Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

On 7/8/2022 at 8:32 AM, smac97 said:

Well, let's take a look at Sen. Warren's "reasoned and righteous" effort to end pregnancy resource centers:

More here:

Sen. Warren does not seem to be in favor of "choice" unless it is to abort.

As this fellow put it: "So, in Warren’s world abortion clinics are the tops but crisis pregnancy centers are elaborate ruses that commit the heinous crime of not killing babies."

Or as this fellow put it: "From pro-choice to pro-abortion to anti-birth."

More here:

Sen. Warren wants to financially destroy the organizations that provide these services to women, while continuing to insist on public funding for the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood. 

This is "reasoned and righteous?"

This is advocating for resources for pregnant women?

I invite you to re-visit the above bullet point list showing that crisis pregnany centers do, then come back and try - with a straight face - to say that "the 'pro-life' platform makes very little noise about the well-being of the unborn."

This woman aptly sums up the purpose of false characterizations of the pro-life movement, such as what you say above:

I think that is right.  Scaring women into thinking that abortion is their only viable option will likely increase the number of women who choose abortion.  And the more women that choose abortion, the more money flows into Planned Parenthood:

Fair questions, these.  

Would you support federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?  If not, why not?

It seems like claimed "empathy for the oppressed (women) and for the unborn" only arises in support of abortion.  And good luck providing a reasoned and rational explanation for how electively killing an unborn child is an expression of "empathy" for that child.

Now that Roe is gone, pro-lifers need to continue and increase support efforts like crisis pregnancy centers.  Unfortunately, Sen. Warren's legislative attempts to destroy or hinder these organizations' efforts are not the only thing the "pro choice" crowd is doing.  Lots and lots and lots of actual violence:

And let's not forget the assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Justice:

And not being satsified with the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, the "Ruth Sent Us" folks went on to threaten his wife and children:

They also threatened Justice Coney-Barrett, and her children as well:

Meadowchik, is this stuff an appropriate expression of what you are calling "reasoned and righteous" anger?

Getting back to the violence:

More here:

"This is chilling stuff."

Yes.  Yes it is.

More here:

"One of every six {crisis pregnancy} centers nationwise have had threats or vandalism."  I hope that is not true.

More here:

Unfortunately, the targets of these attacks seem to think that some elected officials will, for political reasons, look the other way:

And here:

"-Vandalized 16 churches -Vandalized at least 16 pro-life pregnancy centers -Firebombed 4 pro-life pregnancy centers and offices -Attempted to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice Where’s the outrage?”

Where, indeed.  

But whatever "outrage" we feel, we need to stay within the bounds of the law.  We need to refrain from the violence that some in the pro-abortion movement feel is justified.

More here:

I'm glad Gov. Evers was willing to condemn this violence.

I am hoping that people like you, Meadowchik, likewise condemn it.

More here:

"{A}t least 40 violent attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, religious institutions, and other pro-life entities since the Dobbs leak."

More here:

And here:

And here:

"Every woman deserves compassionate care and support when facing an unexpected pregnancy. Channeling anger toward pregnancy help takes essential care away from these women."

Well said.

And here:

Boy, this sure seems like a lot of violence that is not getting much attention from the media.

Meadowchik, I am curious as to your perspective on the foregoing incidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

More attacks on churches:

Quote

Two Maryland churches were set on fire over the weekend and another church and pro-life office were vandalized, likely by pro-abortion radicals in response to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

The reports add to dozens of arson and vandalism attacks on churches and pro-life organizations since the Supreme Court ruling on June 24.

The Washington Post reports authorities are investigating arson attacks at the North Bethesda United Methodist Church early Saturday morning and St. Jane Frances de Chantal Catholic Church around 2 a.m. Sunday. A third church, Wildwood Baptist Church, also was vandalized around the same time.
...
A pro-life office in Akron, Ohio also was vandalized for a second time over the weekend. In an email to LifeNews, Allie Frazier, executive director of Right to Life of Northeast Ohio, shared photos of the vandalism Friday morning.

Along with smashing several windows, vandals wrote “Pig,” “FU,” and “If abortion isn’t safe, neither r u” and “Jane,” a reference to the pro-abortion terrorist group Jane’s Revenge, on the walls and sidewalk of the building.

