Roe vs Wade possibly to be overturned

[sailinlight]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

I don't have strong feelings either way (leaning toward more restrictions) but I applaud the effort you have expended in providing your opinion to a forum which opposes your point of view. I don't have the mental capacity to do the same, so thanks.
I would also add that the very vocal anti-abortion group skews very religious, but I know there is a huge demographic that is extremely opposed to late term abortions and fail to see how those who support it can't see how it's the same as euthanizing a newly born baby.

[CodingHare]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

I don't have strong feelings either way (leaning toward more restrictions) but I applaud the effort you have expended in providing your opinion to a forum which opposes your point of view. I don't have the mental capacity to do the same, so thanks.
I would also add that the very vocal anti-abortion group skews very religious, but I know there is a huge demographic that is extremely opposed to late term abortions and fail to see how those who support it can't see how it's the same as euthanizing a newly born baby.

*sigh*

Because late term abortions are almost always abortions of *wanted* pregnancies, where something has gone wrong.  The baby's brain failed to develop.  The mother's life is at risk.  The baby died in the womb.  Women who are aborting because they don't want to be pregnant are typically doing so as soon as they are aware they are pregnant (notably, that can be up to 8-12 weeks after impregnation, thanks irregular periods making it harder to be aware of being pregnant.)  I've posted the stats on this before.

People like me who are prochoice without restrictions tend to be that way because we have repeatedly seen restrictions used to deny women lifesaving care by putting a lawyer between her and her doctor.  It's better for the health of the woman AND the wanted babies to trust women to make their own healthcare choices.

[CodingHare]

Found my old post on this topic (sadly more relevant today)

An abortion should be available to a mother regardless of how late the pregnancy has progressed IF she and her medical team agree it is medically necessary.  My line is that the state has no business forcing a woman to carry a child at any point.  Abortions up to viability and then induced birth after that.

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, my understanding is "an abortion" at that point is a prematurely induced birth.  BIRTH, as in the fetus isn't summarily executed like the right wing likes to plaster over billboards.
Let's look at actual abortions that really happen instead of theoretical handwringing ones:
"The majority of abortions in 2018 took place early in gestation: 92.2% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.9%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation." - CDC Stats on Abortion

So that means...99.1% of abortions in the US are performed at less than 4 months.  I'm happy with that, as a pro choice person.

But WAIT!  Can we make the lives of the .9 percent of women having late term abortions harder?  Let's outlaw those!  Well hold on.  Usually those abortions are WANTED pregnancies, terminated due to fetal development issues.  Like what?  Like not having a brain (need that to live...) or a life expectancy of hours outside the womb and constant pain inside it.  Or a birth that endangers the life of the mother.  Why does the state want the power to execute moms in favor of infants?  I think that should be up to the family, and ultimately the mother to decided.

So am I in favor of abortions up to the last minute?  Yes, because I believe mothers and doctors in the room--not the state, not you, and not me--have the best insight into how to protect the life and dignity of all involved, and the burden of deciding when death is the kinder mercy.  It is not a decision I want to make, I wish no one had to make it.  But I don't trust the government to do it right.

[Sibley]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

I can't speak for all Catholics, especially not the ones who choose to ignore one of the most basic tenets of the faith. There's about 70 million in the US, so it's not exactly a monolithic group. A lot of people identify as Catholic because they go to a relatives Baptism and maybe attend Mass on Easter. When you look at the breakdown between those who are practicing Catholics (i.e. attend church weekly) it shifts from about a 50/50 split on abortion to about 25/50.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/views-about-abortion#attendance-at-religious-services

Right. So it sounds like you're not in favor of abortion. Which means you're ok with women dying. Noted.

That is a logical fallacy - specifically a False Dilemma/False Dichotomy.

I can be opposed to abortion and opposed to women dying. Women die during childbirth and pregnancy, but they also die during abortions - in fact 100% of abortions end in death. But that's not the main issue because of the 50 million or so abortions performed in the US since Roe v. Wade was decided, only a small fraction could be argued to be done "for the life of the mother".

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
"While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy."

History is quite clear. When abortions are illegal, there will still be some number of women who are desperate or determined enough to obtain an abortion that may or may not be safe. And some of them will die as a result. And you're ok with that.

You're running in circles trying to excuse the fact that you're ok with women dying. You are ok if I die. If your sister dies. If your daughter dies. Because you'd rather they die than get an abortion. That is who you are.

If you don't like what you see in the mirror, then you need to change what appears in the mirror.

[PDXTabs]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

I still kind of want to know your answer. What would your preferred solution for state law be? What if any penalty do you support for traveling out of state/country to get an abortion? If (in some hypothetical world where my daughter lived in a red state) should either of us be liable if I buy her a plane ticket to Mexico (note: Catholic irony) to get an abortion?

[former player]

I'm not aware of any abortion-related challenges under the 13th Amendment. If one were to pop up I'd expect the Selective Draft Law Cases (where it was decided that the 13th Amendment didn't prohibit involuntary military service) would figure strongly in the decision.

Thanks for the answer, that's very helpful.

I think the Draft Law cases are distinguishable because they rely on:

1.  the express powers in Article 1 of the Constitution to raise armies and call forth the Militia, and
2.  the argument that the 13th Amendment wasn't intended "to destroy the power of the Government to compel a citizen to render public service."

Neither of which is relevant to the banning of abortion.

So I think the argument can still be made that a State ban on abortion is contrary to the 13th Amendment.

Yes, that is certainly a reasonable argument. I think you'll find that cases tend not to make it to the Supreme Court if only one side has a reasonable argument. The other side's argument would be something like:

1) Pregnancy is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It lasts nine months and can result in disability or death to the mother, among other restrictions on the mother living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
2) Military service is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It usually lasts even longer than nine months and (at least in wartime) has an even greater chance of resulting in disability or death, among other restrictions on the draftee living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
3) If the 13th Amendment applies to pregnancy, then surely it also applies to military service, but established precedent says otherwise.

Which of these two completely reasonable arguments do you think would gain more traction with the current membership of the Supreme Court?

As far as I can tell the 13th Amendment point hasn't even made it to first instance, let alone the Supreme Court. I guess that's because everyone has been too busy fighting over the 14th Amendment used in Roe v Wade?  But if that goes away then all other avenues need to be used, and the 13th Amendment is one such potential avenue.

Your military service argument might work from a standing start but the provisions regarding armies in Article 1 mean that it is not a standing start: the argument for conscription goes down a different logical and legal path entirely from that on abortion.  (And would conscription still be legal now?  In modern warfare terms it's pretty useless in any case.)

[former player]

Hey, since you are carrying on with part of this conversation, how about answering the part of it where you have ignored the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary"?  Thanks.

A parent is required by law to take care of their children. That sounds like involuntary to me. There are mechanisms in place to take away parental rights and responsibilities for those that fail to do so - or for parents to give up those rights (i.e. adoption). But just because most parents willingly (voluntarily) take care of their children, doesn't change that they are required by law to do so.

