Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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. 

Then advocate for them. Abortions have been around for millenia. There were more abortions in the 1800’s when it was illegal than there are now. What changed? Abortions were falling when it was legalized. What makes you think the practical effect of this will save lives? If it is more that you want polite society’s hands clean by saying “I take no part in this” than this works but it quite possibly means more dead. Maybe we should focus on results and actually combating the evil instead of sweeping it under the carpet where we don’t have to look at it and when a case does pop up just cluck disapprovingly at the criminals involved in this heinous business that has been going on throughout recorded history.

Actually creating a culture that values life for its own sake in general would do more to curb the number of abortions but that might mean making sacrifices to make happiness and security more generally available and that might offend our god the great and powerful Economy. If the numbers go down our god might smite us. Best to play it safe and stick with a symbolic and possibly counterproductive victory.

[provoman]

best-states-for-child-health

best-and-worst-states-for-children-during-covid

 

 

 

2021kidscountdatabook-2021

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by provoman

[why me]

It seems like a political dirty trick again to influence the mid-term elections and bring back life to one particular political party so that the American people will be diverted from the inflation and high prices that surround them. Not to mention the crime that prevents people from experiencing freedom in their own community. Not to mention the border tragedy and high rate of drug deaths.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, why me said:

It seems like a political dirty trick again to influence the mid-term elections and bring back life to one particular political party so that the American people will be diverted from the inflation and high prices that surround them. Not to mention the crime that prevents people from experiencing freedom in their own community. Not to mention the border tragedy and high rate of drug deaths.

But this isn’t a political thread. 🙄

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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.  

And because we can't prove when the spirit enters the physical body, why should we assume it is not there at any point in a human life?  I am not a gambler with such things. 

One thing that cannot be denied is that it is equivalently a biological human life.  It is a singularly unique and sacred creation (spirit or not it is a live human life), and thus worthy of at least some consideration and protection on some level.  There will never be another human just like it.  

  https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

48 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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?

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should try to preserve the fetus over the mother's life in a medical emergency.  Mothers don't usually stop existing by giving birth, I think the vast majority find that their existence takes on a deeper meaning from it though. 

51 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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.

The mother carries all of the burden of her choices - which have unavoidable risks.  The mother and father both carry a responsibility towards the life they create because of their choices.  The mother, by nature, has a much greater burden and responsibility then men carry.   That is why sex for women is by nature a MUCH MUCH more serious choice with greater potential risks, but also (and I can only imagine) greater potential reward and bond (a biological fact) with that life.   Birth is not a regret for most, despite what they may have originally wanted.   No, there is no equality between the mother's experience and the experience of the 100% dependent fetus.  The burden is unequivocally greater for the mother.   Nor is there equality between the mother's experience and the toddler.  The burden is unequally greater for the mother still.  But should the child's life be less protected because their burden is less?  That doesn't seem fair to all children - despite their stage of development.   The risk, on the other hand, in comparing giving birth to abortion, is unequivocally greater for the baby - and 100% unavoidable given abortion.  Not so with birth.  In comparing risk to risk, the risk of death of human life is much less in the birth option. 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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. 

Why should the brain function of a healthy newborn be the standard and measure of what is worthy of protecting?  Many children are born with congenital diseases whos brain function is no where near equivalent or similar to that of a healthy newborn.  I don't know why that matters. 

A new born is no where near equivalent to the brain function of a health adult.  I don't know why that matters either. Neither are even close to equivalent to that of an exalted deity, yet they find us worthy of preservation still. 

All human beings are in different stages and levels of development, mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc.  They are all equally human. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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. 

I was at work and scanned through and it spoke to me, but I will scrutinize better and see what you mean.

[ttribe]

29 minutes ago, why me said:

It seems like a political dirty trick again to influence the mid-term elections and bring back life to one particular political party so that the American people will be diverted from the inflation and high prices that surround them. Not to mention the crime that prevents people from experiencing freedom in their own community. Not to mention the border tragedy and high rate of drug deaths.

Do you just copy and paste this stuff from Newsmax, or something?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

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/

I hate to try and defend Texas on anything, but I kind of doubt that you read the article you posted which suggest that only 2 of the six claims are true:

Quote

 

the other claims are incorrect or unsupported by current data.

 

In terms of women and children's health, Utah (very red) ranks in the top 10.  But there does seem to be a general correlation with red states and poor mother/children health, and blue states with higher rankings:

 https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2019-health-of-women-and-children-report/findings-state-rankings

Don't get me wrong, I am not here to defend republicans on all social issues.  Nor will I defend democrats.  I think we need to stop making this about party politics.  We can point out the hypocrisy in the right and in the left.  We can show that they are morally bankrupt, or at least deceived.  And we would probably be right looking both ways.  But in no way is any party all right all the time on any issue, or all wrong.  If republicans are right about abortion but wrong on other women's and children's issues, let's not throw out the baby (literally) with the bathwater.  Same goes for democrats.  I don't care what political parties think or do, that doesn't inform my morality of right and wrong.  I don't think in terms of party.  I think it is time for others to stop thinking that way too.  It doesn't work well for us as a people. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by pogi

[Tacenda]

Just saw this c/p and most I agree with. 

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.

I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I'm pro-life.

Their lives.

Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hate to try and defend Texas on anything, but I kind of doubt that you read the article you posted which suggest that only 2 of the six claims are true:

I read the article at the link I posted and I posted that article specifically for the fact that the article purports to have fact checked another article that mades claims more favorable to my point. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

Perhaps. However, if that opinion is officially published….everything not mentioned in the Constitution is subject to being eliminated.

