Jump to content

mtomm

Members
  • Posts

    724
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mtomm

  1. Are you suggesting that we base our laws concerning procreation around this scripture? Because I'm thinking those of us who are advocating pro-choice regulation of abortion don't expect everyone in the United States to follow the commandments in the Bible. It's kind of the point of having religious freedom. We can't compel people to follow our religious tenets. So those in here who keep quoting scripture or sharing the words of the prophets are preaching to choir.
  2. Nope. I didn't say that at all. I'm just more inclined to fault on the side of the mother and doctor in this situation. And will again say that some regulation is warranted in situations after viability. And even at that point I'm not sure how often it is actually a concern since there are so few doctors that will actually even consider those types of abortions. Here is an example of what I find overly intrusive and not medically necessary but is required in many, many states: A woman is required undergo an ultrasound before she is allowed to have an abortion. Now, these are those cute little US where you see them rubbing a wand over the mother's belly. Nope, because the fetus is so small these are an internal US. They serve no purpose other than to shame and humiliate the mother. There is no medical reason to require this procedure. And those aren't an exception, it is every woman.
  3. Is it fair to say you trust the state government to make these choices rather than trusting a woman and her doctor? Because that's kind of the vibe I'm getting.
  4. So you are saying your compromise is you don't have a compromise?
  5. I asked this question at the beginning of the thread. I do not see how this is possible without a huge violation and certainly breaching a person's right to privacy. But we know that right to privacy really doesn't exist even for a rape victim.
  6. Second question for pro-lifers: How does a woman go about proving or claiming incest or rape in order to receive the abortion she desires? My thoughts: These exceptions are why I am pro-choice. I do not see how the above can be corroborated in a timely manner and without causing more harm to the victim. I shouldn't have to prove to the state that I was a victim of rape or incest in order to have an abortion. And in order to protect those victims (small number as they may be) they must have the option without being questioned by the state to abort. I also feel that once a fetus reaches the point of viability that it is no longer an option. Also, if a child will not be living outside the womb because of fetal abnormalities then abortion should be an option. This squares my opinion that we shouldn't be obligated to prolong someone's life just because it is hard to let them go. We can remove life support, etc. in order to let the dying die as peacefully, quickly and comfortably as possible.
  7. So from what I've gathered those who have made their opinions known on this board it appears that if you are pro-life you find the following exceptions as okay: 1- rape or incest and life of the mother 2- IFV embryos do not have to be used and letting them "die" is okay How do you square your "it's a human living person" or "life begins at conception" beliefs with giving exceptions to the above? Are they a living human being or not?
  8. ETA: Many people are pro-choice because they understand that when women are faced with an unwanted pregnancy they will do desperate things. The more difficult the situation the more hazardous and risky chances they'll take. I heard her remarks and thought the same thing you are thinking. Yeah, it sounds gross. Wouldn't it be great if the economic fears that cause so many women to consider abortion be diminished? Just like the risk of spreading covid could be diminished by wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated (that so many pro-lifers that I know still continue to mock) which we know would save lives and have economic benefits. We can't remove all risk but we certainly can mitigate them. I am not convinced that the pro-lifers appreciate the economic impacts of their stance. Whereas, I very much understand the economic impacts of covid shut-downs and being pro-choice. The states with the strictest abortion laws are the suckiest at helping women and children. You can kind of see why the they've received the nickname "pro-birth" instead of being pro-life. Generally, states with preemptive abortion bans or laws that greatly restrict abortion access showed the worst rankings.
  9. You assumed my sarcasm because you didn't believe that people had asserted that. Representative Says Economy is the right choice Texas Official Says Elderly Willing to Die Dr. Oz: open schools as only a few percent will die.
  10. As someone who has faced an unwanted pregnancy at the age of 49 I can tell you under no uncertain terms I understand absolute everything. I've faced this issue straight on and it is not some clinical dialogue to me. What I don't understand is how men who have never had a human grow inside them can lecture women on how they don't understand what they are talking about. We absolutely understand what we are talking about. I'd guess most of us on here responding that women need choices have actually grown and birthed a human. I also understand the viewpoint of women default who on the side of the unborn. I can FEEL both sides. Is that human enough?
