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 14 Jul 2022, 4:30 am

You are correct that the Constitution does not say ANYTHING about abortion. It does not delineate between the body of the mother, or the child/fetus/clump of cells/mass of tissue.

Therefore it is the States that decide.



Do you think that the eliminating of a fetus in the case of the pregnancy NOT involving rape or life of the mother is an action that you can support? Considering the multitude of pregnancy inhibitors/barriers available in today's world, why is it necessary to kill life rather than take precautions through the choices available?

I see abortion as a postscript used to cover up poor choices and lack of forethought. That is not fair to the child. In that regard, I must stand for the weak and defenseless. THAT is what a Christian is called to be.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Jul 2022, 4:31 am

bbauska wrote:https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/

NEWSFLASH

Here is the man who confessed to the rape.

Justice is punishing him to the fullest extent of the law.

Honor is defending those who cannot defend themselves.


BTW, an illegal immigrant, also. Good job on lack of border control for whatever President did not protect.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Jul 2022, 9:20 am

bbauska
Therefore it is the States that decide
.
Only since the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Until this ruling the "right to privacy" was recognized and individuals were able to make the decision.
Are you okay with the State (either level Federal or State) telling someone what to do with the bodies?

bbauska

Do you think that the eliminating of a fetus in the case of the pregnancy NOT involving rape or life of the mother is an action that you can support? Considering the multitude of pregnancy inhibitors/barriers available in today's world, why is it necessary to kill life rather than take precautions through the choices available?

I see abortion as a postscript used to cover up poor choices and lack of forethought. That is not fair to the child. In that regard, I must stand for the weak and defenseless. THAT is what a Christian is called to be.


Generally I agree that resorting to abortion is an unwanted option and should be rare. As rare as possible.

I'm lucky enough to live in a country which has no laws on abortion. (there are ethical standards at the 10 provincial medical associations which generally restrict doctors from anything but medically necessary abortion in the third trimester, sometimes earlier. But those are ethical and not legal standards).
However despite this the abortion rate in Canada much lower than in the US. (15.2 per thousand versus 20.2 per thousand women.
Why?
Comprehensive sex education in schools, starting well before puberty. (We don't trust all parents to be able to educate their children on the reproductive system and sexual health)
Free at point of service health care, and inexpensive access to birth control.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Simply making contraception a right, and making it free would eliminate most unwanted pregnancies, and therefore most abortions. W know this from an American experience.

For example, a Colorado program offering free IUDs to young people, at a cost of $28 million, saw a 54% reduction in teen pregnancies and 64% in teen abortion rates over eight years, saving the government an estimated $70 million. A ​separate 2015 study in the Canadian Association Medical Journal​ estimated that the cost of delivering universal contraception across Canada would be $157 million, but the savings for direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy alone, would be approximately $320 million


https://www.actioncanadashr.org/about-us/media/

Could a Christian get behind that in order to reduce abortion?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Jul 2022, 7:06 am

There has been no change in the verbage of the US Constitution regarding the phrase in question; only the interpretation.

As for contraception, that is a strawman. I have no qualm with contraception, and the Constitution/Roe v Wade/Dobbs have no ruling on that either. Do try to stay on topic.

I am fine with contraception. It is the person's choice what they do regarding pre-conception decisions. It should have nothing to do with the government (State, Federal, Provincial, e.g)

I do have a dilemma after conception (within the exemptions I have listed above). I believe it is a life after conception, and thus wrong to kill innocent life.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7811
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 15 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm

Brad, I hope you're enjoying Maine. We look forward to going back one day.

As to this issue...

I feel very strongly about a woman's right to bodily autonomy. While I've always been pro-choice, this is now front and center for me: I have two teenagers who could technically give birth. They are incredibly bright yet not mature physically nor emotionally (14 & 16). If they were to get pregnant, for whatever reason, I would 100% encourage and support their decision to terminate. In fact, I would 100% support their decision to terminate without needing my approval or even having to know about it (I don't agree with Virginia's laws on this one).

Barring some drastic change to their academics, they are both college bound. I have told them they should not consider going to a school in any state that restricts their autonomy.

As for re-locating to another state: If Virginia were to ban abortions, I would consider moving to Maryland if the girls are still living in the home. It's close enough to keep our jobs. We are lucky in that we have the means to make that choice. However, many women who seek abortions do not have the means to simply pick up and move.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Jul 2022, 12:43 pm

I get that. It is personal for me as well. I have a 14 year old daughter also.

For something as important as the reasons you, Freeman, GeoJanes, and RickyP are giving, I support your right to travel to a state to do that.

I guess this big issue to me is avoiding conception. There are SOOO many ways to do this. Heck, if it is such a big issue, then sterilization might be an option. I am not being flippant. I am fine with ALL ways of pre-conception inhibitors. Here is a website that shows many ways to inhibit pregnancy:

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

This is exactly why I give the rape and mother's life exemption. It is a sexual act that is forced upon the woman or trading one life for another. That is not fair to her. However, with all the contraceptives available; once contraception occurs, then it is not fair to the unborn child/fetus/clump of cells/mass of tissue. The mother's actions are pro-choice, and she needs to accept the results of her choice. Killing life because of bad life choices when there are so many other ways to prevent conception, is chilling to me. But hey, some people feel the need to do that. Just go to a state that allows it. I am fine with that.

Maine is very nice. We are heading south in Mid August.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Jul 2022, 12:57 pm

bbauska
There has been no change in the verbage of the US Constitution regarding the phrase in question; only the interpretation.

