It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Meadowchik]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do the little persons developing in the womb have any rights or protections regarding how their bodies are used?

Their protections are derived out of protecting the mother first. Let her make the decisions about her body and the bodies growing inside her.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So let women use their bodies in their wisdom. Don't dictate and be careful... your attempt to control via the state can result in them not being allowed to follow God's will.

I'll say it again.  It's not just the woman's body.  It's the child's body.  As soon as there's another person there it's no longer just the woman's body.  It's one person destroying another person's body.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll say it again.  It's not just the woman's body.  It's the child's body.  As soon as there's another person there it's no longer just the woman's body.  It's one person destroying another person's body.

It’s one person declining to give life sustaining care (at great risk and cost to themselves) to a developing person. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s one person declining to give life sustaining care (at great risk and cost to themselves) to a developing person. 

A developing person that, in most cases, the woman chose to participate in the act that led to the development of that person.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s one person declining to give life sustaining care (at great risk and cost to themselves) to a developing person. 

So the debate is whether a woman owes a duty of care to the helpless developing child's body within her body or is free to destroy it?

Sounds about right.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, InCognitus said:

A developing person that, in most cases, the woman chose to participate in the act that led to the development of that person.

I know several people who have either had vasectomies or tubal ligations because a pregnancy was too risky to their health. These people are married. They continue to have sex. If they get pregnant are they required to carry the baby? Who gets to decide?

What about a single mother on birth control who has difficult pregnancies. Who takes care of her existing children and family responsibilities while she is forced to take over nine months off of work. 
 

Consent to sex doesn’t equal consent to pregnancy and outside of some religious punishment fantasy it makes no sense to treat it as such. Once you allow for any abortion exceptions , you have already conceded the mother’s right exceeds the fetus. Refusing other exceptions can only be  is a religious position. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So the debate is whether a woman owes a duty of care to the helpless developing child's body within her body or is free to destroy it?

Sounds about right.

And it’s not your call to make. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 Consent to sex doesn’t equal consent to pregnancy 

Consent to cause doesn't equal consent to effect. 

Wouldn't it be great if that was true.  It's not.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And it’s not your call to make. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. 

No, it's not my call.  But if the only difference between killing a child in the womb and killing a child out of the womb is location you bet it should be considered wrong.

As far as I'm concerned it's shedding of innocent blood and always will be.  And yes, people have the right to choose sin.

Edited June 26, 2022 by JLHPROF

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Consent to cause doesn't equal consent to effect. 

Wouldn't it be great if that was true.  It's not.

Easy to say. Hard to actually address the scenarios though I see. You do you. 
 

I drive every day. I obey the laws, buckle up, and drive safely. There is an inherent risk of death in driving. Just because I have consented to this doesn’t mean I have to decline medical care if I’m in an accident. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Easy to say. Hard to actually address the scenarios though I see. You do you. 
 

I drive every day. I obey the laws, buckle up, and drive safely. There is an inherent risk of death in driving. Just because I have consented to this doesn’t mean I have to decline medical care if I’m in an accident. 

No, but it does make you accountable if you choose to drive your car and you hit a pedestrian.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not my call.  But if the only difference between killing a child in the womb and killing a child out of the womb is location you bet it should be considered wrong.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The difference is pregnancy which is both difficult, inherently dangerous, and permanently damaging to the mother. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, but it does make you accountable if you choose to drive your car and you hit a pedestrian.

What do you mean? The pedestrian knew the risk when they stepped outside the door. If you walk outside you have consented to a car hitting you. Right?

Edited June 26, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Fether]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What do you mean? The pedestrian knew the risk when they stepped outside the door. If you walk outside you have consented to a car hitting you. Right?

This analogy would work wonderfully with the addition that the driver and pedestrian decided together that the driver should run over the pedestrian, as that would be fun for both parties. As this is how pregnancy happens. In which case, both must deal with the consequence of their decision to run into each other.

Sure, they didn’t know the exact cost nor damage done, but they have to deal with the consequences by moving forward with the healing process and the needed cost to fix the car and pay for the hospital bill.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Fether

[pogi]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even if you grant the human fetus full personhood status (which I do not), its life is fully and completely dependent on its mother. In no other case does our right to life allow us to infringe on the life or health of another. I can’t abduct someone for their kidney, or even force someone to donate a pint of blood to preserve my life. 

If the fetus was forced upon the mother, as in cases of rape, I might agree with you.  But when the mother willfully and actively participates in the act of creation of life, then she and her partner have a responsibility towards that life.   They created it, they are responsible for it.  The fetus did not invade the mother’s body on its own - it was the mothers creation.  Even if it was an accident, it came into existence because of the choice of the mother and father, and not of its own will.  It should not be deserving of death because of the choices of another which brought it into life in the first place, and ended its life in the second place.  The mother and father, not the fetus, are responsible for its life in the womb.  The mother is not a victim.  If she terminates the life of the fetus, after creating it, the fetus is the only victim.  A victim of the most serious consequence.  It is a death sentence.

Edited June 26, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

This analogy would work wonderfully with the addition that the driver and pedestrian decided together that the driver should run over the pedestrian, as that would be fun for both parties. As this is how pregnancy happens. In which case, both must deal with the consequence of their decision to run into each other.

