A Dark Fourth of July

Texts, web searches about abortion have been used to prosecute women

https://archive.ph/WYkGL

In my state, Wisconsin, once Roe was overturned we went back to the laws that were previously on the books. Those laws were written prior to 1900. Our governor (a liberal) has tried to get the state legislature to protect women's right to choose, but our state legislature is heavily conservative and refuses to budge. The consequence in my state is that no abortion can take place unless the pregnancy itself presents a direct and imminent threat to the life of the mother. I don't believe that there is any exception for victims of rape or incest.

But when the law is written this way, it leads to more death. Ectopic pregnancies present a threat of death to the mother -- but our doctors are being told that they can't remove the pregnancy until life-threatening, imminent danger already has begun. That means that a woman can get an ectopic pregnancy removed, but only after it has presented her with serious complications that can (even with treatment!) lead to death and infertility. What's more, our doctors are being told not to treat cancer in pregnant women because treating cancer can threaten the life of the child -- and because it's the cancer, not the pregnancy, which is threatening the life of the mother, this doesn't count as something that qualifies a woman for an abortion.

Personally, I find these positions to be quite disgusting. We live in a world where a significant percentage of underage girls are sexually assaulted every year. In some states, they are being forced to carry pregnancy from these assaults to term -- something which, for a very young girl, can certainly threaten the life of both the mother and the child anyway.

For those of you who are pro-life, I'm not going to judge you for your position, but do keep in mind that legislating a pro-life position in some cases looks very much like a pro-death position, as in the cases I've written of in this post.

I just want to point out, regarding Br. John's post about texts- that's vastly different than a Period Tracker. You don't know how a period tracker is being used, but you can tell what someone's intent is if they are text messaging. Those are their real thoughts. Same is true of google searches.

Yes, but it is information on their condition at the time. And that's literally all prosecution cares about. The more information they can get that makes you LOOK guilty. The more they can make it look like a trial would go badly for you. The more likely people are to plea and not risk heavier sentencing. Especially the poorer segments of the population who can't afford an attorney. This stuff would still get subpoenaed 100% of the time.

What peecentage of abortions are actually for víctims of sexual abuse and/or women/unborn child in legitimate danger?

I feel that there is some sort of middle ground to be found. For example, I found it bizare when female activists in Argentina were essentially chanting "kill the fetus!". I believe this sort of trivialization of abortions is what most conservatives actually oppose.

I see no middle ground. Either a woman has the right to her own body and health decisions or she does not. The forced birth movement has never been about compromise and they don't care whether anyone thinks abortion is serious or trivial.

THE RADICAL THEOLOGY THAT COULD MAKE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM A THING OF THE PAST

Even devout Christians should fear these influential leaders' refusal to separate church and state.

https://www.texasobserver.org/dominion-theology/ OR https://archive.ph/e7fwZ

John is right. Its become like most other issues. Very us vrs them. We’re over here, they are over there. This whole country needs a lesson on balance. Both sides of all of these big political topics are so filled with hate, and ego, that we’re just about at the point of everyone losing sight of what the original topic was.

Personally I’m still at a loss that we even have this as a topic. Everyone has a right to their own body, and to make there own medical decisions. That’s probably the most common sense sentence I have ever wrote. How we’ve arrived at a point where that’s the hot topic in the U.S. and how there are people on the other side of it just dosnt make sense to me.

Zero wrote: John is right. Its become like most other issues. Very us vrs them. We’re over here, they are over there. This whole country needs a lesson on balance.

And your plan for balance involves doubling down on your position?

As a republican who’s pro choice, I’d say I got the meet in the middle (or balance) of this topic figured out.

I’m willing to cross party lines based on my personal beliefs. A lot of people arnt. Do I think women should be getting 5 abortions a year and using it as birth control….no. But am I for a woman choosing what happens to her own body…yes. Am I for a woman correcting a mistake made during a one night thing….yes. Am I for an assault victim NOT having to look at what happened to her every day for the rest of her life…yes.

Br. John wrote: I see no middle ground. Either a woman has the right to her own body and health decisions or she does not.

You must admit the argument is more nuanced than that. You cannot simply dismiss the fact that there may be some merit to the argument of the unborn child having the right to live, and then expect the "other side" to see your point.

May i propose another angle? Women are not likely to stay celibate for a plethora of reasons which i could discuss in detail but they are burdened with 100% of the pegnancy and since its male sperm that causes pregnancies,men might want to consider this option , which can be reversed.

https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

Serenity Amyntas wrote: May i propose another angle?

I assume you are pointing out how currently the bulk of responsibility of contraception is placed on woman, and I am all for this method you post. But I sincerely doubt it is likely to be adopte, especially by the bulk of men who sexually abuse other women or even minors.

Manu wrote:

Br. John wrote: I see no middle ground. Either a woman has the right to her own body and health decisions or she does not.

