-expiration/

Thats why i always say these people aren't Pro-Life. they are anti-abortion. they could care less about how long the child lives once its born. But they use Pro-Life because it gives that illusion of compassion. Anti-Abortion sounds not so friendly...

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Separation of church and state.

Religion Must Not Substitute Science in the Abortion Debate​

View the entire Abortion Rights Are Essential to Democracy series
When Gov. Greg Abbott signed Texas law S.B.8, he provided an oft-heard reason for why the Lone Star state is effectively banning nearly all abortions: “Our creator endowed us with the right to life.”

Abbott’s religious invocation to justify Texas’s law, of course, begs the question: Whose vision of a creator, exactly? The United States is more diverse now than it has ever been. We are a country of over 330 million people who practice every major world religion, with a growing number practicing “nothing in particular.” Views on abortion vary widely, both among and within religious denominations.

All these perspectives are protected equally under the U.S. Constitution—by the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment—which together protect the fundamental right to hold religious beliefs of one’s choosing while ensuring that the government remains neutral when it comes to matters of faith.

Among the most deeply shameful moments in our nation’s history have been the legal system’s justification for brutal racism and discrimination on the basis of religion—going back to at least 1852, when the Missouri Supreme Court upheld enslavement in America in an opinion asserting, “The introduction of slavery amongst us was …. in the providence of God.”

Alarmingly, we’re approaching a disturbing comingling of religion and government on the issue of abortion in several states, not limited to Texas. In a session of the Arkansas legislature this year, a state senator proclaimed, “There’s six things God hates, and one of those is people who shed innocent blood.”

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...n-must-not-substitute-science-abortion-debate

 

[MT15]

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?

So I thought I would look up the claim that women who get abortions are somehow traumatized. Which was put forth and accepted as fact here. It seems there is at least one study refuting this claim:

You can read the study, I have just posted the conclusion.

Does abortion increase women's risk for post-traumatic stress? Findings from a prospective longitudinal cohort study - PMC

To prospectively assess women's risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and of experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) over 4 years after seeking an abortion, and to assess whether symptoms are attributed to the pregnancy, abortion ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

Women who received an abortion were at no higher risk of PTSD than women denied an abortion.

 

[MT15]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to explain how the statement is being twisted.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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?

It doesn't matter what percentage of pro-lifers are religious now. The point is that the genesis of the rights pro-life stance IS religious.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

So I thought I would look up the claim that women who get abortions are somehow traumatized. Which was put forth and accepted as fact here. It seems there is at least one study refuting this claim:

You can read the study, I have just posted the conclusion.

Does abortion increase women's risk for post-traumatic stress? Findings from a prospective longitudinal cohort study - PMC

To prospectively assess women's risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and of experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) over 4 years after seeking an abortion, and to assess whether symptoms are attributed to the pregnancy, abortion ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

Women who received an abortion were at no higher risk of PTSD than women denied an abortion.

I saw someone on here say that to them abortions are immoral. I would suggest that if you believe in the definition of immoral, "not conforming to accepted standards of morality", abortions are not immoral. To help women phycological who have abortions I think it is important that we as a society realize that abortions do not go against our "accepted standards of morality." Most Americans believe in giving women a choice, which makes having an abortion an accepted standard of morality.

 

[wardorican]

Well, obviously I think you are wrong. LOL
I only tend to use the terms 'woke' and 'libs' when replying to being called a bigot or whatever. If you want to have a honest discussion with me, approach me that way and not as a guardian of the truth or the board manners police. I have no problem discussing any topic that you would like (if I understand it, I don't claim to smart).
So, where do you want to begin?

How about where I did.

Edit: wrong link.. sorry.

https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...abortion-discussion.90178/page-90#post-298167

Just because I ask why you assume what you do, that isn't being the guardian of the truth or manners police. It's a dialogue into if your assertions are based on anything real. Or, if there is another way to look at it.

 

[SystemShock]

So I thought I would look up the claim that women who get abortions are somehow traumatized. Which was put forth and accepted as fact here. It seems there is at least one study refuting this claim:

You can read the study, I have just posted the conclusion.

Does abortion increase women's risk for post-traumatic stress? Findings from a prospective longitudinal cohort study - PMC

To prospectively assess women's risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and of experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) over 4 years after seeking an abortion, and to assess whether symptoms are attributed to the pregnancy, abortion ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

Women who received an abortion were at no higher risk of PTSD than women denied an abortion.

There's a lot of wrong here. I don't know where to start.

The claim is that there is a psychological toll on women who have abortions, not necessarily that they are traumatized. This toll will vary from woman to woman, obviously.

Now, the study linked doesn't seek to refute the claim hat women who get abortions are traumatized. As the objective states, it seeks to "prospectively assess women's risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and of experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) over 4 years after seeking an abortion, and to assess whether symptoms are attributed to the pregnancy, abortion or birth, or other events in women's lives."

The conclusion highlighted (which BTW, doesn't really follow the objective as stated, as it doesn't attribute PSTD to any event) doesn't refute that there is a psychological toll on women who had abortions, but that according to their observations (which again, seem to deviate from the stated objective) the risk of PSTD is no higher in women who received and abortion and women who were denied an abortion; it doesn't say there is no risk.

My tax dollars at work.

 

[DaveXA]

So I thought I would look up the claim that women who get abortions are somehow traumatized. Which was put forth and accepted as fact here. It seems there is at least one study refuting this claim:

You can read the study, I have just posted the conclusion.

