It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Apparently, your hatred for America affects your critical thinking skills. 

hardly, I love July the 4th!, it's the day when those of us in the British Commonwealth celebrate getting rid of those pesky colonies💥

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

My situation was not extreme, there were significant support systems in place. Our physical health was not at risk.  

Equal share of homelessness and possible death doesn’t seem fair to any of the children, even the living fetus in my view when the other possibility is at least borderline survival living, being relatively safe if still under highly stressed situations.

In a poverty setting or an abusive one, it cannot always be said there are support systems in place as there were for my family.  Harm, even death, may be a likely outcome of adding another child to a family. Perhaps four emotionally and physically damaged kids vs three borderline kids…that you cannot see the difference if a mother has to choose between barely providing for her children’s needs and seeing them being placed in dangerous situations, I don’t get it. 

A fetus is living, but it is not a fully developed human with all the awareness of life and if an abortion is early, it might not even be able to suffer.  If you had to choose between saving a baby and a five year old in a fire, I suspect it would be a very difficult decision and one you might secondguess or at least have nightmares about the rest of your life  If you had to choose between for sure saving a five year old child and a somehow a frozen embryo or somehow portable month old fetus, would you be in as difficult of a dilemma, needing a few seconds to decide?  Would you choose to try and also save the fetus even though that put the five year old at greater risk of death or suffering?  If you did attempt to save both, would you regret it if you had to listen to the child screaming in pain as it was burning because you failed?  Can’t you imagine what a mother might experience if she looked at her children and thought of them starving or homeless if she lost her job due to pregnancy or thinking of them out on the street because having to care for an infant meant she had to let the older kids care for themselves?

If the government or others were stepping in so kids were much less likely to be homeless or  without food or supervision, rarely were in danger of being beaten or shot, I would feel differently about having stronger laws preventing abortion for practical reasons for the benefit of 

I think the extreme scenarios you list are the outliers, plus adoption is always an option.  Pregnancy alone  is unlikely to lead to undue hardship - the costs of which are not greater than the value of the life.  More women will live (the unborn) than will die from preventing abortions.  Allowing abortions kills more females and future women.

Quote

 If you had to choose between for sure saving a five year old child and a somehow a frozen embryo or somehow portable month old fetus, would you be in as difficult of a dilemma, needing a few seconds to decide?  Would you choose to try and also save the fetus even though that put the five year old at greater risk of death or suffering?  If you did attempt to save both, would you regret it if you had to listen to the child screaming in pain as it was burning because you failed?  Can’t you imagine what a mother might experience if she looked at her children and thought of them starving or homeless if she lost her job due to pregnancy or thinking of them out on the street because having to care for an infant meant she had to let the older kids care for themselves?

I just don't think that is a scenario reflective of real life.   Adopting a baby out is not going to lead to the death of an already living 5 year old screaming in pain as it dies by fire.   

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good point.

I will amend to say that this is an interpretation of doctrine that I have heard frequently and that makes the most sense to me. 

It is quite possible I missed something that made it more definite.  

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[Ipod Touch]

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Apparently, your hatred for America affects your critical thinking skills.

In fairness, the Canadian media generally repeats the self-loathing expressed by our own media and academic elites.  So I don't blame any Canadian for having a skewed version of the USA.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the extreme scenarios you list are the outliers, plus adoption is always an option.  Pregnancy alone  is unlikely to lead to undue hardship - the costs of which are not greater than the value of the life.  More women will live (the unborn) than will die from preventing abortions.  Allowing abortions kills more females and future women.

I just don't think that is a scenario reflective of real life.   Adopting a baby out is not going to lead to the death of an already living 5 year old screaming in pain as it dies by fire.   

I am not suggesting it is realistic. I am using it to demonstrate that it is unlikely you would place identical, equal value on the lives of a fetus vs a baby if you were placed in a situation where it did make a huge difference. 
 

And while hopefully rare (but I fear it’s not), to be dismissive or even ignore that pregnancy itself may cause not just medical life threatening situations because of screwed up society and individuals is not going to help you persuade others to protect fetuses nor will addressing the suffering of babies and children by brushing it aside as only fair that all the kids, born and unborn suffer equally in a family. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

In fairness, the Canadian media generally repeats the self-loathing expressed by our own media and academic elites.  So I don't blame any Canadian for having a skewed version of the USA.

Having lived in Canada for over a decade and the States most of the rest of my life, in general Americans are much less informed and have a more screwed up view of Canada than the reverse.  Got to say I always laugh when I see Americans criticizing Canadians for not knowing America better. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting it is realistic. I am using it to demonstrate that it is unlikely you would place identical, equal value on the lives of a fetus vs a baby if you were placed in a situation where it did make a huge difference. 
 

And while hopefully rare (but I fear it’s not), to be dismissive or even ignore that pregnancy itself may cause not just medical life threatening situations because of screwed up society and individuals is not going to help you persuade others to protect fetuses nor will addressing the suffering of babies and children by brushing it aside as only fair that all the kids, born and unborn suffer equally in a family. 

