Men and Abortion

[Mark Charles Compton]

No not will. Are already. Present tense. Not some day maybe. Today.



They gave the green light for abortion bans across the country by declaring that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Surely you know this. That is why the antiabortion movement is so happy about it. And no member of SCOTUS misunderstands the effect of the ruling.



Because we have a long history of states deciding whether certain people should get certain basic human rights and falling back on the excuse of "states rights." It didn't work out great for the people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong state at the wrong time, if you might recall.

So again, enough with the technicality excuses. You want abortion to be broadly banned. SCOTUS gave you the green light. So it's happening right now in multiple states.

Days ago, even. Growing in both age and momentum, there's a Republican (forgive my not knowing his name) representative who is demanding they bring more cases in front of the SCOTUS to use the current motivation to remove the federal right to same-sex marriage among other pieces of progressive legislation... Rights that haven't even existed as long as I have, already being ripped away from many of my fellow US citizens, my brothers and sisters of freedom and bravery.

Vote against the removal of rights and freedoms.

 

[ChristineM]

I think you need to read my post more carefully. I 100% agree with you and this is what I said in my post.

But there is a double standard on the prochoice side. A lot of prochoice people expect the father to take care of their child but find is somehow heroic when women decides not to. Why are reasons a woman may want an abortion such as financial reasons not apply to the father as well?

I know you basically agree with me but it seems to me that you want to give irresponsible men a free pass while baring such freedom to women

That's how i read your post.

It takes 2 to tango.

 

[Estro Felino]

I know you basically agree with me but it seems to me that you want to give irresponsible men a free pass while baring such freedom to women

That's how i read your post.

It takes 2 to tango.

That is why women need to understood, cared about during that difficult choice.
It is a very difficult choice. They should be free from influence and coercion, because the cases of husbands forcing their own wives to have an abortion are countless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. The criteria should be someone with a terminal or chronic illness and is under a doctor's care for a certain amount of time. There are tests for competency.

Only it's already not that way in countries that have legalized euthanasia. Give a mouse a cookie and he's going to want a glass of milk to go with it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No not will. Are already. Present tense. Not some day maybe. Today.

Ok.

They gave the green light for abortion bans across the country by declaring that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Surely you know this. That is why the antiabortion movement is so happy about it. And no member of SCOTUS misunderstands the effect of the ruling.

I understand the consequences of the ruling. If you have a beef with states banning abortion it is with the states not SCOTUS. Now the prochoice people have to make their case for allowing abortion and convincing lawmakers of their desire. The reality is many states will not ban it and some are already expanding their abortion laws or codifying them into law which is their right to do. Woman can get an abortion if they choose to, they just might have to travel to get one.

Because we have a long history of states deciding whether certain people should get certain basic human rights and falling back on the excuse of "states rights." It didn't work out great for the people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong state at the wrong time, if you might recall.

Same will happen here with abortion, some fetuses will be unlucky to be conceived in a state that allows abortion. Our side believes the unborn have a right to life so these arguments against abortion are not convincing and never will be.

So again, enough with the technicality excuses. You want abortion to be broadly banned. SCOTUS gave you the green light. So it's happening right now in multiple states.

Do you actually think that California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon etc. etc. will ban abortion? I don't think that is very likely.

Do you know why the justices that sided with the majority opinion overturned Roe? Have you read the decision?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That would be involved.
It's too late for that now.
But I'll be reading trusted summaries rather
than the ruling itself. (Dense stuff that.)
Some issues....
- 9th Amendment & the "deeply rooted right" question.
- Settled law.

Settled law means nothing. Separate but equal was settled law according to the definitions I have heard but was not constitutional.

- Defining personhood's beginning.

I don't think that you need to define personhood to be prolife. I think it is sufficient that a fetus is a potential person that deserves rights.

- Justice motives.

If their decision was based on the aw then their motives don't really matter.

 

[Fool]

Do you care about what is true? I agree many states will ban abortions. But the truth is that SCOTUS did not ban it. Have you read the reasoning behind the decision?

No it is not. The people of each state get to decide if it is a right. That is more freedom and democracy in action. Many states will keep abortion legal, many won't. Why cannot the people of each state choose?

then it should be voted on as a people and not legislated in the senate or house of repesentatives of each state.

if the supreme court is the final word on civil matters, why then pass the buck back to a lower court; if you know there is going to be a difference in each state. states don't have civil rights. only people do. some states are going to try and criminalize it being done in another state; which means that it will end up back in the supreme court. again it's only slowing it down. there will never be a full stopping it.


are you aware of the case of sodom?


so the rich girl in the banned states can simply buy a plain ticket, hop in her car drive over to a state that still allows, or even out of the country to a nation that doesn't ban abortion and have an abortion. the poor girl will become even more destitute. she will simply have to endure the undo burden that has been placed upon her. her only recourse will to find a friend that might help her to visit a friendly state, or country.