Your argument fails at a number of points.

1.  The obligation is one voluntarily assumed (with the birth of a wanted child) and continued (with a decision not to have the child fostered or adopted).

2.  A parent is not required bodily to take care of children, they have the option of paying someone else to do it either all or part of the time.   A rich parent doesn't have to see their child at all.   

3.  A parent is not even required financially to take care of children if they do not have the necessary financial resources, as the State will in various circumstances provide housing, food, medical care and education.  In some circumstances the State will even take the child away from the parent without the parent's consent to bring up away from the parent: compulsory non-parenting.  (And sometimes the State does such a bad job that the child commits crimes that the State will end up killing the child for committing.)

[Omy]

Why is the father NEVER regulated?!!  There is no pregnancy without sperm. Each man can father dozens of children in the time a mother can have a single baby.

If life starts at conception, then child support needs to start at conception. We need all men to be part of a DNA registry so we can quickly determine the person responsible for the unwanted pregnancy - and those support payments need to start immediately. Automatic garnishment of wages for the next 18.75 years.

And all young men need to have mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they're ready to be responsible fathers.

It's a messed up system that only regulates and punishes females - and let's the equally responsible males go free.

[former player]

Why is the father NEVER regulated?!!  There is no pregnancy without sperm. Each man can father dozens of children in the time a mother can have a single baby.

If life starts at conception, then child support needs to start at conception. We need all men to be part of a DNA registry so we can quickly determine the person responsible for the unwanted pregnancy - and those support payments need to start immediately. Automatic garnishment of wages for the next 18.75 years.

And all young men need to have mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they're ready to be responsible fathers.

It's a messed up system that only regulates and punishes females - and let's the equally responsible males go free.

I like this. All males to have their DNA registered before puberty.  It would make rape prosecutions easier too.  The statistics clearly show that men are a predator species and tighter control of what they do with their bodies is required.

[CodingHare]

Why is the father NEVER regulated?!!  There is no pregnancy without sperm. Each man can father dozens of children in the time a mother can have a single baby.

If life starts at conception, then child support needs to start at conception. We need all men to be part of a DNA registry so we can quickly determine the person responsible for the unwanted pregnancy - and those support payments need to start immediately. Automatic garnishment of wages for the next 18.75 years.

And all young men need to have mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they're ready to be responsible fathers.

It's a messed up system that only regulates and punishes females - and let's the equally responsible males go free.

To be fair, a vasectomy drastically lowers the likelihood of being able to impregnate, but it also is not quite 100%.  IIRC 15 out of every 10000 couples conceive after a vasectomy, as opposed to 1400 out of 10000 of couples who use condoms, and 500 out of 10000 of couples relying on the pill.  Nothing is perfect except the gold standard: sterilization.

But I guess men's right to bodily autonomy is just too important to jeopardize... unlike women's.

[OtherJen]

Why is the father NEVER regulated?!!  There is no pregnancy without sperm. Each man can father dozens of children in the time a mother can have a single baby.

If life starts at conception, then child support needs to start at conception. We need all men to be part of a DNA registry so we can quickly determine the person responsible for the unwanted pregnancy - and those support payments need to start immediately. Automatic garnishment of wages for the next 18.75 years.

And all young men need to have mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they're ready to be responsible fathers.

It's a messed up system that only regulates and punishes females - and let's the equally responsible males go free.

I like this. All males to have their DNA registered before puberty.  It would make rape prosecutions easier too.  The statistics clearly show that men are a predator species and tighter control of what they do with their bodies is required.

Works for me. It's a lot less invasive and risky to systemic health than, say, pregnancy, hysterectomy, or even hormonal birth control.

[Kris]

Sharing a post from Jacalyn Wetzel:

If you are unsure where to donate or live in another country but want to help people in America, here is a list of places where your money will be well spent. This list is extensive but not exhaustive. Donating to organizations that help provide transportation will aid people who are currently living in poverty unable to afford childcare and transportation to other states.

The ACLU provides legal services to fight things at the highest level. I have no doubt they will challenge this.
Donate here: https://action.aclu.org/give/now

Planned Parenthood helps with reproductive care including contraception, STD checks and treatment, and cancer screenings.
Donate here: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-involved/other-ways-give

Midwest Access does travel, accommodations, food, childcare, medicine, and emotional support for people traveling to, from, and within the Midwest.
Donate here: https://midwestaccesscoalition.org/pages/donate

Fund Texas Choice helps with a way to get to the clinic and/or a place to stay,
 seeks to make it easier for Texans to access the reproductive care they need.
Donate here: https://fundtexaschoice.org/donate/

Baltimore Fund helps with Practical Support and does rides to clinics, travel coordination for people traveling out of state, meals, childcare, translation, whatever people from Maryland need.
Donate here: https://www.baltimoreabortionfund.org/donate

Brigid Alliance covers costs for people traveling later in pregnancy, with consideration of distance and local transportation, accommodations, meals, child care, and other associated travel costs like gas, tolls, parking, mobile phones, and more.
Donate here: https://brigidalliance.org/donation

Chicago Abortion Fund provides financial, logistical, and emotional support to people seeking abortion care that live in or are coming to Illinois for care and surrounding Midwestern states.
Donate here: https://chicagoabortionfund.salsalabs.org/makeadonation/index.html

ARC Southeast helps Southerners in AL, FL, GA, MS, SC, and TN for procedure funding as well as rides, lodging, and escorting.
Donate here: https://arc-southeast.org/donate/

Kentucky Healthy Justice Network provides procedure funding, travel support, and interpretation services for Kentucky clients seeking care, no matter where they have to travel.
Donate here: https://kentuckyhealthjusticenetwork.org/donate.html

Access Reproductive Justice provides information, abortion funding, and practical support on all aspects of reproductive health in California including direct services.
Donate here: https://give.accessrj.org/give/312683/#!/donation/checkout

JEN South Dakota helps South Dakota abortion patients access transportation, childcare, lodging, interpreters, birth control, and other practical support.
Donate here: https://www.jensd.org/donate

Clinic Access Support provides transportation, meal stipends, accommodations, childcare assistance, and compassionate care to people seeking abortion services from Houston.
Donate here: https://www.clinicaccess.org/donate

New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights If you are having your abortion in New Mexico and you need help with lodging, transportation, or meals.
Donate here: https://nmrcrc.org/donate

La Fontera Fund provides financial support and assists local Rio Grande Valley residents who need to travel to clinics across Texas and beyond for the reproductive care they require.
Donate here: https://fronterafundrgv.org/donate/

Colorado Doula Project provides free logistical and emotional support for people accessing abortion in Colorado.
Donate here:https://www.coloradodoulaproject.org/donate

NWAA Fund has transportation & other logistic funds for folks in the Northwest serving Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
Donate here: https://nwaafund.org/donate

You can find the original list for places to donate on Twitter. Here’s the link:
https://twitter.com/alidreith/status/1521489352370573315?s=21

[Michael in ABQ]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

I still kind of want to know your answer. What would your preferred solution for state law be? What if any penalty do you support for traveling out of state/country to get an abortion? If (in some hypothetical world where my daughter lived in a red state) should either of us be liable if I buy her a plane ticket to Mexico (note: Catholic irony) to get an abortion?

