• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
Gospel said:
While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.
Click to expand...
If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.
Click to expand...
If it's really about the fetus then it's the only sane position--a normal pregnancy doesn't rise to the level of threat that would permit deadly force to be used. Thus the means of conception doesn't matter.

Its the ones that accept abortion in case of rape/incest that are the true evil--its obvious not about the fetus because the fetus is innocent of its means of conception. That means it's about controlling women, not about life.
Click to expand...
Loren, any pregnancy can start out 'normal' and develop into a real threat to a woman's life. Preeclampsia, placental abruption are two very common conditions that can be very life threatening ---and are not always survivable for the mother. Some women are diagnosed with cancer after they become pregnant and then must choose between being treated for cancer and aborting the baby, or waiting until delivery to start treatment, which may be too late, or some kind of compromise: delivering a premature baby with potential health issues while they undergo treatment for cancer. The pregnancy is normal but the woman's health is not. Those are just a few instances.

And I apologize if I seem unnecessarily argumentative. We don't disagree with one another here, I think.
 
Rhea said:
Elixer, if the fetus is a person at “1 week,” then it’s a person before you’ve even had sex.
That’s the cool part. They count, in that “6 weeks,” the time since your last period. Or, more coorectly, *MY* last period, since you and the SC judges don’t have one. So the first two of those weeks, the penis has not yet been inside the vagina. But they are already ticking my clock.

Fabulous, huh?

So I should be able to get insurance, and then, when I get my period, I should be able to collect the life insurance.

Every month.

Maybe this will be great for women…
Click to expand...
AB
SO
LUTELY
!!!
 
Rhea said:
They count your pregnancy from your last menstruation. You are counted as “2 weeks pregnant” before you even ovulate.
Click to expand...
I am over 72 years pregnant FARP.
(For All Republican Purposes)
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
Gospel said:
While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.
Click to expand...
If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.
Click to expand...
If it's really about the fetus then it's the only sane position--a normal pregnancy doesn't rise to the level of threat that would permit deadly force to be used. Thus the means of conception doesn't matter.

Its the ones that accept abortion in case of rape/incest that are the true evil--its obvious not about the fetus because the fetus is innocent of its means of conception. That means it's about controlling women, not about life.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not about life. It's about controlling women. I'd expand it a little and say that it's really about giving a fetus special rights. I'm a certified donor in case I bite it bombing down a black diamond someday. But no one has a right to my kidney while I'm alive without my permission. But the religious right wants to give a fetus special rights to a women's womb without her consent. Why do we allow this double standard?
 
Harry Bosch said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
Gospel said:
While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.
Click to expand...
If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.
Click to expand...
If it's really about the fetus then it's the only sane position--a normal pregnancy doesn't rise to the level of threat that would permit deadly force to be used. Thus the means of conception doesn't matter.

Its the ones that accept abortion in case of rape/incest that are the true evil--its obvious not about the fetus because the fetus is innocent of its means of conception. That means it's about controlling women, not about life.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not about life. It's about controlling women. I'd expand it a little and say that it's really about giving a fetus special rights. I'm a certified donor in case I bite it bombing down a black diamond someday. But no one has a right to my kidney while I'm alive without my permission. But the religious right wants to give a fetus special rights to a women's womb without her consent. Why do we allow this double standard?
Click to expand...
According to Judeo-Christian tradition, women are considered sinful, particularly where sex is concerned. Sin must be punished.
The fetus is blameless and also, might be male. In some religious/cultural traditions, children belong to the father. Women are little more than property.

You're asking why some continue to hold these beliefs? I think for most people, it's not conscious. They don't consciously think women are (somewhat) bad although they do tend to think of babies as pure, and as representing hope and the future, etc. With regards to the current batshit GOP: Women have overstepped their place and are taking good jobs away from more deserving men. Also (and this dovetails very nicely with the GOP attack on education which has been gaining steam since Reagan): corporations need a steady supply of workers, preferably ones without much education or many choices because these are much more malleable and more disposable.

If women get to have actual choices in their lives and some control over how they spend their lives, they might...vote Democrat. Run for office. Choose not to have sex with men when men want them to. Crazy stuff like that.
 
Toni said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
Gospel said:
While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.
Click to expand...
If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.
Click to expand...
If it's really about the fetus then it's the only sane position--a normal pregnancy doesn't rise to the level of threat that would permit deadly force to be used. Thus the means of conception doesn't matter.

Its the ones that accept abortion in case of rape/incest that are the true evil--its obvious not about the fetus because the fetus is innocent of its means of conception. That means it's about controlling women, not about life.
Click to expand...
Loren, any pregnancy can start out 'normal' and develop into a real threat to a woman's life. Preeclampsia, placental abruption are two very common conditions that can be very life threatening ---and are not always survivable for the mother. Some women are diagnosed with cancer after they become pregnant and then must choose between being treated for cancer and aborting the baby, or waiting until delivery to start treatment, which may be too late, or some kind of compromise: delivering a premature baby with potential health issues while they undergo treatment for cancer. The pregnancy is normal but the woman's health is not. Those are just a few instances.

