40 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I've long said before that I thought Roe created a reasonable middle ground by restricting abortion after 12 weeks. I don't think that someone should be able to abort a fully formed fetus on a whim. Opinions will vary on when exactly fetal life becomes something akin to a living, breathing human. We will never all agree on this, but abortion is at the very least a necessary evil that needs to be available for women who cannot handle the burden of a pregnancy and childrearing for a variety of reasons. The health of the nation depends on it.

Either way, we really shouldn't be using religion to inform the law.

Its all societal norms. Doesnt matter how you bucket it.

it does come down to personal responsibility. Their used to be shame in getting pregnant or kids outside marriage. We lost that to our detriment

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Uh dude...so a man can "terminate" his obligations to pay, but the woman can't terminate the pregnancy? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Thats chapelles bit

"if yall can kill em I should at least be able to abandon them”

4 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Regarding the tired argument that pro lifers don't care about kids after they're born, that's been debunked plenty by the waiting lists for adoptions, the amount of pro life and Christian charities that care for children, the parents that foster and adopt children and so on.

Regardless, if you believe abortion is murder that doesn't mean you are responsible for the child someone else had.  The people who decide to have sex and risk getting pregnant are responsible for their decisions.  Use contraception and birth control.  The pro choice argument never talks about responsibility of the people having sex and getting pregnant in the first place.  Abortions because of rape and incest are rare, most of them are just because it was unplanned and they don't want to interrupt their career or they can't afford a child.  Abortion doesn't have to be the only option, adoption is an option as well.

A big part of this is a heart issue for pro lifers.  Believing that there is a life in there worth the opportunity to live.  Stories from people who say their mother thought about aborting them but didn't and they're thankful they were given the chance to live.  The pro life argument also has to consider the difficult decision mothers face, that not every abortion is flippantly treating the baby like garbage but weighing a very heavy decision.  

The middle ground would be more education about not getting pregnant, more access to/free birth control, more assistance for adoption and foster process.  And starting with just trying to reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  Also, the facts are that the number of abortions has reduced in recent years so study why that is and what can help bring those numbers down.

About that...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-can-let-religious-employers-deny-birth-control-coverage.html

Everyone has their own line for when theocratic rhetoric becomes too intrusive when determining governmental policy.

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And this is the problem, because this is a legal question, not a moral one. If we were to make things illegal simply because they are immoral -- rooting for the Cowboys is immoral, but it's perfectly legal. 

The simple question that no one wants to tackle is -- when does a fetus acquire Constitutional rights and protections? At conception? At viability? If it is at conception, then should a mother who smokes while pregnant be charged with child abuse? The SCOTUS punted on making that call with Roe, relying on the Right to Privacy. 

But we will never, EVER address that question. So we'll be stuck in this stupid loop where both sides have a wedge issue that really isn't important in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with you that legally you can't just make an emotional argument, I believe it was another post I said that.  And legally it will be impossible to find any standard that people can all agree on so picking a number of weeks as a cutoff limit might be the best option.  I was explaining what pro life people believe in response to the idea that they think at conception it's the same exact thing as a fully formed 9 month old baby, they do not.  At the heart of pro life belief is that it's a life.  If you believe it's a life and it's killing a life i.e. murder then you're going to be passionate about not seeing babies murdered.  That doesn't mean the law has to base it on that, but that's where people come from on the issue.

of course this debate only happens because people aren't responsible enough to just get/give a BJ instead. 

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Uh dude...so a man can "terminate" his obligations to pay, but the woman can't terminate the pregnancy? Yeah, that'll go over well.

No I'm saying if the woman can, so can the man.  Why not?

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Uh dude...so a man can "terminate" his obligations to pay, but the woman can't terminate the pregnancy? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Stop confirming to traditional gender roles bigot.  Men can get pregnant too!

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

About that...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-can-let-religious-employers-deny-birth-control-coverage.html

Everyone has their own line for when theocratic rhetoric becomes too intrusive when determining governmental policy.

And?  My opinion was that birth control can be made free and accessible, an example of a private company not covering it on their plan doesn't negate my opinion on what should be done.  Of course, a private company can choose to not have birth control covered by their insurance...and the employees are free to quit and get another job they are not force to work there. 

I think employers should cover birth control, but legally that's their right.  I think it would better suit the pro life argument to make birth control free and easily accessible and more education on prevention.  People even argue against health class teaching alternatives to intercourse like bj or hj, because they dig their heels in on sexual purity and all of that, but if the big picture is to prevent/reduce unwanted pregnancies and prevent killing babies then they should just support birth control and education.  It should be worth funding it with tax payer money to save lives, prove you care about it by investing in prevention.

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

And?  My opinion was that birth control can be made free and accessible, an example of a private company not covering it on their plan doesn't negate my opinion on what should be done.  Of course, a private company can choose to not have birth control covered by their insurance...and the employees are free to quit and get another job they are not force to work there. 

I think employers should cover birth control, but legally that's their right.  I think it would better suit the pro life argument to make birth control free and easily accessible and more education on prevention.  People even argue against health class teaching alternatives to intercourse like bj or hj, because they dig their heels in on sexual purity and all of that, but if the big picture is to prevent/reduce unwanted pregnancies and prevent killing babies then they should just support birth control and education.  It should be worth funding it with tax payer money to save lives, prove you care about it by investing in prevention.

I'm not saying it negates your opinion, I'm saying theocratic based policies are tricky for this very reason. What one person finds reasonable, another might find it overly fundamentalist or orthodoxical. A large segment of pro-lifers are against birth control purely for theocratic reasons. 

