It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Durangout]

Interesting thoughts from Jordan Peterson regarding abortion:

 

 

[bsjkki]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Hmm, the only thing I can come up with is that they want to keep the girl's identity hidden. But still, I'm kind of skeptical now too. 

When the WaPo fact checker writes it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, it’s probably not true. A one-source story about a 10-year-old and an abortion goes viral - The Washington Post

Edited July 10, 2022 by bsjkki

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. 

Yes, that's the problem right there, playing roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Hmm, the only thing I can come up with is that they want to keep the girl's identity hidden. But still, I'm kind of skeptical now too. 

They would by law have to report it if it occurred and an investigation would then be on record even if the identity was kept hidden by law enforcement (at least I assume that is how it works).  If the doctors were so concerned for the child they broke the law to hide her, why in the world did they then make her national news.  It doesn’t make sense.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

They would by law have to report it if it occurred and an investigation would then be on record even if the identity was kept hidden by law enforcement (at least I assume that is how it works).  If the doctors were so concerned for the child they broke the law to hide her, why in the world did they then make her national news.  It doesn’t make sense.

True, disappointed that no one cared to check facts, speaking of the president, until verified.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, that's the problem right there, playing roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons.

If a woman knows in advance that any pregnancy is likely to be life threatening to her (my mother and neighbor were in this situation), should she be celibate in order to avoid “playing roulette with another person’s life for selfish reasons”? Why or why not?

Edited July 10, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. 

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

 

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

 

How?

[Meadowchik]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If a woman knows in advance that any pregnancy is likely to be life threatening to her (my mother and neighbor were in this situation), should she be celibate in order to avoid “playing roulette with another person’s life for selfish reasons”? Why or why not?

And according to his rule, since pregnancy *always* poses a risk to women, a man who has sex with a woman is always selfishly "playing roulette" with her life.

Shame on you, menz /s

Edited July 11, 2022 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If a woman knows in advance that any pregnancy is likely to be life threatening to her (my mother and neighbor were in this situation), should she be celibate in order to avoid “playing roulette with another person’s life for selfish reasons”? Why or why not?

There are other options.  

[Durangout]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

They would by law have to report it if it occurred and an investigation would then be on record even if the identity was kept hidden by law enforcement (at least I assume that is how it works).  If the doctors were so concerned for the child they broke the law to hide her, why in the world did they then make her national news.  It doesn’t make sense.

There are so many red flags with this story…I don’t believe it’s real for a second.  It’s just abortion activists trying to scare women.  Disgusting.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are other options.  

It's a yes or no question. Not unreasonably posted, given MB's extreme claim.

[Durangout]

On 7/9/2022 at 3:16 AM, Meadowchik said:

It is her body with a body inside it in total dependence on her body, and she's the only one (between her and the unborn) who can act. She must act autonomously and does in reality. The problem is that people disrespect that fact.

This lady who once worked for Planned Parenthood has a differing opinion:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11001067/Former-Planned-Parenthood-clinic-director-pro-life-witnessing-barbarity-abortions.html

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It's a yes or no question. Not unreasonably posted, given MB's extreme claim.

The answer is no...there are other options to prevent pregnancy and not be celibate. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

The answer is no...there are other options to prevent pregnancy and not be celibate. 

Not one of which is 100 percent effective. No matter what method of birth control used (including permanent birth control) the woman (and man involved) are intentionally participating in an act that could result in a pregnancy. And hence “playing roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons”. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rivers]

On 7/10/2022 at 8:34 AM, Meadowchik said:

Not sure what your point is. 

Comatose people are not inside someone else's body.

Still a separate human being.  
 

My wife had three pregnancies.  With all three, I went to some of her OB GYN appointments.  The doctor wasn’t just assessing the health of my wife, but also of the human living inside of her.  That’s the way healthcare should be.  There should be reverence for all human life.

While I am pro-life, I still recognize there is a gray area of medical complications that can happen during a pregnancy.  I realize there are appropriate times to end a pregnancy.  There are a lot of things that the more extreme pro-life states will need to iron out.

I would love to sit down and chat with a pro-life OB GYN and ask how their values would be put to practice in all the sticky situations and what types of laws would be the most reasonable.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not one of which is 100 percent effective. No matter what method of birth control used (including permanent birth control) the woman (and man involved) are intentionally participating in an act that could result in a pregnancy. And hence “playing roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons”. 

There comes a point where the risk is so negligible that it becomes strained to compare it to playing roulette.  You could double up and get both partners fixed, that is pretty much zero risk.  You could triple up and add an IUD to that.  You could quadruple up with a condom.  You could quintuple up with using the fertility schedule.  There are ways to get risk so astronomically low that they are essentially zero. 

It becomes less morally questionable and risky than driving in your car, thereby placing other lives at risk.  

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not one of which is 100 percent effective. No matter what method of birth control used (including permanent birth control) the woman (and man involved) are intentionally participating in an act that could result in a pregnancy. And hence “playing roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons”. 

