1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

The unwanted child bears the brunt?

Im 100% sure theyd choose to, you know, still  live though...

 

I don't know, man, there were literally some days as a kid where I actually had the thought, "I wish I was aborted!" Pretty sure I actually dropped that line at least once, and my life wasn't even that bad. 

20 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

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.  

Different factors affect people's ethics and morality, what they view as right and wrong.  A lot of people don't hold solely to the letter of the law in their views.  People have their own ethics and they come from somewhere, the way you were raised, life experience, and personal faith.  Laws throughout history have been influenced by religion and I gave some examples of religious influence in our US government including our sitting POTUS Biden.

As for Bible verses, a leftist pro-choicer cited the Bible so I responded with a different verse that pro lifers typically use in their beliefs.  I didn't say the US government should use the Bible in making laws.

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

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

It just points out the logical flaw.  The woman can choose to kill the baby even if the Father wants it, but if he doesn't want it and she chooses to keep the baby he has to pay child support for 18 years.  People will sometimes respond to that talking about responsibility and he shouldn't have got her pregnant if he didn't want the responsibility...

With all the uproar over this, it's not even a given that the SCOTUS will even overturn Roe v Wade.  That was just a draft from February that was circulated.  Who knows what the final ruling will actually  be.

14 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

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.

Some people might be like that sure.  There are pro choice hypocrites too.  But people often make a blanket statement that pro lifers/Republicans don't care at all about babies after they're born which is false and is just an emotional exaggerated argument and ignoring the many people who do care about children after birth.  Charities, non-profit foster and adoption agencies, etc.

this is what happens when religion is injected into politics:

🤡🌎

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

With all the uproar over this, it's not even a given that the SCOTUS will even overturn Roe v Wade.  That was just a draft from February that was circulated.  Who knows what the final ruling will actually  be.

Yeah and I still don't think they will.

1 hour 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.

 

First of all, there will always be unwanted pregnancies, whether abortion is illegal or not. If it is illegal, that the natural expectation is that there will be many more of them. If pro-lifers actually did care about children living good lives, they would seemingly be more willing to support poor families to help the kids have a chance at a good life. You can bring up private charities, and those are great, but there's just not enough there to make up the difference. The same people that talk about how children's lives are precious will out of the other side of their mouth spew callous disregard for contributing to social services and public provisions (like funding the schools and related programs) that actually help these kinds of kids immeasurably. Also, if you want to reduce abortions, having a better social safety net would likely lead many more women with unplanned pregnancies to decide to keep the baby, since they'd be more confident that the kid's basic needs would be met in times of financial hardship. I completely agree about more access to birth control and better education (not abstinence-only education), because this can provide people with the knowledge and resources they need to be more responsible, but this is one part of a bigger picture. 

One other thing is that, in the case of pregnancy, there is a disproportionate burden that automatically falls on the woman from a physical and emotional standpoint. Put bluntly, the woman carries the child for 9 months and is subject to all of the physical, emotional, and financial stressors and possible traumas that come with it. The man is not subject to this and can simply walk away at any time. It's pretty easy for a guy who will never experience pregnancy to act like just carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and giving the kid up for adoption is the easiest thing in the world.

14 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

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

There's a lot of more extreme stuff in the Bible that you won't find most Christians believing today.  (Even so, that was not about the literal act but the person was avoiding his responsibility to carry on his brother's family line with his widow.)

14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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.

No doubt.  

I liked Obama's answer at a town hall during his first campaign at Saddleback Church in front of a room full of Evangelical Christians.  He said let's focus on where we can agree, in reducing unwanted pregnancies.  When pro choicers reframe it to "reproductive rights" and say that men just want to control women's bodies that's just silly.  People against abortion believe it's killing a life.  There are better ways to approach the argument from each position and meet in the middle but of course people dig their heels in and push the extremes and don't listen to each other.

7 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

this is what happens when religion is injected into politics:

🤡🌎

am i the only person on here that hopes her career spirals into the ground in the hopes that she turns to porn to earn a living? 

Oh, Michael. Michael, you are blind. It wasn't a miscarriage. It was an abortion. An abortion, Michael. Just like our marriage is an abortion. Something that's unholy and evil. I didn't want your son, Michael! I wouldn't bring another one of you sons into this world! It was an abortion, Michael! It was a son Michael! A son! And I had it killed because this must all end! [Michael's eyes begin to bulge] I know now that it's over. I knew it then. There would be no way, Michael... no way you could ever forgive me not with this Sicilian thing that's been going on for 2,000 years. [Michael loses control. He slaps Kay across the face. She falls onto the couch]

 

After 24 pages, this is all I got.

 

 

I just don't get what is so difficult about this. I believe abortion is basically murder and would never support anyone I know having one (except in case of rape, incest or health of the mother). Yet I am pro-choice, because I don't get to make that decision for everyone else. While Roe was a poor decision (because it punted on the real issue), the safeguards put in place by Roe and Casey seemed reasonable by focusing on viability. I just don't see the need for this change, which opens the door for blue states to allow abortions later in term and red states to fully ban.

If I were religious, I'd have faith that those who have an abortion will pay the ultimate price for eternity. But I'm a capitalist, so I'm trying to figure out a way to make money off offering abortion tourism packages.

9 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

this is what happens when religion is injected into politics:

🤡🌎

Yeah, but you're an example of when religion isn't interjected into politics, so there's that . . .

