Abortion...

[TheZZL]

Let's open a dialogue about the recent leaks of a possible Roe V. Wade overturning with the non-secular conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court right now, and the inarguable right of abortion. 

 

My brief opinion: Christian (religious) beliefs should not be forced upon others, as that is a violation of that own person's freedom of religious expression. One religion does not have the right to completely overrule and void a country filled with diverse and different religious beliefs- also note, the separation of church and state is essential in such a society. The fact that the supreme court is not supposed to uphold public opinion, but rather look for the betterment of society within judicial review and its rulings is an interesting confliction with the fact that 2/3 of the American public supports the decision in Roe V. Wade. Moreover, as humans we should be looking forward to progression in technology, culture, and society, so following a conservative and old religious belief (that I don't find to be affiliated with religion/Christianity before the 20th century) is just a drag on other advancements and improvements we can make to social life in the US. Finally, it should be noted that a lot of different problems in the US right now come from poverty, and the lack of attention we give to the causes of mass poverty within certain marginalized ethnic minority groups (black/latino/latinx). So, forcing abortions upon people who cannot afford to raise a baby, which costs upwards of $250,000 according to the USDA as of 2017, turns into a cascading effect of social problems that we can probably discuss in another thread. 

 

TL;DR: abortion - good, non-secularism - bad

 

Resources:

Abolishing Abortion: The History of the Pro-Life Movement in America - OAH.org

Americans weren’t always bitterly divided on abortion. This is how we got that way. - TheWashingtonPost.com

 

and here are three videos that will be a little more entertaining if you're uninterested in reading an article

- ~1997

- May 9th 2022

- February 4th 2022

 

Try not to go so off topic or get aggressive, but if you say something stupid/offensive and get memed on that's on you and it'll be funny.

(Ghostwritten by @Steel_ [Not really])

I was asked to write this post

 

[John]

A woman should be able to do whatever she wants with the fetus/unborn child/whatever you want to call it that they are carrying. It's their body and it should be their choice. Some people aren't fit to be a parent or maybe they don't want to be one. I, personally, would never want to have a child if I would not be able to financially support them. It's expensive and emotionally taxing for both parents. I don't usually post in political threads but I feel like this issue isn't even political. It shouldn't be political. It just seems so absurd and comical to me that this is an issue nowadays. Every single year our technology advances in a scary manner. Compare our technology today to what we had 10 years ago and you would be mindblown. But for some reason people are still having issues with someone not wanting to bring a child in the world for whatever reason they may have? I dunno. It's just weird to me. Free county this free country that; I can go buy a gun after a rigorous application and background check process but a woman in Texas has to be smuggled out of the state to have an abortion. So odd.

 

Unrelated but all the child talk reminds me that I gotta make my unborn child a steam account so that when he's 15 or whatever his steam account is 20 years old

[jazzy]

Abortion - I think most people that use the internet, especially a forum like this, are probably on the side that abortion is ok. I'm a little annoyed by the twitter culture of jokingly yeeting babies and people being "pro-abortion", but the necessity of abortion is clear and more importantly, its autonomy of women to have that right to abort even if there's no medical necessity. Nobody should be forced to carry a life to term, similarly after someone is born there should be no requirement for a mother to take care of said child either. Having sex and the resulting possibility of pregnancy shouldn't result in some consequence of servitude of taking care of a fetus and child. More importantly, states and those people/representatives in them who believe that women should be forced to carry fetuses to term that are from sexual crimes are absolutely disgusting human garbage and have no empathy and should hold no public office. This is one of the most demented things I've ever had to process. The idea that a criminal could rip away your rights and the state would idly sit by and enforce a pregnancy you were given no choice in makes me sick to my stomach.

 

Meanwhile, RvW overturn possibility is just another example of democrats not holding themselves accountable. RvW was shakily held onto, for the sake of summary I would call somewhat a technicality, for so long and all it took was Trump to stuff the court with 3 goofs who would sway for an overturn. It was like the most obvious checkers play and there wasn't much to be done to stop it. Amy being ran thru the way she was, was bullshit and totally hypocritical and that's what enabled all of this.