I totally know what you mean.  I remember back in the 80’s when Victor got Nicky from The Young and the Restless pregnant even though he had had a vasectomy.  Boy was he in a pickle.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

There comes a point where the risk is so negligible that it becomes strained to compare it to playing roulette.  You could double up and get both partners fixed, that is pretty much zero risk.  You could triple up and add an IUD to that.  You could quadruple up with a condom.  You could quintuple up with using the fertility schedule.  There are ways to get risk so astronomically low that they are essentially zero. 

It becomes less morally questionable and risky than driving in your car, thereby placing other lives at risk.  

So you disagree with MFBukowski’s characterization then? And those that engage in sexual relations while taking appropriate precautions against pregnancy are NOT playing “roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons”?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you disagree with MFBukowski’s characterization then? And those that engage in sexual relations while taking appropriate precautions against pregnancy are NOT playing “roulette with another person's life, for selfish reasons”?

There was no mention of appropriate precautions.  I thought they were talking about sex and pregnancy in general.  think most abortions are not due to failed appropriate precautions.  

Where healthy people who are not at risk of dying from pregnancy are taking appropriate precautions, I would not call that roulette - because they have a choice to kill the child or not.  It is not a gamble, it is a choice.  

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.  

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

20 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

How?

Because when you say that "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy" what you are doing is treating pregnancy as an action rather than a consequence.

The problem with that, of course, is that you don't get to to give consent to actions and the consequences of those actions separately - that’s just not how the world works.

Say, for example, that you were to enter a casino in Vegas and walk up to the roulette table. You remember Wesley Snipe's sage advice from Passenger 57 to "always bet on black," so you take $100 worth of chips and place them on black (knowing that there is just under a 50% chance that the ball will actually land on black). The house then spins the wheel and the ball lands on red, meaning you are going to lose your money.

As the house leans over to collect your chips you yell, "Wait! I only gave consent to bet my money; I never consented to losing any of it. Now that the risky event which I freely consented to participate in has completed and produced an outcome that I don't desire, I am now withdrawing my consent, so give me my chips back!"

As a side note: I strongly suggest that you not actually try this in a real casino.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the same is true of sex. Women (and men) consent to the act of sex knowing full well what the possible outcomes are, and they could have reversed their consent at any point before (or even during) the act. What they aren't allowed to do, however, is to then try and refuse to "consent" to the outcome just because it happens to be one they were hoping to avoid.

Now, going back to the casino example, do you think someone would be morally justified in killing the croupier in order to avoid the consequence of the bet which they freely made (i.e., consented to)? If not, how do you distinguish that from someone who wants to end a life in order to avoid the consequence of the sexual activity which they freely participated in?

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because when you say that "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy" what you are doing is treating pregnancy as an action rather than a consequence.

The problem with that, of course, is that you don't get to to give consent to actions and the consequences of those actions separately - that’s just not how the world works.

Say, for example, that you were to enter a casino in Vegas and walk up to the roulette table. You remember Wesley Snipe's sage advice from Passenger 57 to "always bet on black," so you take $100 worth of chips and place them on black (knowing that there is just under a 50% chance that the ball will actually land on black). The house then spins the wheel and the ball lands on red, meaning you are going to lose your money.

As the house leans over to collect your chips you yell, "Wait! I only gave consent to bet my money; I never consented to losing any of it. Now that the risky event which I freely consented to participate in has completed and produced an outcome that I don't desire, I am now withdrawing my consent, so give me my chips back!"

As a side note: I strongly suggest that you not actually try this in a real casino.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the same is true of sex. Women (and men) consent to the act of sex knowing full well what the possible outcomes are, and they could have reversed their consent at any point before (or even during) the act. What they aren't allowed to do, however, is to then try and refuse to "consent" to the outcome just because it happens to be one they were hoping to avoid.

Now, going back to the casino example, do you think someone would be morally justified in killing the croupier in order to avoid the consequence of the bet which they freely made (i.e., consented to)? If not, how do you distinguish that from someone who wants to end a life in order to avoid the consequence of the sexual activity which they freely participated in?

 

Drunk drivers are a risk of driving. Everyone knows drunk drivers are out there. They still drive. Have they consented to be hit by a drunk driver?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Drunk drivers are a risk of driving. Everyone knows drunk drivers are out there. They still drive. Have they consented to be hit by a drunk driver?

You can't consent to somebody else breaking the law. 

Conversely, you don't get to escape the natural foreseeable consequences of your own actions by saying you didn't "consent" to those consequences. Your uncoerced participation implies your consent.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Drunk drivers are a risk of driving. Everyone knows drunk drivers are out there. They still drive. Have they consented to be hit by a drunk driver?

No but it is a known risk that one accepts when they drive.  There are lots of morons out there on the road.  From drunk drivers to drivers that text. One sort of accepts that risk when they drive.  Otherwise the safest option is to stay home. 

[carbon dioxide]

On 7/10/2022 at 8:05 AM, Meadowchik said:

Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

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.