Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No.  Just don't force your religious views on me and I won't force my non religious views on you. I am not going to force anyone to get an abortion but believers want to prevent access to abortion to those who do not believe. 

 

I do not know anyone who bases their votes on such things.

I do not say religious people should not vote. Just not force their religious view on others.  How would you feel about an evangelicals theocracy that prohibits Mormonism?

I think it is a misrepresentation to summarize the process by which laws are created in a democratic republic, and the resulting laws, as opposing factions telling each other what to do. Even in debate, opposing factions are are not telling each other what to do with any capacity for enforcement; it is just rhetoric.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So here is the difference.

Irreligious people do not attempt to force or impose on the religious people the following:

 

Abortions.  Don't like them?  Don't get one.

Gay marriage. Don't like them?  Don't do them. 

Contraception?  Don't believe in it? Don't use it.

The list could go one.

 

But the religious tell the irreligious that the non believer cannot have an abortion, cannot have gay marriage, cannot access contraception. The religious want to impose (you may not like that word but that is what they do) their positions that primarily are based on their religion and their faith that that is what God wants, on the rest of the nation. 

I would object if non believers tried to force the LDS Church to perform gay marriages. I would object if someone tried to force a religious person to get an abortion against their beliefs. 

So no, non believer do NOT force their position on believers. BUt believers do force their positions on non believers.  Big difference..

 

I think you are painting with a much too broad of a brush. There are pro-life atheist groups. They call themselves secular pro-life.

This article explains the basic position.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

Anytime a “non-believer” votes to make anything illegal they are forcing their beliefs onto other people. And as I’m sure you are aware, non-believers vote to make things illegal, or vote to create new laws, all the time.  Pretty much at the same rate that believers do.

Non-believers are not anarchists. Neither are they typically libertarians.   They are in favor of laws and regulations as much as believers are.

[Teancum]

On 5/12/2022 at 1:09 PM, bsjkki said:

Yep. Why do you think the population of certain states are growing and others decreasing. 

Some are able to leave but most are not. I live in a very liberal state.  But the part of the state I live is very rural and this area, while low in population, is very conservative. I see a lot of my right wing friends complain about the state politics.  They would like to leave but they work here, their families are here, they may have a business here. WHether you are in a liberal state and want to leave or a right wing state and want to leave, it is often difficult to do so.

[Nemesis]

I know this topic has elements of politics in it.  Keep it civil and try to limit its scope as much as possible . I’d hate to have to shut it down and suspend people.  
 

Nemesis

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are painting with a much too broad of a brush.

Ok....

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

There are pro-life atheist groups. They call themselves secular pro-life.

This article explains the basic position.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

Anytime a “non-believer” votes to make anything illegal they are forcing their beliefs onto other people. And as I’m sure you are aware, non-believers vote to make things illegal, or vote to create new laws, all the time.  Pretty much at the same rate that believers do.

Non-believers are not anarchists. Neither are they typically libertarians.   They are in favor of laws and regulations as much as believers are.

I get this.  My main point is don't let me, or you, force limiting laws on each other because of belief or lack of it.  Maybe that is so simplistic and complexities will arise.  But this is my basic premise.

[jkwilliams]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Since I took the link to be a springboard for further discussion on how reasonable people might seek or find compromise on the rights angle, I thought you might represent their viewpoint, or your own, in relation to my question. 

What I thought was interesting was that younger Mormons tend to be more pro-choice than LDS women of my generation.

I think we establish liberty for ourselves and our posterity by not infringing on personal liberty as far as it is possible. Abortion bans are an unreasonable infringement on liberty. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok....

I get this.  My main point is don't let me, or you, force limiting laws on each other because of belief or lack of it.  Maybe that is so simplistic and complexities will arise.  But this is my basic premise.

What reasons should we use to the enact limiting laws if we can’t use belief it will make things better or protect someone/something?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What reasons should we use to the enact limiting laws if we can’t use belief it will make things better or protect someone/something?