Also: Bounties being offered for information about the whereabouts of Supreme Court justices:

Quote

Activist group Shut Down DC tweeted out this:

Quote

 

DC Service Industry Workers... If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details!

We'll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they're still there 30 mins after your message.

 

 

Also this update on Utah's abortion law:

Quote

A Utah judge granted a more extensive ban on Utah's abortion trigger law Monday while a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood moves through the courts.

Third District Judge Andrew Stone issued a preliminary injunction and said Planned Parenthood successfully showed that women who are seeking abortions may be harmed by seeking treatment out of the state or resorting to unsafe means.

He said this decision was based on keeping the status quo before making a significant change to the law, and he is not making a ruling on the claims presented by either party.

"This law was intended to affect a radical change in existing law. … When you're talking about a seismic change in women's health treatment, it's prudent to look before you leap," Stone said.

The law, SB174, was passed by the Utah Legislature in 2020 to go into effect should the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturn Roe V. Wade. When that happened, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the new law that bans abortions in Utah except in cases where the mom or baby has serious universally diagnosable health concerns or in cases of rape or incest.

The judge said there are clearly multiple serious constitutional issues to consider in this lawsuit. Stone also said Planned Parenthood showed that without an injunction, there would be irreparable harm.

"The main effect of (not granting an injunction) would be to stop abortions in the first 18 weeks of pregnancy," he said, referring to a 2019 Utah law banning elective abortions after 18 weeks with a few exceptions. That law went into effect late last month after Stone issued a temporary restraining order against SB174.

"But without safe access to those abortions, women are going to be delaying treatment, which increases their health risk," Stone said. "Some women will likely resort to unsafe and illegal methods, which involve risks to not only the woman but obviously any life, or potential life, she's carrying. Both physical and mental health of women denied legal access to medically safe abortions is threatened here. And plaintiffs' and other providers' ability to provide medically appropriate care to women is harmed. That's irreparable harm."

The judge said harm to the state is rooted in moral conviction and he respects people who have that view. However, he said many women under the ban will likely still get an abortion in another state or through an unsafe method.

"What I don't have any clear picture of is whether this act which will cause harm will actually prevent the harm that it was meant to prevent," Stone said.

He said he is tasked with considering a known harm to women seeking an abortion against an unknown harm of potential fetal lives lost.

"A known harm to women seeking an abortion against an unknown harm of potential fetal lives lost."

Not sure what to make of that, since the "fetal lives lost" is not an "unknown harm."

An article about whether Congress has constitutional authority to enact a nation-wide abortion law (short answer: probably not) :

Quote

Put bluntly, it won’t work. Congress is not constitutionally authorized to prescribe a national abortion regimen.  First, there is the Tenth Amendment, which mandates that all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Yes, Congress has an expansive power to regulate interstate commerce. But the court has held that the Commerce Clause covers only those activities that are economic in nature and have a substantial effect on interstate markets. In United States v. Lopez, federal prohibition on possession of guns near schools was ruled unconstitutional because gun possession is not an economic activity. In United States v. Morrison, the court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act because “Gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity.” Ditto for abortion; it is not an economic act. Nor do intrastate abortions have significant interstate effects.  At most, Congress could regulate abortions involving women or doctors traveling across state lines. 

Then, there’s the 14th Amendment, under which Congress can intervene to stop a state from violating constitutionally guaranteed rights. But the Dobbs decision declared unequivocally that there is no constitutional right to abortion. And Congress has no veto power over court decisions that apply the Constitution to the states. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the court held that Congress’s authority under the 14th Amendment is “corrective or preventive, not definitional.”  In other words, if the court denies that there’s a constitutional right to abortion, Congress can’t create such a right and compel the states to enforce it. No 14th Amendment right means no state remedy for non-enforcement.   
...
So, does that mean the federal government is powerless? Not quite. Federal intervention might be constitutionally justified if, for example, a state’s abortion-related regulations barred cross-border shipment of drugs; or punished victims of rape or incest; or discriminated against members of a protected class; or banned operations that might save a mother’s life. Additionally, the federal government could protect the privacy of reproductive health data and pre-empt state laws that restrict use of the U.S. mails.   

