The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[ClearedHot]

24 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Besides, it is clear that whatever the fuck triggering is, it works quite well on both of us.

Blatant insults typically "trigger" me.

I posted a comment based on logic that immediately drew an insult.  That has failed but you continue to double down with insults... "useless"..."Silly"...

A simple I disagree goes a long way.

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, GrndPndr said:

 

That’s fantastic his mother made that CHOICE.  If she felt having the baby despite her situation was the best option then I don’t think anyone believes there is anything wrong with that. But the important thing is there is choice based on each persons own individual values. Values that you may not share or agree with. 

A female teammate on my track team in college faced this same decision. 19 years old, not on birth control because it can impact athletic performance. Gets a little carried away one night with her college boyfriend (my roommate), as 19 year olds with raging hormones are prone to do, misses her next period, and oh shit she’s actually pregnant. She’s a pre-med major, outstanding athlete, on full scholarship and comes from a family that can’t pay for her college all on their own. She makes the excruciating painful decision to terminate the pregnancy very early as she simply was not in a position life to care for a child. Heck even carrying the child to birth and then putting it up for adoption would have had life altering consequences.

Now I’m sure some will look at this situation as a selfish decision, or be quick to condemn her with the line of “if you have sex, these are the risks you take”; and in my experience these people are frankly hypocrites who are in no position to judge another’s scenario or decisions. I have seen what some of my pro-life “friends” on Facebook have been posting, a few of which I know quite well who they were when they were 19, and they are in absolutely no position to judge another. They just simply got lucky and didn’t have to make the same tough call.

Personally I don’t see how anyone could look a young woman in the eye facing that scenario and tell her with a straight face, “Sorry, but you must have this baby and permanently alter your life simply because you made a mistake that any 19 year old in the history of human kind could make”. 
 

Should there be limits on abortion? Absolutely. Enough time for a woman to know she is pregnant but before a fetus would be viable outside the womb seems pretty reasonable to me. I will let the doctors and scientists figure out where that falls. 
 

The biggest issue I have with the pro-life crowd in general (not accusing anyone here specifically) is the assumption that anyone that supports a choice to have an abortion is somehow against someone who decides that path is not right for them. If someone believes abortion is not the path for them then that is fantastic and I support that choice wholeheartedly.

Each person on earth is going to have different values and different life situations at various times in their life, and I certainly am in no position to judge what is right for someone else, even if it’s not something I would have done. I think we tend to forget that as a society.

 

 

[ClearedHot]

Yellen is HORRIBLE.  There is however a sad demographic statistic aligned to abortion.  African American women represent 7% of the American population yet they have 40% of all abortions.  This reversed ruling is going to have a big impact on a very small minority in our country.

[busdriver]

50 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Each person on earth is going to have different values and different life situations at various times in their life, and I certainly am in no position to judge what is right for someone else, 

4 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

 This reversed ruling is going to have a big impact on a very small minority in our country.

All of the life altering consequences of having a child, or disproportionate effects do not in any way stack up to countering the right to life.  The Roe decision even lays that out.  

I think carve outs for rape, health of the mother, etc are actually fairly easy arguments to make based largely in self defense law.

However, the simple question, that no one can agree on is when does that cellular structure become a person? 

I think the Alito argument about not having an historical tradition of accepting abortion is bunk (ref Roe examples) but his point that no one can agree on question one, so the correct place for the discourse is within the electorate has some merit.

It's gonna be ugly though.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Blatant insults typically "trigger" me.

I posted a comment based on logic that immediately drew an insult.  That has failed but you continue to double down with insults... "useless"..."Silly"...

A simple I disagree goes a long way.

Yes, and you called an entire segment of the population hypocrites on an issue they find deeply meaningful.

 

I'm not fond of blatant insults, but I'm not find of subtle ones either.

 

And if "useless" is an insult then clearly "hypocrite" is too. Probably "fervent" too, since "silly" sets a pretty low bar.

 

So I guess you started it 😂🤣.

[Lord Ratner]

58 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I think the Alito argument about not having an historical tradition of accepting abortion is bunk (ref Roe examples)

I haven't seen this line of reasoning. What are the pre-1973 examples of abortion in common law?

 

Are you suggesting that abortion wasn't overwhelmingly restricted in pre-Roe America?

[BFM this]

Did Roe and Casey have sufficient Constitutional basis?

