Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[MiserereNobis]

I really dislike when pro-lifers focus on women having to deal with the consequences of their actions. It makes it seem as if the baby is a punishments. "Well, you screwed up, so now you have to take care of a kid." That's a terrible message to send because of how it makes the mother look at her child. Having a child should never be seen as a punishment. Framing it that way isn't going to increase the love and connection from the mother to the child. I don't love my "punishments" (as an adult, the negative  consequence of an action I shouldn't have done). A child should always be framed as a positive, even if the mother decides to use safe haven laws or give the baby up for adoption. This is also respecting the personhood of the child, rather than turning the child into a consequence.

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

 

Now if we can just get every woman in the USA to join the Church this will be applicable to our discussion. This decision almost certainly will not change the Church's position or stated policy on abortion. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, mtomm said:

Now if we can just get every woman in the USA to join the Church this will be applicable to our discussion. This decision almost certainly will not change the Church's position or stated policy on abortion. 

Finally a workable plan.

What is the timeline? 5 years? 10?

Going to go with 10 seems like there are a lot of women in US.

[why me]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

🤯

[why me]

19 hours ago, ttribe said:

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

No, it was an original post by me. Just makes common sense. I find the American system interesting and predictable. Everyone expects an October surprise or a dirty trick coming down the pipe. And now we have this one. I have always found it amazing just how the americans got caught up with the Russian collusion idea for most of a presidency. Morning, noon and night broadcasts and hearings. Amazing at the time. And then the burying of the laptop story and the lies of the former intelligence service people.  And now this. Bread and circuses for sure. A bag of popcorn always came in handy. 🍿

[Teancum]

On 5/3/2022 at 9:25 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Something else that folks occasionally miss:  The US has lost 171,000 lives in 2022 to COVID.  The US has also had 302,411 abortions in 2022.  So yeah, COVID deaths are uncommon.  Not that they never happen, it's just not likely.  And COVID deaths happen less frequently than abortions.  

Covid source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Abortions source: http://www.numberofabortions.com/?mid=5708452

 

so...and???

[why me]

19 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

But this isn’t a political thread. 🙄

The supreme court is the third branch of government. It makes it political especially when someone released the draft for political reasons. Thereby, setting a president for the future. These days, it seems that all life is political.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think it's incredibly serious--maybe even "bring down the wrath of God upon the nations" serious--and it is the one thing that keeps me solidly on the "pro-life" side of the issue, regardless of whether or not a fertilized egg should be granted personhood, when the spirit enters the body, or the "if you don't like abortion just don't get one" arguments.   

The same god who drowned babies in the flood? The same god who killed Bathsheba's newborn? The same god who killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt? The same god who sent bears to kill children who mocked a prophet? The same god who commanded Joshua to kill all the children in Jericho? That's the god you're talking about?

Edited May 5, 2022 by ttribe

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I read an article yesterday from an abortion nurse that shared some of the stories of the women and girls that she has personally dealt with during abortions.  My heart ached for pretty much all of them (but some were truly tragic).  They were really hard situations.  The title of the article talked about how these stories would shock us.  They didn't shock me, they were almost exactly what I assumed that I would be reading (though they would probably shock some who have never studied who gets abortions in our country), but they were still hard to read.

A line at the end of the article bothered me though, and I can't get it out of my head.  She said--

Going back over the stories, most of the ones that were shared (not all), were stories of women making really bad choices in their lives.  And it was their irresponsible choices that led them to the situation where abortion seemed like the only option.  

No matter how much my heart aches for them (and it truly does in most of their cases), what I got from the article was how often "capable" women make really bad choices.  Many of these women were very irresponsible in their decisions to have sex when they did and with whom, and many of them chose to have sex knowing that if a pregnancy occurred they could not/would not deal with it.   

No amount of "these are adults capable of making decisions about their bodies and their lives" negates the existence of accountability for choices badly and irresponsibly made.

And that is the elephant in the room that many people and organizations don't want to acknowledge.  

Despite what this article wants to imply, the beginning of most (not all) women's abortion stories is not the decision to seek an abortion.  The beginning of the story is when they decide to have sex anyway, knowing they could get pregnant.  

And that needs to be faced by the pro-legalize-abortion-for-any-reason camp if they want to try to argue why other people should agree with them.

Full disclosure:  It's this place (the actual beginning of many abortion stories) where I struggle between justice and compassion.  I want mercy and I believe in mercy and I want to err on the side of mercy when possible (regardless of the topic).  But I also don't believe that trifling with agency--allowing people who make bad choices to make worse choices to keep from dealing with the consequences of their bad choices--is a small thing.   

I think it's incredibly serious--maybe even "bring down the wrath of God upon the nations" serious--and it is the one thing that keeps me solidly on the "pro-life" side of the issue, regardless of whether or not a fertilized egg should be granted personhood, when the spirit enters the body, or the "if you don't like abortion just don't get one" arguments.   

