Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jul 2022, 5:39 pm

We just don't agree, and quite possibly never will.

Rights are being created all the time by the SCOTUS. Just look at the states leading the way on Suffrage and States leading the way on Blacks voting. There are rights are being created and restricted in many states regarding the trans-gendered competition in the NCAA.

As to Freeman's list:
1) Males certainly can engage in contraception as they wish. Women can choose to engage in sex with whomever they choose. If a women will not engage in sex with a man unless he is male birth controlled, great choice.
2) Business choice, Women's' choice to work there
3) Business choice, Women's' choice to work there
4) Business choice, Women's' choice to work there
5) Woman's choice to have baby with ALL the contraception around
6) That is not the Constitutional role of the Federal Gov't. Please show where in the Constitution.

Choice does not mean life without responsibility. I am ALL for people having CHOICE, as long as they are willing to accept the results of their actions. I can honestly say, that the rescission of Roe v Wade is NOT "A Handmaid's Tale" situation. Women are not being forced to be bred. They are making choices of sexual activity. I support their right to engage in their own types and styles of sexual activity. Just be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

That shows maturity. Something that is heavily lacking in the US.

A fetus doesn't have the right to use the mother's body as an incubator. That's why viability is an important dividing line. At that point the fetus has the ability to live outside the womb and the women loses the absolute right to terminate the pregnancy.

Since the earliest recorded viable pregnancy was at 132 days, are you saying abortion is wrong after that? (19 weeks)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 3:03 am

We can trust women to make sensible decisions with regard to pregnancy OR the government can micromanage their decisions. I would think a conservative would be appalled at such an intervention by the government...

But then this is control of women...and not men, right?

Even based on an utilitarian argument I am confident that we are far, far better off with women making decisions about their body than the government dictating to them that decision. They can make the best decision for them and their family about pregnancy.

As to your question about whether an abortion after viability is wrong (which is rare) I'll quote Pete Buttigieg's response about late-term abortions:


If it’s that late in your pregnancy, then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term,” he said. “We’re talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name, women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy, that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.”

That last line is key: "That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.”

That's true of the overall abortion decision. We're just better off letting women make that decision. If you want reduced abortions then focus on contraception and a much stronger safety net and financial support of mothers.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 4:26 am

As I said to RickyP,

It depends on whether or not you consider the fetus a life. If it is a life then, intervention is the need to protect life. If it is just tissue, such as a wart, then it is no problem removing that.

Many on the liberal side say they don't want government intervention, but yet, they want government intervention for insurance, finances and material support.

What did you mean about viability being an important dividing line? I assumed you were saying that was the dividing line between abortion being allowed or not. Are you backing off of that now?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jul 2022, 6:46 am

bbauska
It depends on whether or not you consider the fetus a life


When I look at a walnut I see a walnut. You seem to see a tree...

bbauska
Many on the liberal side say they don't want government intervention, but yet, they want government intervention for insurance, finances and material support.


Because you can be pro choice, and pro life. And when i mean pro life, willing to hav ethe community contribute to the safety, security, health and welfare of all children.

To be anti-choice to the extent that the state disallows the woman's choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy, and then to be unwilling to provide community support to the woman forced to give birth is revealing about the nature of the denial.
It has nothing to do about protecting the life of a child.... If so that protection wouldn't end at birth.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 10:22 am

Brad, you say you support contraception but you don't respond to Ricky's suggestions about the effectiveness of the government paying for contraception or providing sex education that helps reduce abortion. This is also always a problem with the anti-choice crowd. They start out with oh we're so worried about fetuses but then they start worrying about if they provide easily accessible contraception or there is sex education they start worrying that they are promoting pre-marital sex. So if LIFE is what we're worrying about why not make contraception easily available and paid for by the gvt. and why not provide early, comprehensive sex education so there aren't pregnancies thst occur due to a lack of knowledge?

As for viability, it's the line up until women have complete power to terminate the pregnancy. After that, they need a good reason as a moral imperative and under Roe the gvt can regulate. The problem comes in though in the government trying to regulate what's a good reason. And I think it's still prudent to give women a lot of latitude here rather than the gvt laying down strict guidelines.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 10:47 am

By the way, examples of the negative impact of Dobbs...

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-sci ... d394199033
Last edited by freeman3 on 18 Jul 2022, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 10:49 am

Remodeling the RV. Will post later...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 3:29 pm

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/13/new-post-roe-bill-senate-would-send-child-support-/

Republican bill for assistance of the unborn.

Let me be perfectly clear...

I do NOT think it is the government's place to provide those items. If it is such a good idea, then people should be getting that through the Planned Parenthood facilities. I even gave a website link.

