Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I can understand why you have that opinion now.
Abortion Repeal?
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
The Catholic Church does the world a great disservice by its intolerant policy against any and all contraceptives. Speaking as an Irish-renegade Catholic and former altar boy, The driving force behind this stand is economical not ecclesiastical. The more Catholics born, the more revenue for the corporation.
In the mid 1980’s, when my PTSD was at high peak, my wound still caused pain and the VA was largely unsympathetic, I thought I’d return to the church to seek solace. Feeling hopeful, I attended a mass. A layman got up to the pulpit about halfway through and asked parent’s to take their kids outside. Once the kids were gone, the aborted-fetus slideshow began. That was it for me. Never been back and never will.
I think abortion has to be an option. My sister had one years ago. But we also live in a world where birth control devices and medications are readily available; BC pills, morning-after pill etc…and those alternatives to abortion should be widely encouraged from an early age. Much more so than they are now.
Ultimately, I predict within 50-70 years, mandatory birth control will have to be enacted globally, through tax incentives and penalties, before we start killing each other over food, living space and potable water. Doesn’t hurt to start early.
In the mid 1980’s, when my PTSD was at high peak, my wound still caused pain and the VA was largely unsympathetic, I thought I’d return to the church to seek solace. Feeling hopeful, I attended a mass. A layman got up to the pulpit about halfway through and asked parent’s to take their kids outside. Once the kids were gone, the aborted-fetus slideshow began. That was it for me. Never been back and never will.
I think abortion has to be an option. My sister had one years ago. But we also live in a world where birth control devices and medications are readily available; BC pills, morning-after pill etc…and those alternatives to abortion should be widely encouraged from an early age. Much more so than they are now.
Ultimately, I predict within 50-70 years, mandatory birth control will have to be enacted globally, through tax incentives and penalties, before we start killing each other over food, living space and potable water. Doesn’t hurt to start early.
Last edited:
This is a big part of the issue, too. Granted, my middle school days were a bit over a decade ago, but sex ed was abstinence only. While things may be different now, I highly doubt it. This is in Texas, too, which has a trigger law coming into effect. So there's gonna be the wonderful combination of poor education and no legal access to abortion. I'm not looking forward to seeing what consequences this is going to have in about 20 years.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Yes, no, maybe so. It'll be interesting for sure.
Along the lines of reversing Roe V Wade, and with much bigger implications, will be West Virginia V EPA. The two cases mutually underscore the bigger issue of what we want federalized because don't like the state we live in, or don't want the lawmakers to decide. How far do we want to go to allow the feds, elected, unelected, appointed, or hired, to do our thinking for us? At least at the state level, there's more skin in the game for citizens to influence decision makers.
I have been pretty silent about this since many pages ago, and I will more or less remain silent. To quote the Bible, "it is done." And to your point, quoting the late, great immutable Gus Avrakotos (He of CIA notoriety), "we'll see".
Federalism and freedom are always messy, almost never consistent, and have potential for failure. It's why we have always referred to this thing of ours as the "American Experiment".
I think once the emotions wear off, what remains will be (for good, bad or indifferent) closer to what the founders intended with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Free citizens choosing their governance in each state (and what state they want to live in) through a body of duly-elected officials through the exercise of free and just process.
I guess we will all have to manage our response and move forward from here.
But I agree, Doc. Interesting.
Yes, at least 10 states have completed outlawed it, already. Saw it on the news.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,275
All comes back to religion playing an all to active role in American lives.
I’ve yet to see a cogent, non religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever.
The most truly conservative option would be for everyone to have easy access to abortion. If it doesn’t affect me, who gives a fuck.
Devildoc
Verified Military
If you have to say "I've yet to see a cogent, non-religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever", chances are you've already made up your mind, and you simply don't want to.
There are dozens of arguments; well, maybe not dozens but several, dealing with non-religious aspect of medical ethics and law regarding states rights versus federal that don't even touch upon religious.
I think your example would be libertarian, but not the classical conservative opinion. To paraphrase Jefferson, what do I care what my neighbor does as long as he neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg?
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,275
Give me one.
Notice, I said “opposition to abortion”. Not constitutional or states rights. The people who filed this lawsuit are against abortion EVERYWHERE, as in literally on earth. They won via technicality. Tell me why abortion is wrong, and it should be a crime without mentioning anything related to religion. I’m setting the goalpost in concrete.
Last edited:
Devildoc
Verified Military
Roe v Wade assumes that the federal government does not live up to the law of the tenth of The tenth amendment; RBG herself thought the law was probably unconstitutional.
Medical ethics regarding the start of viability at somewhere around 23 weeks and fetus becomes a person.
The illogical assumption of "My body, my choice"; there are plenty of laws about what you cannot do to your own body. Try to slit your wrists and see what happens to you.
I know you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I've got pretty broad shoulders, I'm sure I can handle it. My point isn't to try to sway you to my side but rather point out when you back yourself into the argument being essentially 'any argument against abortion is rooted in religion', you've already entrenched yourself into your position regardless of any other facts or perspectives.
Medical ethics regarding the start of viability at somewhere around 23 weeks and fetus becomes a person.
The illogical assumption of "My body, my choice"; there are plenty of laws about what you cannot do to your own body. Try to slit your wrists and see what happens to you.