The Talmud, like the Bible, ascribes the fate of Sodom and the other cities of Pentapolis to the wickedness of their inhabitants; and when the sins of the people of Jerusalem are enumerated, on the basis of Ezek. xvi. 48-50, the attempt is made to show them less heinous than those of the inhabitants of Sodom (Sanh.104b). There were four judges in Sodom (ib. 109b), named respectively Shaḳḳarai ("liar"), Shaḳrarai ("habitual liar"), Zayyafa ("deceiver"), and Maẓle Dina ("perverter of the Law"). In Sodom every one who gave bread and water to the poor was condemned to death by fire (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive (ib.). In the Midrash (ib. 84) the judges are called Ḳaẓ Sheḳer (= "greatest liar"), Rab Sheḳer (= "master of lies"), Rab Nabal (= "master of turpitude "), Rab Masṭeh Din (= "chief perverter of the Law"), and Ḳelapandar (probably = "forger").

 

[Sand Dancer]

Only it's already not that way in countries that have legalized euthanasia. Give a mouse a cookie and he's going to want a glass of milk to go with it.

I will do some research on this.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I know you basically agree with me but it seems to me that you want to give irresponsible men a free pass while baring such freedom to women.

No, I am saying the opposite. Prochoice people are ok with the mother choosing to not take care of their child through abortion while wanting to force men to take care of their children. Seems a double standard to me. I believe both the mother and father have a moral responsibility to take care of any children they have. Prochoice people only think that the father has this moral responsibility.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I am saying the opposite. Prochoice people are ok with the mother choosing to not take care of their child through abortion while wanting to force men to take care of their children. Seems a double standard to me. I believe both the mother and father have a moral responsibility to take care of any children they have. Prochoice people only think that the father has this moral responsibility.

Abortion should be a choice of both partners. If it's not it is more than likely the father has done a runner anyway. No double standards involved, just facts of life and reality.

If no abortion then the father needs to take responsibility, no force, just the morality of the situation.

You seem to be painting double standards for either something you don't really understand or a rare occurrence.

Don't talk rubbish. Any choice people want the father to take THEIR SHARE of the responsibility.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I am saying the opposite. Prochoice people are ok with the mother choosing to not take care of their child through abortion while wanting to force men to take care of their children. Seems a double standard to me. I believe both the mother and father have a moral responsibility to take care of any children they have. Prochoice people only think that the father has this moral responsibility.

What? How would a guy take care of an aborted fetus? Please, oh please explain.

 

[Fool]

What? How would a guy take care of an aborted fetus? Please, oh please explain.

just as he did with his aborted semen

 

[Left Coast]

Same will happen here with abortion, some fetuses will be unlucky to be conceived in a state that allows abortion. Our side believes the unborn have a right to life so these arguments against abortion are not convincing and never will be.

Firstly, no one's right to life ought to supercede another person's right to bodily autonomy. Unless you'd like me to use some of your organs against your will to keep me alive?

Secondly, if you believe in a right to life, that ought to continue after people are born as well. Universal healthcare. Guaranteed paid maternity leave. Universal pre-K. Getting vaccinated to prevent millions of people from dying in a pandemic. Opposing the death penalty. The list goes on. If you're pro-life and not just pro-birth, be about it. I wait with baited breath.

Thirdly, I loved your Freudian slip. You're right, your arguments against abortion are not convincing.

Do you know why the justices that sided with the majority opinion overturned Roe?

They don't think abortion is a constitutional right.

Have you read the decision?

All 200+ pages of legalese? Of course not, I have a life and I'm not a lawyer. Have you?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

then it should be voted on as a people and not legislated in the senate or house of repesentatives of each state.

That is up to each state how they want to proceed. Generally we vote for the people that make our laws unless we need to change our state constitution, then we have to have a direct vote.

if the supreme court is the final word on civil matters, why then pass the buck back to a lower court; if you know there is going to be a difference in each state. states don't have civil rights. only people do. some states are going to try and criminalize it being done in another state; which means that it will end up back in the supreme court. again it's only slowing it down. there will never be a full stopping it.

Which states are going to criminalize it in other states?

are you aware of the case of sodom?

Not sure what you are talking about.

so the rich girl in the banned states can simply buy a plain ticket, hop in her car drive over to a state that still allows, or even out of the country to a nation that doesn't ban abortion and have an abortion. the poor girl will become even more destitute. she will simply have to endure the undo burden that has been placed upon her. her only recourse will to find a friend that might help her to visit a friendly state, or country.

