Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I agree. But just because someone does something unwise does not take away the rights of that person.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Overturning Roe V Wade
- Thread starter SomeRandom
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I did not say it does. The question is what those rights are, and that is determined by lawmakers.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And lawmakers respond to the populace. Which means that the populace should have a moral and rational reason for their beliefs.
Balthazzar
Christian Evolutionist
I was wondering the same thing. What will abortion laws look like after the fact? Are new laws on the docket? Are they pushing to ban all abortions? What exactly does this mean for this nation?
Health risks?
Threat to mothers life?
Longevity of newborns?
Quality of life?
There's a plethora of issues surrounding the laws already, so I'm curious what all this entails moving forward. Who's pushing for the overturn and what's going to replace the current protective measures to help ensure better health for those involved, including emotional and mental support.
I don't expect them to give a 10-page opinion and call it a day; they have to use legalese and couch their decision in fancy words to make it look more legitimate. When one delves further into the opinion and the background of certain justices, though, I think it becomes quite clear that the opinion is mainly a product of religious and political extremism as well as a desire to impose a theocratic hue on federal laws.
The fact that the draft mentioned the rulings about homosexual sex and same-sex marriage seems to me to further reinforce this and reveal the justices' motives.
Do you know any judges? I work with them nearly every day. I assure you they take their jobs incredibly seriously and aren’t using legalese and “fancy words” to sound legitimate. The Supremes are some of the greatest legal minds in the country. Perhaps you feel the way you do because you disagree with them.
If you think someone like Alito or Scalia is "one of the greatest legal minds in the country," then it seems to me that our perspectives differ so starkly as to render any discussion about other details difficult or perhaps even entirely pointless. I don't dispute that they take their jobs seriously, though: I'm sure they're taking their imposition of their beliefs on state law quite seriously and, going by the draft and its mentioning of other landmark cases concerning civil rights, working hard to that end.
I don't feel the way I do because I disagree with them; I feel the way I do because, from what I can see, a group of religious extremists are using their position in the SCOTUS to impose theocratic laws on an entire nation. To me, this makes their impending Roe v. Wade ruling--if it matches the draft opinion--as dangerous as the actions of the people who published their addresses online. Both actions threaten lives, except that in the case of the ruling, it threatens the health and bodily autonomy of millions of people (and for some, also their lives), not just a few SCOTUS justices.
Last edited:
Exactly my concerns.
And with this, it will only embolden other such movements in other countries. Though we have universal healthcare to an extant (excepting dental and some states charge for ambulances.). And I could see this likely cropping up in further election campaigns here
(Eg, keep abortion legal, vote Greens or whatever.)
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As a side bar, my wife surprised me out of my socks when she surprised and took me to see Diana Ross at the Fox Theater in Detroit as I grew up with the Motown sound. And the Motown Museum is only about a 15-minute drive from where I lived.
To all the men out there who are dead set against abortion, may I offer up a suggestion? Get a vasectomy! (Or turn gay, whichever is easier.)
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Very helpful, thanks.
Well, then, perhaps for those who don't like the vasectomy prevention for abortion, we might consider a new law, making the whole thing more fair, more "equal treatment under the law."
We can call it the "Paternal Responsibility Act," and make it so that DNA would be used to establish the paternity of every child (and before child, embryo), and that the now-established father be made fully accountable for all the costs pertaining to pregnancy and the rearing of that child through its majority, including medical, education and so forth -- in sum, all the costs that a father would normally accept responsibility for for a child that he wanted. It might even go so far as to ensure that child had some claim on the father's estate.
If women are not going to be permitted to NOT become parents, then men should not be treated any differently when they are the de facto, if not de jure, parent.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I 100% agree.
Although I will add, there has been a double standard with the prolife people on abortion. A mother that does not want to take care of their child is a just exercising her rights, a father that does not want to take care of their children is a dead beat dad. Do you agree that this should change as well? To be fair a woman can choose not to raise her child or not a father should be able to as well right?