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

[js82]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

For all practical purposes, our government still is a Christian government.  There is a large enough fraction of the American population that simply won't vote for someone unless they declare that they are somewhere on the Judeo-Christian religious spectrum - enough to render them unelectable in the vast majority of districts.  Consider:

US Population:  27.5% not Judeo-Christian religions (22.8% "nones")
Congress: 5.7% not Judeo-Christian (Kyrsten Sinema is the only "none", 3.4% did not respond, so real amount might be even lower)
Supreme Court: 0% not Judeo-Christian

Any government that is not sufficiently representative of the people that it governs will have to wrestle with the fact that sizeable slice of the population(who are unrepresented) questions their legitimacy.  Our government has exactly that legitimacy problem when it comes to issues of religion (or issues that tend to break on religious lines).

[Kris]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

I still kind of want to know your answer. What would your preferred solution for state law be? What if any penalty do you support for traveling out of state/country to get an abortion? If (in some hypothetical world where my daughter lived in a red state) should either of us be liable if I buy her a plane ticket to Mexico (note: Catholic irony) to get an abortion?

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

At least you are consistent about not caring about the woman at all.

[PeteD01]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

I still kind of want to know your answer. What would your preferred solution for state law be? What if any penalty do you support for traveling out of state/country to get an abortion? If (in some hypothetical world where my daughter lived in a red state) should either of us be liable if I buy her a plane ticket to Mexico (note: Catholic irony) to get an abortion?

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

Man, it does feel good to be such a righteous person, doesn´t it!
It´s still only a narcissistic project and you will go to hell for it, if your creed has any substance to it.

[js82]

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

This does not answer the truly salient question of the abortion debate: what makes us "human", and why?  The answer to this question is fundamental to the abortion debate, and to be intellectually consistent, all of our positions on abortion need to start with answering this question, as those answers should inform the point during a pregnancy at which we begin giving rights to a fetus/unborn child.

I would posit that it is not a particular anatomical structure, but rather our minds - specifically consciousness and the ability to feel pain.  Hence, our humanity is contingent on reaching a certain point of neurological development where we are conscious and can feel pain.  That most assuredly does *not* start at conception.

[PeteD01]

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

At least you are consistent about not caring about the woman at all.

He couldn´t even if he wanted to. It´s like a gear is missing - no empathy at all.

[PeteD01]

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

This does not answer the truly salient question of the abortion debate: what makes us "human"?  The answer to this question is fundamental to the abortion debate, and to be intellectually consistent, all of our positions on abortion need to start with answering this question, as those answers should inform the point during a pregnancy at which we begin giving rights to a fetus/unborn child.

I would posit that it is not a particular anatomical structure, but rather our minds - specifically consciousness and the ability to feel pain.  Hence, our humanity is contingent on reaching a certain point of neurological development where we are conscious and can feel pain.  That most assuredly does *not* start at conception.

It´s useless, he does not interact in good faith.
Fuhgedaboutit.

[PDXTabs]

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

At least you are consistent about not caring about the woman at all.

Women and children! It doesn't matter how desperately short or tortured the child's life would be. It doesn't even matter if the embryo makes it to a fetus or the fetus makes it to a birth.

[RetiredAt63]

The side note about all this, I am fascinated by the ignoring of the numbers involved.  We are theoretically part of a rational analytical group that questions standard social norms about money and self-actualization.  I posted the number of maternal deaths and infant deaths in two countries with different birth control and abortion policies (and health provision policies).  The numbers show that many American women will die because of their lack of access to abortion.  And nobody responded to the nasty fact that pro-life legislation kills women. 

If we must discuss the religious viewpoint, women already have souls.  Religions differ on when the soul enters the fetus.  If I were God, and I were giving souls to babies, I would not give the baby a soul until it was born - because why give a soul to a fetus that could die before it is born?  My point is, for the religious, you know the woman has a soul, which you are risking for the fetus that may or may not already have a soul, because how can anyone know when that fetus gets its soul?  You can't know ahead of time which pregnant woman will become part of the maternal mortality statistics, so you are risking every pregnant woman's soul if you force her to carry to term.  (And if I were religious, and I looked at the behaviour of some criminal psychopaths, I might question as to whether that person ever did receive a soul.  So is ensoulification perfect?)

Anyway, since most abortions of unwanted pregnancies occur as soon as the woman can manage them, these embryos are nowhere near the point that they could survive in a NICU.  Yet people argue that their rights are greater than those of the women carrying them.  And for the religious, the potential soul of a fetus is more important than the developed soul of a woman?

Late abortions are tragedies for everyone involved, because if a pregnancy has gone this far that pregnancy was definitely wanted.   But really are they the point of pro-life/pro/choice debate?  Because everyone involved knows that the only thing worse than that late abortion is not performing that late abortion.  There would be an early induced birth or C-section if that would solve the issue.

[jeninco]

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

At least you are consistent about not caring about the woman at all.

Women and children! It doesn't matter how desperately short or tortured the child's life would be. It doesn't even matter if the embryo makes it to a fetus or the fetus makes it to a birth.

Yep -- it's almost as if Tay-Sachs disease, and ectopic pregnancies (for instance) don't exist! Or if they do, the death of the mothers/agonizing and prolonged death of the newborn is immaterial, relative to his religious conviction.

[seattlecyclone]

I'm not aware of any abortion-related challenges under the 13th Amendment. If one were to pop up I'd expect the Selective Draft Law Cases (where it was decided that the 13th Amendment didn't prohibit involuntary military service) would figure strongly in the decision.

Thanks for the answer, that's very helpful.

I think the Draft Law cases are distinguishable because they rely on:

1.  the express powers in Article 1 of the Constitution to raise armies and call forth the Militia, and
2.  the argument that the 13th Amendment wasn't intended "to destroy the power of the Government to compel a citizen to render public service."

Neither of which is relevant to the banning of abortion.

So I think the argument can still be made that a State ban on abortion is contrary to the 13th Amendment.

Yes, that is certainly a reasonable argument. I think you'll find that cases tend not to make it to the Supreme Court if only one side has a reasonable argument. The other side's argument would be something like:

1) Pregnancy is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It lasts nine months and can result in disability or death to the mother, among other restrictions on the mother living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
2) Military service is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It usually lasts even longer than nine months and (at least in wartime) has an even greater chance of resulting in disability or death, among other restrictions on the draftee living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
3) If the 13th Amendment applies to pregnancy, then surely it also applies to military service, but established precedent says otherwise.