Some legal pundits have suggested other permissible federal actions — e.g., invalidate burdensome licensure rules directed at abortion providers; lease federal property to providers; and override the Hyde Amendment to permit funding for less affluent persons seeking interstate abortions. Those are much tougher cases. 

In any event, targeted federal responses to Dobbs can be addressed ad hoc, if and when the underlying facts allow. To the contrary, Congress may not proceed, without constitutional authorization, to establish a generalized, national right to abortion. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A known harm to women seeking an abortion against an unknown harm of potential fetal lives lost."

Not sure what to make of that, since the "fetal lives lost" is not an "unknown harm."

If I understand him correctly, I think he is referring to how many fetal lives will actually be saved/lost, if any given he said “What I don't have any clear picture of is whether this act which will cause harm will actually prevent the harm that it was meant to prevent," Stone said”, meaning stop women from having an abortion completely or if it will just cause them to leave the state to have an abortion or get an illegal one.  If the act causes harm to women without the benefit of any harm actually prevented for fetuses, the act is not a beneficial one, no matter what its intent.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

If I understand him correctly, I think he is referring to how many fetal lives will actually be saved/lost, if any given he said “What I don't have any clear picture of is whether this act which will cause harm will actually prevent the harm that it was meant to prevent," Stone said”, meaning stop women from having an abortion completely or if it will just cause them to leave the state to have an abortion or get an illegal one.

From the judge's comments:

Quote

"But without safe access to those abortions, women are going to be delaying treatment, which increases their health risk," Stone said. "Some women will likely resort to unsafe and illegal methods, which involve risks to not only the woman but obviously any life, or potential life, she's carrying. Both physical and mental health of women denied legal access to medically safe abortions is threatened here. And plaintiffs' and other providers' ability to provide medically appropriate care to women is harmed. That's irreparable harm."

The risk to the unborn child from not enforcing the law is essentially a mortality rate of 100%.  The risk to expectant mothers is . . . nowhere near that.

Here is the framework that Judge Stone is referencing about the injunction:

Quote

A restraining order or preliminary injunction may issue only upon a showing by the applicant that:

(e)(1) The applicant will suffer irreparable harm unless the order or injunction issues;

(e)(2) The threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause the party restrained or enjoined;

(e)(3) The order or injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and

(e)(4) There is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim, or the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.

Subpart (1) seems sort of iffy because, by the judge's own reasoning, "women who are seeking abortions may be harmed by seeking treatment out of the state or resorting to unsafe means."  Seeking an out-of-state abortion may be a "harm" but not an irreparable one since . . . well, they can get the abortion out of state.  The second part of Judge Stone's reasoning (that women may resort "to unsafe means" of aborting their children) is stronger, I suppose.  But if it happens it is a literally self-inflicted harm, and the harm may or may not be "irreparable."

Subpart (2) is interesting in this context, as the "threatened injury" on the one hand is . . . expectant mothers (being represented by Planned Parenthood).  But meanwhile the State is representing . . . the unborn children.  Again, they face a mortality rate of 100% if the abortions proceed, as opposed to speculative injuries to the mothers cited by Judge Stone ("women . . . may be harmed by . . . resorting to unsafe {abortions}").

Subpart (3) seems pretty iffy as well.  There is a pretty strong "public interest" in popularly-enacted legislation being given force and effect.

Judge Stone's reasoning is probably most strong as to subpart (4), since nobody is disputing that the lawsuit "presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation."

Injunctions are supposed to be an "extraordinary" remedy, meaning they are not intended to be issued without really good cause.  Here, I suspect Judge Stone may have just wanted to preserve the status quo ante (that is, when abortions were authorized) until the real decision-maker - the Utah Supreme Court - renders a decision.  "We all know that this is going to head up there, and that's really who needs to ultimately make this constitutional determination — it's the (Utah) Supreme Court," Stone said.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, they face a mortality rate of 100% if the abortions proceed...

Very nearly 100%, but not quite 100%. There are cases of children who survive an attempted late-term abortion. The rate is low, but non-zero. Early term, since the fetus isn't viable outside the womb even if born living a 100% mortality for early term abortions may be accurate.
https://lozierinstitute.org/questions-and-answers-on-born-alive-abortion-survivors/
https://abortionsurvivors.org/

 

PS: This "correction" should not be construed as me substantively disagreeing with anything you said. I support the Church's position.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.  Just as consent to taking a laxative is consent to having bowel issues.  The whole biological purpose for sex is pregnancy.  Everything else is secondary.