I know you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I've got pretty broad shoulders, I'm sure I can handle it. My point isn't to try to sway you to my side but rather point out when you back yourself into the argument being essentially 'any argument against abortion is rooted in religion', you've already entrenched yourself into your position regardless of any other facts or perspectives.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,275
So to be totally transparent, you agree the government has the ability and right to regulate how a person maintains their body. That it is constitutional? We are discussing medical ethics now. That is the argument?
Devildoc
Verified Military
More than one thing can be right. I was merely addressing your assertion that there is not a non-religious opposition to abortion.
But to be totally transparent, I don't like that there are two standards to what the government will allow us to do to our bodies. Suicide itself is not illegal, but attempted suicide is in many places. So to say that the state can affect one, but not the other is a logical fallacy.
I never mentioned constitutionality to anything else aside from Roe v Wade, but that argument is not mine alone. The clerk to the justice (Blackmun) who wrote the affirmative opinion in effect said it was legal BS.
Also to be transparent, I don't have the answers here. I don't corner the market on medical ethics or higher philosophy or judicial philosophy. These are my opinions. But you know what? Neither does anyone else here.
So to that end, this is a great debate, but we're not going to get anywhere. So I will tap out and have my chocolate cake.
Cake, with ice cold milk???
Devildoc
Verified Military
Is there any other way?? ;)
God bless you my son
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,275
I can respect that.
Anyone else:
So if one thinks abortion is not ok on constitutional grounds, one must agree that the government, specifically state governments have the right to tell you to get a vaccine and wear a mask? Right? Or am I misunderstanding?
I’m certainly conflating two arguments. But they aren’t unrelated. I want to hear what our constitutional experts think. I’m not one. But lots of people were bitching about freedom, and they aren’t doing so now, at least not about this.
Alternatively people who don’t agree can just say it’s for religious reasons, and admit they would like their religious viewpoint foisted on everyone else. It’s ok to be honest.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,902
Okay so…I’ve been reading this thread for days and nothing I’ve read has changed my opinion on the topic.
- My body my choice. I’d be curious to know how many people chanting this were the same ones losing their shit when I said the same thing about wearing a mask or taking the vaccine; but I digress.
At the end of the day, the choice was made to participate in an act that may create a life; a 1 in 400 Trillion chance to have a blink of an eye of existence on the planet. And that can be snubbed out because … pick a reason. I have a serious problem with that type of logic.
It’s not a political to me, it’s not religious thing (something I’m really struggling with these days), it’s a human thing. If we perform the act to create it, we owe ‘it’ the opportunity to exist; because there are no second chances. From my perspective, abortion is a selfish choice.
Do I need to do the disclaimer that I am not singling out or attacking anyone who may have participated in the thread with a different opinion or shared story? I hope not.
To add…I get and accept that there are extenuating circumstances, but to use abortion as a form of birth control just feels morally wrong.
- My body my choice. I’d be curious to know how many people chanting this were the same ones losing their shit when I said the same thing about wearing a mask or taking the vaccine; but I digress.
At the end of the day, the choice was made to participate in an act that may create a life; a 1 in 400 Trillion chance to have a blink of an eye of existence on the planet. And that can be snubbed out because … pick a reason. I have a serious problem with that type of logic.
It’s not a political to me, it’s not religious thing (something I’m really struggling with these days), it’s a human thing. If we perform the act to create it, we owe ‘it’ the opportunity to exist; because there are no second chances. From my perspective, abortion is a selfish choice.
Do I need to do the disclaimer that I am not singling out or attacking anyone who may have participated in the thread with a different opinion or shared story? I hope not.
To add…I get and accept that there are extenuating circumstances, but to use abortion as a form of birth control just feels morally wrong.
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 619
If taking children to term was the closest thing to consensus the international medical community came to on what might have a chance to slow or stop the transmission of a then-unknown, aggressively spreading lethal airborne virus with no known vaccines or cures, probably more than one may think.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,902
Okay, I’ll concede the Covid stuff because this is not the thread to debate it.
I stand by my abortion take.
The idea of having a limit based off of medically assisted viability (think the most premature baby ever was 21 weeks) is more of a legitimate conversation (to me) than these states that have 6 week bans/heartbeat bills.
The first is legit medical ethics, the second is almost always religious based. I'd argue that something around 15-20 weeks with exceptions for the criminal (rape/incest) or extreme medical (Anecephaly, for example) is more than reasonable.
Lots of comparisons have been made between the U.S. and places like Germany that have more limits on abortion. That's true, but it also ignores that those countries have;
Single payer healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, free or subsidized childcare, protections for pregnant workers, better sex education, and freer access to contraceptives, among other things.
All of those things do a lot more to reduce abortion than banning safe abortions do.
The first is legit medical ethics, the second is almost always religious based. I'd argue that something around 15-20 weeks with exceptions for the criminal (rape/incest) or extreme medical (Anecephaly, for example) is more than reasonable.
Lots of comparisons have been made between the U.S. and places like Germany that have more limits on abortion. That's true, but it also ignores that those countries have;
Single payer healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, free or subsidized childcare, protections for pregnant workers, better sex education, and freer access to contraceptives, among other things.
All of those things do a lot more to reduce abortion than banning safe abortions do.
Similar threads