Which of these two completely reasonable arguments do you think would gain more traction with the current membership of the Supreme Court?

As far as I can tell the 13th Amendment point hasn't even made it to first instance, let alone the Supreme Court. I guess that's because everyone has been too busy fighting over the 14th Amendment used in Roe v Wade?  But if that goes away then all other avenues need to be used, and the 13th Amendment is one such potential avenue.

Your military service argument might work from a standing start but the provisions regarding armies in Article 1 mean that it is not a standing start: the argument for conscription goes down a different logical and legal path entirely from that on abortion.  (And would conscription still be legal now?  In modern warfare terms it's pretty useless in any case.)

The very nature of amendments is that they override sections of the original text in case of a conflict, no? If military conscription is considered to be "involuntarily servitude" within the meaning of the 13th Amendment it shouldn't matter one bit what Article 1 says.

As to whether a draft is still constitutional, I see no reason why not. It was constitutional the last time we had one 50 years ago, and no pertinent amendments have passed in the meantime. I agree the conventional wisdom now is that a draft would be a bad idea except in times of extreme need, but we nevertheless have mandatory draft registration to this day (the males-only part probably is ripe for a court challenge though).

[PDXTabs]

The side note about all this, I am fascinated by the ignoring of the numbers involved.  We are theoretically part of a rational analytical group that questions standard social norms about money and self-actualization.  I posted the number of maternal deaths and infant deaths in two countries with different birth control and abortion policies (and health provision policies).  The numbers show that many American women will die because of their lack of access to abortion.  And nobody responded to the nasty fact that pro-life legislation kills women. 

I agree with you, I just thought that the numbers stood alone. Child birth is risky. Growing up in a country that insists that you were born but then doesn't give a shit about you is also risky. Not to mention the self-actualization and money.

[RetiredAt63]

Ann while I am on my soap-box, let's talk about medical abortions.  I know a 76 year old woman who had a daughter with Trisomy 21.  Back before there was genetic testing.  This woman has cared for her daughter her whole life. This daughter is now in her 50s.  She gets sick easily.  She is still in diapers.  She is larger and stronger than her mother.  She is not the "happy Down's Syndrome child" of myth.  She has a temper.  She can be violent.  Her mother has been dealing with this for most of her adult life.  It has been horrible for her.

Places that do no allow abortions are also sentencing many women (because it is the women who end up doing the caring) for a lifetime of servitude. And their other children suffer.

We love our tech for computers and stuff.  I love our tech that allows us to do amniocentesis to optimize the chances of a baby without major heart-breaking health defects.

[js82]

Ann while I am on my soap-box, let's talk about medical abortions.  I know a 76 year old woman who had a daughter with Trisomy 21.  Back before there was genetic testing.  This woman has cared for her daughter her whole life. This daughter is now in her 50s.  She gets sick easily.  She is still in diapers.  She is larger and stronger than her mother.  She is not the "happy Down's Syndrome child" of myth.  She has a temper.  She can be violent.  Her mother has been dealing with this for most of her adult life.  It has been horrible for her.

Places that do no allow abortions are also sentencing many women (because it is the women who end up doing the caring) for a lifetime of servitude. And their other children suffer.

Addendum: if we're willing to ban abortions in the case of major(but not fatal) genetic conditions, we should be willing, as a society, to collectively foot 100% of the costs (including both direct medical procedures as well as other support for individuals who may never be fully self-sufficient) so that families aren't financially and emotionally crushed by having to care for handicapped children without sufficient support.

Anyone who is unwilling to literally put their money where their mouth is, isn't actually "pro-life", they're merely a partisan ideologue.

[mastrr]

There is a difference in perspective of a Catholic to those who are secular.  The goal of the Catholic isn't to live the longest life possible here on earth but to have Holy death and leave this world in a state of grace so they can enter Heaven.  So if they are guilty of mortal sin upon their death then they suffer the consequences of eternity in Hell.

So while secular are thinking only about this world the Catholic is also accounting for the spiritual.  The Catholic believes that they live forever in spirit even though we suffer a bodily death here on Earth.  Our beliefs and our actions on this earth merit either Heaven or Hell and the choice is ours. 

There is also the element that if Catholics are unable to baptize their babies then they may potentially not receive the Beatific vision which is the perfect joy and happiness of being face to face with God.  To deny the unborn souls the chance to receive the Beatific vision is cruel.

The Catholic views everything through a very different lens than secular society. 

[Kris]

Ann while I am on my soap-box, let's talk about medical abortions.  I know a 76 year old woman who had a daughter with Trisomy 21.  Back before there was genetic testing.  This woman has cared for her daughter her whole life. This daughter is now in her 50s.  She gets sick easily.  She is still in diapers.  She is larger and stronger than her mother.  She is not the "happy Down's Syndrome child" of myth.  She has a temper.  She can be violent.  Her mother has been dealing with this for most of her adult life.  It has been horrible for her.

Places that do no allow abortions are also sentencing many women (because it is the women who end up doing the caring) for a lifetime of servitude. And their other children suffer.

Addendum: if we're willing to ban abortions in the case of major(but not fatal) genetic conditions, we should be willing, as a society, to collectively foot 100% of the costs (including both direct medical procedures as well as other support for individuals who may never be fully self-sufficient) so that families aren't financially and emotionally crushed by having to care for handicapped children without sufficient support.

Anyone who isn't willing to do that isn't actually "pro-life", they're merely a partisan ideologue.

100%

[PeteD01]

I do not think abortion should be legal under any circumstance. All human life has an inherent dignity and value and should be protected - regardless of if it is wanted or not.

I just want to point this out:
The above statement is very telling because it clearly has been used before as it is too polished in style and because it exhibits the features the religiously minded respond to in too an accomplished fashion as to be a spontaneous response.
The statement oozes profundity and righteousness but does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny due to its maximalism.
It also broadcasts aggression because of the extremism of its propositions.
And of course, there is no consideration whatsoever that anti-abortion legislation is state sponsored violence against women.
In other words, boilerplate Christian Nationalism stuff.
 

[RetiredAt63]

The Catholic view of life is fine if you are Catholic.  But it is not up to the right of any religion to force their religious views on the life of everyone who does not share those views, or on the laws of a nation. 

Some of the women who wanted abortions and were denied them will die in childbirth.  Some of the children of mothers who were denied abortions will also die as infants. 

In my opinion, for every woman who wanted an abortion and was denied and dies in childbirth, and every child who was forced to term and dies, the MORAL RESPONSIBILITY for their deaths lies at the feet and in the bloody hands of the people who in whatever way denied them that choice.   Legal murder.

By the way, Henry Morgentaler did all those abortions (and other family planning medicine) knowing he would get legally slammed.  He did it as an Auschwitz survivor.  He did it for moral reasons. 