Creating social bonds is also a known biological purpose of sex. Relieving tension and experiencing pleasure are also legitimate biological purposes which can enhance health and overall well-being.

And a person can engage in sexual intercourse and have a reasonable belief that pregnancy is extremely unlikely.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Amulek said: "This is sort of like saying 'consent to gambling in Vegas isn't consent to losing any of your money.'"

Pogi: "Where appropriate precautions do fail, I would say that consent to sex is consent to risk of pregnancy, and those who engage in sex are morally accountable to be stewards of the life they create."

I think these are well-stated.  In legal parlance, this concept is called "assumption of the risk," see here:

Absent force (rape), coercion (blackmail/extortion) or deceit ("don't worry, I've had a vasectomy"), pregnancy is an assumed risk inherent in participating in coitus.

I previously compared, as an analogy, an unintended pregnancy to a basketball injury, see here:

Similarly, the risk of pregnancy arisese from "actions {that} are inherent in the game."  If you want to avoid the risk, don't play the game.  This goes for both women and men.  FWIW, I have no patience with the argument that some men make that they ought to be able to "opt out" of child support for an unwanted child.

I'll close with a social media post I saw recently that made me chuckle in a tragicomic kind of way:

Rediscovering-Traditional-Marriage.jpg

Well, this is a very good idea.  I wonder if any other women throughout history have thought of a similar "contract"-style arrangement in which access to the sexual act is necessarily contingent on agreeing to parameters that include obligations to maintain fidelity to the relationship, support (emotional, financial, etc.) between the participants, participation in parenting, and so on.

I think I've heard of this sort of thing before.  If I recall correctly, it starts with "T" and ends with "raditional marriage." ;) 

Thanks,

-Smac

Marriage doesn't guarantee support or fidelity.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Creating social bonds is also a known biological purpose of sex. Relieving tension and experiencing pleasure are also legitimate biological purposes which can enhance health and overall well-being.

And a person can engage in sexual intercourse and have a reasonable belief that pregnancy is extremely unlikely.

 

Those are secondary issues.  The biological aspect does not care about social bonds.   A person can have sex and not think they will get pregnant but there is always that risk because the primary function of sex is reproduction.  If one does not accept that risk, don't have sex.   Go eat a Subway sandwich or play Fortnite. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Those are secondary issues.  The biological aspect does not care about social bonds.   A person can have sex and not think they will get pregnant but there is always that risk because the primary function of sex is reproduction.  If one does not accept that risk, don't have sex.   Go eat a Subway sandwich or play Fortnite. 

You're talking in circles. 

The social bonds serve a purpose independent of reproduction.

The release and pleasure serve a purpose independent of reproduction.

Those are both biological purposes, ie impacting the health and wellbeing of the person. 

You can say only reproduction matters but that would only be your opinion and would also be objectively incorrect. Human beings don't just have sex to procreate.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Marriage doesn't guarantee support or fidelity.

Sure does improve the odds, though.

You are correct, of course.  People who enter into a contract may still end up breaching that contract.  And yet contracts remain a normative part of of our interactions with each other.

Strangely, there are people in society who are scrupulous when entering into contractual relationships for transactions far less risky than sex, but who then turnaround and participate in the "hookup culture" in which sex just a transactional thing, an itch to scratch, with no obligations or strings attached.

I think that, historically speaking, women recognized the risks inherent in participating in sexual activity, and that those risks materialized in vary different ways for them (who, incident to the basics of biology, can become pregnant) as opposed to men (who, incident to biology, cannot).   So perhaps women were previously more inclined toward restricting sex to certain parameters that mitigate or account for that risk.  However, in the 60s the Pill came out, which materially contributed to the booming of the Sexual Revolution.  The Pill mitigated the risk of pregnancy and the Sexual Revolution mitigated the social/religious constraints on behavior, such that casual / uncommitted / transactional sex went mainstream.  Fast forward a few years to 1973, Roe bolstered the risk mitigation even further.  The Pill proactively mitigated the risk of pregnancy, and elective abortion reactively mitigated the risk.  

