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.

Even then, that story is less about the actual act and more about disobedience

A single cell is alive but it's not a person. I see many did not read: ABORTION: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE BOTH “PRO-LIFE” AND “PRO-CHOICE”? – BY CARL SAGAN AND ANN DRUYAN - proedward.dailyview.tw/society/on-aborti...rl-sagan-ann-druyan/ .

Even if that clump of cells is a person it does not have the right to use a woman's body against her will. You can't be forced to donate blood to save someone's life. See: https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm .

How is anyone claiming the right to decide this issue for anyone except themselves?

Edan wrote: 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?

A short answer:

The US Supreme Court can overrule it's own previous decisions if a new case is appealed to it. It's been done before. This is the first time it's been done to eliminate a right. All the other cases were to grant or expand a right.

There have been other ones. Quite a few relating to 4th/5th amendments, and Miller v California comes to mind in broadening the ability to prosecute obscenity.
But this is the biggest and most visible one by far

Diana W wrote: ... and I dare say ... you consider yourself a "jedi" ... council member at that.

That in itself pisses me off with your dismissive lack of information

I am well informed, thank you.

River wrote:

ren wrote: That being said the pro choice camp ought to choose something other than 'my body' as an argument. It is repulsive.

Could you elaborate on this?

Everything you do, you do with your body. Everything your body can do isn't legal.

That in itself makes it a rubbish argument.

Additionally anyone who can spend 5 minutes looking at history knows that the legality of abortion neither prevents nor encourages abortions. The principle of 'its going to happen anyway, there's nothing we can do about it, we may as well do it right' is a winner because it is an undeniable fact backed by a lot of evidence.

The vast majority of abortions will allow good families to be created, or save existing families from destruction. Then in a minority of cases you'll get the 10 year old who got raped etc.

If you are faced with a group who oppose it on moral grounds, find out where the limits are.

If you present arguments like 'do you want your wife/mother/ daughter to die and leave you to look after her kids' or 'Do you want to be a victim of paternity fraud' or 'Do you want your husband to leave and never come back because you got drunk one night and now you're carrying someone else's twins',

you will find that your oponents' view of right and wrong isn't quite as clear cut as you thought it was. Then it's up to your camp to also admit that the needs of a 10 year old rape victim are dramatically different to those of someone who wants to go on holiday instead of giving birth in 3 weeks time.

ren wrote:

Diana W wrote: ... and I dare say ... you consider yourself a "jedi" ... council member at that.

That in itself pisses me off with your dismissive lack of information

I am well informed, thank you.

River wrote:

ren wrote: That being said the pro choice camp ought to choose something other than 'my body' as an argument. It is repulsive.

Could you elaborate on this?

Everything you do, you do with your body. Everything your body can do isn't legal.

That in itself makes it a rubbish argument.

Additionally anyone who can spend 5 minutes looking at history knows that the legality of abortion neither prevents nor encourages abortions. The principle of 'its going to happen anyway, there's nothing we can do about it, we may as well do it right' is a winner because it is an undeniable fact backed by a lot of evidence.

The vast majority of abortions will allow good families to be created, or save existing families from destruction. Then in a minority of cases you'll get the 10 year old who got raped etc.

If you are faced with a group who oppose it on moral grounds, find out where the limits are.

If you present arguments like 'do you want your wife/mother/ daughter to die and leave you to look after her kids' or 'Do you want to be a victim of paternity fraud' or 'Do you want your husband to leave and never come back because you got drunk one night and now you're carrying someone else's twins',

you will find that your oponents' view of right and wrong isn't quite as clear cut as you thought it was. Then it's up to your camp to also admit that the needs of a 10 year old rape victim are dramatically different to those of someone who wants to go on holiday instead of giving birth in 3 weeks time.

How do you negotiate with people who believe that a single cell is a person? How do you negotiate with fanatics that say if it's saving the woman or the "baby" then the woman should die since she's here to bear children and that's part of the job?

One step at a time. An argument opposite to a conviction will only reinforce the conviction.

There is a middle ground. Despite benefitting from it myself, I would not recommend an early abortion. Heck I've seen how a woman reacts to a very early miscarriage of an unwanted pregnancy and it isn't with joy. Some late term abortions are outright barbaric. If you want the pro-life fundamentalists to agree to anything with the 'its my body' fundamentalists, you may as well tell them they are the spawn of satan and it's a good thing they don't reproduce. More abortions = less Liberal satan worshippers.

You could try facts. Most abortions are not artificially induced, they are naturally occurring and subcategorised as miscarriages.

It is perfectly normal, and in fact preferable for a pregnancy to fail if certain conditions are not met, ranging from the mother's fitness to carry to the quality and successful development of the embryo.

When these conditions are not met yet the mother fails to miscarry as she should, her reproductive system is defective and requires medical treatment.

Any half arsed politician can bang out protection for abortion on medical ground. Even the taliban could allow it on economic grounds.





And of course if that fails shoot them with their own guns.

Had a wet dream = murderer
Wank to completion = murderer
Miscarriage = satan worshipper
Everytime an ovum is discarded without fertilisation = christ didn't die for your sins because you aren't even human.

Etc