Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mtomm

  1. 1 hour ago, longview said:

    Yes, everyone has the free agency to marry or not marry, to abstain or engage in relations within the bonds of matrimony or outside, to have children or not, or even how many BUT all of us will ultimately answer to the Most High God's eminent commandment:  Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

    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. 14 minutes ago, pogi said:

    I am talking about the federal government's role in preventing late term abortions via protecting the rights to life of the unborn and of the mother.  State governments are going to be all over the place. So are doctors. 

    Is it fair to say that you think state governments should not regulate the practice of medicine in your state - That all medical decisions are better left between the patient and their doctor?   Do we really want to go back in time before medical practice was regulated?  Of course state governments have a role to play in regulating the practice of medicine in general, because doctors can't always be trusted.  Medicine is better with regulations.  While the government is not perfect, we are in a better place with regulations than without. 

    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. 3 hours ago, pogi said:

    Low numbers in third trimester is kind of a moot point for me.  The fact that it happens at all beyond 20 weeks and is legal without boundaries is the problem I see - and it seems we are in some agreement there.  

    This is why there needs to be clear guidelines.   If the federal government is going to be involved in this, it is going to be to protect the right to life of the mother and viable fetus and not to guide medical practice otherwise.  Abortion is soon to be no longer protected as a right by the federal government - so convenience abortions are not going to be protected by the federal government.  The only way that the federal government can get involved and regulate late term abortions is via protecting the right to life.

    I think choice should be limited based on the right to life of the human being (in biological terms) in whatever stage of development it is in.  But I think 20 weeks or later has better chance of getting anywhere.  Either way, people with Downs syndrome lack neither viability nor personhood (whatever the heck that is). 

    It is not that I particularly trust the government, it is that I have known too many doctors...  There are two sides to this coin of trust.  

    First, the 10th amendment suggests that federal government has no business in overseeing medical practice in the US as it not a right but a privilege granted by states through their elected representatives.  Every state has at least one state medical board which provides the legal boundaries of practice for the state.   So, again, this is not something the federal government can provide legislation on in terms of medical practice and care - what it can provide is protections in relation to the right to life.  The right to life is federally protected and regulated, not medical practice.   Those protections to life have to be specific.  Who has a right to live and why?  Do people with Downs syndrome have less of a right to life than other people?  Of course not.  Do they have a terminal condition or are they a risk to life for the mother? Nope.  They deserve equal protection under the law.  

    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. 2 minutes ago, pogi said:

    Basically, you guys are just defending Row v Wade. and suggesting that this is a good compromise.  I don't see how that is a compromise when almost all pro-lifers hate it, and most pro-choicer support it and are upset to see it go.   

    So you are saying your compromise is you don't have a compromise?

  5. 27 minutes ago, Calm said:

    And how could it do it quickly?  That seems impossible without setting up a specific department that streamlines the legal process massively or maybe deputizing a limited number of doctors to make the legal determination and having at least one in every place abortion might be initiated.

    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. 1 hour ago, smac97 said:

    Well, I did find an article where U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen couched abortion in economic terms:




    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. 42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    First, this sort of sarcasm about weighty matters is not helpful. 

    Second, sarcasm is not an argument.

    Third, this seems like a strawman.  No reasonable person has said anything like "it's okay" for people to "die ... for the economy."



    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. 

  10. 8 minutes ago, pogi said:

    Just curious, are you even aware of my experience with Covid?   You seem to be doing some type of stereotyping here that if I am pro-life I must also be anti public health in relation to Covid.  I think you have me mis-pegged a tad.

    In fact, I think I am one of the few consistent ones who is pro-life both directions.   I am guessing that you are not consistent here.  Let me guess - pro-life with Covid, but switch sides and go pro-choice with abortion.  Am I right?

    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.)

  11. 17 minutes ago, pogi said:

    These are al moral dilemmas that I don't have good answers for.  We can make moral dilemmas all day, but they don't tell us much.  For example, in your hypothetical situation of "different aged Homo sapiens", what if your choice was between a 99 year old and a 5 year old?  What does this tell us about their legal rights to protection and our moral obligation to do our best to preserve both lives?  Not much really.  Most will instinctually lean towards saving the 5 year old, for several of the reasons you mentioned above, but what if the 99 year old is your mother and the 5 year old is the son of a terrorist who just killed your father?  Perceptions and decisions might change slightly for some given more context.  But again, it doesn't tell us much. 