The only guarantee on which I repose complete trust is from the Lord: “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (D&C 82:10.)  For everything and everyone else (including, of course, myself), I maintain - in varying measures - some degree of pragmatic skepticism, an unspoken recognition that human beings (again, including myself) are flawed.  Hence the counsel we receive in D&C 1:19-20, 24: "The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world ... Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

So it is.  I trust in God based on the sentiment expressed in D&C 82:10: "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."  Apart from this, though, life doesn't really have "guarantees."  Instead, life is about taking calculated risks.  One of the most significant areas of risk is that of sexual behavior, which is no doubt why the Lord gave us the Law of Chastity.  This speaker at BYU in 1989 summed things up well

Quote

So, as I mentioned at the beginning, if we are to be changed today, let us change together. Beginning today, let each of us try harder to care for our bodies, to keep them clean and undefiled inside and out and keep our passions and appetites within the bounds the Lord has set. We will feel better and will be able to give more service. We will be able to fulfill all of those things that we desire to do here upon the earth so we might lift up our hearts and be glad (D&C 29:5), that we might have a fullness of joy.

Yep.

Sex is a wonderful thing, but our appetite for it must be constrained.  We are fortunate as Latter-day Saints to be taught this throughout our lives.  Other folks - such as the woman who wrote the social media I quoted above - are learning the hard way about its inherent logic and validity.

Sex is at its highest point, and the risks associated with it are at their nadir, when we constrain it (sex) to "within the bounds the Lord has set," namely, the institution of marriage.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Creating social bonds is also a known biological purpose of sex.  Relieving tension and experiencing pleasure are also legitimate biological purposes which can enhance health and overall well-being.

I agree.  But once we set aside the implicit notion that we are base and animalistic, that we are only driven and governed by "biology," I think we are obligated to consider more than just the "biological purpose of sex." 

Elder Renlund recently provided some excellent counsel on this point: The Divine Purposes of Sexual Intimacy

Quote

Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.

The law of chastity is an eternal law, given by our Heavenly Father to all His children in all ages. It remains in force and is as applicable today as it was in earlier times in history. As with other commandments, the law is given by Heavenly Father to bless and help His children achieve their divine potential. Obeying the law of chastity includes abstaining from all sexual relations before marriage and remaining completely faithful and loyal after marriage. Sexual relations are to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman.

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

We may wonder, though, “Why should I obey the law of chastity? Why does God care about my moral behavior?” To answer these questions, God has revealed doctrine that, if correctly understood, will motivate us to keep the law of chastity and choose to express our sexuality within the boundaries He has set. As with all of God’s commandments, the law of chastity is best understood within the context of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation and exaltation (see Alma 12:32). Obedience to the law of chastity will bring extraordinary blessings.

Well-put and plainly correct.  There is a very strong moral component to participating in sexual activity.  It is about much more than just the biological aspect, more than the transient physiological benefits.

And, of course, there are substantial risks associated with it as well.

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And a person can engage in sexual intercourse and have a reasonable belief that pregnancy is extremely unlikely.

Sure.  But that doesn't seem to account for the reality that huge numbers of people engage don't do this.  A person can engage in sex with that "reasonable belief" in place, but as a practical matter many people thoughtlessly and recklessly engage in sexual behavior without having given proper consideration to the attendant risks.  The best evidence of this is the huge numbers of unexpected/unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, as well as STIs and other actualized risks. 

Life is not about "guarantees," but is instead about an endless exercise of accepting, avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating risks.  Regardless of efforts to mitigate the risk of pregnancy, the risk remains.  Again, absent force, coercion, or deceit, pregnancy is an assumed risk inherent in participating in coitus.  And if and when that risk actualizes, there is another life and another person's rights to consider.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What do we do when a woman voluntarily chooses to have sexual relations with a man while not realizing she could possibly become pregnant as a result of her decision?  

Are there really grown women out there who don't know how babies are made? 🥺 Very few I hope.

Link to comment

Just came across this: Swearing off men and avoiding intimacy: Gen Z reconsiders sex in the wake of a post-Roe world

Some excerpts:

Quote

Madeline V. might be done with men altogether.