Where to draw the line is a great question. If I’m a fundamentalist evangelical Christian that believes gay relationships led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, would it be appropriate to legislate those beliefs? If I believe being a Latter-day Saint will result in someone being literally tortured in hell for all eternity, should I work to use government action to suppress the faith? Would it be appropriate to try and use the government to gain converts in public schools? If I’m an gay atheist is it appropriate for me to force someone to serve me in a restaurant or bake me a cake?

 

 For the matter at hand (with a few exceptions) the personhood of an embryo is largely a religious belief. One that is not shared by a large portion of the population. It seems dangerous to me to significantly violate privacy and bodily autonomy of those that are (nearly) universally seen as people in favor of a (largely) religiously informed opinion. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

My main point is don't let me, or you, force limiting laws on each other because of belief or lack of it.

What should we be doing instead in your view?

Edited May 14, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What I thought was interesting was that younger Mormons tend to be more pro-choice than LDS women of my generation.

I think we establish liberty for ourselves and our posterity by not infringing on personal liberty as far as it is possible. Abortion bans are an unreasonable infringement on liberty. 

That is interesting to me too, and more so, whether they mean "pro-choice" and "ban" in their strictest sense, wherein there is no compromise. Is that how you / you believe they (whether your daughters, or their generation of sisters in general), mean it?

But to stay on point, I was primarily trying to start a conversation on a point other than "viability" by applying the meaning of "Posterity" as used in the preamble to the US Constitution, its distinction from "ourselves" in the same phrase, and what they mean for pro-choice or pro-life positions (and typically, I think, most people hold to the more practical elements often pushed aside when using both of these loaded terms).

And related to this, how do we describe and codify the right to control the physiological output of ourselves and our Posterity (arguably supported in 9th Amendment, in my opinion)?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to [accomplish such-and-such ideals] ...to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where to draw the line is a great question. If I’m a fundamentalist evangelical Christian that believes gay relationships led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, would it be appropriate to legislate those beliefs? If I believe being a Latter-day Saint will result in someone being literally tortured in hell for all eternity, should I work to use government action to suppress the faith? Would it be appropriate to try and use the government to gain converts in public schools? If I’m an gay atheist is it appropriate for me to force someone to serve me in a restaurant or bake me a cake?

 

 For the matter at hand (with a few exceptions) the personhood of an embryo is largely a religious belief. One that is not shared by a large portion of the population. It seems dangerous to me to significantly violate privacy and bodily autonomy of those that are (nearly) universally seen as people in favor of a (largely) religiously informed opinion. 

Of course it is proper to base your vote on your beliefs and conscience, and participate in constructive public discussion, no matter how unpopular it may be in some circles, or foreign it may be in general. A democratic republic like ours fosters compromise in the laws that are passed, so no one is really forcing anything on anyone; the constitution is not something that is forced on anyone since it is enforced by the citizenry through their representatives and the three branches of government.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where to draw the line is a great question. If I’m a fundamentalist evangelical Christian that believes gay relationships led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, would it be appropriate to legislate those beliefs? If I believe being a Latter-day Saint will result in someone being literally tortured in hell for all eternity, should I work to use government action to suppress the faith? Would it be appropriate to try and use the government to gain converts in public schools? If I’m an gay atheist is it appropriate for me to force someone to serve me in a restaurant or bake me a cake?

 

For the matter at hand (with a few exceptions) the personhood of an embryo is largely a religious belief. One that is not shared by a large portion of the population. It seems dangerous to me to significantly violate privacy and bodily autonomy of those that are (nearly) universally seen as people in favor of a (largely) religiously informed opinion. 

But we are talking about voting based on our beliefs, so if a certain position is nearly universal, then the tiny minority can vote their beliefs and still not impose their beliefs on the vast majority, right?

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

What reasons should we use to the enact limiting laws if we can’t use belief it will make things better or protect someone/something?