    In questions of morality and ethics, I have always leaned towards protecting those who are born and living in extreme scenarios where there must be a choice - like an ectopic pregnancy or other scenario that could potentially kill the mother and one must choose.   I have always allowed for extreme measures under extreme scenarios.  I am not trying to paint a n equal value or moral equivalency.  But I am trying to protect from a moral bankruptcy on the issue. 

    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. 

  12. 7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

    Personal experiences definitely impact how we each view this issue.  Probably none of us are completely correct in our views and judgements, but I think most people really try to sincerely find the most moral place to land.  It's a given that we won't all agree on where that is, but understanding where each of us is coming from helps not demonize the other camp I think.  

    That's where I find value in these kinds of threads.  I don't change my mind necessarily but I can learn to see other perspectives more clearly, and understand where they are coming from.  Extreme perspectives that villainize those they disagree with are pretty useless to me, but well reasoned and moderate positions can be very useful.  I appreciate everyone who shares such a perspective. 

    I become a better, more reasonable, person for being exposed to them.

    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!

  13. 44 minutes ago, Calm said:

    I am wondering, I am not sure if importance or value are the correct terms because they have nuances I don’t want to apply…but can we (you and me, not sure if Bluedreams cares to get involved in this side question) agree that if there is no personal relationship to newly developed “Homo Sapiens” and they are as far as known healthy, there is still a difference of perception of the need to protect different aged Homo sapiens meaning if someone had to choose which to save, they would not choose randomly, but would most likely choose to save a two day old baby over a 22 week fetus and that before a two month old embryo, which would most likely be saved before a five day old blastocyst….think of this as a highly unlikely future scenario where there are portable incubators for developing babies from conception to when they are put in parents’ arms to go home, so the Good Samaritan doesn’t have to worry that they would die in transporting any more than they would die in normal development, as even in the unlikely future there are still ‘miscarriages’. (I don’t plan on getting involved in a long discussion on this, hopefully this is written as a straightforward, if long question that when answered will confirm or remove one of my assumptions about your POV.

    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? 

  14. 16 hours ago, pogi said:

    There is also equal protection for the unborn to consider.  Having no restrictions on access to abortion makes "one group [the unborn] inferior to another".  This scenario includes more than just the father and the mother, so while you may be right that most pro-choicer's do care about the life of the unborn and how it is impacted, they frequently forget to include him/her in the discussion, focusing solely on the mother, and rarely the father.  It is often turned into a women vs men battle and neglect to include the child.   

    I'm not sure why it would make it any more easy or efficient to extend abortions to the age of viability which is around 24 weeks - while heart beat and nervous system develop around 6 weeks and it has fingers and toes by 11 weeks, and can see light at 14 weeks.  I think those things are more important than ease or efficiency anyway.   If we have legal parameters for exceptions, I don't see why they would be infringed upon.  I think it would be MUCH easier and more efficient to convince conservative legislators to allow for exceptions than to draw a line at viability.    

    I think there are more here in defense of the woman, to be honest.  This is true for national statistics too, and becoming more and more true every year. 




    16 hours ago, smac97 said:

    About half of those fetuses are female.  And in many places in the world a significantly disproportionate number of aborted children are girls.  And very large numbers of women are broadly "pro life."

    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. 


  15. 1 hour ago, smac97 said:


    These are matters of biology, not the Equal Protection Clause.

    The EP Clause

    How is this law implicated?  As a preliminary matter, are a biological male and a biological female similarly situated vis-à-vis pregnancy?  It seems not since men cannot get pregnant.  So if they are not "similarly situated," how is the Equal Protection Clause implicated?

    What are your thoughts about the father of the unborn child being disadvantaged because of his sex?  The child is his, but he has essentially no say in whether it is carried to term or not.  If the mother wishes to abort, there's nothing he can do about it.  And if she wants to carry the child to term and give birth, he's on the hook for child support.