A 24-year-old marketing assistant who identifies as bisexual, Madeline, who asked that Insider use only her first name, has decided that sticking to female partners may be the safest sexual route these days. 

It's not a fear of men, exactly, that has inspired this young woman to consider swearing off an entire gender; it's the heightened fear of an unwanted pregnancy — and a subsequent lack of options — that has forced Madeline to proceed with sexual caution in the wake of Friday's Supreme Court decision gutting federal abortion rights protections.

"Fear of an unwanted pregnancy - and a subsequent lack of options."

"Sexual caution."

These are not new concepts.  Women were aware of them well before Roe, the Pill, the Sexual Revolution, etc.

Quote

Adelynn T., a 17-year-old high school student in the Houston, Texas, area, told Insider that she was "genuinely terrified" when she found out Roe might be overturned. Adelynn, whose identity is known by Insider, asked that her last name not be used. 

Her conservative home state certainly plays a role in that fear  — Texas is one of 13 US states with so-called trigger laws that are set to immediately ban all or nearly all abortions if the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe. 

"Surprisingly enough, I've actually had dreams where I'm pregnant, and I can't find a way to take care of myself," Adelynn said, later correcting herself, saying the visions were more akin to "nightmares." 

The bad dreams are new, only taking hold in her mind since the decision was leaked, she said. "These nightmares could be a reality," Adelynn added.
...

Earlier this month, Insider published several social media callouts requesting reactions, responses, and replies from members of Gen Z regarding their thoughts on hookup culture and sex in a possible post-Roe world. Dozens of people shared their insights.

Some bemoaned a "constant fear" of getting pregnant, while others described "shattered" views of child-rearing in a world plagued by climate change, COVID-19, and attacks on women's reproductive rights. Respondees offered a list of colorful words to describe their emotions around the draft decision: "angry," "upset," "disgust," and "dread," chief among them.

"Nightmares" about pregnancy.

"'Constant fear' of getting pregnant."

"Angry," "upset," "disgust," and "dread."

There is a phrase for this stuff: "Learned helplessness," defined as "a condition in which a person suffers from a sense of powerlessness, arising from a traumatic event or persistent failure to succeed."

One way to avoid the actualization of these "nightmare" scenarios, to succeed in overcoming "learned helplessness" about sex and attaining a healthy attitude about it, is . . . to limit sex to marriage.  The Law of Chastity is remarkably empowering in that way.

zp32a9jlvshz.png?auto=webp&s=e66202c49ef

Quote

Gen Z is more likely than previous generations to support the protections of LGBT rights, and are themselves, the queerest generation on record, with 1 in 6 American Gen Z members identifying as LGBT. 

All of these factors have inevitably affected the attitudes towards sex of the members of Gen Z that Insider spoke to. Members of the generation told Insider that they and their peers approach sexual relationships and intimacy in an entirely different way than previous generations.

"Gen Z is one of the most open about sex and hookup culture," Adelynn said. She told Insider that among her friends, most women are entirely supportive of other women's sexual decisions, whether they're sexually active or celibate. 

Overwhelming sex positivity, however, doesn't necessarily translate to overwhelming amounts of sex. The generation is actually having less casual sex than their predecessors, according to a 2021 study. Experts linked the deficit to decreased alcohol consumption, excessive social media use, and increasingly delayed markers of adulthood. 

Dysfunctional ideas about sex, particularly "hookup culture" will lead to dysfunctional behaviors about sex.  This is both a quantitative and qualitative thing because, per this study, "married religious couples also have more frequent and better sex."

Quote

While Gen Z's feelings about abortion are fairly analogous, per polling, the responses Insider received in regards to living in a post-Roe world are decidedly more individual.

Adelynn has always tried to make responsible decisions regarding sex, she told Insider. Her mother was a teen mom and Adelynn grew up watching the ways in which that impacted both their lives. She always told herself that she would wait until she was 17 to start exploring intimacy.

Better than having sex in her early teen years, I suppose.  But "wait{ing} until ... 17" is still far from optimum.

Quote

But ever since the draft decision was leaked, Adelynn said she's had to entirely rethink whether or not she wants to start having sex, telling Insider that she's terrified to make a choice that could leave her with an unwanted child.