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-a-glimpse-into-what-motivated-henry-morgentaler

Morgentaler had arrived in Canada after losing all but one of his family members in the Nazi death camps. He and his brother Michael joined the flood of postwar immigrants to Canada. They built a new life here, and both were committed to treating all people in a humane way.

Henry Morgentaler chose to become as a doctor who, as part of his commitment to healing, would help those who wished to safely terminate unwanted pregnancies.

When he was imprisoned in Quebec in 1975, Morgentaler told the filmmakers, he observed that 90 per cent of the people incarcerated with him had been unwanted and abused children. Many of them had drifted from foster homes into a life of crime.“If all children were desired, received with love and affection and care,” Morgentaler said, “they would become loving and caring individuals. If we had that for a number of generations, we would have a different kind of species, a different humankind.”

Morgentaler’s lifelong fight was for the millions of civilian victims who were felled during the Holocaust by those who lacked love and human compassion. To Morgentaler, abortion was not about killing babies; it was about preventing potential future criminals.

Opponents of abortion argue that innocence and the will to survive are the universals shared by developing life. Morgentaler knew that, but his motivations stemmed from his belief that his loving and compassionate family was murdered by those who grew up lacking those very qualities. It was they, he believed, those ordinary men and women, who volunteered to participate in the crime that stands as the icon of the 20th century: genocide.

[PeteD01]

There is a difference in perspective of a Catholic to those who are secular.  The goal of the Catholic isn't to live the longest life possible here on earth but to have Holy death and leave this world in a state of grace so they can enter Heaven.  So if they are guilty of mortal sin upon their death then they suffer the consequences of eternity in Hell.

So while secular are thinking only about this world the Catholic is also accounting for the spiritual.  The Catholic believes that they live forever in spirit even though we suffer a bodily death here on Earth.  Our beliefs and our actions on this earth merit either Heaven or Hell and the choice is ours. 

There is also the element that if Catholics are unable to baptize their babies then they may potentially not receive the Beatific vision which is the perfect joy and happiness of being face to face with God.  To deny the unborn souls the chance to receive the Beatific vision is cruel.

The Catholic views everything through a very different lens than secular society.

Without going into the details, I absolutely can work with this.
If the goal is to decrease the number of abortions and to push them back to earlier in term and there is at least an understanding that that requires ready access to reproductive health services including abortion services provided in a supportive environment, we share some common ground.
 

[former player]

I'm not aware of any abortion-related challenges under the 13th Amendment. If one were to pop up I'd expect the Selective Draft Law Cases (where it was decided that the 13th Amendment didn't prohibit involuntary military service) would figure strongly in the decision.

Thanks for the answer, that's very helpful.

I think the Draft Law cases are distinguishable because they rely on:

1.  the express powers in Article 1 of the Constitution to raise armies and call forth the Militia, and
2.  the argument that the 13th Amendment wasn't intended "to destroy the power of the Government to compel a citizen to render public service."

Neither of which is relevant to the banning of abortion.

So I think the argument can still be made that a State ban on abortion is contrary to the 13th Amendment.

Yes, that is certainly a reasonable argument. I think you'll find that cases tend not to make it to the Supreme Court if only one side has a reasonable argument. The other side's argument would be something like:

1) Pregnancy is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It lasts nine months and can result in disability or death to the mother, among other restrictions on the mother living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
2) Military service is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It usually lasts even longer than nine months and (at least in wartime) has an even greater chance of resulting in disability or death, among other restrictions on the draftee living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
3) If the 13th Amendment applies to pregnancy, then surely it also applies to military service, but established precedent says otherwise.

Which of these two completely reasonable arguments do you think would gain more traction with the current membership of the Supreme Court?

As far as I can tell the 13th Amendment point hasn't even made it to first instance, let alone the Supreme Court. I guess that's because everyone has been too busy fighting over the 14th Amendment used in Roe v Wade?  But if that goes away then all other avenues need to be used, and the 13th Amendment is one such potential avenue.

Your military service argument might work from a standing start but the provisions regarding armies in Article 1 mean that it is not a standing start: the argument for conscription goes down a different logical and legal path entirely from that on abortion.  (And would conscription still be legal now?  In modern warfare terms it's pretty useless in any case.)

The very nature of amendments is that they override sections of the original text in case of a conflict, no? If military conscription is considered to be "involuntarily servitude" within the meaning of the 13th Amendment it shouldn't matter one bit what Article 1 says.

As to whether a draft is still constitutional, I see no reason why not. It was constitutional the last time we had one 50 years ago, and no pertinent amendments have passed in the meantime. I agree the conventional wisdom now is that a draft would be a bad idea except in times of extreme need, but we nevertheless have mandatory draft registration to this day (the males-only part probably is ripe for a court challenge though).

As far as I could tell there wasn't thought to be a conflict, more of a carve-out? I would still like to see the Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court work themselves into pretzels explaining how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude". Especially perhaps if the case arises from rape.

[Sibley]

The side note about all this, I am fascinated by the ignoring of the numbers involved.  We are theoretically part of a rational analytical group that questions standard social norms about money and self-actualization.  I posted the number of maternal deaths and infant deaths in two countries with different birth control and abortion policies (and health provision policies).  The numbers show that many American women will die because of their lack of access to abortion.  And nobody responded to the nasty fact that pro-life legislation kills women. 

If we must discuss the religious viewpoint, women already have souls.  Religions differ on when the soul enters the fetus.  If I were God, and I were giving souls to babies, I would not give the baby a soul until it was born - because why give a soul to a fetus that could die before it is born?  My point is, for the religious, you know the woman has a soul, which you are risking for the fetus that may or may not already have a soul, because how can anyone know when that fetus gets its soul?  You can't know ahead of time which pregnant woman will become part of the maternal mortality statistics, so you are risking every pregnant woman's soul if you force her to carry to term.  (And if I were religious, and I looked at the behaviour of some criminal psychopaths, I might question as to whether that person ever did receive a soul.  So is ensoulification perfect?)

Anyway, since most abortions of unwanted pregnancies occur as soon as the woman can manage them, these embryos are nowhere near the point that they could survive in a NICU.  Yet people argue that their rights are greater than those of the women carrying them.  And for the religious, the potential soul of a fetus is more important than the developed soul of a woman?

Late abortions are tragedies for everyone involved, because if a pregnancy has gone this far that pregnancy was definitely wanted.   But really are they the point of pro-life/pro/choice debate?  Because everyone involved knows that the only thing worse than that late abortion is not performing that late abortion.  There would be an early induced birth or C-section if that would solve the issue.

I've been telling multiple people that they are ok with women dying. So yes, I've acknowledged the deaths that will happen. And that's just the immediate deaths. I'm not even getting into the babies that will be abandoned or killed at birth, or neglected and abused until they die. I'm not getting into the children that grow up and commit suicide as teens or adults. Or the people who will die because of the likely increased rates of poverty and crime. Unfortunately, there are some people who don't care, or perhaps even think its a good thing.