It might be difficult for some to realize how fragile the barrier is for some between safety and danger, be the danger homelessness, inadequate medical care, abuse, poverty, etc...If significant numbers of Americans are facing eviction, or crippling medical bills, or are a paycheck away from financial insolvency then of course a pregnancy can easily disrupt the stability and actual safety of a family or person.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting it is realistic. I am using it to demonstrate that it is unlikely you would place identical, equal value on the lives of a fetus vs a baby if you were placed in a situation where it did make a huge difference.

I don't place equal value on them.  I place greater value on those already born and living.  I place the life of the mother above that of the life of the unborn.  But differences in how I value them doesn't dissuade me from advocating for equal protection for them.  I place grater value on my children than your children, for example.  They are not of equal value for me (no offense), but I believe they still deserve equal protection under the law.  They still deserve a shot at life.  The mother is still responsible to be a steward for that life she created, at least up until birth. 

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

And while hopefully rare (but I fear it’s not), to be dismissive or even ignore that pregnancy itself may cause not just medical life threatening situations because of screwed up society and individuals is not going to help you persuade others to protect fetuses nor will addressing the suffering of babies and children by brushing it aside as only fair that all the kids, born and unborn suffer equally in a family. 

It is relatively extremely rare.  There is about a 0.0174% chance of dying from pregnancy.  Compare that to abortion where there is nearly a 100% chance of dying from it.  As I sad before, the risk to females is astronomically higher in abortion than from child birth.  No comparison in a risk vs benefit.  I don't mean to diminish the life of those who die from pregnancy, and it is tragic that it happens, but the risks of abortion are too high and too guaranteed.  I look at it like vaccination.  Vaccines are guaranteed to kill about the same proportion as die from pregnancy every year, but where a disease (abortion) has a nearly 100% fatality rate, dang right I will support mandating vaccines against that disease, despite the tragic cost of those who die from vaccination. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

Elizabeth Warren never stops entertaining.

It is not an impossible plan. The idea floated in some minor legislative circles is to do this and pardon everyone involved for violation of the Hyde Amendment as needed.

I doubt it will happen but it is not impossible. Another option is that as the Pentagon has publicly stated they will continue to provide abortions there are ways to allow for medical care using military resources. Also unlikely but possible.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

hardly, I love July the 4th!, it's the day when those of us in the British Commonwealth celebrate getting rid of those pesky colonies💥

Canadian's seem to have a lot of common sense. No baloney stuff.

[The Nehor]

The thing that annoys me is the Pro-Life protestors holding up signs offering to adopt “unwanted babies”. There are kids these good samaritans could adopt now. In most states you can do it for free and even have full health care until they become adults.

No? THEN SHUT UP!

[Ipod Touch]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

in general Americans are much less informed and have a more screwed up view of Canada than the reverse

This is most certainly true.

I've only been to a few major Canadian cities.  So I have no real sense for what the "real" Canada is like. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

CFR?

Every state has life of the mother exceptions. Healthcare for ectopic pregnancies are not considered abortions. OBGYN Confirms: Treating Ectopic Pregnancy is Not an Abortion - LifeNews.com

Using these hypotheticals is a fear mongering tactic. It's sad to see. Even the pro abortion articles I read use the terms...'it may lead to confusion.' I expect my doctor to be intelligent enough not to be confused about life saving medical care. 

[Ipod Touch]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No baloney stuff.:)

Except for seizing bank accounts of grandmas exercising their God-given right to free speech. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Canadian's seem to have a lot of common sense. No baloney stuff.

I have a good friend in Canada and they have their own problems.  We just don't pay a lot of attention to them.  Certainly not as much attention as they pay to ours.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Except for seizing bank accounts of grandmas exercising their God-given right to free speech. 

uh, only if those Grandmas funded the illegal "trucker convoy" nonsense. Do you know any Grandmas whose bank accounts were "seized?"

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a good friend in Canada and they have their own problems.  We just don't pay a lot of attention to them.  Certainly not as much attention as they pay to ours.

we have to pay attention! we want to know if Dollar Drink Days at McDonalds is still on! We can't have any kinks to our drinks🥤

[Ipod Touch]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

t might be difficult for some to realize how fragile the barrier is for some between safety and danger, be the danger homelessness, inadequate medical care, abuse, poverty, etc...If significant numbers of Americans are facing eviction, or crippling medical bills, or are a paycheck away from financial insolvency then of course a pregnancy can easily disrupt the stability and actual safety of a family or person.

And that is why it is absolute foolishness to try and regulate abortion with any level of specificity around conditions.  It's a legislative and bureaucratic time bomb.

There is no way to regulate abortion without massively expanding the power of government.  Moreover, in this case we are seeing expansion of government power into the most private and personal choices a woman can make.  Absolutely insanity.

