Overturning Roe V Wade

[SkepticThinker]

If its only having to wriggle your fingers
to sign a tax form, its a loss of pure total
bodily autonomy, is it not?

I don't think so.

Most people are " wage slaves" dragging their
unwilling selves to work for mknths of the year,
just to pay taxes.
Others are conscrpted to armed forces.
Claiming they got no rights to your body
wont help.
Examples are endless and obvious.

Getting paid to do work isn't the same as giving up your bodily autonomy, imo.

As for the value of any human being,
I will go with the thing attributed to Jesus-

Whatsoever you do unto thevleast among yoi,
you do also unto me.

Not that I am religious.

But killing a helpless person for being a temporary inconvenience, if thats not inherently
wrong, nothing is.

What helpless person is being killed? What about the life of the person who is pregnant? Why should their life not take precedent given that they are a fully grown, fully conscious, thinking and feeling human being with social ties?

Temporary inconvenience? Having a child is a lot more than that.

 

[Kenny]

Of course there are more costs when you have babies. There are more costs to just being pregnant alone, long before you've even had a baby. And they aren't all monetary.
You do know that a pregnancy changes a person's entire body, right, both physically and psychologically? And you've heard of post-partum depression, right? What programs and systems are in place to deal with that?

What do you mean, and? That's the point. Forcing people to have children imposes a financial cost upon them that they may not be able to bear (among other things).

LOL... I am not forcing anyone! How many people get forced to get married? (generally speaking) It is a natural progression that when you sow baby seeds, out come babies. If you don't sow baby seeds, you don't. That I know of, no one is forced to sow baby seeds. (Generally speaking)

 

[Kenny]

Bias is in the article you cited and the title.

Bias is what you presented but then again, any position can be called biased if it doesn't agree with your position.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course they don't, but Imo the mother should think of more than just herself.

Why assume she doesn't? The only person who knows what's best for her is her. And perhaps her doctor.

Of course you wouldn't be because you would not exist (at least not in this world) but you don't know how you would have felt if you were born into this world.

Right. So fetuses don't know that they'll never become a person then.

I believe the soul comes into being at the time of conception so that is what I mean by "we all."

So souls are being put into the fetuses that will be aborted naturally as well, or ... ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How does this matter?

Because left to its own the chances are it will naturally abort because this is the end of most pregnancies. So most likely probably not.

If an abortion saved a persons life then I am ok with it. If it is between a mother and a childs life the mother and family should get to make that decision. But if you mean something different than this situation then please explain.

I mean that (my friend suffered severe head trauma and had to have a coma induced and her parents had to make the call to terminate the pregnancy because it was very high risk). But because of this there should be no needless hindrances that violate privacy laws that require even judges to jump through very high and narrow hoops to obtain someone's medical information (and even then what they get is very limited and only very specifically what is subpoenaed).
A woman has an abortion. We don't need to know why. We aren't even privileged to know she had one. If it's needed and necessary, we don't need to know anything about and a doctor should be able to perform it entirely free of any red tape needlessly restricting the results. If it's done as a means of contraction, we still don't have any right to know anything about it and the former be hindered because this group made a choice that is likely to receive a lecture from the doctor for being such a poor decision.
If she's raped, we still need to butt out and make sure she is freely able to make this decision for her own as the decision to get pregnant in the first place was taken from her, and the doctor needs to be able to perform this free of needless restrictions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't agree that having an abortion amounts to a person taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

You don't have to agree with it for it to be true. An action was taken that resulted in pregnancy. For some, the responsible thing to do in such a situation is to have an abortion.
It is a way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[GardenLady]

Many conservatives are upset that with birth control and abortion, sex doesn't equate to childbirth.

I found this among some members of my former denomination (I was raised Catholic). Ironically, the official Catholic stance is not just opposed to abortion, but is also opposed to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy. ("Natural Family Planning" is allowed only for "grave reasons"). In practice, the great majority of Catholic women in the US ignore the church policy on contraception.

 

[Kenny]

So do you think the lack of such things may have an impact on a person's decision to have a child or not?
Seriously.

I think before you have a baby, you have to count the cost.

I wouldn't buy a 500,000 house unless I knew I could afford it.

 

[Kenny]

Not everyone has family or if they do that family may not have the time or money to help. Or may simply tell their sister to shove off.

You are currently demonstrating that you are not pro-life. You are just antiabortion.

So you wouldn't help your family?

 

[SkepticThinker]

God is not aborting babies because God is not controlling what happens in the natural world.

God (supposedly) created the natural world in which some percentage of pregnancies end up being spontaneously aborted. How is God not responsible for that?