[Michael in ABQ]

Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling from a legal standpoint. It created a new constitutional right from whole cloth and was always on very shaky legal ground. It should be handled through the legislature at the state level (as should frankly many issues not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution). If there is sufficient political will at the federal level to pass a constitutional amendment or more sweeping federal legislation, then so be it. That's what the political process is for.

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

[Kris]

Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling from a legal standpoint. It created a new constitutional right from whole cloth and was always on very shaky legal ground. It should be handled through the legislature at the state level (as should frankly many issues not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution). If there is sufficient political will at the federal level to pass a constitutional amendment or more sweeping federal legislation, then so be it. That's what the political process is for.

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

Dude, you already said you don’t think abortion should be legal in any way. So your opining on Roe v. Wade doesn’t really matter because you would not think there was any legal justification anyway.

[nereo]

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

In what way are people “talking past each other”? I see a number of posters directly responding to very specific things that you have said on the topic with specific and detailed points, which seems to be the very essence of debate. When you claim that things you assume to be true as facts because of your faith - and then believe others should construct their lives based on those beliefs - its worth examining if those claims are as indubitable as you may believe them to be.

[former player]

Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling from a legal standpoint. It created a new constitutional right from whole cloth and was always on very shaky legal ground. It should be handled through the legislature at the state level (as should frankly many issues not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution). If there is sufficient political will at the federal level to pass a constitutional amendment or more sweeping federal legislation, then so be it. That's what the political process is for.

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

Surely you should be prepared to invest at least nine months in it?  Even if not the full 18 years.

[StashingAway]

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

This is not a constructive argument. On par with "I know you are, but what am I?"

I would respond, but I already know your reply, so what's the point?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

In what way are people “talking past each other”? I see a number of posters directly responding to very specific things that you have said on the topic with specific and detailed points, which seems to be the very essence of debate. When you claim that things you assume to be true as facts because of your faith - and then believe others should construct their lives based on those beliefs - its worth examining if those claims are as indubitable as you may believe them to be.

Maybe not "talking past each other" but certainly lobbing personal and ridiculous insults. Pete's comment "Man, it does feel good to be such a righteous person, doesn´t it!
It´s still only a narcissistic project and you will go to hell for it, if your creed has any substance to it" managed to be condescending with complete self-confidence while accusing Michael of being narcissistic and doing it somehow without irony. To top it all off, Pete told Michael he's going to hell in a belief system he doesn't believe in or even understand nearly as well as Michael does.

[PeteD01]

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

In what way are people “talking past each other”? I see a number of posters directly responding to very specific things that you have said on the topic with specific and detailed points, which seems to be the very essence of debate. When you claim that things you assume to be true as facts because of your faith - and then believe others should construct their lives based on those beliefs - its worth examining if those claims are as indubitable as you may believe them to be.

Maybe not "talking past each other" but certainly lobbing personal and ridiculous insults. Pete's comment "Man, it does feel good to be such a righteous person, doesn´t it!
It´s still only a narcissistic project and you will go to hell for it, if your creed has any substance to it" managed to be condescending with complete self-confidence while accusing Michael of being narcissistic and doing it somehow without irony. To top it all off, Pete told Michael he's going to hell in a belief system he doesn't believe in or even understand nearly as well as Michael does.

Thanks for the compliments!

[Sibley]

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

This is not a constructive argument. On par with "I know you are, but what am I?"

It's not an argument, it's a fact. And frankly, at this point, what I've got is disgust. Because there are people who do not care. Michael for one. He doesn't care. He thinks he's right, he's not willing to listen to anyone. People who are so anti-abortion don't care if women are murdered because they're pregnant, they don't care if women die due to pregnancy gone very wrong, they don't care if babies are born who will then be abandoned, killed, neglected, abused, or all of the above. I can't make someone care or be a decent human being.

If you don't think abortion should be legal, than you're ok with women dying. It's really that simple. If you don't like hearing that, well, then either you're not a fan of me right at this moment or you really need to rethink your views on abortion. Or both possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that without abortion as an option, some women will die.

Edit: trying to fix quotes....

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I think I've invested enough time in this topic. Clearly both sides are talking past each other at this point so there's not really any basis for an argument. See you in the next thread.

In what way are people “talking past each other”? I see a number of posters directly responding to very specific things that you have said on the topic with specific and detailed points, which seems to be the very essence of debate. When you claim that things you assume to be true as facts because of your faith - and then believe others should construct their lives based on those beliefs - its worth examining if those claims are as indubitable as you may believe them to be.

Maybe not "talking past each other" but certainly lobbing personal and ridiculous insults. Pete's comment "Man, it does feel good to be such a righteous person, doesn´t it!
It´s still only a narcissistic project and you will go to hell for it, if your creed has any substance to it" managed to be condescending with complete self-confidence while accusing Michael of being narcissistic and doing it somehow without irony. To top it all off, Pete told Michael he's going to hell in a belief system he doesn't believe in or even understand nearly as well as Michael does.

Thanks for the compliments!

Hey no problem! If you can't be a decent human being in an argument, be good at it, I say!

[StashingAway]

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

This is not a constructive argument. On par with "I know you are, but what am I?"

It's not an argument, it's a fact. And frankly, at this point, what I've got is disgust. Because there are people who do not care. Michael for one. He doesn't care. He thinks he's right, he's not willing to listen to anyone. People who are so anti-abortion don't care if women are murdered because they're pregnant, they don't care if women die due to pregnancy gone very wrong, they don't care if babies are born who will then be abandoned, killed, neglected, abused, or all of the above. I can't make someone care or be a decent human being.

If you don't think abortion should be legal, than you're ok with women dying. It's really that simple. If you don't like hearing that, well, then either you're not a fan of me right at this moment or you really need to rethink your views on abortion. Or both possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that without abortion as an option, some women will die.

I can confidently say that he does. He's not the one who's not listening... I doubt you could present an honest summary of his point of view that he would agree with.

FWIW, I don't think abortion should be managed by the federal government whatsoever- it's too messy. But I do sympathize with folks who are making a genuine effort at presenting their case and for the most part that being obviously misunderstood. You won't get very far if you cannot seem to understand where the person across the table is coming from. There's a lot of understandable anger in these comments, but that doesn't excuse the poor conversation.

[Sibley]

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

This is not a constructive argument. On par with "I know you are, but what am I?"

It's not an argument, it's a fact. And frankly, at this point, what I've got is disgust. Because there are people who do not care. Michael for one. He doesn't care. He thinks he's right, he's not willing to listen to anyone. People who are so anti-abortion don't care if women are murdered because they're pregnant, they don't care if women die due to pregnancy gone very wrong, they don't care if babies are born who will then be abandoned, killed, neglected, abused, or all of the above. I can't make someone care or be a decent human being.