You must admit the argument is more nuanced than that. You cannot simply dismiss the fact that there may be some merit to the argument of the unborn child having the right to live, and then expect the "other side" to see your point.

I hope everyone reads this excellent article. ABORTION: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE BOTH “PRO-LIFE” AND “PRO-CHOICE”? – BY CARL SAGAN AND ANN DRUYAN - https://proedward.dailyview.tw/society/on-abortion-carl-sagan-ann-druyan/

We had an excellent compromise in Roe and look at what happened. What is your compromise position? I'd be delighted to see a compromise that a forced-birther would accept.

"Roe v. Wade ... permits abortion at the request of the woman without restriction in the first trimester and, with some restrictions intended to protect her health, in the second trimester. It allows states to forbid abortion in the third trimester, except when there’s a serious threat to the life or health of the woman."

"The woman’s guarantee of privacy and the fetus’s right to life must be weighed — and when the court did the weighing, priority was given to privacy in the first trimester and to life in the third. The transition was decided ... — not when “ensoulment” occurs, not when the fetus takes on sufficient human characteristics to be protected by laws against murder. Instead, the criterion adopted was whether the fetus could live outside the mother. This is called “viability” and depends in part on the ability to breathe. The lungs are simply not developed, and the fetus cannot breathe — no matter how advanced an artificial lung it might be placed in — until about the 24th week, near the start of the sixth month. This is why Roe v. Wade permits the states to prohibit abortions in the last trimester. It’s a very pragmatic criterion."

Br. John wrote: I'd be delighted to see a compromise that a forced-birther would accept.

Me too my friend, me too.

I must admit I was misinformed regarding the specifics of Roe vs. Wade. It seems a reasonable middle ground was there already.

In my country, abortion is illegal, but no one bothers to enforce it. We dont have religious nuts demonstrating outside of clínics like you do.

I think on top of the merits of abortion, this decision undermines confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution that only "calls balls and strikes". The fact that Thomas (citing himself) called on the court to overrule some other pivotal civil rights rulings is horrifying; namely Griswold v Connecticut (contraception), Lawrence v Texas (sodomy aka homosexual consensual sex), and Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage).
Even more worrying is that the last 3 justices were all specifically asked (and responded to the negative) if they would overturn Roe v Wade during their confirmation.

Can someone explain to me however a decision like Roe vs Wade can just be overturned? Surely the decision is the decision? Other court cases aren't just overturned randomly, why those with political implications?

So the principle of Stare Decisis means that courts lower than the SCOTUS are held to its decisions. Typically SCOTUS has to follow its own decisions as well, so things like Thomas citing his previous dissents is very atypical. Even Brown v Board of Education didn't explicitly overturn all of Plessy v Ferguson. According to the internet, SCOTUS has overruled itself around 300 times, many of these from decisions within the first couple years.

SCOTUS' motivation to not do things willy nilly is the impeachment mechanism, which has only happened once. Threats like growing the size of the court ('37 especially) have also been strong factors in tempering courts seen as behaving improperly.

In don't have a problem with abortion when it comes to issues such as rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother (this last one is especially close to me, because when I was very young, my mom had what was then called a tubal pregnancy, in which case, neither her nor the baby would have survived without an abortion). I also don't have a problem with contraceptives. Birth control pills, etc. But as Serenity pointed out, guys have options too if they don't want to conceive a child.

If none of that is good enough, then people just need to learn self-control. It's not a mystery how babies are conceived.

If I'm not mistake, if a child is unwanted, then he or she can be put up for adoption. There are a lot of people looking to adopt.

One final note... Br. John mentioned "a clump of cells" as if it wasn't a lifeform. I have to wonder about something that I hear a lot... why is it that the potential discovery of a single-celled organism on another planet would be considered life, and the cells in a woman's body are not?

Streen wrote: One final note... Br. John mentioned "a clump of cells" as if it wasn't a lifeform. I have to wonder about something that I hear a lot... why is it that the potential discovery of a single-celled organism on another planet would be considered life, and the cells in a woman's body are not?

Going by that logic, then every time a man masturbates he should be charged with murder for the millions of “life forms” he kills when his sperm dies. If the argument is life is life …..then sperm is life.

Zero wrote:

Streen wrote: One final note... Br. John mentioned "a clump of cells" as if it wasn't a lifeform. I have to wonder about something that I hear a lot... why is it that the potential discovery of a single-celled organism on another planet would be considered life, and the cells in a woman's body are not?

Going by that logic, then every time a man masturbates he should be charged with murder for the millions of “life forms” he kills when his sperm dies. If the argument is life is life …..then sperm is life.

Well. There is a story about Onan spilling his seed on the floor and God is upset about that :laugh:

https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm
https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-10.htm

But i do get your point, is the reason worth taking a chance away from the unborn. Its one of the most difficult ethical issues of our time.