Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Quote

And also why I don't agree that legislating this into anything useful or moral is doable in our political system.

I think it is.  Ethics/morals are baked into many of our laws.

As has been pointed out, we’ll have to agree to disagree.  Especially since your last line shows that you still don’t understand my point. 

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

What is even more convenient is to advocate for open-ended abortion.  It really simplifies everything.  1 less thing to think/worry/care about.  All of the above applies equally, with the added convenience that they remain unborn...permanently. Plus there is the bonus of being able to sleep around without thought or care for accountability towards the life that eventually almost inevitably comes from natural consequence.  

I trust that God is capable of punishing people for their sins without my help. He doesn’t usually ask for my help and even when I volunteer God slaps me down for it. Why is this a special case?

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

It would be interesting to compare the amount of humanitarian work and financial aid that is provided to these causes by religious pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers.  Anybody want to make any bets as to which group does more?  I have my suspicions.  

Add in who is in favor of government programs that provide steady aid to these babies to assist in their development, education, and happiness. Throw on the pile advocating for a living wage so single mom doesn’t have to work two and a half jobs and can raise the child. Throw in environmental activism so that the child has clean water and also work to clean up or relocate people out of environmental “Sacrifice Zones” that are likely to shorten the child’s lifespan.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s necessary to murder babies? Really. I can’t think of a single instance that I would be in favor of killing a baby. Can you? 

A mercy killing.

[bsjkki]

Covid seems to have highlighted the red state and blue state divide. I think this will accelerate this sifting. Even before this alleged ruling, abortion law differences by state are quite stark. The agree to disagree stances of the past are not flying these days and people are moving to where the legislatures/government aligns with their beliefs. I don't see this slowing down or ending. 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Covid seems to have highlighted the red state and blue state divide. I think this will accelerate this sifting. Even before this alleged ruling, abortion law differences by state are quite stark. The agree to disagree stances of the past are not flying these days and people are moving to where the legislatures/government aligns with their beliefs. I don't see this slowing down or ending. 

I am screwed!  There is nowhere for me.  I equally hate and respect red and blue states for different reasons. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

that's MY problem. No one else's!  

You criticizing the mods publicly is you making your problem others’ though.  I think you are quite right to call out when we ignore board rules and go political, because that is a community contract, but the mod stuff is not fair to them.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I often look for the "therefore" in a quote or post. If I adopt the poster's position, then what would I change? Therefore, I will . . . . .  

I struggle with this post to find the therefore. Is this pastor saying that one should not advocate, or advocate less for the unborn, or that they should advocate equally or more for those with certain baggage? This quote is a little too straw-mannish for me, but I will think about it. Thanks for posting it.

Therefore, I should care at least as much about the living as I care for the unborn.

I should self-reflect. Do I feel as strongly as I do about abortion because it is a cheap virtue? If I care as much about preserving the life of the already born as I do the unborn what kinds of things should I advocate for? What sacrifices should I make?

Am I fixated on abortion because I don’t want to confront the more complex realities of dealing with poverty or racism or structural inequalities? Will banning abortions decrease the number of them or should I focus on the parent making the decisions instead of the child? What can I do and what measures can I advocate for that would nudge her away from a back alley abortion and possible death for her or the child or both? What drives someone to that point? Is it really just desperate pursuit of consequence free sex? Maybe I should read up on this some more. Get some stories.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am screwed!  There is nowhere for me.  I equally hate and respect red and blue states for different reasons. 

Yep. Maybe not equally but both are enemies of my objectives and I suspect both would turn on and devour my religion if they thought it was safe to do so.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I often look for the "therefore" in a quote or post. If I adopt the poster's position, then what would I change? Therefore, I will . . . . .  

I struggle with this post to find the therefore. Is this pastor saying that one should not advocate, or advocate less for the unborn, or that they should advocate equally or more for those with certain baggage? This quote is a little too straw-mannish for me, but I will think about it. Thanks for posting it.

