Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Farb]

How do we determine what should and should not be law when:

1. We have freedom of religion, and;
2. A potential law upholds one side's religious beliefs while violating the others?



So? Every argument you have put forth is either religious or religion poorly disguised as secular.



That's a ridiculous and absurd lie.



Again, this is either willful ignorance or you are blatantly lying.

Do we have the right to kill a person based on religious freedom? Can a religion sacrifice a person for their religion in this country? No. So, it seems to me we uphold the one that doesn't kill someone. I guess that leave the debate on whether the baby is a person or not. Sounds like a legal question that should be handled by the courts to me.


https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-case-against-abortion-opinion-1670360

https://secularprolife.org/2021/10/announcing-progressive-anti/

Here is a group started by 3 atheist women. Not religious. Did I make that group myself to trick you and pull off my 'blatant lie' or are you mistaken? Although, I am sure I am still a liar.

 

[Farb]

But he's Scalia so you lose!

Something I am quite used too.

 

[bdb13]

Good question and I get it.

Tough situation, but I will be honest about what I think and my personal stance on this, so apologies up front if I come off as crass, as not my intent.

I would question why you guys would not want to have a child in the first place but that is a personal decision and it sounds like both you are on board with that so good for you.

I could give a longer, more philosophical answer but at the basis of it I recognize that I/we don't want to give up my/our current life in lieu of raising a child. I think it's perfectly okay for us to be 'selfish' in that regard.

Glad you are using protection but let us say it failed (I hope it doesn't obviously). Then I would say 'congratulations' because you life is about to get a lot more complicated and difficult but it will be the best thing to every happen to you. Ever. Without a doubt. Having children is the most rewarding experience a person can ever do. The amount of love you have for a little person is something you would never knew to be possible. Ask any parent. Even a parent that lost a kid (I could not imagine) would not do it differently.
I have never met a person that regrets having a little human. I am sure some are out there, but they are probably not able to be happy about anything and more than not just a terrible person.

I would counter by saying that few ever openly admit to regretting their children because it's only a piece of shirt's opinion to hold there on that one right? I've certainly observed plenty of parents who act as if they regret their children more often than not. There are a lot of terrible parents out there and I think you can correlate to a high degree that those are the ones who deep down regret having their children.

Indeed, you are your wife should have to bear the burden of your decisions. If you guys do get pregnant, then life has found a way and the burden of your decisions led to that life so now it is a mini Mr. and Mrs. bdb13 and you and the Mrs. will wonder how your life was even considered complete before the little one.

That is the positive spin on things but if there was a change of perspective there I think for me personally I would just be lying to myself. I really do enjoy my life without a kid right now man. I would see it as a burden personally. A burden you HAVE to love, but a burden nonetheless

To be honest, I understand the situation. My kid was an oops and I we were not even married. I had no interest in kids, especially at that time in my life. I wrestled with that very decision you describe. It was a terrible decision and my liver is still recovering but I am thankful my faith (that has largely been ignored since High School- Catholic school so that tells you why I was not religious at the time) came through and helped me and my soon to be wife make the best and in my mind now the only decision. I was not religious at the time at all, not even Christmas mass. I just knew that is something I could not live with myself if I encouraged her to have an abortion.

But I think within that lies the arbitrariness of all this in which maybe I don't feel the same way about things that you would, and you can believe that that's wrong of me and that's okay.. but - and I'm speaking about abortions within some sort of reason (which we could also get into) on all of this, not no restrictions on abortion - when dealing with something as arbitrary and potentially damaging on all parties involved, as bringing an unwanted life into the world.. I think you're much better off leaving the decisions to families themselves and not to the imposition of the arbitrary moralities of others.

Long rambling response, but you all are used to my brain diarrhea by now.

Appreciate the response for sure.

 

[Eeyore]

Next ..

Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing

While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for aborti…

thehill.com

 

[MT15]

Can I own an AR-15?

I wouldn’t necessarily outlaw them, but if you had any violence in your record, if you had ever harassed or threatened someone to the point of a restraining order, if you have published some crazy manifestos, you wouldn’t get one. And you would have to be at least 25, and there would be a 15-30 day waiting period.

 

[bdb13]

Why would we have to police something that is natural like a miscarriage?
If a woman who is pregnant does drugs, drinks and smokes during pregnancy no one should say or do anything? After all, it is just a fetus, right?