So this is sufficient reason to kill potential people?

The Talmud, like the Bible, ascribes the fate of Sodom and the other cities of Pentapolis to the wickedness of their inhabitants; and when the sins of the people of Jerusalem are enumerated, on the basis of Ezek. xvi. 48-50, the attempt is made to show them less heinous than those of the inhabitants of Sodom (Sanh.104b). There were four judges in Sodom (ib. 109b), named respectively Shaḳḳarai ("liar"), Shaḳrarai ("habitual liar"), Zayyafa ("deceiver"), and Maẓle Dina ("perverter of the Law"). In Sodom every one who gave bread and water to the poor was condemned to death by fire (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive (ib.). In the Midrash (ib. 84) the judges are called Ḳaẓ Sheḳer (= "greatest liar"), Rab Sheḳer (= "master of lies"), Rab Nabal (= "master of turpitude "), Rab Masṭeh Din (= "chief perverter of the Law"), and Ḳelapandar (probably = "forger").

I don't think religious texts should be the basis for any moral decisions.

 

[Fool]

That is up to each state how they want to proceed. Generally we vote for the people that make our laws unless we need to change our state constitution, then we have to have a direct vote.

a representative can't represent every aspect of an individual voter's conscience. this is why it should be a general vote and not representative of the mass.

So this is sufficient reason to kill potential people?

psychologically/mature people don't live in potentials. they live in reality. there is the problem. fear of things that might exist are fears that don't actually exist. there is a difference in an actual act and the potential of an act.

 

[Fool]

I don't think religious texts should be the basis for any moral decisions.

morals are based on individual beliefs and because of culture. what is moral for you might not be moral to another. so basically you're trying to moralize your intent of controlling a potential that doesn't exist. what is more heinous is you're doing this with someone else's autonomy to choose their moral path based on individual circumstances. so you're going to punish an actual being for a potential/possible being.

that is seriously messed up because the judgement is based on a belief and not an actual proof.

people who murder someone, murder other actual, living human beings. they don't murder potential humans.

if we start criminalizing potentials, no one is safe

 

[Revoltingest]

Settled law means nothing.

That's your personal opinion. Settled law, ie, stare
decisis, is foundational in our law. It avoids frequent
reversals that would leave us continuously unsure of
what's legal or not.

Separate but equal was settled law according to the definitions I have heard but was not constitutional.

Stare decisis does not mean there can be no change.
But change must meet (ideally) high hurdles, lest the
law be a continually moving target that the populace
cannot anticipate.

I don't think that you need to define personhood to be prolife. I think it is sufficient that a fetus is a potential person that deserves rights.
If their decision was based on the aw then their motives don't really matter.

That too is your personal opinion.
Roughly half the country disagrees
No one has "The Truth" about this.

Motives don't matter to you perhaps because
you like the result. But to those of us who see
a concerted effort to stack the court with fundies
who'd impose their minority view, it's a theocratic
coup. This means taking steps to mitigate &
prevent such mischief.

 

[BilliardsBall]

do you honestly and realistically believe that women enjoy having abortions? that it's that easy and that simple?

Are you claiming none of the people having abortions are doing so because "it's easier than raising/caring for/paying for" the child?

 

[BilliardsBall]

actually the problem is one of trespass. nosey people trying to legislate morality for potential life when real life is something else. religious inquisitors need to find a focus on something that is truly helpful instead going around with their self-righteous noses in the air. just because misery loves company doesn't mean everyone wants someone stirring in their misery uninvited.

If abortion is murder, is it still "trespass of civil rights"?

Can you name another civil right other than self-defense where your civil right means another could die? For example, I try to murder you and you defend yourself and I die.

If you tie it to self-defense, is the baby a parasite? A predator? Or is it a child? A blessing?

 

[Fool]

Are you claiming none of the people having abortions are doing so because "it's easier than raising/caring for/paying for" the child?

i don't think in terms of black and white. i don't believe the brain creates contiousness. the spirit creates the form and then takes possession of the form; when it is at an optimum level for use. you know it as information. meaning to take form, or basically to shape. god formed, shaped.

a fetus can't be even close to being sentient until at earliest the 24th or 25th week of pregnancy and even then is circumspect. the brain isn't developed enough to sense.

this is both how it's understood in the bible and in some forms of buddhism


so the spirit, the consciousness is eternal, you can't destroy it. the form counts for nothing except as a vehicle to convey that consciousness, that spirit into the third dimension and here on earth for an earthly experience. that experience is not eternally thwarted by lack of materializing at an exact time and place.