That's a good rethink, Adelynn.  Very good.  Rethink it a lot.

Yes, you'll miss out on moments of physical pleasure.  But you will also miss out on the risks of pregnancy, STIs, and other serious matters.

Quote

Catherine D. on the other hand was already participating in hookup culture before the Supreme Court decision dropped.

Being on birth control is not an option due to the way it negatively affects her physical and mental health, Catherine said, so she's been left to reevaluate the consequences of casual sex that have suddenly become very real.

"As much as I want to have fun in my 20s, what happens to me when the fun stops? What happens to me when I might be in need of an abortion and can't access that?" she said.

The unknowns have left her feeling like a more "reserved" version of herself as she contemplates the risks now tied to her body.

There it is!  "{S}he contemplates the risks now tied to her body."  Those risks were always "tied to her body."  She may just have fewer retroactive means of addressing that risk if and when it actualizes.

Such cotemplation is a good thing.  Less participation in hookups, in insubstantial and transactional sexual encounters with mere acquaintances and other persons whose relationship with her is - by design - fleeting and untethered.

Quote

One respondee said the decision has made them afraid to move to any Republican states, while others mentioned a desire to have their tubes tied or undergo a vasectomy to avoid unwanted pregnancies. 

"Tubes tide or ... a vasectomy."

There is also "Door #3," namely, to tame one's appetite for sex and keep it within the bonds of marriage.

Quote

Madeline, meanwhile, said the possibility of Roe being overturned deterred her from casual sex. The uncertainty also prompted her to take a more proactive approach when she does partake.

"In hookup culture, if you're just hooking up, you don't just bring up that stuff right away normally," she said. "But when it comes to if you're actually going to sleep with someone, I think at this point, that definitely needs to be addressed."

"Deterred her from casual sex."

Not an altogether horrible thing, that.

Quote

Prior to Friday's decision, however, Madeline said she'll likely stick to sleeping with women in a post-Roe world, in an effort to avoid an unwanted pregnancy 

Lesbian sex as a form of birth control?  Is that a thing?

Quote

Carson M., a student and lift operator who responded to an Insider callout, said he's afraid of impregnating a partner and being left with no options, especially amid such compounding crises as the current economic downturn and baby formula shortage.

Well, Carson, one solid way to avoid the risk of "impregnating a partner" is to tame one's appetite for sex and keep it within the bonds of marriage.

(Also, note the nonspecific particle: "a partner.")

Quote

The primary feeling plaguing members of Gen Z ahead of the Supreme Court's decision was fear, people told Insider. 

Adelynn invoked stories of whisper networks among young women her age who pass along "sketchy" websites where a girl in trouble might be able to acquire an abortion pill. Despite the existence of several legitimate abortion pill providers throughout the country, Adelynn bemoaned the arduous work of navigating such last-ditch options as a young person.

One solid way to avoid "the arduous work" of getting an abortion pill is to tame one's appetite for sex and keep it within the bonds of marriage.

One commenter reviewed the foregoing article, as well as the social media post I referenced earlier:

Quote

Insider’s reportage here is a tragic glimpse at how fundamentally broken hookup culture is—and how the sexual revolution and fifty years of legal abortion have profoundly damaged the relationships between men and women. Interestingly, one woman posted her own reaction to Roe’s fall online, and noted that she and her friends had reached an epiphany:

Me and some of my girlfriends did a retreat this weekend to help us cope with the monumental setback in fundamental rights. By the end of it, we had moved from sad and afraid to ANGRY. We all agreed to a pact: no having sex with any men, until he had proven himself a capable provider, and until that man had signed a contract, written on paper, agreeing to stay with us and support us if we get pregnant. We started drafting an actual contract, and we’re planning on sending it to a lawyer to make sure its legit. At this point, I am completely done with men who want to hook up and leave, its time for American men to STEP UP.

To which I say: Amen, sister. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we used to call “marriage.” It still works. It is still the context in which people are happiest, healthiest, and not incidentally have the most and the best sex. And it is also the perfect context in which to welcome, love, and nurture children. An entire generation may have forgotten this. But the truth is out there, waiting to be discovered. As T.S. Eliot wrote:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

"The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

That is, I think, the epiphany many Latter-day Saints experience when they "explore" the boundless world outside the Law of Chastity, only to come back around, to realize the worth of obedience to this precent, to "know the place for the first time."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

This is all well and good, and I enjoy seeing you wax philosophic, but some people simply will not constrain their sexual appetites to within the bounds the Lord has set, sexually.  They simply will not, and do not! 