If you don't think abortion should be legal, than you're ok with women dying. It's really that simple. If you don't like hearing that, well, then either you're not a fan of me right at this moment or you really need to rethink your views on abortion. Or both possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that without abortion as an option, some women will die.

I can confidently say that he does. He's not the one who's not listening... I doubt you could present an honest summary of his point of view that he would agree with.

FWIW, I don't think abortion should be managed by the federal government whatsoever- it's too messy. But I do sympathize with folks who are making a genuine effort at presenting their case and for the most part that being obviously misunderstood. You won't get very far if you cannot seem to understand where the person across the table is coming from. There's a lot of understandable anger in these comments, but that doesn't excuse the poor conversation.

Michael is a devout Catholic who truly believes that the moment the egg is fertilized that it's a human being.

Do I understand that intellectually? Yes. Do I understand it emotionally? No. Do I find it frustrating and infuriating and insulting that he, or anyone, is willing to put a fertilized egg above a fully formed adult woman in priority? Yes. Do I find some of the Catholic Church's teachings unethical and cruel? Yes. Do I think that the Catholic Church does some very real good in the world? Yes. Do I think that what the Catholic Church teaches should apply to everyone, regardless if they are part of the church? No. And yes, I have a pretty decent grasp of what the Catholic Church teaches, I have multiple Catholic friends and I attended a Catholic college, I've read the catechism and I've talked through a bunch of things with actual nuns.

He, and you, and everyone else are entitled to their beliefs. And I am capable of respecting someone for sticking with their beliefs, even when its hard. Just as long as they acknowledge the facts of the situation: that by banning abortion, some women will die. And if they're willing to ban abortion, they're ok with women dying.

I'm not ok with those women dying, therefore I think abortion should be legal. (and yes, with all the prevention and family friendly stuff, etc etc etc, I'm not typing it all out. Ideally abortions would be really rare because they just aren't needed - but that's not where we're at right now.)

[mastrr]

In this thread I'm seeing people saying that is if abortion is denied or outlawed it will lead to more children suffering, being neglected, living in poverty, and more mothers will die etc.

The issue with this argument is that you're justifying using evil means of abortion (taking innocent life) to achieve a positive result.  Catholics believe that life is inherently good and acting against good is evil.

If we accept this one evil to achieve a perceived good end then how much more evil can we justify doing?  If we allow abortion then anyone can claim that they are doing a so-called "necessary evil" for the greater good.  We then spiral down this rabbit hole of evil where everyone is subjectively justifying their evil actions claiming that good will coming from it.

For Catholics, we can never knowingly and deliberately justify committing evil even if the intended end is good. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

This is not a constructive argument. On par with "I know you are, but what am I?"

It's not an argument, it's a fact. And frankly, at this point, what I've got is disgust. Because there are people who do not care. Michael for one. He doesn't care. He thinks he's right, he's not willing to listen to anyone. People who are so anti-abortion don't care if women are murdered because they're pregnant, they don't care if women die due to pregnancy gone very wrong, they don't care if babies are born who will then be abandoned, killed, neglected, abused, or all of the above. I can't make someone care or be a decent human being.

If you don't think abortion should be legal, than you're ok with women dying. It's really that simple. If you don't like hearing that, well, then either you're not a fan of me right at this moment or you really need to rethink your views on abortion. Or both possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that without abortion as an option, some women will die.

I can confidently say that he does. He's not the one who's not listening... I doubt you could present an honest summary of his point of view that he would agree with.

FWIW, I don't think abortion should be managed by the federal government whatsoever- it's too messy. But I do sympathize with folks who are making a genuine effort at presenting their case and for the most part that being obviously misunderstood. You won't get very far if you cannot seem to understand where the person across the table is coming from. There's a lot of understandable anger in these comments, but that doesn't excuse the poor conversation.

Michael is a devout Catholic who truly believes that the moment the egg is fertilized that it's a human being.

Do I understand that intellectually? Yes. Do I understand it emotionally? No. Do I find it frustrating and infuriating and insulting that he, or anyone, is willing to put a fertilized egg above a fully formed adult woman in priority? Yes. Do I find some of the Catholic Church's teachings unethical and cruel? Yes. Do I think that the Catholic Church does some very real good in the world? Yes. Do I think that what the Catholic Church teaches should apply to everyone, regardless if they are part of the church? No. And yes, I have a pretty decent grasp of what the Catholic Church teaches, I have multiple Catholic friends and I attended a Catholic college, I've read the catechism and I've talked through a bunch of things with actual nuns.

He, and you, and everyone else are entitled to their beliefs. And I am capable of respecting someone for sticking with their beliefs, even when its hard. Just as long as they acknowledge the facts of the situation: that by banning abortion, some women will die. And if they're willing to ban abortion, they're ok with women dying.

I'm not ok with those women dying, therefore I think abortion should be legal. (and yes, with all the prevention and family friendly stuff, etc etc etc, I'm not typing it all out. Ideally abortions would be really rare because they just aren't needed - but that's not where we're at right now.)

I think the issue is you saying he doesn't care. I would say that you can't and don't know that. I care very much. I see it as an extremely tough issue. I got very frustrated at a post I saw today that was gloating about the likely change to the law that was coming and making light of the issue. Even though I agree with that person in many aspects of the issue, I vehemently disagree with this aspect of their perspective on it. Some people truly don't care. Others care and see it differently from you.

[Sibley]

In this thread I'm seeing people saying that is if abortion is denied or outlawed it will lead to more children suffering, being neglected, living in poverty, and more mothers will die etc.

The issue with this argument is that you're justifying using evil means of abortion (taking innocent life) to achieve a positive result.  Catholics believe that life is inherently good and acting against good is evil.

If we accept this one evil to achieve a perceived good end then how much more evil can we justify doing?  If we allow abortion then anyone can claim that they are doing a so-called "necessary evil" for the greater good.  We then spiral down this rabbit hole of evil where everyone is subjectively justifying their evil actions claiming that good will coming from it.

For Catholics, we can never knowingly and deliberately justify committing evil even if the intended end is good.

I can respect your belief.

There are two main threads of my (serious) problems with the Catholic Church. First, it's sincerely operating with a set of rules that are hundreds or thousands of years old. Second, it's insincerely operating with influences and priorities that are very much set by men, those men were often corrupt, and those influences and priorities are frequently contradictory to the sincerely held set of beliefs.

When you have a set of rules that are designed for life hundreds or thousands of years ago, it's not going to work very well as a specific blueprint for the realities of 2022. Combine that with the problems that results from the often corrupt human influences, and the Catholic Church as a whole has some serious issues to contend with.

Why should I respect a Church when they say that all life matters, when there are literally dozens of instances that I am aware of, that happened within the last 100 years, when the Catholic church acted in such a way that clearly indicated some lives didn't matter? That history exists and it is documented fact. I can't respect the Catholic Church as an institution, because it has acted in such a way that has lost my respect. Not once, but repeatedly.