In the 20 - 30 years, laws against homosexual conduct have been overturned by SCOTUS, based on the 14th Amendment (laws targeting homosexuality - Romer v. Evans and Lawerance v Texas;  same sex marriage - Obergerell v Hodges; 

“Separate but Equal” was upheld as not violating the 14th Amendment in 1896. Desegregation is potentially subject to abolishment because the 14th Amendment analysis by Alito.

 

 

Won’t happen. That Genie is out of the lamp.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I would not be willing to take that bet in today political climate.

Won’t happen. I’ll bet an Outback prime rib on it. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

best-states-for-child-health

best-and-worst-states-for-children-during-covid

 

 

 

2021kidscountdatabook-2021

 

Poverty has a lot to do with it. 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

And because we can't prove when the spirit enters the physical body, why should we assume it is not there at any point in a human life?  I am not a gambler with such things. 

One thing that cannot be denied is that it is equivalently a biological human life.  It is a singularly unique and sacred creation (spirit or not it is a live human life), and thus worthy of at least some consideration and protection on some level.  There will never be another human just like it.  

  https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should try to preserve the fetus over the mother's life in a medical emergency.  Mothers don't usually stop existing by giving birth, I think the vast majority find that their existence takes on a deeper meaning from it though. 

The mother carries all of the burden of her choices - which have unavoidable risks.  The mother and father both carry a responsibility towards the life they create because of their choices.  The mother, by nature, has a much greater burden and responsibility then men carry.   That is why sex for women is by nature a MUCH MUCH more serious choice with greater potential risks, but also (and I can only imagine) greater potential reward and bond (a biological fact) with that life.   Birth is not a regret for most, despite what they may have originally wanted.   No, there is no equality between the mother's experience and the experience of the 100% dependent fetus.  The burden is unequivocally greater for the mother.   Nor is there equality between the mother's experience and the toddler.  The burden is unequally greater for the mother still.  But should the child's life be less protected because their burden is less?  That doesn't seem fair to all children - despite their stage of development.   The risk, on the other hand, in comparing giving birth to abortion, is unequivocally greater for the baby - and 100% unavoidable given abortion.  Not so with birth.  In comparing risk to risk, the risk of death of human life is much less in the birth option. 

Why should the brain function of a healthy newborn be the standard and measure of what is worthy of protecting?  Many children are born with congenital diseases whos brain function is no where near equivalent or similar to that of a healthy newborn.  I don't know why that matters. 

A new born is no where near equivalent to the brain function of a health adult.  I don't know why that matters either. Neither are even close to equivalent to that of an exalted deity, yet they find us worthy of preservation still. 

All human beings are in different stages and levels of development, mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc.  They are all equally human. 

My daughter was born with a number of birth defects. All of them existed before I even knew I was pregnant.  Yet some will argue that she somehow was not a human being at that stage. 

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

My daughter was born with a number of birth defects. All of them existed before I even knew I was pregnant.  Yet some will argue that she somehow was not a human being at that stage. 

My son has married a gal whose parents had given birth to 3 boys who are all now diagnosed with muscular dystrophy (mom is a carrier). As much as we can make out, the parents knew of this virtual certainty that any boy would have some form of the disease and would more than likely die from it in young adulthood. In other words, my son is married to a woman who will more likely than not lose all three of her brothers within the next 5-10 years. I have thought considerably about what must have gone on behind the parents eyeballs when deciding not only to get pregnant but to follow through with the pregnancy even though they knew the baby was a boy. Geesh. Hard, HARD decisions. : (

[SkyRock]

I have 3 adopted children.   I am very grateful that the birth mothers, who did consider abortion, decided to place them for adoption. 

It took about 4 years of trying to adopt  to get the first.  Fertility treatments didn't work for us. We tried those for years before trying to adopt. 

We have never told them that their birth mothers seriously considered abortion.   They have enough issues.

Our birth mothers had difficult circumstances.   One was homeless for much of her pregnancy. 

We are grateful for their willingness to sacrifice for their children instead of being selfishness and terminate the pregnancies.

And some of the children had serious health issues.   Those issues were severe enough that some would have justified abortion.   

[rodheadlee]

Approximately 63 million babies killed since Roe Wade. I'll bet God is really impressed. 

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

Edited May 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Chum]

19 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Approximately 63 million babies killed since Roe Wade. I'll bet God is really impressed. 

It is my experience that which dead children get cared about depends on which agenda their deaths line up with.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Chum

[Navidad]

7 hours 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 guess I don't see any of these things as a therefore because I already take them for granite - but then I am hard headed! I don't see this as an either-or situation in a significant number of folks I know. Thanks.

[mtomm]

This is how we know that Texas' abortion restrictions are not because they care about the children. It's all performative and this is straight up evil. 

Abbott doesn't want to educate undocumented kids.

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by mtomm

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Approximately 63 million babies killed since Roe Wade. I'll bet God is really impressed. 

How many babies did he kill in the flood?

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

How many babies did he kill in the flood?

Good thing that's a fable. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Approximately 63 million babies killed since Roe Wade. I'll bet God is really impressed. 

I am sure god is really impressed at the intelligence of his children who think that that number (which has generally been falling year over year) is now suddenly going to plummet. Probably wondered if we were all hitting each other over the head as spirit infants when he wasn’t watching.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, why me said:

It seems like a political dirty trick again to influence the mid-term elections and bring back life to one particular political party so that the American people will be diverted from the inflation and high prices that surround them. Not to mention the crime that prevents people from experiencing freedom in their own community. Not to mention the border tragedy and high rate of drug deaths.

We already did that part of the thread. Try to keep up.