I acknowlege this.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What do we do when a man molests a woman and thereby causes her to become pregnant?   What should that woman do with that baby when she finds out it is there in her womb?

The Church's position provides a framework for this.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What should society do about that?

Pass laws that restrict elective abortions, but include exceptions for circumstances in which the woman did not consent to the act that caused the pregnancy.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What do we do when a woman voluntarily chooses to have sexual relations with a man while not realizing she could possibly become pregnant as a result of her decision?  What should that woman do with that baby?  What should society do about that?

Same as above: Pass laws that restrict elective abortions, but include exceptions for circumstances in which the woman did not consent to the act that caused the pregnancy.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Right now we're not in agreement about what we should do, and some people really don't care about what other people think they should do. 

The best we can hope for, I think, is a legislated course of action.  

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Those people are going to do whatever they want to do regardless of how other people feel about it.

The same is true of all sorts of other behaviors that the law regulates or prohibits.  We as a society respond by passing and enforcing laws that comport with the Constitution.  We as a Church community, and as families, and as individuals, respond by teaching and adhereing to the principles Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Obehave said:

You do realize people will still not agree with a law they don't believe is a good law, don't you? 

Some people, sure.  But civil authorities have the authority to not only pass laws, but also enforce them.

As regarding abortion, though, legislated restrictions are not the sole, or even the most important, measure of what we can do.  We can continue to education, and to attempt to persuaded.  We can support crisis pregnancy centers.  We can ourselves abide by the principles of the Restored Gospel.

1 minute ago, Obehave said:

What is legal is not necessarily what is morally right.  So which would you rather all people know, what is legal?, or what is right?

Both.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

And more. An arrest was made. 
 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/

My question is why did they go to Indiana when the procedure was legal in Ohio?

9D7469E5-3059-45BA-95F6-1B27FB86B6D6.jpeg

Was it legal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ohio#Current_Ohio_Law
 

The only exceptions listed are “ in cases in which there is a medical emergency, defined in 2919.16(F) & (K): "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."[8] This does not include potential bodily damage that stems from the woman's mental health.”

Maybe no one wanted to risk jail time in a state with such an insane law.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was it legal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ohio#Current_Ohio_Law
 

The only exceptions listed are “ in cases in which there is a medical emergency, defined in 2919.16(F) & (K): "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."[8] This does not include potential bodily damage that stems from the woman's mental health.”

Maybe no one wanted to risk jail time in a state with such an insane law.

It’s clear she would qualify. https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

These laws are written this way because ‘health’ of the mother laws allow abortion up to birth. The creative interpretation of ‘health’ produced these laws. Thank New York and Colorado.

0075DDE4-5C07-464D-A6B2-2B8792DC2EEF.png

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s clear she would qualify. https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

These laws are written this way because ‘health’ of the mother laws allow abortion up to birth. The creative interpretation of ‘health’ produced these laws. Thank New York and Colorado.

0075DDE4-5C07-464D-A6B2-2B8792DC2EEF.png

Sounds like the pelvic floor is the main risk. Nothing a c section can’t fix. If the law wants to make it clear that children shouldn’t be forced to carry babies to term after being raped, it should be amended. It’s no wonder that the family wouldn’t want to risk it. The whole situation is disgusting enough to make one’s blood boil. Good thing all these pro life people thought this through so well before passing laws. 
 

I mean would you risk your daughter’s and your own well being in a state where the chief law enforcement officer goes on national television and lies about your story to make political points?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sounds like the pelvic floor is the main risk. Nothing a c section can’t fix. If the law wants to make it clear that children shouldn’t be forced to carry babies to term after being raped, it should be amended. It’s no wonder that the family wouldn’t want to risk it. The whole situation is disgusting enough to make one’s blood boil. Good thing all these pro life people thought this through so well before passing laws. 
 

I mean would you risk your daughter’s and your own well being in a state where the chief law enforcement officer goes on national television and lies about your story to make political points?

CFR he was lying.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...