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.

 

[RobF]

So, make me understand. Explain this to me.

I did explain it to you. In very simple terms. Several times. Like in the post you just quoted, but appear to have not read. As anyone reading the posts can see.

I'd suggest reading them before asking for further explanation.

 

[RobF]

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.

There's no hypocrisy there? If you don't see any religious, secular, or moral argument against abortion where the foetus has no chance of survival, then you're logically just not against abortion in those situations (unless you're against something even though you can't see any argument for being so).

 

[Farb]

what about welfare?

Welfare as a social safety net or as a way of income?

 

[Farb]

I did explain it to you. In very simple terms. Several times. Like in the post you just quoted, but appear to have not read. As anyone reading the posts can see.

I'd suggest reading them before asking for further explanation.

A uterus does not make a woman then, simply their mental state?

 

[Farb]

There's no hypocrisy there? If you don't see any religious, secular, or moral argument against abortion where the foetus has no chance of survival, then you're logically just not against abortion in those situations (unless you're against something even though you can't see any argument for being so).

Your 'example' is asking if I am in favor of both the mother and the child dying. The child has no chance of survival. It is a 100% guarentee that the baby will die due to it being latched in the tube instead of the womb. Hence, the red herring.

 

[Farb]

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.

The choice for safe sex?

 

[Farb]

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.

If a state shouldn't be left with the ability to decide, then what makes the bigger state, the federal gov, a better decider of these things?

 

[Farb]

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?

Why is it on me to agree to something that is just not correct for the sake of an honest discussion?
There are a lot of people that are not religious that are opposed to abortion in some way.

It seems like the left is the main one to bring up the religious argument in this debate.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

It seems like the left is the main one to bring up the religious argument in this debate.

Amazing how far removed from reality the right is.

 

[coldseat]

If a state shouldn't be left with the ability to decide, then what makes the bigger state, the federal gov, a better decider of these things?

The SC in Roe v. Wade wasn't deciding that the way state governments are, it was just recognizing the right that stemmed from a right to privacy. Then it protected it.

But also, just from our history, the federal government has been the one to recognize and protect our rights.

 

[MT15]

The choice for safe sex?

No such thing.

 

[MT15]

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.

I looked it up, about 1 in 50 US pregnancies are ectopic. It’s actually pretty common. This was per the March of Dimes.

 

[MT15]

Why is it on me to agree to something that is just not correct for the sake of an honest discussion?
There are a lot of people that are not religious that are opposed to abortion in some way.

It seems like the left is the main one to bring up the religious argument in this debate.

Not true at all. You’ve been shown in this thread how often the people supporting these bans quote their religion. It’s overwhelmingly the majority of people on the anti-abortion side. That you insist this is not the case really undercuts your credibility here.

 

[MT15]

And this guy is really something. The arrogance.

 

[DaveXA]

I looked it up, about 1 in 50 US pregnancies are ectopic. It’s actually pretty common. This was per the March of Dimes.

Yeah, I thought it was something like 1 out of 100, so 1 out of 50 isnt too surprising. it's definitely more common than most people know.

 

[DaveXA]

And this guy is really something. The arrogance.

I'm not a fan of Thomas, but I do agree with the sentiment. As a society I think we have to live with the decisions of the court whether we like it or not. If enough people don't like the decision, then change the law. I do think it says something that 50 years after Roe, abortion rights hasn't been codified or protections put in place to head off it being challenged in the courts.

His wife is nuts tho.

 

[MT15]

Well, the point was imagine publicly scolding the public about being unhappy with the Court’s decision, all the while your wife was scheming to change the results of an election in which you and she didn’t like the outcome. This court is a mess.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I'm not a fan of Thomas, but I do agree with the sentiment. As a society I think we have to live with the decisions of the court whether we like it or not. If enough people don't like the decision, then change the law. I do think it says something that 50 years after Roe, abortion rights hasn't been codified or protections put in place to head off it being challenged in the courts.

His wife is nuts tho.

Making abortions illegal in some states won't stop women from getting them. It will make it a lot harder in those states, and it will put the poor in those states at a greater risk of harm during an abortion if they can get one because they won't be able to afford to travel to a state with liberal laws and medically safe abortions. Banning abortions will produce a lose lose situation.