Do you think the laws specifically targeted at polygamy practicing Latter day Saints in Utah were proper?  I don't.  The laws prohibiting cohabitation with someone you  are not legally married to only the territories?  The Edmunds Tucker act and so on?  You can use belief so long as it does not take away the rights from others. And non believers should not use whatever beliefs or non beliefs to take away the rights of believers. As I said I would not force the LDS Church to perform gay marriages.

[Teancum]

On 5/14/2022 at 12:47 PM, CV75 said:

I think it is a misrepresentation to summarize the process by which laws are created in a democratic republic, and the resulting laws, as opposing factions telling each other what to do. Even in debate, opposing factions are are not telling each other what to do with any capacity for enforcement; it is just rhetoric.

So would you be ok with a law that forces the church to perform gay marriage in the Temple?

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

What should we be doing instead in your view?

If you don't want an abortion don't get one. If you do get one. But there absolutely should be reasonable limits on timing for abortions.

 

Same with other things like gay marriage. Don't want one.  Don't get one.  Want one. Get one. But don't force a church to perform one.

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

But we are talking about voting based on our beliefs, so if a certain position is nearly universal, then the tiny minority can vote their beliefs and still not impose their beliefs on the vast majority, right?

I would hope everybody votes based on what they believe. It would be silly to vote on what one doesn't believe unless there was a different belief that superseded the other. The tiny minority can and should most definitely vote their conscious. If one were to say they shouldn't because the majority believes otherwise would be tremendously contrary to democratic ideals.

[Nofear]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So would you be ok with a law that forces the church to perform gay marriage in the Temple?

One can certainly advocate that. Fortunately, as a society the majority has a belief that the peaceful beliefs of others merit some degree of respect, or at least allowance, so long as it doesn't cause bodily harm to others.  When we lose that belief, well, heaven help us all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

One can certainly advocate that. Fortunately, as a society the majority has a belief that the peaceful beliefs of others merit some degree of respect, or at least allowance, so long as it doesn't cause bodily harm to others.  When we lose that belief, well, heaven help us all.

Kind of like anti-polygamy laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti interracial marriage laws, anti same sex marriage amendments etc?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Kind of like anti-polygamy laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti interracial marriage laws, anti same sex marriage amendments etc?

The governor of Nebraska says he will call a special session of the legislature as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned to ban all abortions, no exceptions. And yet some folks believe we’ll see reasonable compromise. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So would you be ok with a law that forces the church to perform gay marriage in the Temple?

The wording of the ordinance itself would make the ceremony a farce.

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/14/2022 at 3:17 PM, jkwilliams said:

What I thought was interesting was that younger Mormons tend to be more pro-choice than LDS women of my generation.

I think we establish liberty for ourselves and our posterity by not infringing on personal liberty as far as it is possible. Abortion bans are an unreasonable infringement on liberty. 

Then, by all means, take the matter up with any states that enact abortion bans.  Overturning Roe v. Wade, however, in itself, would not result in any abortion bans.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The governor of Nebraska says he will call a special session of the legislature as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned to ban all abortions, no exceptions. And yet some folks believe we’ll see reasonable compromise. 

Right. And many define life as beginning at conception, so many types of long term birth control that prevent implantation could be swept up as well. 

[Tacenda]

nvm

Edited May 16, 2022 by Tacenda

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Kind of like anti-polygamy laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti interracial marriage laws, anti same sex marriage amendments etc?

Yep. Kind of like those. Of course, being a majority opinion doesn't mean that the laws passed will be correct or right. The Founders wrestled a great deal with this and how to place checks and balances while maintaining the base integrity of democratic ideals.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

One can certainly advocate that. Fortunately, as a society the majority has a belief that the peaceful beliefs of others merit some degree of respect, or at least allowance, so long as it doesn't cause bodily harm to others.  When we lose that belief, well, heaven help us all.

Really?  No such thing as constitutional rights protecting the minorities?  Well let's just put everything up for a popular vote.