 

But more important it is democrats who have enabled this. RvW should have been codified decades ago but everyone's abstinence from removing the filibuster ensures that the last 20+ years of lawmaking has all but stalled and no real progress is made. DACA, certain gun laws, gay & interracial marriage, even anti-segregation are in similar situations. Something held on shaky executive or judicial action when it should have been codified so many times prior but once again, inaction creates opportunity for republicans to bully out progressive idealisms.

 

It's also difficult to hold SCOTUS judges accountable, given they are for given the position for life barring impeachment. Meanwhile state congresspeople can be removed from office fairly easy, or through time just naturally retire out. I like the protests against SCOTUS but the reality is there is not much public pressure to prevent this now, they are fairly independent from the American public, congress isn't nearly as cushy in terms of power.

 

One side note but something some may not know- vasectomies/tubal ligations are generally speaking covered by your insurance. That doesn't mean they're cheap, since they'll probably still go against your deductible/out of pocket. But let's say you had some procedure(s) in a year and you maxed out your insurance out of pocket, if you could get your vasectomy scheduled in that year, it's basically free provided you get pre-approval/assurance it will be covered from insurance. Insurance companies like not having to deliver babies, it's expensive. You'll want to check with your insurance company ahead of time on their website or by talking to a rep.

 

Religion wise- the bible is merely a product of an era, modified to maintain relevancy. The Old Testament was clear on many animals not to be eaten- because people were eating raw pork and dying. People murdering those for no good reason. Taking property for greed, etc. The New Testament refined many laws and threw away many Old Testament ways, because they were no longer relevant. Society deems what the Bible holds. King James had more sway over the Bible than the churches today. 20 years ago how many pastors would say gay marriage is a sin? And now? Christians were against gay marriage until society determined it acceptable on a majority level, and now the churches accept the reality that if they do not approve of gay marriage, they will disappear like dozens of religions before them. The Bible frowns upon abortion but this will change in due time, or Christianity will cease to exist. And how many splits will the churches continue to have? As many as it takes to stay relevant.

[Gentoo]

God what an awful take.

 

10 hours ago, TheZZL said:

Christian (religious) beliefs should not be forced upon others, as that is a violation of that own person's freedom of religious expression. One religion does not have the right to completely overrule and void a country filled with diverse and different religious beliefs- also note, the separation of church and state is essential in such a society.

This isn't a religious issue... It's a question of morality and ethics - which many people derive from their religion (albeit sometimes dogmatically). Religion, after all, is most often believed to have been derived from ethics in the first place and formed as a structure to explain or give importance to it.

 

10 hours ago, TheZZL said:

The fact that the supreme court is not supposed to uphold public opinion, but rather look for the betterment of society within judicial review and its rulings is an interesting confliction with the fact that 2/3 of the American public supports the decision in Roe V. Wade

Yes and no. Obviously it's the court and not a ballot system, but on the question of ethics, isn't common opinion a pretty reasonable starting point for such a difficult topic to discern? If the court were to have ruled on this 150 years ago, public opinion aside, it wouldn't even be a question. 2/3ds of the American public doesn't know what the fuck Roe v Wade is so I don't think it's a reasonable point to make - if you're talking specifically about abortion, I can understand that, but you should've said so in the first place.

 

10 hours ago, TheZZL said:

Moreover, as humans we should be looking forward to progression in technology, culture, and society, so following a conservative and old religious belief (that I don't find to be affiliated with religion/Christianity before the 20th century) is just a drag on other advancements and improvements we can make to social life in the US.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conservative ideology. Firstly, to write it off as religious and old is very lazy and dishonest. Secondly, the entire point is to be skeptical of change for the sake of change. Who says advancements in technology are always a good thing? Is it a good thing that children are growing up glued to smartphones, crippled by anxiety, attention deficits and difficulty finding meaningful pursuits? Is it a good thing that millions of Americans struggle with depression from a lack of purpose in meaningless, repetitive, sometimes counterproductive jobs for large corporations? Yes, technology has done a lot of good things for us, it's fed the hungry, treated the ill, etc. but once again it's very lazy and simple-minded to say that there's a need to constantly progress it and that's self evident.

 

It's getting late and I need to sleep so I'm gonna wrap this up real quick. Might delve further into detail tomorrow or just reply to whatever you post of it's something worthwhile.

 

This might sound crazy to you but - it's not an inarguable right. I know I know, it sounds ridiculous but - people can actually believe that there's not a significant difference between taking a life before or after birth and that it might be a serious moral transgression apart from religious dogma.  I'll leave you with some smooth jazz to listen to as you read.

 

 

[Infinityward]

15 hours ago, TheZZL said:

 the inarguable right of abortion. 

Well... it's not really inarguable. Roe V. Wade doesn't actually point to a clear right to have an abortion rather it pulled from the courts prior ruling on the use of contraception and introduced a concept known as "right to privacy" that it argued was enshrined in the fourteenth and ninth amendments. Now i'd wager that the majority of people really know nothing of Roe V. Wade nor Altio's draft except one makes abortion legal and one makes it illegal (Alito's draft doesn't actually make it illegal it simply leaves it up to the states which would result in about half of the country banning abortion).

 

Quote

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.

 

I've seen a lot of fear that if Roe V. Wade is overturned then contraception, gay marriage, etc will be up for debate but I don't believe that's the case. In Alito's draft, he argues that abortion is different from other intimate matters such as contraception, interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc because abortion involves a potential life which is actually set out by Roe V. Wade and expanded on by Casey V. PP. Roe V. Wade makes it clear that this "right to privacy" that they founded their decision on is not absolute but that it must be balanced against governmental interests such as the health of the mother and the life of the fetus. It also sets out the "trimester framework" (copying straight from Wikipedia on this one). 

 

"During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health."

 

The whole "potential life" thing is the root of the debate here, that's what the majority of people disagree on. Contraception is the only other issue remotely related to abortion and very few people (other than crazy religious people) have a problem with contraception. One could possibly argue that the use of contraception also ends a potential life but any argument would be extremely shaky as preventing a set of components from coming together to make a fertilized egg isn't really the same as terminating an already developing fetus.

 

I've been on somewhat of a liberal arc recently and my political views have shifted a considerate amount (although I'd say I'm still leaning a bit more right) Over that time I've noticed that both sides don't really try to understand one another and boil it down to "CONSERVATIVES JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN" or "LIBERALS JUST WANT TO KILL BABIES". This isn't an accurate representation of either side and it just leads to more divisiveness.

 

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, it's clear that Roe V. Wade is grasping at straws and relies on extremely broad and vague amendments to enshrine the "right to abortion" and even makes some concessions that put the pro-choice side in a difficult position. The right to an abortion should never have been pulled from this case and should absolutely be legislated by Congress.

 

 

In all honesty, my opinion on abortion has changed over the past few years, i'm in favor of abortion up to a certain point (probably second trimester) but this really needs to be legislated not adjudicated.

 

 

[Phoenix_]

It's pretty simple. I am not a doctor. I am not a woman in pregnancy. I should not have a say over what a woman does with her unborn child. This shouldn't be a political issue. An abortion is a medical procedure and should be perceived as such. Banning abortion will not stop abortions, only skyrocket the amount of unsafe ones. 

 

I would rather a life never be born into this world than have a life be born into this world stuck in an unloving household, poverty stricken upbringing because of their existence, a child with no father because the father did not want a child or was not ready for a child, or a combination of any of these three. Beyond the concept of personal freedom, and quality of life for the unborn child, there's also cases of endangerment to the mother, rape, or incest (or again a combination of these) that also give a perfectly good reason to have an abortion. 

 

The thing I don't understand is... the republican party is the side that pushes pro-life, but goes on to try and block a bill that would provide vital food for infants? The party that preaches pro-life seems to stop caring about how "pro" they are to life beyond the life being born. 