18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

About that...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-can-let-religious-employers-deny-birth-control-coverage.html

Everyone has their own line for when theocratic rhetoric becomes too intrusive when determining governmental policy.

God forbid people pay for it themselves or get a different job

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not saying it negates your opinion, I'm saying theocratic based policies are tricky for this very reason. What one person finds reasonable, another might find it overly fundamentalist or orthodoxical. A large segment of pro-lifers are against birth control purely for theocratic reasons. 

When I said make it free and easy to access, that means government because you can't force private companies or individuals to make birth control available.  I think about the education about AIDS in the 90s.  There was so much education and marketing about preventing it. 

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

God forbid people pay for it themselves or get a different job

I'm not arguing that SCOTUS decision was unsound, I'm pointing out the link between pro-lifers and those who oppose the use of contraception based on religious dogma.

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

When I said make it free and easy to access, that means government because you can't force private companies or individuals to make birth control available.  I think about the education about AIDS in the 90s.  There was so much education and marketing about preventing it. 

I know, and I'm saying a lot of pro-lifers would argue against that because they believe contraception is a sin.

16 minutes ago, NOTW said:

I didn't say they're the same thing, I said religion "or" ethics.

Ethics, morality and religious teaching have informed laws since the beginning.  There is religious language in the Declaration of Independence.  ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..."  Some of the founding fathers referenced religious teaching in their writings.  And yes people are allowed to believe what they want, that's part of the foundation of our country is people are free in their religion.  

Whether you agree with it or not, religious language is in our government.  Our money says In God We Trust, God is in the pledge of allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, Biden's inauguration had prayers and singing Christian hymns, the White House hosts a national day of prayer with different religious leaders attending, etc.

And as I said, people appeal to some type of ethics and morality when making political arguments on other topics like healthcare and civil rights.  It's unavoidable.

ethics and morality...sure. again, not the same as religion. 

you guys were quoting bible verses on the last page. that's silly. people have different faiths & religions...and don't believe in the same "god" you do...and some don't believe in any god at all.

 if your interpretation of your religious text compels you to be anti-abortion, then don't get one.  that's a personal decision.  

and i'm 100% onboard with readily accessible birth control and education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies....whether abortion is legal or not.  

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

and i'm 100% onboard with readily accessible birth control and education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies....whether abortion is legal or not.  

Ditto.

The laws, once again, are just for the poor. The wealthy have always been able to pay doctors for such services, regardless of the legality of the issue.

29 minutes ago, NOTW said:

No I'm saying if the woman can, so can the man.  Why not?

That I'm all for. Thought you meant in a no abortion world.

44 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Regarding the tired argument that pro lifers don't care about kids after they're born, that's been debunked plenty by the waiting lists for adoptions, the amount of pro life and Christian charities that care for children, the parents that foster and adopt children and so on.

No, not at all.  Both can be true.  Churches can do a lot for underprivledged children and still be hypocrites to their faith when they turn their backs on immigrants or actively work against the government caring for children in poverty.

10 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I know, and I'm saying a lot of pro-lifers would argue against that because they believe contraception is a sin.

That's true.  I think that's probably changed over time, haven't seen any surveys or anything.  But my opinion is to appeal to that thinking with the idea that would you rather see more abortions?  Or would you just agree with/invest in education and birth control?  Because you're not going to stop people from having sex that's a lost cause, so focus on what you think is the biggest evil, abortion and take measures to prevent/reduce unwanted pregnancies.

4 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Ditto.

The laws, once again, are just for the poor. The wealthy have always been able to pay doctors for such services, regardless of the legality of the issue.

Thats why we make the money. Optionality.

feel free to donate to orgs that provide it

Just now, NOTW said:

That's true.  I think that's probably changed over time, haven't seen any surveys or anything.  But my opinion is to appeal to that thinking with the idea that would you rather see more abortions?  Or would you just agree with/invest in education and birth control?  Because you're not going to stop people from having sex that's a lost cause, so focus on what you think is the biggest evil, abortion and take measures to prevent/reduce unwanted pregnancies.

According to the Bible wasted "seed" is punishable by death. You'll never change that line of thinking.

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

Legally, they will never come up with something that satisfies everyone so picking a limit on number of weeks seems like a decent compromise.

 

So, yeah, I'm agreeing with you here.

The Anti-Abortion Movement Could Reduce Abortions if It Wanted To

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/opinion/abortion-contraception-pregnancy.html

They’ve succeeded: 39 states and Washington, D.C., require that abstinence be included in sex education curriculums, and 28 states — most of them Republican-leaning — mandate that abstinence be emphasized. Just 11 of those 28 abstinence-stressing states require that students be taught about contraception. A mere 18 states require that sex ed be medically accurate, and only 11 states and Washington, D.C., require teaching students about sexual consent.

 

This is the type of problem that theocratic based policies create. There are 17 states that prioritize abstinence over contraception with curriculum requirements. Which is absolutely bananas in 2022. Why did they do this? Based on puritanical reasons like sex before marriage is bad, and any sex without the intention to produce offspring is a sin.

Let’s ask our new Ministry Of Truth to tell us when life begins and when a fetus becomes a individual with legal rights. They are all about "the truth”. 

7 minutes ago, NOTW said:

That's true.  I think that's probably changed over time, haven't seen any surveys or anything.  But my opinion is to appeal to that thinking with the idea that would you rather see more abortions?  Or would you just agree with/invest in education and birth control?  Because you're not going to stop people from having sex that's a lost cause, so focus on what you think is the biggest evil, abortion and take measures to prevent/reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Right. Again, I'm agreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out the uphill battle you have on your hands if you think you're gonna change some people's outlooks on something like this.