It is from a FB post and appears to be the whole quote, but my guess is he means you should be advocating for the care of the living at least as much as the unborn.  The context of the post is this:

Quote

This message was truly written by the pastor. Barnhart, who is a pastor at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, first posted this message to his Facebook page in 2018. At the time, Alabama politicians were in the process of passing an amendment to the state’s constitution that would “recognize the rights of the unborn” in order to ensure that “state funds [would] not go to funding abortion care,” according to AL.com.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pastor-dave-barnhart-unborn/

Added:  I couldn’t find the original FB page, but did check out his Twitter page and he retweeted something along the lines of how many abortions would have been prevented if a fraction of the money and effort put into stopping abortions was instead put into accessible birth control, health care, affordable housing, living wage, maternal leave….

Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

It is really not a simple binary issue.  If it was, I would have been settled long ago.

No clue what that means.

Non binary issues are harder to solve?

Nope, no clue.  How does one  "solve" an "issue"? Are we talking about algebra?

[bsjkki]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am screwed!  There is nowhere for me.  I equally hate and respect red and blue states for different reasons. 

There are a few purple states left and they are generally sane. But they have a habit of flipping one way or the other and then, yep, you’re screwed. 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

There are a few purple states left and they are generally sane. But they have a habit of flipping one way or the other and then, yep, you’re screwed. 

Not really. Many of them are seeing people burning it all down if they think they are going to lose it soon.

Everything is stupid. Government officials are openly and directly violating the First Amendment (the real one and not the caricature many think of) and there is little pushback.

Hopefully we don’t draw out the ending:

 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Therefore, I should care at least as much about the living as I care for the unborn.

I should self-reflect. Do I feel as strongly as I do about abortion because it is a cheap virtue? If I care as much about preserving the life of the already born as I do the unborn what kinds of things should I advocate for? What sacrifices should I make?

Am I fixated on abortion because I don’t want to confront the more complex realities of dealing with poverty or racism or structural inequalities? Will banning abortions decrease the number of them or should I focus on the parent making the decisions instead of the child? What can I do and what measures can I advocate for that would nudge her away from a back alley abortion and possible death for her or the child or both? What drives someone to that point? Is it really just desperate pursuit of consequence free sex? Maybe I should read up on this some more. Get some stories.

I still wonder if anyone  claims to have heard the voice of the spirit, that they should have an abortion, except In cases the church would find doctrinally acceptable 

That to me is the issue

If they have a testimony that it is ok, there is nothing more to discuss.

But when does that happen?? 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. Many of them are seeing people burning it all down if they think they are going to lose it soon.

Everything is stupid. Government officials are openly and directly violating the First Amendment (the real one and not the caricature many think of) and there is little pushback.

Hopefully we don’t draw out the ending:

 

My favorite movie ever

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I trust that God is capable of punishing people for their sins without my help. He doesn’t usually ask for my help and even when I volunteer God slaps me down for it. Why is this a special case?

You believe in mandating vaccines during a pandemic, right?  You believe in punishing those who willfully and recklessly place innocent lives at risk - including their own.  So, that is a good question, why is this a special case?  I would ask the same to those who are pro-lifers who are opposed to pro-life vaccine positions.  I am consistently pro-life over pro-choice.  This is not a special case for me. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Add in who is in favor of government programs that provide steady aid to these babies to assist in their development, education, and happiness. Throw on the pile advocating for a living wage so single mom doesn’t have to work two and a half jobs and can raise the child. Throw in environmental activism so that the child has clean water and also work to clean up or relocate people out of environmental “Sacrifice Zones” that are likely to shorten the child’s lifespan.

Yep, I too am in favor of those, but I don't think it is fair to imply that pro-lifers don't do anything to serve these communities.  They pay taxes, too after all, AND probably pay more out of their own pocket for humanitarian aid on top of it.  I think the right is more hands on and the left is more government on.  I think the right answer is a proper mix of the two. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. Many of them are seeing people burning it all down if they think they are going to lose it soon.

Everything is stupid. Government officials are openly and directly violating the First Amendment (the real one and not the caricature many think of) and there is little pushback.

Hopefully we don’t draw out the ending:

 

You are correct. 
 

[The Nehor]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I still wonder if anyone  claims to have heard the voice of the spirit, that they should have an abortion, except In cases the church would find doctrinally acceptable 

That to me is the issue

If they have a testimony that it is ok, there is nothing more to discuss.