And I apologize if I seem unnecessarily argumentative. We don't disagree with one another here, I think.
Click to expand...
Note that I said "normal pregnancy". Things most certainly can go wrong with a pregnancy that starts out normal.
 
Today, we’re in Lansing turning in 753,759 signatures from voters all across the state as we submit our petitions to qualify for the November ballot.
Click to expand...
The petition to add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution will be on the ballot in November, per Reproductive Freedom For All.
 
ZiprHead said:
Today, we’re in Lansing turning in 753,759 signatures from voters all across the state as we submit our petitions to qualify for the November ballot.
Click to expand...
The petition to add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution will be on the ballot in November, per Reproductive Freedom For All.
Click to expand...
link

This is the solution for the moment. I'm uncertain if this then eventually winds up to SCOTUS or whether SCOTUS waits for the GOP to take Congress, end the filibuster and pass a national ban. Then SCOTUS rules the people don't have a say after all.
 
www.newsweek.com

Couple claim Walgreens cashier refused to sell condoms because of his faith

The cashier "proceeded to embarrass me in front of other customers for my reproductive choices," Nate Pentz wrote in a complaint.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Wisconsin couple said a Walgreens cashier refused to sell them condoms and cited his faith as the reason why.

Nate Pentz said he and his partner Jess Pentz had stopped at the store along State Road 27 in Hayward, Wisconsin, to buy condoms after leaving her birth control at home.

"As Jess was checking out, cashier John told her he couldn't sell her the condoms," Pentz wrote in a Twitter thread on Sunday that has since gone viral.

"Oh I got them from over there," Jess told the cashier, according to Pentz.
Click to expand...
Newsweek reached out to both Pentz and Walgreens for further comment.

The cashier's behavior was slammed by users on Twitter and Reddit, where it amassed over a thousand comments after a user posted Pentz's initial tweet with the title: Can't get birth control. Can't get an abortion.

Abortion is expected to be severely curtailed in about half of U.S. states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a bombshell decision last month, stripping away constitutional protections for abortion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called on his colleagues to revisit the court's cases that acknowledged rights to same-sex marriage, gay sex and contraception.

Norman Ornstein, a political scientist, said incidents like the one described by Pentz will become more common in the wake of Roe's demise.

"We are going to see a lot more of this, the number of people who called them selves pro life who are actually anti sex," Ornstein wrote in response to Pentz's tweet.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ZiprHead said:
Today, we’re in Lansing turning in 753,759 signatures from voters all across the state as we submit our petitions to qualify for the November ballot.
Click to expand...
The petition to add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution will be on the ballot in November, per Reproductive Freedom For All.
Click to expand...
link

This is the solution for the moment. I'm uncertain if this then eventually winds up to SCOTUS or whether SCOTUS waits for the GOP to take Congress, end the filibuster and pass a national ban. Then SCOTUS rules the people don't have a say after all.
Click to expand...

I was interested in exactly what this amendment to the state constitution would look like. I found a link to it here. Here is the text of the amendment:


Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.

(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.

(4) For the purposes of this section:
  • A state interest is "compelling" only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision-making.
  • "Fetal viability" means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
(5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[11]

​

Click to expand...
 
ZiprHead said:
Today, we’re in Lansing turning in 753,759 signatures from voters all across the state as we submit our petitions to qualify for the November ballot.
Click to expand...
The petition to add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution will be on the ballot in November, per Reproductive Freedom For All.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be necessary to put such things in the Constitution but unfortunately it's necessary.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Today, we’re in Lansing turning in 753,759 signatures from voters all across the state as we submit our petitions to qualify for the November ballot.
Click to expand...
The petition to add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution will be on the ballot in November, per Reproductive Freedom For All.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be necessary to put such things in the Constitution but unfortunately it's necessary.
Click to expand...
Of course, the ads against it will be talking about murdering babies.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Today, we’re in Lansing turning in 753,759 signatures from voters all across the state as we submit our petitions to qualify for the November ballot.
Click to expand...
The petition to add abortion rights to the Michigan constitution will be on the ballot in November, per Reproductive Freedom For All.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be necessary to put such things in the Constitution but unfortunately it's necessary.
Click to expand...
Of course, the ads against it will be talking about murdering babies.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Our local protection isn't quite the same--abortion isn't actually protected by our Constitution, but rather the power to change the law was placed entirely in the ballot box, the legislature isn't allowed to change it. If they actually represented the will of the people the PL crowd should have rejoiced--but they opposed it.
 
Patooka said:
www.businessinsider.com

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.
Click to expand...
Just to let folks know, the guy who had sex with the 10 yr old confessed and has been arrested.
 
ZiprHead said:
Patooka said:
www.businessinsider.com

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.
Click to expand...
Just to let folks know, the guy who had sex with the 10 yr old confessed and has been arrested.
Click to expand...
and Jim Jordan has deleted his tweet where he was calling the entire story a lie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom