A Dark Fourth of July

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.