1 hour 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.

 

Most of these guys were Deists, though. They held some concept of an all-powerful force, but it was more akin to seeing the sum of reality and experience. Even if some of them considered themselves Christians, the broke pretty starkly with dogmatic teachings of their day and found religion to be a much more personal, individual relationship with God and the conception of who/what God was. A lot of them took cues from Spinoza, who often saw God and the natural world as one-and-the-same: "God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God." At the very least, the Founders were extremely leery of using specific religious teachings as a basis of policy, which is exactly what the pro-life movement is pursuing. It is highly theocratic.

6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

First of all, there will always be unwanted pregnancies, whether abortion is illegal or not. If it is illegal, that the natural expectation is that there will be many more of them. If pro-lifers actually did care about children living good lives, they would seemingly be more willing to support poor families to help the kids have a chance at a good life. You can bring up private charities, and those are great, but there's just not enough there to make up the difference. The same people that talk about how children's lives are precious will out of the other side of their mouth spew callous disregard for contributing to social services and public provisions (like funding the schools and related programs) that actually help these kinds of kids immeasurably. Also, if you want to reduce abortions, having a better social safety net would likely lead many more women with unplanned pregnancies to decide to keep the baby, since they'd be more confident that the kid's basic needs would be met in times of financial hardship. I completely agree about more access to birth control and better education (not abstinence-only education), because this can provide people with the knowledge and resources they need to be more responsible, but this is one part of a bigger picture. 

One other thing is that, in the case of pregnancy, there is a disproportionate burden that automatically falls on the woman from a physical and emotional standpoint. Put bluntly, the woman carries the child for 9 months and is subject to all of the physical, emotional, and financial stressors and possible traumas that come with it. The man is not subject to this and can simply walk away at any time. It's pretty easy for a guy who will never experience pregnancy to act like just carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and giving the kid up for adoption is the easiest thing in the world.

I will say this:  "free" (tax payer funded) healthcare would help as well, if a woman felt guilty about abortion and weighing a difficult decision it might help her keep the baby to term and offer it up for adoption if she doesn't have to pay for any health care costs.  Not saying everyone would do that before anyone replies with that rebuttal, just saying that might help those women that struggle with the decision and are concerned about finances.  You're absolutely right, carrying a baby is a lot physically, emotionally, can affect ability to work, etc.  That's why people should be more careful to not get pregnant in the first place.  We keep talking about all the mothers go through when they're pregnant and their concerns...let's talk about the need for prevention.  If having a baby is that much of a problem, then be more careful.  Again, I agree there will always be unwanted pregnancies, nothing will solve a problem 100% of the time but the pro choice argument never talks about the responsibility to not get pregnant in the first place, just how awful it is to face being pregnant and having a child you can't afford, will keep her from her career, etc.  If it's that big a deal, then be more careful.

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Yeah, but you're an example of when religion isn't interjected into politics, so there's that . . .

wtf does that even mean ? 

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

At the very least, the Founders were extremely leery of using specific religious teachings as a basis of policy, which is exactly what the pro-life movement is pursuing. It is highly theocratic.

I read where Franklin was leery of religion, but felt it did help temper the behavior of the masses.  That being said, I doubt very much that any of the founding fathers would have been on board with Roe.

13 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

this is what happens when religion is injected into politics:

🤡🌎

Like this?

Quote

 

"Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”
 

- Joe Biden

 

 

12 minutes ago, NOTW said:

There's a lot of more extreme stuff in the Bible that you won't find most Christians believing today.  (Even so, that was not about the literal act but the person was avoiding his responsibility to carry on his brother's family line with his widow.)

Of course. But if people feel strongly about something (abortion/birth control) they'll find the passage they need. 

2 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

wtf does that even mean ? 

i think he's calling me a heathen politician.    

8 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

am i the only person on here that hopes her career spirals into the ground in the hopes that she turns to porn to earn a living? 

You thinking what Im thinking?  Mariachi circle jerk?

 

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

If I were religious, I'd have faith that those who have an abortion will pay the ultimate price for eternity. But I'm a capitalist, so I'm trying to figure out a way to make money off offering abortion tourism packages.

Phew!  I was afraid i was the only one who saw ABORTIONPLEX and immediately thought of a 3 story mingles bar inside.  Can we call it The Nursery?

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

i think he's calling me a heathen politician.    

little does he know, you're not a politician. 

19 minutes ago, Procus said:

With all the uproar over this, it's not even a given that the SCOTUS will even overturn Roe v Wade.  That was just a draft from February that was circulated.  Who knows what the final ruling will actually  be.

 

You can pretty much book it. Especially with the ruling already out there, there's no pulling it back now.

14 minutes ago, NOTW said:

No doubt.  

I liked Obama's answer at a town hall during his first campaign at Saddleback Church in front of a room full of Evangelical Christians.  He said let's focus on where we can agree, in reducing unwanted pregnancies.  When pro choicers reframe it to "reproductive rights" and say that men just want to control women's bodies that's just silly.  People against abortion believe it's killing a life.  There are better ways to approach the argument from each position and meet in the middle but of course people dig their heels in and push the extremes and don't listen to each other.

 

I like how Bill Maher frames this as a sensible pro-choicer: "It's not a life, but it is becoming a life." Basically, we might not agree on what is a life and when a fetus becomes a life, but we do need to be better at treating the other side with more regard for this being a sensitive topic, and that cuts both ways as well.