Abortion Debate (US)

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree that men should be punished.

She (I'm assuming from the post that this poster can get pregnant and might want an abortion someday if she does; apologies if you're a he) noted that they aren't, but she didn't say that men should be punished. She said that women shouldn't be punished.

Not sure what your point is.

Her first point was that some pregnancies are unintended.

Her second point was that embryos are not people.

Her third point was that women shouldn't be punished for getting pregnant.

And her fourth point was that the religious right wants to usurp the roles of the mother and doctor and impose its religious beliefs on everybody else as well, and that that disgusts her.

 

[Kenny]

She (I'm assuming from the post that this poster can get pregnant and might want an abortion someday if she does; apologies if you're a he) noted that they aren't, but she didn't say that men should be punished. She said that women shouldn't be punished.

My apologies… I believe women shouldn’t be punished either.

Her first point was that some pregnancies are unintended.

True

Her second point was that embryos are not people.

Abortions usually aren't “embryos”.

Her third point was that women shouldn't be punished for getting pregnant.

I agree

And her fourth point was that the religious right wants to usurp the roles of the mother and doctor and impose its religious beliefs on everybody else as well, and that that disgusts her.

Yes… it is nice to always categorize "religious right” as the only people who think one way. Labeling people is so convenient. I know many religious left people who think the same and it presumption to think that if you are not religious you automatically agree with abortion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Abortions usually aren't “embryos”

That's not relevant to her point. The same thing applies to fetuses. They lack personhood status in the legal sense such as with the IRS or for using carpool lanes.

I'd also add that in my opinion, that is irrelevant to my position on abortion. I don't care what you call the product of conception at any point between fertilization and birth. Call it a person, a human, a human being, a baby, a child, or any other term you like. It changes nothing about the moral status of aborting it. What makes an abortion immoral to me is if it is performed on something able to experience terror or otherwise suffer.

it is nice to always categorize "religious right” as the only people who think one way.

I don't think I did that, but the religious right are the reason that abortion rights are being rolled back in America.

Labeling people is so convenient.

And useful. I would label you a man, a Christian, a pastor, an English speaker, and an American, and I find those terms meaningful.

Do you object to the term "religious right"? Do you object to being called or considered that? I don't mind being labeled" irreligious or liberal. I'm proud to be able to call myself an atheistic humanist.

I know many religious left people who think the same

Think what? That abortion should be recriminalized or that it is immoral for them but should remain a legal option for those who want one? The former is not a liberal position. I would not call a person with that opinion liberal.

it's presumptuous to think that if you are not religious you automatically agree with abortion.

I also don't think I said or implied that, although I don't know what that phrase or its opposite - not agreeing with abortion - means. There is a difference between "I would never get an abortion" and "Nobody should be allowed to get an abortion." Both of those types of people might say, "I don't agree with abortion," the second type is much more likely to be religious.

 

[Kenny]

That's not relevant to her point. The same thing applies to fetuses. They lack personhood status in the legal sense such as with the IRS or for using carpool lanes.

So you are talking legalities? What about when slaves legally weren’t “persons” but rather property.

I'd also add that in my opinion, that is irrelevant to my position on abortion. I don't care what you call the product of conception at any point between fertilization and birth. Call it a person, a human, a human being, a baby, a child, or any other term you like. It changes nothing about the moral status of aborting it. What makes an abortion immoral to me is if it is performed on something able to experience terror or otherwise suffer.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing

I don't think I did that, but the religious right are the reason that abortion rights are being rolled back in America.

Like I said, there are religious left that I know of personally who push it also and there are religious right who disagree with the roll back. That’s why I don’t like labels.

And useful. I would label you a man, a Christian, a pastor, an English speaker, and an American, and I find those terms meaningful.

Thanks. But those are very specific. I’m talking about calling all Christians the same way. Wouldn’t qualify.

Do you object to the term "religious right"? Do you object to being called or considered that? I don't mind being labeled" irreligious or liberal. I'm proud to be able to call myself an atheistic humanist.