You all seem to miss my point that there are many options prior to conception. Most people have CHOICE in what they do. I have given into the exceptions for the lack of CHOICE (rape and mother's life).

Since people can CHOOSE, shouldn't they be responsible for the possible outcomes?

What CHOICE does a baby have?

Should I have the government pay for my RV gas costs, since I choose to live this way? I would say no. I have the reasoning to know that my lifestyle involves decisions that can cost money, and even affect my and my family's health and well-being.



Regarding RickyP analogy of the walnut. Many people are nuts, but nuts are not people. I know the difference, but do not wish to debate something so inane...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 4:30 pm

A caterpillar is a caterpillar until it becomes a butterfly...

The anti-choice movement has decided based primarily on religious beliefs--not even directly coming from religious tomes--that human life from.conception comes with full human rights. Even though at that point that human life has none of the characteristics of humaness (such as consciousness). Should we artificially keep people alive even though they are brain dead? I mean, why not? You can't terminate ANY human life under any circumstances, right?

The development of the fetus is on a continium--the more development, the more we get uncomfortable about termination. The more its rights get compared against the mother. Viability is a reasonable point to decide at that point the fetus has some right to life. Could we reasonably come to a different determination based on fetal development as to when that point occurs? We could. But viability is rational because at that point the fetus is at least theoretically not dependent on the mother. Make a rational case for an earlier line drawing.

After viability, there still has to be a weighing of the right of the fetus vs the woman's health and if the fetus has catastrophic birth defects then that puts the decision firmly back in the women's purview (in my mind) . Religion doesn't allow for reasonable compromises, it just decides things by fiat.

But you're right we're never going to agree on this. I just can't imagine being in a woman's situation where if they get pregnant they are forced to go through it even though it threatens their health or the fetus is not viable or that they can't support a child.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 6:22 pm

Islam - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion
Hinduism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion
Catholicism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
Christianity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
Buddhism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_abortion
Sikhism - https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Abortion

Is that enough? I am sure that you will read these and change your opinion about abortion not being listed in religious tomes. I could not find much in the words of Confucius concerning abortion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/14/mom-delivers-earliest-premature-baby-ever-and-chooses-resuscitate-miracle-aughter-now-healthy-toddle/861386001/

Viability outside the womb. 21 weeks.

I have addressed the mother's life v child's life issue. Catastrophic child issues, I cannot say every situation, but I would be more open to a mother's choice in that case. My main issue is the abortion of convenience. It would "hurt my career", " I can't afford it", it would "cramp my style", and "Now is just not a good time" are not viable reasons. That is selfish, immature and not taking responsibility for the CHOICES that are made.

Freeman, thank you for discussing this. It is a terribly hard subject to tackle.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2022, 8:30 pm

Sure, it's a good discussion without (hopefully) rancor. We completely disagree but it's a good discussion!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Jul 2022, 3:59 am

freeman3 wrote:Sure, it's a good discussion without (hopefully) rancor. We completely disagree but it's a good discussion!


I try to never have rancor with you(and mostly I don't! Maybe its hormones when I do :grin: ). It is good when people can discuss a topic w/o throwing out names at another.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Jul 2022, 2:50 pm

"The House passed the Right to Contraception Act on Thursday ― a bill that codifies the right to birth control and other contraceptives amid fears that the Supreme Court may come for that aspect of reproductive health care next after the high court repealed Roe v. Wade’s protection of abortion rights last month.

The bill passed despite 195 Republicans who voted against the bill in a final vote of 228 to 195. Republicans who voted against the legislation included Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Jack Bergman (Mich.) and Joe Wilson (S.C.). Just eight Republicans voted in favor of the bill."

bbauska
You keep going back to the idea that Roe being rescinded is going to strike down birth control.


Well, the vote in the House on the 21st, sure seems like there's a willingness to ban access to contraception too....
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 21 Jul 2022, 4:56 pm

Does the bill allow any drugs that eliminate a conceived egg/sperm ovum? (e.g. RU486 or others)

If so, would that not violate what the Supreme Court said?

If all the forms of contraception in this bill are pre-conception, then there should be no problem. If this is all pre-conception, then I do not have a problem with this bill.

Researching...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 22 Jul 2022, 1:59 pm

This is how contraceptives are defined in the bill, Brad...

(2) CONTRACEPTIVE.—The term ‘‘contraceptive’’ means any drug, device, or biological product
9 intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy,
10 whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy
11 or for other health needs, that is legally marketed
12 under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
13 such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible
14 contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal
15 and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier
16 methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or
17 other contraceptives

96% of House Repubs voted against it...

So much for not having to worry about restriction of access to contraceptives...