He's making the point, or the point that I'm taking from it anyway, that by and large we do not view miscarried fetuses as the equivalent of having a lost a new born baby, a toddler, or 20-year-old child.

Why is it generally viewed that way? Within that I think you'd have to conclude that that is mostly the case due to little more than one only having been a fetus and the others having been actual people.

And so once you're there the nuance has now entered the discussion and it's just a matter of how far you go with the nuance.

(Are fetuses just a category all unto themselves then? To be granted the protections of personhood at the expense of the mother (an actual, universally accepted 'person') except in cases of miscarriage in which case we societally revert back to deeming it just a fetus?)

With that, we're really then just operating a sliding scale and determining who wins in the competing rights between the fetus and a mother.. and within reason it makes most sense to me to grant the preponderance of rights to the actual person and not the fetus that, as has been previously established, is generally not viewed to be the equivalent of a person.

 

[DaveXA]

I wouldn’t necessarily outlaw them, but if you had any violence in your record, if you had ever harassed or threatened someone to the point of a restraining order, if you have published some crazy manifestos, you wouldn’t get one. And you would have to be at least 25, and there would be a 15-30 day waiting period.

All of the above for all weapons and I'm on board. I'd make the age 21 though. And I'd add some minimum level of mandatory training.

 

[bdb13]

All of the above for all weapons and I'm on board. I'd make the age 21 though. And I'd add some minimum level of mandatory training.

21 is the age that would actually happen if we're ever able to get movement on the issue.. but your brain isn't even fully developed until you're 25 so I think there is a decent case to be made for it to be there.

 

[DaveXA]

21 is the age that would actually happen if we're ever able to get movement on the issue.. but your brain isn't even fully developed until you're 25 so I think there is a decent case to be made for it to be there.

I get it, but the difference between 18-21 compared to 22-25 is really huge. And regardless, 25 is going to be a non-starter for a large part of the population. I think if we want to get to 25, we would need to get to 21 first.

 

[bdb13]

I get it, but the difference between 18-21 compared to 22-25 is really huge. And regardless, 25 is going to be a non-starter for a large part of the population. I think if we want to get to 25, we would need to get to 21 first.

For sure.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Do we have the right to kill a person based on religious freedom? Can a religion sacrifice a person for their religion in this country? No. So, it seems to me we uphold the one that doesn't kill someone. I guess that leave the debate on whether the baby is a person or not. Sounds like a legal question that should be handled by the courts to me.

The entire point is that the majority of Jewish denominations (not sure if this is the correct term) allow for abortion and say that these restrictive bans violate their faith. In this case, Jewish women would be prevented from practicing what their religion allows. Is that not an example of the government curbing religious freedom?

https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-case-against-abortion-opinion-1670360

An opinion piece that relies on a survey paper that admits in its own abstract that it only addresses half of the question. Awesome.
https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-case-against-abortion-opinion-1670360

https://secularprolife.org/2021/10/announcing-progressive-anti/

And now a bunch of jargon that sounds eerily like right-wing buzzwords.
https://secularprolife.org/2021/10/announcing-progressive-anti/

Here is a group started by 3 atheist women. Not religious. Did I make that group myself to trick you and pull off my 'blatant lie' or are you mistaken? Although, I am sure I am still a liar.

I never said there are irreligious people against abortion. You said "[t]he abortion issue is only a religious issue to the left, " which is demonstrably untrue. So yes, you are still either willfully ignorant or a liar.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Why would we have to police something that is natural like a miscarriage?
If a woman who is pregnant does drugs, drinks and smokes during pregnancy no one should say or do anything? After all, it is just a fetus, right?
It doesn't sound communist to you have 'mandatory' comprehensive sex education? Where would this be done, schools? Who gets to the decide the sex education because the folks doing now are really bad at their job.
I have no problem with birth control and lots of it. The 100% sure fire way to not get pregnant is to not have sex, but that can't be taught.
Abortion should not be treated as birth control.

Death is natural. We investigate deaths for people born... if we treat fetus' as people, then we would need to investigate miscarriages when someone files a complaint about it. Seems pretty invasive to me.

Currently the law does not forbid people from doing those things. Perhaps you think we should start policing the diets of pregnant women since diabetes leads to higher miscarriage rates?

