A Dark Fourth of July

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.