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant. I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens.  Father is mentioned three times in the article. Once is refers to the man who had unprotected sex.  The word men is never mentioned. 
How are all of these women making all of these bad decision and getting pregnant without a MAN making the exact same bad decision?

Edited May 5, 2022 by mtomm

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, why me said:

The supreme court is the third branch of government. It makes it political especially when someone released the draft for political reasons. Thereby, setting a president for the future. These days, it seems that all life is political.

You do know this board as specific rules against making political posts right? And that such posts regularly get threads shut down, right? So, how about you just not do that anymore?

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant. I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens. 

Not to mentioning the far too common practice of 'stealthing' by unscrupulous men.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant. I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens.  Father is mentioned three times in the article. Once is refers to the man who had unprotected sex.  The word men is never mentioned. 
How are all of these women making all of these bad decision and getting pregnant without a MAN making the exact same bad decision?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[mtomm]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not to mentioning the far too common practice of 'stealthing' by unscrupulous men.

Unfortunately, a word I've learned just recently. Very sad. I believe it is considered rape but I'm not certain that applies in every state. 

[SkyRock]

17 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant. I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens.  Father is mentioned three times in the article. Once is refers to the man who had unprotected sex.  The word men is never mentioned. 
How are all of these women making all of these bad decision and getting pregnant without a MAN making the exact same bad decision?

You have never read articles of men paying for 18 years or more as consequence of having sex?  Really?  About how those same men have no choice in whether the woman gets to abort their child?

Or how women have taken used condoms that their partners have thrown away?

Or lied to the men that they were on the pill or had an implant? 

Really?

[Tacenda]

I'm pro life and pro choice. A woman might do more damage to her and her baby if she doesn't have options. If she gets to the doctor early in the pregnancy it will do less harm to her and the baby. That's what started Roe vs Wade, I think, when women would have to go to back alley doctors to get their abortion and some died over it. Or maybe a woman throws herself down the stairs or tries to abort using a hanger. So many sad stories. And with a law prohibiting abortion early on, the woman may not have funds to travel to wherever it's allowed and then it's added more weeks to her pregnancy. In my mind's eye, the less a baby has formed the better. 

If I were to get pregnant in my older age, I just don't know how I could do it. Of course it's impossible now. There was one time where I went immediately to the pharmacy and got the day after pill when I was in my late 40's. It only happened once, and I remember being so scared that I could get pregnant. Can't remember how whatever birth control, fell through. 

And not to be political, but I remember reading there were more abortions during a Republican presidency than a Democrat presidency.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/facebook-posts/graph-us-abortion-rate-during-different-presidents/

[Ryan Dahle]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And not to be political, but I remember reading there were more abortions during a Republican presidency than a Democrat presidency.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/facebook-posts/graph-us-abortion-rate-during-different-presidents/

The article you are citing provides reasons to be skeptical, or at least cautious, of that interpretation. Tying the presidency itself to something as complicated as abortion rates is tenuous at best.  

[gopher]

Quote

Women on TikTok say hookup culture will 'be absolutely decimated' if Roe V. Wade is overturned

https://www.insider.com/tiktok-women-hookup-culture-end-if-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5

Is that a bad thing?

[why me]

57 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You do know this board as specific rules against making political posts right? And that such posts regularly get threads shut down, right? So, how about you just not do that anymore?

Okay. My point was simple: how to make a political thread non political. Roe vs Wade was political from the very beginning and has remained so. 🙂

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

... I am not being flippant.  There really are claims in society these days that men can become pregnant.  They cannot.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Except for a male seahorse.

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe he was referring to a human male, of the species homo sapiens, not to a male of the species hippocampus.  But, thank you, Dr. Tacenda, for keeping us on our toes by insisting upon greater precision in our species references.  

 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

😆 Just adding some humor, like someone I know.

What, you mean you're not mad at me for injecting humor into a topic that no one possibly could see as anything less than deathly serious?!  You mean, you're not mad, because you think that I'm trying to laugh with you, rather than laughing at you?!  Well, that's a relief!  (Believe it or not, I don't do humor, deliberately, at anyone's expense.)  

[mtomm]

46 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

You have never read articles of men paying for 18 years or more as consequence of having sex?  Really?  About how those same men have no choice in whether the woman gets to abort their child?

Or how women have taken used condoms that their partners have thrown away?

Or lied to the men that they were on the pill or had an implant? 

Really?

In an article about abortion? Never. Usually women who trick men into getting pregnant aren't seeking an abortion.  Also, women telling their abortion stories aren't collecting child-support for the aborted fetus. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by mtomm

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

... Despite what this article wants to imply, the beginning of most (not all) women's abortion stories is not the decision to seek an abortion.  The beginning of the story is when they decide to have sex anyway, knowing they could get pregnant.  