But when does that happen?? 

I don’t know. I want abortions to end. I just think criminalizing them is going to multiply misery and possibly cause them to increase. People have been finding ways to abort unwanted children for millenia. Making them illegal isn’t going to change that. And the numbers were generally falling. Now I am guessing we are going back to the golden days of back alley and garage abortions while those who can afford it can just cross state lines. Ah, but some states are trying to criminalize getting medical procedures in other states now so the legal battles over subpoenaing medical records are going to be fun. Canada has already volunteered to take up the slack so if you need an abortion the best bet is probably Canada because they don’t have to comply with medical record requests from the US.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You are correct. 
 

I know, I can’t even find any anger. I have friends who are livid and others who are scared. Married gay couples I know are already expecting their marriages to be the next domino and they are getting power of attorneys set up just in case. People are stockpiling contraceptives. Also expecting a lot more vasectomies in the coming year. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court might never recover. 

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

You believe in mandating vaccines during a pandemic, right?  You believe in punishing those who willfully and recklessly place innocent lives at risk.  So, that is a good question, why is this a special case?  I would ask the same to those who are pro-lifers who are opposed to pro-life vaccine positions.  

Yep, I too am in favor of those, but I don't think it is fair to imply that pro-lifers don't do anything to serve these communities.  They pay taxes, too after all, AND probably pay more out of their own pocket for humanitarian aid. 

Vaccination has negligible risks on the person getting it. Requiring someone to carry a child to term is much more of a hardship.

If I could wave a magic wand I would create a society where life is valued so highly that abortions might be legal but would be unthinkable outside of rare medical situations where the patient and their doctors may have to make hard decisions. If I thought banning abortions would end them i would be for it. It won’t.

Pro-lifers are generally (though not always) in favor of gutting programs to assist the disadvantaged. The Pro-Choice people are generally more in favor of them but it is a marginal difference. I still hold up Child Protective Services and the Foster Care system as the most obvious example. It is filled with victims. In many other cases of economic distress part of the blame falls on the people making choices to be there but kids pulled out of their homes for abuse or neglect are virtually never responsible for the state they are in. If there is one place you could throw money without worrying about coddling the lazy it is there but these programs are chronically underfunded almost universally nationwide and I know the history of these programs. They only substantially improve when there is an economic incentive behind it. So I don’t believe pro-lifers are (generally) pro-life and I don’t think much of pro-choicers either.

Edited May 4, 2022 by The Nehor

[BlueDreams]

As I've been reading the last few pages I've been nailing down what I hinge this on and my problem with some that's been said. I think it comes down to just a few points for me:

1.) can you prove that a spirit has entered the physical entity to create a soul at conception? Or at the very least that all that's necessary for personhood is solely met by the presence of unique dna? If you can't then one can't fully say what's killed is a baby/person. It's one of personal belief not fact. Personally I haven't seen an argument that clearly lays this out and proves either point, spiritually or scientifically....it's always juxtaposition of specific ideological beliefs or scientific points, minimizing the points that don't fit the assertion that a blastula, zygote, or early fetus is completely equivalent to a baby/newborn. I have seen more of a case for potentially later pregnancy...both in personal experience, biological functioning, etc.  

2.) Is the right to existence from said living entity equal to the life of the woman it's completely dependent on for said existence? Are there any other options for care or support beyond the mother? On the latter, maybe one day many many many years from now, artificial wombs will be a thing. And many many years after that it's possible to transplant a fetus from a woman's womb to an artifial one. And at that point the ethic around abortion may need to be re-evaluated. But there currently is no option beyond the woman's body to successfully gestate a fetus to at least early viability, with the longer it gets to grow the better its long term health/physical development will be.  This dependence also comes at greater risk for the woman, including death and severe injury, to maintain the existence of the unborn. If one is completely and irrevocably dependent on another to merely exist, and there's a major inequity of burden, there's likely a good case for an inequity of legal rights and protections as well.

These two points are the biggest crux to just about every other concern that I have with any debate about abortion. It's the biggest reasons I can't be absolutist around abortion and the biggest reasons why I feel uncomfortable restricting abortion the degree that I may personally see as "justifiable." My third Keeps me personally uncomfortable with absolutely no limitation on abortion.