Last edited:
JIMMY12345
Active Member
Democrats and Republicans Unite. A major factor for abortion is single and or divorced women and low income families cannot afford the child. The religious right must ensure Democrats and Republicans go for funding at a Federal and state level so that low income households are supported and do not have to consider abortion. If both Dems and GOP do not .It will be seen as clandestine support for abortion and the religious right will make them pay come polling day.
If you don’t think Scalia was a great legal mind then you’ve confirmed what I thought and posted.
And before you accuse me of being biased or religious, I’ll have you know I’m pro-choice, atheist, and politically independent.
No. Nature has decreed that the sexes do not share an equal burden in the reproductive process. It is nature that says they have different responsibilities and different rights. That is why it is the mother’s right to choose, not the father’s or anyone else’s.
If you want to correct this “double standard” get reincarnated as a seahorse.
You created confusion using the word exactly. In the first definition, life begins when the spermatozoon and ovum merge. In the second, it's when the soul associates itself with the zygote, which we are told occurs at conception.
Not to me. In fact, I've been posting about it already today. No need to rewrite it if I can cut-and-paste it:
xxxxx said:
That's a judgment call that depends on one's moral intuitions, the age of the conceptus, and understanding of science. I have no problem with a presentient fetus being aborted compared to my strenuous objection to the church imposing its will using the power of the state on people that don't share its beliefs. If one can't get past the images of babies screaming in horror as they are being murdered in the womb to harvest and profiteer from their parts and fluids that have been implanted by church indoctrination in the minds of many of its adherents
Your use of language is particularly tendentious. Imagine somebody advocating for infanticide up to one year after birth and referring to infants as post-birth fetuses.
xxxxx said:
Me, neither, but embryos and early fetuses, even human ones, are not the same as late-term fetuses or children, and are subject to different.
The main difference between pro-choice and anti-choice perspectives is that the latter acknowledge that there is a time during a pregnancy when abortion is morally neutral due to the fetus being insentient flesh. Such people agree with you that killing a late-term fetus and children are immoral. Your effort is to obliterate that line by taking childhood back into the womb and extending it back to conception. OK. By that reckoning, it is sometimes OK to kill a child. The way the pro-choicer uses the language, that is never acceptable, but if you prefer, we can accommodate that nomenclature simply by acknowledging that some children can be aborted - the ones that are also early term fetuses.
xxxxx said:
It has nothing to do with whether the "child" is human. Human children can be aborted before they are sentient. That's the line. That's what factors into the assessment of whether abortion is morally acceptable. Before that line has been reached, the moral issue has nothing to do with killing, but rather, who whether the mother has a choice or the state takes it away from her. I consider the latter immoral. Un-American, too.
What point is he missing? You've stated your belief that being human is the deciding factor, and he has said personhood is, which was loosely defined not in terms of physical qualities such as being alive or being made of human tissue, but functional ability. Those are both subjective positions. Mine is that the only relevant factor to consider when assessing the moral status of abortion is the functional status of the nervous system, which is closer to his than yours, but not the same. Insentience and non-personhood are related but distinct concepts.
True, but also not a factor for me. It's the fact that makes abortion necessary if one doesn't want the zygote to become a person.
I think you misjudge the religious right's agenda. They are famously uninterested in what becomes of fetuses once they are born. It's not about children's wellbeing, just their births. We their indifference to the welfare of children in their attitudes about poverty, parental leave, daycare support, programs like SNAP, school lunch programs, mass shootings, and other issues of concern that pose threats to children.
The religious right is also the political right and opposes efforts to help low income people. It's clear from their policies that the "right to life" for too many just means "anti abortion". The Catholic church is the most consistent when when oppose abortion, support families and oppose suicide. But many evangelicals who are united with the political right oppose measures to help families such as health insurance as a human right.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No. Where did you get that?