When it doesn’t define me, I would disagree. (Not about liking or not liking)

Think what? That abortion should be recriminalized or that it is immoral for them but should remain a legal option for those who want one? The former is not a liberal position. I would not call a person with that opinion liberal.

That is the age old fight that continues to this day.

I also don't think I said or implied that, although I don't know what that phrase or its opposite - not agreeing with abortion - means. There is a difference between "I would never get an abortion" and "Nobody should be allowed to get an abortion." Both of those types of people might say, "I don't agree with abortion," the second type is much more likely to be religious.

Yes, there are differences. I don’t agree with putting any burdens, consequences et al on women. It solves nothing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you are talking legalities? What about when slaves legally weren’t “persons” but rather property.

Same answer. The moral status of slavery does not depend on whether one calls the slaves people or not.

Like I said, there are religious left that I know of personally who push it also and there are religious right who disagree with the roll back. That’s why I don’t like labels.

The roll back? Did you mean overturning Roe? If so, that's just the beginning if Christian theocrats get their way. They also want abortion recriminalized federally, the want to limit the use of contraceptives, and they want to end same sex marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if they went after interracial marriage as well and attempted to recriminalize homosexuality.

Nobody who supports any of that should be called liberal, and no believer who objects to it (religious secularists) should be called conservative, at least not with respect to that issue.

 

[Kenny]

The roll back? Did you mean overturning Roe? If so, that's just the beginning if Christian theocrats get their way.

This is a great example of what I mean. And I thought it was the Supreme Court that did it.

Can I say it’s the Communist, Nazi, left leaning, radical democrats that are upset about it? I think we can play that game both ways.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I thought it was the Supreme Court that did it.

Yes, it was. Are you implying that overturning Roe was unrelated to the church? It's Christian theocrats that wanted that, and they finally got it.

Can I say it’s the Communist, Nazi, left leaning, radical democrats that are upset about it?

You can, but that's just more conservative defamation. They like language like that. It triggers the susceptible. It doesn't matter to them that few of the objectors are Communist, Nazi, or radical, or that those objectors include many women who would call themselves Christian moderates or liberals.

People that are upset at overturning Roe should be called church-state separatists, also sometimes called political secularists.

You dislike labels, but they're actually quite helpful if used honestly and accurately.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because women are second class citizens.

Checkmate atheist!

I'd like to raise a protest on this.
@Hammer is a dirty pagan, not a dirty atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Obviously you don't know what "against abortion" means. It means no one has the right to kill their unborn baby.

Not necessarily. My wife and I are against abortion, so we haven't had one. But we are pro the rights of women to make their own choices within some broad limits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously you don't know what "against abortion" means. It means no one has the right to kill their unborn baby.

Making it illegal to kill unborn babies makes as much sense as having a law against married bachelors.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Making it illegal to kill unborn babies makes as much sense as having a law against married bachelors.

Well, to me it is not the same for both ends of the process, so for the 9th month it is an unborn baby. More reasoing if you want it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that you are incorrect.
We already know that “pain receptors appear around the mouth at 4 to 5 weeks post-fertilization, followed by the development of nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. Around 6 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child first responds to touch. By 18 weeks post-fertilization, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body.”

We also know that there is no question, biologically speaking, about whether an unborn child can feel pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization at the very latest, since by then they have the full anatomy to process pain and also the neurobiology to transmit painful sensations to the brain and to perceive pain. Studies show that babies can feel pain by their increased hormonal stress response and by wincing when they are exposed to painful stimuli.

Sorry, even that is highly debatable. In fact there are many that argue that pain cannot be felt until birth. Though the fetus has enough oxygen to survive it is at a very low level compared to that first burst of oxygen it receives in its first breath. Nerves react but the brain may in the same state as a medically induced coma until it breathes on its own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Men can't have babies.

That is not true at all. Have you ever heard of an ectopic pregnancy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortions usually aren't “embryos”.

I know. That would only be about 45% of all pregnancies. 36% are earlier than that. Only 19% are fetal pregnancies:

Key Facts on Abortion in the United States | KFF

This issue brief answers some key questions about abortion in the United States and presents data collected before and new data that has been published since the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

www.kff.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abortions usually aren't “embryos”.

