Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (3 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Farb]

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?

I am against all abortions. However, I am willing to compromise on certain things, although, I am fully aware that by me willing to compromise will be hypocritical.

The ectopic issue is a red herring. Does the baby have a chance to live if nothing was done? No, no chance. So to protect the life the mother I don't see a religious, secular or moral argument.

 

[MT15]

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?

Good to know you will be opposing the federal abortion ban they are planning.

That was a bit tongue in cheek. What I would say is that when we are talking about basic constitutional rights, well, that is what the federal government should be protecting. States should not get to set their own ideas about basic rights. That will create huge problems and it’s like saying that each state should get to decide if they are for or against same sex marriage, or availability of birth control. Or even slavery.

Women have had a constitutional right to bodily autonomy concerning reproduction for 50 years. It was upheld numerous times by all types of courts. Now, because five people say so, suddenly that right will cease to exist. It actually doesn’t cease to exist, it will be denied, violated. This is a problem for our country, whether you think so or not.

 

[Farb]

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.


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.

Ok, so those men that can have babies, biologically, where does the baby grow? Did those birthing men provide the sperm or the egg for the child?

I am making the argument that men cannot, under any circumstances give birth to human child. You say this is indeed possible, albeit rare. Where and how the baby is born is the center of the debate, that is why I am asking these questions. You say my lack of comprehension to you point is not a valid argument. So, make me understand. Explain this to me.

 

[Farb]

Separation of church and state.



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

Is it? Can we see where the SCOTUS is using a religious a argument to return abortion to the states?

 

[efil4]

I am against all abortions.

what about welfare?

 

[Farb]

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.

No, it is not. It is only framed like that to attack it.

 

[MT15]

No, it is not. It is only framed like that to attack it.

That’s not fair. If you cannot acknowledge that this is, at its heart, a religious issue, how can we have any sort of trust in the discussion?

 

[Farb]

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...

Pro-abortion. That works too.

 

[Farb]

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.

Did you not say recently that getting an abortion is a horrible experience and traumatic as well?

 

[Farb]

How about where I did.



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.

Cool. What was your question on what I assume?

 

[Farb]

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.

Except for the child right?

 

[Farb]

"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?

Make no mistake. It is overwhelmingly a religious issue.

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



Sure.

I know people who have issues with the exam itself.

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

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?

Do non-religious people believe that an born human has a soul?

You know the point I am trying to make about the invasive medical procedure to remove a 'clump of cells' from a patient in comparison to the personal trauma a woman might have after an abortion.

You really don't think there is an abortion industry? Have a look at the backlash the Komen foundation got for taking money from Planned Parenthood because they did not preform breast cancer screening. They instead gave that money to organizations that actually did what their organization was established for, breast cancer.
Who makes money from abortions? Are body parts of the babies sold? Who makes that money? Yes, there is a very strong abortion industry in this country.

 

[Farb]

Good to know you will be opposing the federal abortion ban they are planning.

That was a bit tongue in cheek. What I would say is that when we are talking about basic constitutional rights, well, that is what the federal government should be protecting. States should not get to set their own ideas about basic rights. That will create huge problems and it’s like saying that each state should get to decide if they are for or against same sex marriage, or availability of birth control. Or even slavery.

Women have had a constitutional right to bodily autonomy concerning reproduction for 50 years. It was upheld numerous times by all types of courts. Now, because five people say so, suddenly that right will cease to exist. It actually doesn’t cease to exist, it will be denied, violated. This is a problem for our country, whether you think so or not.

I am not aware of abortion being a constitutional right? Is that not infact that the SCOTUS is saying in their opinion? It is.

Did those rights that were upheld not come from 7 people who said so?

 

[MT15]

The right we are talking about is bodily autonomy. The same right that you enjoy when you get to decide if you donate blood, nobody can force you. This same right you have that no matter how many times you fail to pay child support, nobody can sterilize you against your wishes. The same right that extends to you even after death - nobody can harvest your organs without your express consent, even though you are dead and have no use for them. Even though they would save an innocent life were they made available after your death.

Yeah, that right that women will no longer have, but that everyone else enjoys.

 

[coldseat]

I am not aware of abortion being a constitutional right? Is that not infact that the SCOTUS is saying in their opinion? It is.

Did those rights that were upheld not come from 7 people who said so?

It has been a constitutional right for the last 50 years. It is still right now, a constitutional right. If this SC decision goes through, Alito and 4 conservative justices will be ending that constitutional right/protection for woman. They will also be putting in doubt many of the constitutionally protected by privacy rights Americans have come to know. Those facts is undeniable.

 

[DaveXA]

Except for the child right?

Sure, but the unborn have no established rights or personhood. That's not to say they should or shouldn't. I don't really know. But I think that has to be between mothers, doctors and their conscience. There are pregnancies that end in miscarriage, disease or irreversible conditions requiring the removal of the fetus and/or female organs as explained earlier. Ectopic pregnancy isn't exactly very rare, but the condition can be fatal to the mother if not dealt with in a timely manner. I think abortion should be a rare medical procedure in which the mother in consultation with her doctor walk through all of the factors involved in making a decision on the best path forward during pregnancy. I think that should be protected and codified. But that's me.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

No, it is not. It is only framed like that to attack it.

Yes, it is. It's framed that way because it's true.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Is it? Can we see where the SCOTUS is using a religious a argument to return abortion to the states?

I can see that in many of the states that are trying to deny abortions the leaders of the states are using religious language such as:

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.”

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

Not exactly separation of church and state.