Does abortion increase women's risk for post-traumatic stress? Findings from a prospective longitudinal cohort study - PMC

To prospectively assess women's risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and of experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) over 4 years after seeking an abortion, and to assess whether symptoms are attributed to the pregnancy, abortion ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

Women who received an abortion were at no higher risk of PTSD than women denied an abortion.

I don't know about PTSD or clinical diagnosis, and no doubt my interactions are anecdotal, but having been a minister and had women confide in me their struggles with decisions they've made, and their decision to abort their baby was most difficult decision they ever made. And depression was common. Invariably, the women I spoke with felt something was lost after the procedure.

I'm sure not all have the same experiences or feelings after abortion, but clearly, it's something that weighs heavily. I think how far into term makes a big difference. Everyone has their own decisions to make and I acknowledge that. It's why I'd rather leave the decision in the hands of the mother and doctor. Everyone has to live with their decision and I'm more about people having the freedom and responsibility to make those choices regardless of my view on the issue.

 

[SystemShock]

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?

"Pro-lifer" as we know it :life's sacred, fertilized eggs/zygotes have souls, Plan B is abortion, ban Planned Parenthood, ban all abortions, criminalize abortions, I don't want to say that 100% all are religious, there are always outliers, but 99.9% are. And anyone who believes that fertilized eggs/zygotes have souls, they are definitely religious, even if they say they aren't.

Now, as for most "pro-choicers" being secular, that depends what you mean by being secular. Do you mean people who are not religious? Who don't believe in a god? That act outside their religion? That interpret their religion to tolerate abortion?

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.

Make no mistake. It is overwhelmingly a religious issue.

I am very sure that non-religious people practice abstinence and safe sex.

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.

Sure.

Is it common to have psychological toll after having a cyst removed following a colonoscopy?

I know people who have issues with the exam itself.

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.

There are other factors: stigmas, family pressures, background, the process itself depending where you live...

Do you think that is why the abortion industry fights against requiring an ultrasound for mothers thinking about getting one?

I wasn't aware that there was an abortion industry. But I supposed the opposition to them is that 1. they are unnecessary medical procedures and b. sets a bad precedent that the government forces a person to have a medical procedure. Side note: I am not sure if the requirement would be to just have the ultrasound, or if the woman would be required to look at it. Would it be something like A Clockwork Orange?

 

[MT15]

There's a lot of wrong here. I don't know where to start.

The claim is that there is a psychological toll on women who have abortions, not necessarily that they are traumatized. This toll will vary from woman to woman, obviously.

Now, the study linked doesn't seek to refute the claim hat women who get abortions are traumatized. As the objective states, it seeks to "prospectively assess women's risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and of experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) over 4 years after seeking an abortion, and to assess whether symptoms are attributed to the pregnancy, abortion or birth, or other events in women's lives."

The conclusion highlighted (which BTW, doesn't really follow the objective as stated, as it doesn't attribute PSTD to any event) doesn't refute that there is a psychological toll on women who had abortions, but that according to their observations (which again, seem to deviate from the stated objective) the risk of PSTD is no higher in women who received and abortion and women who were denied an abortion; it doesn't say there is no risk.

My tax dollars at work.

Yes, you restated the conclusion admirably. I’m not sure why you felt the need, but whatever.

What I took from the study was that the whole issue, pregnancy, having the baby, choosing to not be pregnant are all fraught with emotions. There is commonly depression after giving birth, and there can be depression after an abortion sure. The whole takeaway from the study was that abortion didn’t lead to a higher rate of stress than actually having the baby. It’s all stressful for women in ways that men don’t or can’t understand. It’s best to leave this decision to the woman. And I know we agree on that much.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Yes, you restated the conclusion admirably. I’m not sure why you felt the need, but whatever.

What I took from the study was that the whole issue, pregnancy, having the baby, choosing to not be pregnant are all fraught with emotions. There is commonly depression after giving birth, and there can be depression after an abortion sure. The whole takeaway from the study was that abortion didn’t lead to a higher rate of stress than actually having the baby. It’s all stressful for women in ways that men don’t or can’t understand. It’s best to leave this decision to the woman. And I know we agree on that much.

Yes, and this whole thing is important for men also in that they should live in a society in which their wife, daughter, and the entire female population have a choice. Limiting any freedoms impacts us all.

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, you restated the conclusion admirably. I’m not sure why you felt the need, but whatever.

Because the study didn't support your claim. The study wasn't even about your claim. And the claim you made was erroneous to begin with. And to top it off, the conclusion of the study doesn't really reflect the objective.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, and this whole thing is important for men also in that they should live in a society in which their wife, daughter, and the entire female population have a choice. Limiting any freedoms impacts us all.

While I agree, let's be clear that we all have some limitations on our freedoms to varying degrees. Freedom isn't absolute no matter where you are.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

While I agree, let's be clear that we all have some limitations on our freedoms to varying degrees. Freedom isn't absolute no matter where you are.

Of course not. You aren't free to drive 120 mph in a school zone or ignore your taxes. I think we know what freedoms we're talking about here.

 

[Farb]

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?

I would not. I am a fan of the system we have, a constitutional republic. This is why I believe this issue is better left to the states to decide for themselves. What citizens in California and Louisiana want are very different. Why have the federal government force it upon different and separate groups of citizens?

 

[coldseat]

I would not. I am a fan of the system we have, a constitutional republic. This is why I believe this issue is better left to the states to decide for themselves. What citizens in California and Louisiana want are very different. Why have the federal government force it upon different and separate groups of citizens?

Because some individual rights are to important to leave to the discretion of a particular state or its voters. Clearly you must recognize that.

A right to privacy and bodily autonomy should be among those and shouldn't be left to an individual state to violate.