    In the end, I don't think the father and the mother are "similarly situated" for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.  Do you disagree?




    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. 

  16. 1 hour ago, smac97 said:

    How do you figure?  



    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. 

  17. 1 hour ago, smac97 said:

    Where "mitigate the consequences" means "end the life of another person," that sort of mitigation may not be available.

    Treating lung cancer does not entail the elective killing of another person.

    Here's my take: Absent force, coercion or deceit, an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable consequence of engaging in sexual activity, and when we ignore that we A) infantilize women (and men), and B) dehumanize the unborn child (by, for example, comparing her to lung cancer, STDs, etc.).  Apart from the foregoing circumstances, the risk of pregnancy is an inherent part of coitus.  And when that risk actualizes, there is at that point another life, another person, that is part of the equation, or ought to be.  

    Comparing an unborn child to lung cancer, STDs, etc. is a poor analogy.  It dehumanizes the child and disregards the fact that his life is at stake.  Nevertheless, the issue you raise about "self-inflicted conditions" merits some attention.  To that end, I offer the following analogy: Back in 2019 the Utah Supreme Court published a decision that may have some utility (emphases added):

    An injury arising from "actions {that} are inherent in the game of basketball" does not give rise to a legal claim.

    The risk of injury is part of the game of basketball.  If you want to avoid such risks, don't play the game.  I am not diminishing the seriousness of a knee injury (my father suffered a knee injury in his youth while playing football, and it has adversely affected the entirety of his life since then).  But if such an unintentional - but nevertheless foreseeable - injury were to happen to a player today in Utah, the player would not have legal recourse.  He must cope with the injury as best he can.  

    If women (and men) want to avoid the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, they have the option of not "playing the game."  If they do decide to play the game, and if a risk "inherent in the activity" actually comes to pass, then the law may limit what sorts of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk.

    Now that it appears SCOTUS is returning this issue to the states to decide (where it should have been for the last half century), we will see a variety of approaches to addressing this issue.  Some approaches will work better than others.




    Well, there goes the equal protection clause. 

  18. 38 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Little more from here, looks like not using IUDs as emergency contraception and health concerns (and yet where is the prenatal care of so concerned about Mom’s health?), but not sure how they could tell for sure. 

    Why a hearing rather than just do some basic research himself or a staffer?  What a waste of taxpayers money. Simply photo op posing, imo 

    Besides expulsion and failure, the next most common risk of IUDs is uterine perforation at .1%. Preeclampsia, a complication of pregnancy happens in 4% of US pregnancies, many times with no obvious symptoms…prenatal care is highly important in lowering risks for this complication. 

    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. 

  19. 6 minutes ago, Calm said:

    So they don’t want anyone having sex unless they approve, lol.

    Yes, I know it is an exaggeration, but did he explain what the issue was with IUDs?  Killing sperm is murder?

    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. 🙂

  20. 1 hour ago, why me said:

    EWhat we do know it was released in May. Why not wait?  We know that this is just a draft and not the final outcome. Could it be that the conversation was changing inside the supreme court and if so, the draft was released for full effect? Or maybe June is a summer month and people would have other things on their minds: hot dogs, hamburgers, vacations, BBQs, vacation, kids, Or maybe it was just to help the Dems to divert failures that people have been experiencing: inflation, weak dollar, high gas prices, food prices, violence, war, etc. And poor numbers for democrat candidates, including Biden. They could have been sitting on this draft for weeks. Who knows?

    Or maybe somebody saw the opportunity to sell it to Politico and this wasn't about politics at all. 


    5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

    I'd be interested to know how many miscarriage's there have been since Roe V. Wade. Does a woman always know when an egg was fertilized and then for some reason doesn't live? Does God send a spirit to a miscarriage? what would be the point of sending a spirit to baby that he knows will be miscarried or the woman has to have a D&C? if we are talking about "killing babies" and some say that a spirit enters into a woman once an egg is fertilized or starts growing, what about miscarriage's? is that God's way of "killing a baby" ?

    How many abortions end up being unnecessary because the mother will miscarry anyway? 

  • Create New...