If the state doesn't allow an abortion for a women's circumstances and she later experiences serious health complications or dies.  Who is liable?  Can her family sue the doctors?  The state?  The individual bureaucrat who reviewed the paperwork?

If I'm a Democrat this morning, I start hiring an army of lawyers and pull a Scientology-v-IRS move in restrictive states.  These new laws are so full of problems that they will be tied up in courts for decades.

[Ipod Touch]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

uh, only if those Grandmas funded the illegal "trucker convoy" nonsense. Do you know any Grandmas whose bank accounts were "seized?"

No.  I've only read inflammatory headlines from the UK Daily Mail.

[Ipod Touch]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Certainly not as much attention as they pay to ours.

I suppose that is the price of being a (diminishing?) superpower.

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Every state has life of the mother exceptions. Healthcare for ectopic pregnancies are not considered abortions. OBGYN Confirms: Treating Ectopic Pregnancy is Not an Abortion - LifeNews.com

Using these hypotheticals is a fear mongering tactic. It's sad to see. Even the pro abortion articles I read use the terms...'it may lead to confusion.' I expect my doctor to be intelligent enough not to be confused about life saving medical care. 

Can you quote the portion of the article which supports your claim? I don't see it. By the way, this isn't a very strong factual source, and the article is essentially an interview of one doctor and one doctor's opinions.

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

an extra taint for candidates chosen specifically to overturn Roe, who publically lied to Congress about what they would do about Roe to secure the necessary Senate votes,

This is untrue. A description of the law as "precedent" is not a guarantee not to overturn it, thank heavens. In their confirmation hearings the three justices in question described Roe v. Wade as precedent, which it was. Ironically enough, there is a longstanding precedent in Supreme Court nomination hearings that justices do not state their positions on specific cases in order to maintain their ability to judge the merits of individual cases. It's called the Ginsburg Rule and I have mentioned it before on this thread. It seems I must do so again. Enough slander.

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Now, we are supposed to rejoice at how wonderful everything will be now that the Supreme Court has decided what is legal and acceptable

Funny, after reading the opinion I was left with the distinct impression that it is now up to the state legislatures to decide what is legal and acceptable. That is, after all, the legal impact of this decision. 

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

There was nothing about legal abortion that made it compulsory for anyone, even when a person has difficult and complex choices to make.  It was simply one choice available to person most impacted.  Does the power to compell choice for all, to have one circumstance fit all, to say, if a woman is raped or endangered in health, she just has to stay raped and face the danger and inconvenience, or go to prison for life, and not complicate other people's lives with socialist claims on the community for the next 19 years, go with priesthood?

The platform of the national Republican Party is that rape and incest exceptions are appropriate and legitimate. "Prison for life" is not on the table. 

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

As LDS, I do not believe that life begins at conception, but before.  We don't know when the spirit enters the body, but we do have one hint in 3 Nephi: "On the morrow come I into the world." 

3 Nephi is not indicative of anything regarding the ensoulment of the child. The well-established precedent of divine investiture (members of the Godhead speaking for each other) means that it need not be Jesus Christ Himself speaking, nor does "come into the world" imply that He's not already alive. 

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If I have a choice, what would I choose for her?  If I have a voice, how does that enter in?  Do her circumstances matter, or just any chance for any kind of life for me no matter the length or quality and no matter what the cost to anyone else, especially that one who bears the most direct pain and responsibility?  Can individual circumstances matter, or is this an absolute which bears no opposition, no special cirumstances, no compromise?

Do you seriously mean to imply that the infant is consenting to its own death? Or that, failing any way of verifying that, we should assume it?

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

What does Jesus say regarding those who "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers?"  The states which are most adamanantly anti-abortion are also those that provide the worst health care, the poorest school funding, the worst help for the poorest, and that tried hardest to resist and then remove Obamacare. 

States could be better at that, but it's a non-sequitur when it comes to the morality of abortion unless you wish to make the value of an infant's life transactional. Everything was worse for the whole world 100 years ago than it now is in one of these states, and yet nobody says that we should have committed species suicide way back in the day. The implications of this hedonistic and nihilistic worldview are utterly staggering.

I dislike having to disagree with you so ardently. You are a thinker whom I deeply admire, but I cannot admire this. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

hardly, I love July the 4th!, it's the day when those of us in the British Commonwealth celebrate getting rid of those pesky colonies💥

And the day that we were forever freed from having to play that awful game cricket. 

[OGHoosier]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not an impossible plan. The idea floated in some minor legislative circles is to do this and pardon everyone involved for violation of the Hyde Amendment as needed.

"Alright, so our new plan is to just flagrantly break the law and have our President issue pardons for it so we can do it with impunity."

Physician, punch thyself. 

Edit: Also don't even think of bringing up "civil disobedience", the whole point of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment of the law anyways as a protest at its injustice.

Edited June 28, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Canadian's seem to have a lot of common sense. No baloney stuff.

Ever been to Vancouver or Montreal?