My reference to communism was related to the unrelating naivity of abstinence only pro-lifers. People have sex. People are irresponsible. Unwanted pregnancies occur. Whether abortion is legal or not. There appears to be this belief that all we need to do is ban abortion and everything will be fine... not counting that you will now have increased poverty. More children born into homes without support - probably leading to more poverty and so on.... and no plan to actually help those poor kids. Where are the proposals to provide maternity leave so working parents can actually stay home with their kids those first few months (Ivanka Trump actually championed this but got almost no traction). Where are the proposals for first class maternity ward care for poor kids to lower our abysmal child birth mortality rates? Where are the proposals for free child care for working parents who can't afford quality care?

They don't exist, because there is no actual care for poor kids... it's you shouldn't have had sex, suck it up, sorry kid you have shirt parents and we won't do anything to help you.

As far as sex education... yes, the schools should teach it. They should teach how pregnancies occur and how they can prevent it -- I don't know why you think abstinence can't be taught, it was part of my kids' curriculum. What we shouldn't do is have abstinence only programs -- those are shirt.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Airing on HBO now

 

[Farb]

I could give a longer, more philosophical answer but at the basis of it I recognize that I/we don't want to give up my/our current life in lieu of raising a child. I think it's perfectly okay for us to be 'selfish' in that regard.



I would counter by saying that few ever openly admit to regretting their children because it's only a piece of shirt's opinion to hold there on that one right? I've certainly observed plenty of parents who act as if they regret their children more often than not. There are a lot of terrible parents out there and I think you can correlate to a high degree that those are the ones who deep down regret having their children.


That is the positive spin on things but if there was a change of perspective there I think for me personally I would just be lying to myself. I really do enjoy my life without a kid right now man. I would see it as a burden personally. A burden you HAVE to love, but a burden nonetheless


But I think within that lies the arbitrariness of all this in which maybe I don't feel the same way about things that you would, and you can believe that that's wrong of me and that's okay.. but - and I'm speaking about abortions within some sort of reason (which we could also get into) on all of this, not no restrictions on abortion - when dealing with something as arbitrary and potentially damaging on all parties involved, as bringing an unwanted life into the world.. I think you're much better off leaving the decisions to families themselves and not to the imposition of the arbitrary moralities of others.


Appreciate the response for sure.

I am sure you enjoy your life as it is right now. Most do. I don't think people should have children because they are currently unhappy with their life and are looking for a meaning, that could be a disaster for the family. I think a person's life becomes all that much better with a child. A child you don't have to love, but you will love unconditionally because that is what we are made to do honestly.
I am sure some do regret having children. I would also be curious if you could get people to answer honestly, to see how many regret not having children as they get older and out of child bearing years. I bet it is a lot. I would be vastly more women though, so you will probably be fine! LOL.

I get it. In a perfect world, these matters would be left up to the family, as it was originally with the 'rare, safe and legal' but as always, slippery slope happen to the point where we are discussing abortions up until the moment of birth. I think what you are seeing is a purposeful over correction to reestablish that the child in the womb is entitled to the right to life.
Abortion isn't going away. There will be plenty of states that will continue abortions and I am willing bet when Roe is overturned, those states will pass more aggressive pro-abortion laws and I would also imagine there will be some type of financial assistance for those in states that don't allow abortions to get one in a state that does.

 

[Farb]

I wouldn’t necessarily outlaw them, but if you had any violence in your record, if you had ever harassed or threatened someone to the point of a restraining order, if you have published some crazy manifestos, you wouldn’t get one. And you would have to be at least 25, and there would be a 15-30 day waiting period.

Would you support moving the draft age to 25 as well as the age to vote?

What about if you and your ex don't like each other and she or he files a restraining order for no reason.....happens every day. That will prevent you from getting an AR?

All of the gun proposals I have heard or emotional responses. In order to disarm a population, the government at the very least should prove that the need for a gun is not present by disarming all the criminals. Until that happens, you are asking people to give up protecting themselves. Especially the minority communities with all the police hunting them down in the streets.

 

[Farb]

He's making the point, or the point that I'm taking from it anyway, that by and large we do not view miscarried fetuses as the equivalent of having a lost a new born baby, a toddler, or 20-year-old child.