3.) Is the brain function of a fetus the same or similar enough to that of a newborn? Earlier fetuses this is either extremely debatable or  fairly solid "no." After around 23-24 weeks gestation, there's enough brain co-ordination that it's very likely it's fairly equal to that of a newborn. 

This point then rearranges the calculus of both 1 and 2 and I'm more open to restricting abortion to more extreme cases after this point. 

That's it. My personal beliefs may not fully align with the end of these. I'm mostly aligned personally with the church's stance. But I live in a pluralistic society and respect that others view this differently for their own personal/emotional/spiritual reasons. These 3 questions to me give space to where I'd like secular law to stand. Not as a perfect validation of my beliefs but as a temporal assessment that works for now but may one day need to be reassessed as our knowledge and capacity for differing solutions increases. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is a keeper!

Since there is no more helpless, silent, defenseless, widely slaughtered group than the unborn, perhaps it helps a tiny bit to balance things that it is more convenient to advocate for them than for other groups. 

[bsjkki]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know, I can’t even find any anger. I have friends who are livid and others who are scared. Married gay couples I know are already expecting their marriages to be the next domino and they are getting power of attorneys set up just in case. People are stockpiling contraceptives. Also expecting a lot more vasectomies in the coming year. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court might never recover. 

The two sides of the political spectrum live in fear of the other. This polarization seems by design and a consequence of a too powerful federal government, IMO.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

What is even more convenient is to advocate for open-ended abortion.  It really simplifies everything.  1 less thing to think/worry/care about.  All of the above applies equally, with the added convenience that they remain unborn...permanently. Plus there is the bonus of being able to sleep around without thought or care for accountability towards the life that eventually almost inevitably comes from natural consequence.  

It would be interesting to compare the amount of humanitarian work and financial aid that is provided to these causes by religious pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers.  Anybody want to make any bets as to which group does more?  I have my suspicions.  

Here is an article on how Texas ranks in reference to care for children and families

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/08/occupy-democrats/post-critical-texas-health-rankings-half-correct/

[ttribe]

Why does being anti-abortion have to result in making it illegal? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. If you want to see abortions end, preach against them. But, make them illegal? How is that helpful?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

A badly decided ruling decided decades ago can be overturned. 

The morality of abortion itself is another debate. I choose life. Is it a baby or a clump of cells? Once individuals make that decision, it will be impossible to find common ground on the issue.

This is one of the better points. The reasoning in Roe v. Wade was weak. There are much better constitutional arguments that could have been made. It also happened way too early. Abortion was still being figured out. It was largely illegal due to basic misogyny and even the weird eugenics theories that were recently in vogue. It wasn’t even really a religious issue outside of Catholicism and a few other groups until the decision was reached and Falwell and others realized it was a game changing issue to rally the troops and get money rolling in. It was always a fundraising issue typified by performative stunts and inane legislation. Now suddenly it actually happened. I wonder how many who campaigned on and spit fire on this issue are actually happy this happened. Now suddenly they have to deal with a backlash, lost the issue to rally around, and no one is sure what happens now. People are radicalizing. Hooray! A lot of that radicalizing is also due to getting fed up with voting for people who promised repeatedly to make abortion legal on the federal level with legislation and never following through so the pro-choice politicians were playing the same game of fundraising on the issue but not delivering. The Supreme Court ruling would still possibly have torn down the legislation but it would have been more difficult to argue since you have to come up with a reason this is not a federal issue to strike down the legislation and overturn precedent. So grifting failures all around.

I do admit I find some crude irony in abortion being protected by reasoning from a right to privacy and the Supreme Court being upset that the draft overturning this right to privacy being leaked. What? They were expecting a right to privacy?

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The two sides of the political spectrum live in fear of the other. This polarization seems by design and a consequence of a too powerful federal government, IMO.

I think it is more that we are abandoning even the pretense of arguing over the facts on the ground and trying to determine impact and the like. When governing is less about calculations and risk/reward and weighing benefits and more about stirring people up the smart people give up and quit. Politics has always been filled with evil people. The problem is that there is a group much more dangerous than the wicked.

The stupid.

https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/