I think we all recognize that this is what the discussion is about, its SCOTUS interpretation changing that has changed everything.

The question is, whether State governments should take primacy over what was previously interpreted as a right to privacy by citizens.
If you agree that SCOTUS was correct then, at least in this case and perhaps in many areas where previously civilians (the people) had rights reserved to them - then you will be okay with the US moving to an even more authoritarian nature than it already is...


bbauska
I am fine with contraception

But would you be okay with the State providing contraception free to females of child bearing age?
The rich and middle class have always been able to afford contraception.... Which is why unwanted pregnancies occur most with the poor.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Jul 2022, 2:47 pm

I understand the feeling that rights are being diminished. I do not agree, however. I see States being given opportunity to give rights to the unborn.

As for free contraception... I just looked in the Constitution, and it is not there. No. It should be organizations.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Jul 2022, 7:59 am

bbauska
I see States being given opportunity to give rights to the unborn.


And take them away from women.
welcome to Gillead.

babushka
As for free contraception... I just looked in the Constitution, and it is not there. No. It should be organizations


I didn't ask you about the Constitution. But since that's your fall back position.
States have the right to make contraception free to women of child bearing age no?
Could you get behind your state doing that, since its been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies so much... And therefore actually reduce abortions...

(Laws against abortion have never proven to reduce abortion. Only make them more dangerous)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Jul 2022, 8:08 am

I would support a state making that decision for free contraception. As MANY stupid budget items, I would probably not like it, but would welcome them having the legal freedom in making the choice.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Jul 2022, 8:36 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
I see States being given opportunity to give rights to the unborn.


And take them away from women.


So said the 1800's slave owners. "You are taking away my rights to control another life"
So said the 1973-2022 Pro-choicers. "You are taking away my rights to control another life"

It is all hinged on whether you think a fetus is a life. If you don't, it is fine to kill the "tissue". If you do think a fetus is a life, well, then it is reprehensible.

I do not wish to argue endlessly with you. It will not change your opinion or mine. I have been willing to come to a compromise position.

You... Not so much.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Jul 2022, 7:33 pm

So said the 1800's slave owners. "You are taking away my rights to control another life"
So said the 1973-2022 Pro-choicers. "You are taking away my rights to control another life"

The only thing analogous to slavery is dictating to women how they should control their body. Evangelical religions demanding that society be changed to suit their religious beliefs, even though the nature of abortion doesn't infringe on their ability to practice their religious. They're not satisfied; they want the rest of society to be bound by their religious beliefs.


The Roe reversal has tremendous social implications. In a society where abortion is completely banned then women have lost their freedom. At the whim of a failure in birth control or human error their whole life could be ruined. So the rational thing to do is simply get married young and have kids. What about a career? Again, could be derailed at any time. That's why the invention of the Birth Control pill was revolutionary. Now you want to pit that genie back in the bottle?

As for moving to another state...you know that's the Republican plan right? They want people to move out of Red states so they gain control of Texas, Georgia etc. that are threatening to turn Blue.

The reversal of Roe was the Dred Scott decision of our times and threatens to tear our society apart.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jul 2022, 5:06 am

I see the evangelicals leading the way in both cases.

The Christians were the ones fighting for giving people rights in both the Dred Scott and Roe v Wade decisions.

The southerners/Democrats and pro-choice factions are the one's trying to prohibit rights for a certain class of people. (Blacks and the unborn)

Both the Dred Scott decision and reversal of Roe WILL have great social impact. I agree with you there.

Christians in the 1800s did not have to have slaves. It is not bothering them. Why should they have been the ones leading the fight to prohibit this heinous practice in the United States?

You keep going back to the idea that Roe being rescinded is going to strike down birth control. Please show me where that is in the decision or stop "strawmanning". That position on Redscape is already filled. :wink:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Jul 2022, 9:09 am

bbauska
The Christians were the ones fighting for giving people rights in both the Dred Scott and Roe v Wade decisions

The southerners/Democrats and pro-choice factions are the one's trying to prohibit rights for a certain class of people. (Blacks and the unborn)


Does the Constitution call the "unborn" people?
Or is that a case of judges creating a new right?


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


Abortion is birth control.
Especially when conducted in the first two trimesters when nature hasn't yet committed to the pregnancy.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Jul 2022, 11:40 am

Well, just because northern Evangelicals were right about slaves...doesn't mean they're right here. And Enlightenment philosophers wwre against slavery, too. Of course, churches down South accomodated themselves to slavery.

There's obviously a great deal of difference between a man owning another man as property to dispose of as he will...and a fetus at an early stage of development with no consciousness or any level of sentience having the right--which again that's made up because the fetus has no awareness--to demand use of the mother's body. The fetus is subject to the mother's decision on pregnancy because it is utterly dependent on the mother.

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.

And anti-abortion Evangelical's pro-life position would be taken far more seriously if they also demanded the following: (1) that males be more involved in contraception including the use of a male birth control pill, (2) support parental leave, (3) support generous child care provisions so women--especially poorer women--could work to support the child that they are forced to carry, (4) support alternative work schedules to allow women to work and still have a family, (5) pay for the costs of pregnancy so women are not put into debt in having a baby, (6) support generous tax credits for families with kids so they can afford raising these kids.

But they don't. They don't support anything that would support women having babies they don't want. They just castigate women for having abortions but do nothing to make sure families can financially support raising the child, which means many women are going to go into poverty.

As for contraception, Alito's decision undercut Griswold so though you are for contraception that doesn't mean that other Christians will not demand contraception be highly restricted.