According to my beliefs, souls who are aborted spontaneously will go to the next world and will be under the care and protection of God. That also applies to souls who were aborted by the mother, but the point is that the child did not have a chance at life in this world if the mother aborted it.

So what's your problem with abortion then? If aborted babies go straight to heaven "under the care and protection of God" whether aborted naturally or by choice, if they all end up in the same wonderful and amazing place anyway? It sounds like aborted fetuses are better off being aborted then having to spend a lifetime potentially suffering here on earth.

 

[GardenLady]

A woman I know personally was diagnosed with colon cancer when she was about 12 weeks pregnant. She had three minor children at the time. In her case, she chose to continue the pregnancy against medical advice, then endured 5 years of repeated surgeries and rounds of chemo. She beat the odds, but the odds were very high that she wouldn't survive after delaying treatment for 7 months. Who could judge her if she'd made a decision to abort and guarantee being present for her children? Not me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not suggesting abstinence....
Ever heard of birth control? I have been married for 37 years and had plenty of sex, but I never got pregnant, and I did not even use the most effective method of birth control.

I wonder how many abortions are the result of a woman who was conscientious about birth control.

I know a couple where the guy had a vasectomy and the woman had an IUD and they got pregnant. Twice.

Myself, I've had only one pregnancy scare, many years ago, and I have always, always, always used protection of some sort. Birth control isn't 100%.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you wouldn't help your family?

It was not an honest question. I am rather amazed that you cannot see what was wrong with it. I gave you an answer. It was better than the question deserved.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The basis for the decision was privacy. They made it up from the 14th amendment which was about ensuring minority people especially black people have the same rights as everyone else following the civil war. It has nothing to do with abortion. In that decision they claimed the unborn was not a person according to the constitution since any reference to a person in the constitution has no application to the unborn. The problem with this is that the constitution doe snot reference children as well and they are considered persons. The decision was arbitrary. Most states at the time actually had laws saying the unborn were persons and abortion was a crime on that person. So why would they codify abortion in this amendment?

Then they claimed that the 14th amendment had a right to privacy for women on the abortion issue saying that it could be a detriment to women. The problem with this is there are countless things that can be detrimental to a woman that is not protected. This is just special case made up by the court. What they did was use strict constructionist interpretation to define what a person is under the constitution and the most liberal broad interpretation to find the right to an abortion.

Yes, it's about right to privacy, like I said.
It's been the law of the land for about 50 years now.

In the end if this is the majority position I guarantee a woman can still get an abortion in California, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis etc. It would not outlaw abortion in the US.

Screw all the women in the rest of the country, I guess.

If the Republicans get control and get their way, they will pass a federal law banning all abortions. Mark my words.

 

[Kenny]

Some states where pregnant people are denied rights even afforded to corpses, you mean.

How are they denied rights?

 

[GardenLady]

I know a couple where the guy had a vasectomy and the woman had an IUD and they got pregnant. Twice.

With my friends, there was only a vasectomy but not an IUD, and she got pregnant. This is why continued testing is so important.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ever heard of child support? Other than that he does not have to be active if he doesn't want to be.

Ever heard of father's who don't bother to pay child support?

Ever heard of adoption? There are many women desperate to have a child who cannot have a child so any baby that is born would be wanted by many women.

That requires a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, along with all the financial costs, changes to her body, etc. that come with it. Never mind how traumatizing it can be give up a child in such a way.

Too bad about the raging hormones. If children were brought up right they would not be having sex as teenagers or before marriage. If course that is just according to my beliefs which are not the norm in this society which lacks any sense of morality.

So you are suggesting abstinence ... ?

Those raging hormones are a fact of reality. So is people having sex. Let's face reality instead of wishing it was some other way.

You know, even married couples can have unwanted pregnancies as well. Let's not pretend that marriage solves any of these problems.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No because the constitution actually prohibits slavery:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 13th amendment to the US Constitution

Also, I am actually advocating for the states to decide on the abortion issue. I have never claimed abortion is murder.

*constitution prohibits some slavery.

A reprehensible topic for another time but just as an FYI the constitution has an exemption clause to allow convicts to be slaves.

 

[Kenny]

It was not an honest question. I am rather amazed that you cannot see what was wrong with it. I gave you an answer. It was better than the question deserved.

LOL... and you still didn't answer. I guess you are anti-helping people.

So... at what time of gestation should we limit abortion?

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL... I am not forcing anyone! How many people get forced to get married? (generally speaking) It is a natural progression that when you sow baby seeds, out come babies. If you don't sow baby seeds, you don't. That I know of, no one is forced to sow baby seeds. (Generally speaking)

Banning access to abortive procedures does force people to have unwanted children.