By US stats (the only ones I quickly had at hand), about two thirds of abortions are done at week 8 or earlier. "Embryo" is the term after week 3 through week 8.

The largest bar on the graph at the link below lumps all of weeks 1-6 together, which would include embryos, blastocysts, and zygotes (though the zygote period is very brief).

Raw data: Abortions by week of pregnancy

www.motherjones.com

 

[Kenny]

Yes, it was. Are you implying that overturning Roe was unrelated to the church? It's Christian theocrats that wanted that, and they finally got it.

There you go again. They simply realized that the original law was faulty. The fault doesn’t rely on who started the process but rather the process doing what it is supposed to do regardless of race, sex, religion et al.

The fault were the people who lied to push it in the first place

You can, but that's just more conservative defamation. They like language like that. It triggers the susceptible. It doesn't matter to them that few of the objectors are Communist, Nazi, or radical, or that those objectors include many women who would call themselves Christian moderates or liberals.

All I was doing was claiming equal time from what you are doing.

People that are upset at overturning Roe should be called church-state separatists, also sometimes called political secularists.

No… the law was faulty.

You dislike labels, but they're actually quite helpful if used honestly and accurately.

And, in this case as I have stated, you were wrong.

 

[metis]

It's obvious that more and more people, especially women, are very disappointed that Roe v Wade was terminated for basically political purposes by SCOTUS. And, as it may turn out, this could be the ultimate issue that could help Biden win.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They simply realized that the original law was faulty.

They realized that the law permitted abortions, which the church felt offended its god, and they persisted for decades to get theocratic-friendly justices on the Court culminating in a loss of freedom for women. This was an affront on American women, and they understand it as such.

The church did the nation a great favor by showing their willingness to constrict the rights of even unbelievers however unpopular the idea, however un-American it is, and who it hurts. It was a tactical error that caused and still causes palpable fear in a huge swathe of American women, has outraged both men and women who care about those women, and has mobilized voters. Just as the right benefitted at the ballot box by making Roe v Wade a wedge issue, the left has been winning elections by greater than expected margins since Dobbs.

The church is still suffering unpopularity from a litany of televangelist sex, drug, and money scandals, the RCC's pedophile cover-ups, and now this.

as I have stated, you were wrong.

That doesn't matter if it isn't accompanied by an argument. I argued that you were wrong, and you didn't attempt an counterargument - just unsupported dissent.

 

[Kenny]

They realized that the law permitted abortions, which the church felt offended its god, and they persisted for decades to get theocratic-friendly justices on the Court culminating in a loss of freedom for women. This was an affront on American women, and they understand it as such.

The church did the nation a great favor by showing their willingness to constrict the rights of even unbelievers however unpopular the idea, however un-American it is, and who it hurts. It was a tactical error that caused and still causes palpable fear in a huge swathe of American women, has outraged both men and women who care about those women, and has mobilized voters. Just as the right benefitted at the ballot box by making Roe v Wade a wedge issue, the left has been winning elections by greater than expected margins since Dobbs.

The church is still suffering unpopularity from a litany of televangelist sex, drug, and money scandals, the RCC's pedophile cover-ups, and now this.

Sound more like religiophobiea

That doesn't matter if it isn't accompanied by an argument. I argued that you were wrong, and you didn't attempt an counterargument - just unsupported dissent.

I have dealt with each point… you simply don’t like that I dealt with each point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again. They simply realized that the original law was faulty. The fault doesn’t rely on who started the process but rather the process doing what it is supposed to do regardless of race, sex, religion et al.

The fault were the people who lied to push it in the first place

Please be specific. How was the law faulty? Who lied to get it into place and what were the lies?

I will grant that the law was not perfect. No law is. But I see far more lies coming from the antiabortion side.

All I was doing was claiming equal time from what you are doing.

But never supporting your claims and ignoring when your errors were pointed out to you.

No… the law was faulty.

Once again: How?

And, in this case as I have stated, you were wrong.

Since your unsupported claims tend to be wrong far too often I will not believe that he was wrong.