13 hours ago, Gentoo said:

This isn't a religious issue... It's a question of morality and ethics - which many people derive from their religion (albeit sometimes dogmatically). Religion, after all, is most often believed to have been derived from ethics in the first place and formed as a structure to explain or give importance to it.

You defeat your own point. The problem is these government officials are deriving their ethics and morals solely from their religion (also primarily a certain age group does this more so, but I won't even go into that) and it defeats the point of separating church and state. If you're going to push Christian morals in a nation that is progressively straying away from religion (Millennials and younger), that's incredibly problematic. You are ignoring the beliefs and wants of your constituents... you are not governing over them and representing them, you are ruling over them. 

 

That got a bit off topic. Tl;dr if you're some old white man who knows nothing about pregnancy who just wants to take away access to safe abortions because m'morals, please stfu.

[kabLe]

50 minutes ago, Phoenix_ said:

It's pretty simple. I am not a doctor. I am not a woman in pregnancy. I should not have a say over what a woman does with her unborn child. This shouldn't be a political issue. An abortion is a medical procedure and should be perceived as such. Banning abortion will not stop abortions, only skyrocket the amount of unsafe ones. 

 

I would rather a life never be born into this world than have a life be born into this world stuck in an unloving household, poverty stricken upbringing because of their existence, a child with no father because the father did not want a child or was not ready for a child, or a combination of any of these three. Beyond the concept of personal freedom, and quality of life for the unborn child, there's also cases of endangerment to the mother, rape, or incest (or again a combination of these) that also give a perfectly good reason to have an abortion. 

 

The thing I don't understand is... the republican party is the side that pushes pro-life, but goes on to try and block a bill that would provide vital food for infants? The party that preaches pro-life seems to stop caring about how "pro" they are to life beyond the life being born. 

  14 hours ago, Gentoo said:

This isn't a religious issue... It's a question of morality and ethics - which many people derive from their religion (albeit sometimes dogmatically). Religion, after all, is most often believed to have been derived from ethics in the first place and formed as a structure to explain or give importance to it.

You defeat your own point. The problem is these government officials are deriving their ethics and morals solely from their religion (also primarily a certain age group does this more so, but I won't even go into that) and it defeats the point of separating church and state. If you're going to push Christian morals in a nation that is progressively straying away from religion (Millennials and younger), that's incredibly problematic. You are ignoring the beliefs and wants of your constituents... you are not governing over them and representing them, you are ruling over them. 

 

That got a bit off topic. Tl;dr if you're some old white man who knows nothing about pregnancy who just wants to take away access to safe abortions because m'morals, please stfu.

 

 

If so, can I stop subsidizing it and leave it up to the insurance company to decide whether or not they want to pay for it? Since its just another medical procedure.

 

Bringing a child in this world has almost nothing to do with a man once conception comes. It's neither his choice nor his responsibility at this point. The woman decides who has sex with her and decides whether the child is born. There is multiple steps in the process that the woman could stop it all from happening. A guy just has sex with her and tosses a coin whether or not he gets her pregnant and regardless of his stance the baby comes or not and the rest of his life is determined by the 50/50 coin flip of a woman. Less than 5% of abortions are from rape or incest or cases where a pregnancy can threaten the life of a mother. All good reasons to get an abortion nonetheless and I wouldn't argue that. However you don't make a federal law based on 5% of cases.

 

Your claim about the republican party I find very hard to believe and would love to see the source on this. Being pro life and and believing that someone can make a way for themselves despite the odds has not only been proven possible but is a much better outlook on life than yours thinking your entire life is predetermined from birth and I'm actually kinda sorry for you that you feel that way.

 

There is no proof that says they base their ethics and morals soley from a religion. This is a preposterous claim and you are ignorant for saying it. Christian morals also aline with many atheist's moral and other religions. This is just plain stupid. The constituents voted for these people. They didn't get there because they won a lottery. If the constituents disagree so vehemently, vote them out.

 

The last line is just laughable and shows you're arguing from a position of emotion instead of logically.