  11. I literally had it said to my face by a relative that getting back to work and real life is worth the risk of some people dying. I was NOT being sarcastic. But you can also just google it and you'll find several examples of where my relative got the idea that this was okay.
  12. I didn't make any assumptions about you or anyone else with my answer. I just answered with my observation. I am pro-choice for both. I also am fine with an employer requiring vaccination for employment just as I am fine with some restrictions on abortion. I also believe that people should making an effort to mitigate covid by wearing a mask, getting vaccinated and staying home if sick. I would also support funding free and easily accessible sex education and birth control to minimize unwanted pregnancy. We all know that none of the time do all of these things work 100% (I'm pretty sure you've gotten many "likes" from me on your covid comments in the long covid thread.)
  13. My experience with covid has shown me that it's okay if both die. For the economy. But hey, if a women needs to limit the size of her family for economic reasons that is wrong.
  14. I love this a thousand times. It is very nice to have this discussion and not be called a baby killer or asked if I'm a Christian or private messages saying they are going to pray for me. Apparently, even women in the Church don't understand that their own doctrine allows for exceptions and they do not want to have civil discourse about it. Fun times!
  15. So if I can hijack this thought as it makes me think of the gal in a previous ward who had cancer. Married with 3 children. She had treatments, recovered some and got pregnant. Her cancer returned and she chose to delay treatment and delivered a healthy baby. Now she's dead. Whether what she did was right or wrong I don't know but I think it's pretty cool she was given the choice. When does it become a compelling interest of the state to force her to abort in order to receive treatments in the hopes that she not leave her children motherless?
  16. You want to take away reproductive rights from the women who actually bear the children and give it to the state. What happens they don't regulate it the way you want? Men currently aren't allowed to force a woman to abort but I suppose that could change in the interest of a man's rights. Seems that in many places in the world they've been fine with forced abortion.
  17. My understanding is that the equal protection clause aims to protect the states from imposing laws on people that have the effect of making one group inferior to another. Laws that restrict access to abortion have that impact. Men and women are similarly situated because they both have at least some control over their own reproduction. But there are laws that which deprive only women of reproductive control that only they can use (abortion). Men and women are only different in their reproductive control when you remove options from the woman. Equal protection seeks to make right a disadvantage. And I think we all know who has the disadvantage because of pregnancy. The fact that pregnancy is a protected by federal law infers it as a disadvantage. I have thoughts about father's rights but I'm an not sure how to address them fairly, I haven't researched it at all. And for clarification I do believe that the state does have some interest in regulating abortion to some extent, especially at the point of viability. In other words, I think that the Church's exceptions (rape, incest, life and health of the mother, health of the fetus) should all be in the law. But the easiest and most efficient way to assure that those exceptions are not infringed on is to keep abortion legal up to the the somewhat squishy time of viability. BUT even with that caveat I'm still worried that women are asked to carry to term children with life-ending abnormalities and are asked to unnecessarily risk their own lives. Of course, life will never be fair but it's not right to pretend and ignore the fact that women carry the greater burden. (Not saying YOU do that.) Oftentimes, when those who are pro-choice focus on the argument of keeping abortion legal they are accused of not caring about the unborn life that is also impacted. I do believe those people exist, of course, but not those participating in this discussion on this board. I come across as very harsh in my defense of women but only because there are plenty here in defense of the fetus.
  18. Women and men both engage in the same act to create a baby. Women are the only ones who are subjected to the health or life risks and the economic consequences of a pregnancy. When we tell a woman she has no choice but to accept those risks you have disadvantaged her because of her sex.
  19. Well, there goes the equal protection clause.
  20. I thought we had a whole government agency of scientists, researchers, and medical professionals to do due diligence on the safety of our medications but apparently state legislators are the ones who really should be doing it.
  21. To be fair I have not listened to the audio attached yet (I'm visiting my mother-in-law) but I will report back anything interesting. 🙂
  22. So we want to make it more difficult to prevent pregnancy. Who keeps saying that these things are off the table?
  23. Or maybe somebody saw the opportunity to sell it to Politico and this wasn't about politics at all.
  24. How many abortions end up being unnecessary because the mother will miscarry anyway?
×
×
  • Create New...