That doesn't mean I can't respect individual Catholics. I can, and do. I know people who hold Catholic beliefs and they truly try to live according to them. They are some of the best overall people that I know. Not because they're perfect, but because they try. However, those people are also keenly aware of the consequences of what their beliefs can be. (They're also my adopted second family, so yeah, I know them pretty well.)

You're entitled to your religious beliefs. I am entitled to not comply with your religious beliefs. And vice versa. I will never say that a woman has to have an abortion. That's not my decision to make. But that woman should have the option to have an abortion.

[Sibley]

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

This is not a constructive argument. On par with "I know you are, but what am I?"

It's not an argument, it's a fact. And frankly, at this point, what I've got is disgust. Because there are people who do not care. Michael for one. He doesn't care. He thinks he's right, he's not willing to listen to anyone. People who are so anti-abortion don't care if women are murdered because they're pregnant, they don't care if women die due to pregnancy gone very wrong, they don't care if babies are born who will then be abandoned, killed, neglected, abused, or all of the above. I can't make someone care or be a decent human being.

If you don't think abortion should be legal, than you're ok with women dying. It's really that simple. If you don't like hearing that, well, then either you're not a fan of me right at this moment or you really need to rethink your views on abortion. Or both possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that without abortion as an option, some women will die.

I can confidently say that he does. He's not the one who's not listening... I doubt you could present an honest summary of his point of view that he would agree with.

FWIW, I don't think abortion should be managed by the federal government whatsoever- it's too messy. But I do sympathize with folks who are making a genuine effort at presenting their case and for the most part that being obviously misunderstood. You won't get very far if you cannot seem to understand where the person across the table is coming from. There's a lot of understandable anger in these comments, but that doesn't excuse the poor conversation.

Michael is a devout Catholic who truly believes that the moment the egg is fertilized that it's a human being.

Do I understand that intellectually? Yes. Do I understand it emotionally? No. Do I find it frustrating and infuriating and insulting that he, or anyone, is willing to put a fertilized egg above a fully formed adult woman in priority? Yes. Do I find some of the Catholic Church's teachings unethical and cruel? Yes. Do I think that the Catholic Church does some very real good in the world? Yes. Do I think that what the Catholic Church teaches should apply to everyone, regardless if they are part of the church? No. And yes, I have a pretty decent grasp of what the Catholic Church teaches, I have multiple Catholic friends and I attended a Catholic college, I've read the catechism and I've talked through a bunch of things with actual nuns.

He, and you, and everyone else are entitled to their beliefs. And I am capable of respecting someone for sticking with their beliefs, even when its hard. Just as long as they acknowledge the facts of the situation: that by banning abortion, some women will die. And if they're willing to ban abortion, they're ok with women dying.

I'm not ok with those women dying, therefore I think abortion should be legal. (and yes, with all the prevention and family friendly stuff, etc etc etc, I'm not typing it all out. Ideally abortions would be really rare because they just aren't needed - but that's not where we're at right now.)

I think the issue is you saying he doesn't care. I would say that you can't and don't know that. I care very much. I see it as an extremely tough issue. I got very frustrated at a post I saw today that was gloating about the likely change to the law that was coming and making light of the issue. Even though I agree with that person in many aspects of the issue, I vehemently disagree with this aspect of their perspective on it. Some people truly don't care. Others care and see it differently from you.

I can see that. However, to me, fundamentally, if you are aware that your beliefs if applied broadly to society will result in the deaths of women and you're not willing to change anything, then it follows that you don't care about those women.

Now, how does that reconcile with that whole thing I just posted above about the Catholic Church?

"your beliefs if applied broadly to society" <---- that's how. If you apply your beliefs to just you, then you're golden. I can think you're wrong or crazy, but hey, it's your body. If you're a woman who gets pregnant and that pregnancy is going to kill you, well, your call. I want to make sure you're aware of the problems and likely outcome and aren't being pressured, etc, but ultimately? Your call. But the moment that you're forcing others to follow your beliefs, not ok.

And that, ultimately, is the problem. A group of people are trying to impose their values and wishes on others. Which isn't ok.

[nereo]

In this thread I'm seeing people saying that is if abortion is denied or outlawed it will lead to more children suffering, being neglected, living in poverty, and more mothers will die etc.

The issue with this argument is that you're justifying using evil means of abortion (taking innocent life) to achieve a positive result.  Catholics believe that life is inherently good and acting against good is evil.

If we accept this one evil to achieve a perceived good end then how much more evil can we justify doing?  If we allow abortion then anyone can claim that they are doing a so-called "necessary evil" for the greater good.  We then spiral down this rabbit hole of evil where everyone is subjectively justifying their evil actions claiming that good will coming from it.

For Catholics, we can never knowingly and deliberately justify committing evil even if the intended end is good.

The above assumes that an abortion is evil: always and in all circumstances. Pronouncing something ‘evil’ is about as loaded as there is, filled with religious subtext and moral judgement.

For those who do not consider all abortions to be ‘evil’ one can consider the circumstances and outcomes without the moral quandary of ‘justifying’ an ‘evil’ act for the intended good. Which in turn means preventing abortions can cause great suffering, pain and death, all of which could also be considered ‘evil’ by some.

[RetiredAt63]

People who believe abortions are evil are not going to be forced to have one.  There is no coercion in that direction.   Here where abortion is much easier and the medical costs are covered by provincial healthcare, medical practitioners will not do medical procedures to detect fetal defects if the mother assures them the results are irrelevant.  There is no question of forced abortion. 

The coercion is using secular law to impose their belief on others who have a different moral/religious perspective.  Even if a Catholic (or person of another religion that believes the soul starts at conception) is right, and how can we imperfect beings know for certain, their prohibition of abortion takes away the free will of the person wanting the abortion.  Is that not what God gave us, free will?  To sin or not sin, and to repent if we sin?   If a sin is not committed because the person is prevented from sinning, are they truly free from sin?  If I am not tempted by something, not doing that thing is not virtuous, because I used no moral thought/effort to not do that thing.  For example, the fact that I am a life-long non-smoker is not a virtue, because I have never been tempted to smoke.  It is just a fact about me, not a character assessment. 

If I drink wine at Communion (so obviously my religion thinks that is right and proper), and another church says I should be drinking grape juice, not anything alcoholic, in their eyes I have sinned and in my eyes I have not sinned.  Since we are all human and therefore imperfect, neither of us will know which is right (or both are right or both are wrong) until we are dead.  I do not choose this example frivolously.  The temperance movement had to have this discussion.

The other side of the coin is contraception. If abortion is wrong, then preventing the conception of an unwanted child should be a great moral good.  People who think abortion is wrong should be doing everything in their power to improve sex ed and contraceptive availability so that conception does not happen unless that child is wanted.  Imagine a world where every child was a wanted child, conceived in love and welcomed with love and raised with love.