 

I hate to tell you chief, but the only reason an abortion is so easy is because the federal government forced everyone to pay for it and like @Infinityward said Roe V Wade was already grasping at straws in not being an over reach of power by not letting it be up to the states. If it was treated as just another medical procedure and not heavily subsidized by taxes, I'd bet there would be no insurance company around that would cover it minus incest, rape, or pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Guaranteed.

[Gentoo]

25 minutes ago, Phoenix_ said:

It's pretty simple. I am not a doctor. I am not a woman in pregnancy. I should not have a say over what a woman does with her unborn child.

Weak sauce boss. I'm sure you have your own opinions about what a woman can do with her born child. Not being directly involved in something doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion on the ethics of it. In fact, you could make the case that it would make you less partisan, more qualified to pass judgement on it.

 

27 minutes ago, Phoenix_ said:

I would rather a life never be born into this world than have a life be born into this world stuck in an unloving household, poverty stricken upbringing because of their existence, a child with no father because the father did not want a child or was not ready for a child, or a combination of any of these three. Beyond the concept of personal freedom, and quality of life for the unborn child, there's also cases of endangerment to the mother, rape, or incest (or again a combination of these) that also give a perfectly good reason to have an abortion. 

Ok cool, glad you have an opinion on whether or not someone should be allowed to live or not. Are any of these factors going to keep the child from having a purposeful or worthwhile life? I'm sure many people in this community have had troubles of their own growing up - that doesn't mean their life was better off not happening. If anyone thinks their life isn't worth living, they usually take care of that on their own.

 

30 minutes ago, Phoenix_ said:

The thing I don't understand is... the republican party is the side that pushes pro-life, but goes on to try and block a bill that would provide vital food for infants? The party that preaches pro-life seems to stop caring about how "pro" they are to life beyond the life being born. 

Hurr they don't want to spend my tax dollars on someone else's lunch money so they must not care about anyone. Seriously, take two seconds to consider what someone might actually be thinking rather than posting your shit disingenuous take.

 

31 minutes ago, Phoenix_ said:

You defeat your own point. The problem is these government officials are deriving their ethics and morals solely from their religion (also primarily a certain age group does this more so, but I won't even go into that) and it defeats the point of separating church and state. If you're going to push Christian morals in a nation that is progressively straying away from religion (Millennials and younger), that's incredibly problematic. You are ignoring the beliefs and wants of your constituents... you are not governing over them and representing them, you are ruling over them. 

Source? Are you just unable to fathom that someone could see abortion as morally wrong apart from religious dogma? While you're at it, could you point out how 'pushing Christian morals on an increasingly immoral younger generation' is self evidently bad thing?

[BoM]

29 minutes ago, kabLe said:

Bringing a child in this world has almost nothing to do with a man once conception comes. It's neither his choice nor his responsibility at this point. The woman decides who has sex with her and decides whether the child is born. There is multiple steps in the process that the woman could stop it all from happening. A guy just has sex with her and tosses a coin whether or not he gets her pregnant and regardless of his stance the baby comes or not and the rest of his life is determined by the 50/50 coin flip of a woman.

Oh cool so it's her choice all along the way then. Glad we are agreed!

[kabLe]

13 minutes ago, BoM said:

Oh cool so it's her choice all along the way then. Glad we are agreed!

I personally don't actually give a crap either way. I only have 2 reasons I care. The abortion is subsidized by my taxpayer dollars, and whether or not I want it isn't up to me and yet I'm on the hook to pay for it if the baby is born. If I can waive all parental rights and not have to pay child support, sure go right ahead legalize it all baby. 

 

I care less about it being subsidized by taxes but if there is anyone who says it should be treated as any other medical procedure, then leave it up to the insurance company...like every other medical procedure and well see how many abortions are done per year compared to now. How come we fight so hard to pay for abortions but nobody fighting to fund chemotherapy? I'd much rather have my taxpayer dollars spent towards potentially saving another life than killing one that hasn't even had it's chance at breathing yet. How about you?