And that needs to be faced by the pro-legalize-abortion-for-any-reason camp if they want to try to argue why other people should agree with them. ... 

[Emphasis in original.]

 

 Bingo!  

Many people talk a lot about patriarchy on this board, and the power that men wield over women, and the fact that so many men engage in unrighteous dominion, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, and I am sure those discussions will continue ...

While I get that not every decision to engage in intimacy with someone is a logical, "draw-a-line-down-the-middle-of-the-page-and-write-the-pros-on-one-side-and-the-cons-on-the-other" choice, what really, really ... really ... puzzles me is why it seems that so many women are so willing to so easily give up the enormous, enormous ... enormous ... (Did I mention that it is enormous? ) ... power that they have over men, by not ensuring that men are adequately committed (to the woman, to the relationship, and to deal with any .... "consequences" ... that may ensue) before choosing to have sex with them.

And, while I don't wish to sound like nothing more than a discontented "Incel" here, the fact of the matter is that women have wielded enormous power over me.  I'm okay with that ... totally.  It's called free will and moral agency, and it's a wonderful thing.  As much as a part of me might have wished that someone might have chosen to exercise her free will in the direction of pursuing a relationship with me, certainly, it's nothing that I can force.  (That was someone else's plan.  )

So why doesn't that happen more often?    

[rpn]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

On 5/3/2022 at 7:45 PM, rpn said:

I don't think it has ever been constitutional.  

Why?  Do you have legal expertise in this arena?  Not trying to be snarky just wondering why you think this.

Because there isn't a single word in the constitution that identifies abortion choice as a right protected by the constitution.   The Supreme Court created it not from constitutional words or historical expectations.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

On 5/3/2022 at 7:45 PM, rpn said:

 

And the Congressional members who are talking about doing away with the filibuster to pass a law don't seem to get that THAT would also be unconstitutional because the issue is NOT one of the limited powers of Congress.

The filibuster is NOT constitutional.  It i not found in the constitution and I believe came about in the late 1800s.  It is a procedural issue and can be done away with anytime the senate decides to do so.

You misunderstood my point.   The Constitution gives very limited subject matter legislative rights to Congress.   And it says that other than the five or six areas specifically given to congress, EVERYTHING else belongs to the states.

I suppose Congress could propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from regulating abortion, and if it were timely ratified by enough states, abortion could be legalized in all states.   But any federal law about abortion rights would be unconstitutional.

Edited May 5, 2022 by rpn

[mtomm]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 Bingo!  

Many people talk a lot about patriarchy on this board, and the power that men wield over women, and the fact that so many men engage in unrighteous dominion, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, and I am sure those discussions will continue ...

While I get that not every decision to engage in intimacy with someone is a logical, "draw-a-line-down-the-middle-of-the-page-and-write-the-pros-on-one-side-and-the-cons-on-the-other" choice, what really, really ... really ... puzzles me is why it seems that so many women are so willing to so easily give up the enormous, enormous ... enormous ... (Did I mention that it is enormous? ) ... power that they have over men, by not ensuring that men are adequately committed (to the woman, to the relationship, and to deal with any .... "consequences" ... that may ensue) before choosing to have sex with them.

And, while I don't wish to sound like nothing more than a discontented "Incel" here, the fact of the matter is that women have wielded enormous power over me.  I'm okay with that ... totally.  It's called free will and moral agency, and it's a wonderful thing.  As much as a part of me might have wished that someone might have chosen to exercise her free will in the direction of pursuing a relationship with me, certainly, it's nothing that I can force.  (That was someone else's plan.  )

So why doesn't that happen more often?    

Why do men have sex with women who could potentially get pregnant? Does he use his free will to choose that?  Why do they have sex and risk the "consequences" that may ensue? 
I don't understand why your questions only apply to one side of this relationship.

[mtomm]

53 minutes ago, gopher said:

https://www.insider.com/tiktok-women-hookup-culture-end-if-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5

Is that a bad thing?

I do not think it is a bad thing. But we also know that high-schoolers are having less sex. I kind of prefered a combination of sexual morality and this graphic when talking to my kids about why they don't want to sleep around. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by mtomm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, why me said:

No, it was an original post by me. Just makes common sense. I find the American system interesting and predictable. Everyone expects an October surprise or a dirty trick coming down the pipe. And now we have this one. I have always found it amazing just how the americans got caught up with the Russian collusion idea for most of a presidency. Morning, noon and night broadcasts and hearings. Amazing at the time. And then the burying of the laptop story and the lies of the former intelligence service people.  And now this. Bread and circuses for sure. A bag of popcorn always came in handy. 🍿

Okay, so if this leak was to impact the midterms why leak at all? The decision is going to come out in a month or two anyways and that would put it in the news cycle closer to the actual mid-terms. You don’t move the scandal further away from the election it is supposed to impact. The whole theory makes no sense but it came from the propagandists who cannot be questioned and is uncritically spread by bots and dupes everywhere.