Sure, they didn’t know the exact cost nor damage done, but they have to deal with the consequences by moving forward with the healing process and the needed cost to fix the car and pay for the hospital bill.

How does this translate to the married Latter Day Saint couple who got pregnant after a tubal ligation (which the woman got because her doctor told her any further pregnancies would be high risk). They just have to “deal with the consequences”? Should they live in a sexless marriage? 

[provoman]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How does this translate to the married Latter Day Saint couple who got pregnant after a tubal ligation (which the woman got because her doctor told her any further pregnancies would be high risk). They just have to “deal with the consequences”? Should they live in a sexless marriage? 

Sex is making babies ONLY. If enjoy sex, even when making a baby, you are doing it wrong

[The Nehor]

It is amazing how the same people convinced that the government’s actions in medicine were insane over the last few years are suddenly okay with government legislators laying down rules deciding whether their spouse has to risk death or not.

The shape of things to come:

Some states that ban abortions have exceptions that would cover this situation. Others do not.

Virtually every other developed nation on Earth is watching us with disgust. Canada is already looking into amnesty type programs. So are some states. To those who say some states will legalize abortion and it will be fine to go there this is not going to go well. A teenage girl runs away from home in Oklahoma to get an abortion in California. The nation Balkanizes over the Fugitive Slave Act’s descendent: The Fugitive Aborter Act? Throw gay marriage being legal in half the country and then maybe mix in anti-sodomy laws and we get more variants.

Greatest country on Earth. Bastion of Freedom. Birthplace of the Neo-Confederacy.

Edit: Also look up the definition of sodomy if you get a chance. Spoiler: It doesn’t just include gay sex acts.

Edited June 26, 2022 by The Nehor

[JAHS]

Those who have chosen to have abortions are the ones most vocal about the right of the mother to choose to do so.
The alternative is that they would have to agree that they have willfully killed an innocent human being.
Something they would never agree with. So I can understand why they have to protest so strongly about this decision.
It all comes down to the question about when life begins and when the baby is considered a human individual with its own rights.
I believe only God could answer such a question, which he has done through our prophets:

"The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman.
The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems.
To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality.
It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science."
(Reverence for Life, President Russell M. Nelson, 1985)

Edited June 26, 2022 by JAHS

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How does this translate to the married Latter Day Saint couple who got pregnant after a tubal ligation (which the woman got because her doctor told her any further pregnancies would be high risk). They just have to “deal with the consequences”? Should they live in a sexless marriage? 

I’m happy to discuss exceptions to the rule. But the core issue remains the same. The vast majority of abortions are not about health issues. They are about convenience.

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is amazing how the same people convinced that the government’s actions in medicine were insane over the last few years are suddenly okay with government legislators laying down rules deciding whether their spouse has to risk death or not.

The shape of things to come:

Some states that ban abortions have exceptions that would cover this situation. Others do not.

Virtually every other developed nation on Earth is watching us with disgust. Canada is already looking into amnesty type programs. So are some states. To those who say some states will legalize abortion and it will be fine to go there this is not going to go well. A teenage girl runs away from home in Oklahoma to get an abortion in California. The nation Balkanizes over the Fugitive Slave Act’s descendent: The Fugitive Aborter Act? Throw gay marriage being legal in half the country and the maybe throw back in anti-sodomy laws and we get more variants.

Greatest country on Earth. Bastion of Freedom. 

Edit: Also look up the definition of sodomy if you get a chance. Spoiler: It doesn’t just include gay sex acts.

What states don’t allow abortions in the case of the mother’s health being at risk?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

I’m happy to discuss exceptions to the rule. But the core issue remains the same. The vast majority of abortions are not about health issues. They are about convenience.

So a married Latter-day Saint couple is an exception to the “deal with the consequences”, but the sluts that aren’t members are not. Okay. Why? The married couple knew the risk going in right? Why should the baby pay to satisfy their lust? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

What states don’t allow abortions in the case of the mother’s health being at risk?

Many of these women know in advance that a pregnancy for them is extremely high risk. Why shouldn’t they have to “deal with the consequences”?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was her sacrifice to make. Not yours. And certainly not the state’s.

Of course it was her sacrifice to make, on an individual basis, and I'm sure you (and probably the existing children) had something to do with sharing in that sacrifice. The tiny society of "couplehood" and family is a microcosm for society, which also makes sacrifices, tradeoffs and decisions as a group. So by extension your sacrifice could be viewed as my sacrifice to make as well. When each of our bodies are slaves to mother nature, which bodies created the society (which in this case includes a State) and the ways we achieve bodily autonomy and restrictions, what else can we do?

On perhaps a less emotionally-laden scale, it reminds of decency and drug laws limiting what people can do with or put into their bodies, respectively, in the interest of the larger society.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So a married Latter-day Saint couple is an exception to the “deal with the consequences”, but the sluts that aren’t members are not. Okay. Why?

I never said anything like that.

As a general rule. Abortions should be 100% banned except on the case of rape, incest, or the mother’s physical health. In which case the parents should consult doctors and decide for themselves what the best decision ought to be.