Why is it generally viewed that way? Within that I think you'd have to conclude that that is mostly the case due to little more than one only having been a fetus and the others having been actual people.

And so once you're there the nuance has now entered the discussion and it's just a matter of how far you go with the nuance.

(Are fetuses just a category all unto themselves then? To be granted the protections of personhood at the expense of the mother (an actual, universally accepted 'person') except in cases of miscarriage in which case we societally revert back to deeming it just a fetus?)

With that, we're really then just operating a sliding scale and determining who wins in the competing rights between the fetus and a mother.. and within reason it makes most sense to me to grant the preponderance of rights to the actual person and not the fetus that, as has been previously established, is generally not viewed to be the equivalent of a person.

Who would we prosecute for a standard miscarriage? God, nature, time? We don't try and prosecute mother nature or a persons heart when an 80 years old dies of a heart attack.
Maybe I am missing the point, very possible and likely, but comparing an act that happens as a force majeure to a deliberate act of walking into a clinic to terminate another life is not the same in my book.

 

[Farb]

The entire point is that the majority of Jewish denominations (not sure if this is the correct term) allow for abortion and say that these restrictive bans violate their faith. In this case, Jewish women would be prevented from practicing what their religion allows. Is that not an example of the government curbing religious freedom?



An opinion piece that relies on a survey paper that admits in its own abstract that it only addresses half of the question. Awesome.
https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-case-against-abortion-opinion-1670360


And now a bunch of jargon that sounds eerily like right-wing buzzwords.
https://secularprolife.org/2021/10/announcing-progressive-anti/


I never said there are irreligious people against abortion. You said "[t]he abortion issue is only a religious issue to the left, " which is demonstrably untrue. So yes, you are still either willfully ignorant or a liar.

No. There are plenty of examples of religious freedom being curbed in this country. Animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, illegal substances being used, child marriage, honor killings ect...

Sorry if I don't really believe you really care about a groups religious freedom. To me it just seems you latched on to it because of their stance on abortion. I could be wrong though and maybe you are thinking of converting to Judaism. I hope so, it is a beautiful religion and full of wonderful and kind people.

I would pull up some Daily show clips or a clip or two from John Oliver but I didn't have time to find them.

Sure, I will give you that. I am sure my priest that is against abortion comes from a religious perspective. I am sure a lot of people are against it based on religion since religion is often the bedrock of someone's morals. I am only saying that the desire for the pro-life movement to only be a bunch of religious wack jobs is not correct and wishful thinking.

 

[Farb]

Death is natural. We investigate deaths for people born... if we treat fetus' as people, then we would need to investigate miscarriages when someone files a complaint about it. Seems pretty invasive to me.

Currently the law does not forbid people from doing those things. Perhaps you think we should start policing the diets of pregnant women since diabetes leads to higher miscarriage rates?

My reference to communism was related to the unrelating naivity of abstinence only pro-lifers. People have sex. People are irresponsible. Unwanted pregnancies occur. Whether abortion is legal or not. There appears to be this belief that all we need to do is ban abortion and everything will be fine... not counting that you will now have increased poverty. More children born into homes without support - probably leading to more poverty and so on.... and no plan to actually help those poor kids. Where are the proposals to provide maternity leave so working parents can actually stay home with their kids those first few months (Ivanka Trump actually championed this but got almost no traction). Where are the proposals for first class maternity ward care for poor kids to lower our abysmal child birth mortality rates? Where are the proposals for free child care for working parents who can't afford quality care?

They don't exist, because there is no actual care for poor kids... it's you shouldn't have had sex, suck it up, sorry kid you have shirt parents and we won't do anything to help you.

As far as sex education... yes, the schools should teach it. They should teach how pregnancies occur and how they can prevent it -- I don't know why you think abstinence can't be taught, it was part of my kids' curriculum. What we shouldn't do is have abstinence only programs -- those are shirt.

Do we investigate an 80 year old dying of a heart attack or does the corner file it under 'natural' causes.
Natural causes happen all the time.

Yes, I am 100% behind overhauling the welfare state and encouraging the nuclear family structure. Fatherless homes and kids are the main problem with our society. We should encourage, how is the question and the answer is something I don't have yet, fathers to be active and present and reduce single motherhood by drastic amounts. That in theory will solve, violence, poverty and education.