I don’t know either way.  Here again, someone smarter than I, a Yale Constitutional Law Professor, liberal, pro-choice, and outspoken on the original basis of the Roe decision:

One interesting issue that has been raised amongst the noise.  While Roe was widely panned by legal scholars over the past half century, there were a LOT of opportunities to shore up the question by passing substantive legislation on the topic.  Plenty of periods with either D or R majorities in Congress and/or the executive, but instead of anchoring what everyone is currently raging about in this moment, at best incendiary legislation which couldn’t even garner votes within the proposing party for passage.  

The issue isn’t one that politicians are interested in solving as it is too valuable a cudgel to wield when needed.  We are participating in that RIGHT NOW.

Regardless, poor case law is poor case law, and should be revisited, as SCOTUS has rightly done several times in the past.  In that regard, I’m all for SCOTUS taking a closer look at previous rulings.  My short list:

Eminent Domain for commercial rezoning

Civil Asset Forfeiture 

4th Amendment

Qualified Immunity

United States v. Miller

 

All the while I’m sitting in Texas, which if recent history is any guide, is going to tee this up for some shitshow legislation on the other side.  From where I’m sitting, the clowns in Austin are going to Californicate this state before the California transplants have a chance to lace up their boots.

[Guardian]

CH. skin cells contain DNA that could be used i the creation of life via cloning. Does your argument mean I shouldn’t itch my arm?

That’s about how logical your argument is. Take a step back and realize LR hasn’t called you names or got all emotional, etc. he simply called out your statements using logic and reason and how your statements aren’t making sense. And if you don’t feel the need to do so then might I suggest just stepping away for a bit and either letting it go or assessing what it is that is causing you to react emotionally and without reason?

Throughly enjoy your interactions in other instances. Just seems like someone stole your login info this time around.

[ClearedHot]

17 minutes ago, Guardian said:

CH. skin cells contain DNA that could be used i the creation of life via cloning. Does your argument mean I shouldn’t itch my arm?

That’s about how logical your argument is. Take a step back and realize LR hasn’t called you names or got all emotional, etc. he simply called out your statements using logic and reason and how your statements aren’t making sense. And if you don’t feel the need to do so then might I suggest just stepping away for a bit and either letting it go or assessing what it is that is causing you to react emotionally and without reason?

Throughly enjoy your interactions in other instances. Just seems like someone stole your login info this time around.

Skins cells are not a fertilized egg ergo they are NOT A BABY which is the logic the Pro-life folks have hunkered down on.    I don't get it you want it both ways and when YOUR logic is called out based on your own statements I am somehow triggered?

My statement was very narrow and related strictly to IUDs and the flawed logic of those who want it both ways.

It is very simple, are you or are you not arguing that a fertilized egg is life?

If you believe life starts at conception then how can you argue that an IUD which stops a fertilized egg from implanting is any different than abortion?  To argue percentages or intent is simply fluff to make you feel better about your choice to use an IUD which is rich given that you don't want there to be a choice.  The logic failure is on your side and beyond me...you are PURPOSELY killing a fertilized egg.  How do you not comprehend that?

 

17 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Take a step back and realize LR hasn’t called you names or got all emotional, etc. he simply called out your statements using logic and reason and how your statements aren’t making sense.

See below, did you even read the thread?  His first response...again did you even read the thread before you pitched in?

17 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

You're not normally an idiot. What's going on?

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

From where I’m sitting, the clowns in Austin are going to Californicate this state before the California transplants have a chance to lace up their boots.

This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷‍♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently...

@Lord Ratner I think you've argued in good faith here, cheers. I am not a lawyer, but here are a my thoughts on some of the topics you've posted about previously, in no specific order (too many to quote). Feel free to respond if you'd like, or just skip the #WallOfText and have a great day:

It seems like while you don't like abortion, you're basically pro-choice, along the lines of what Roe allowed, as modified by Casey. Early-term abortion is perhaps regrettable yet is allowed, but not late-term abortion, life of the mother medical exemptions notwithstanding. The exact definition of where the line falls has changed over time but is now IVO 15-21 weeks. Do you agree with that characterization?

In fact, this is where I fall. I'm "pro-choice" if you ask me in a survey but I've only personally been a part of two pregnancies and we have two children, so we've "chosen life" both times, easy call.

I am opposed to abortions after the point of fetal viability unless there's some threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US (approx. 95%) happen before 15 weeks, and 98% happen before 21 weeks. That is the status quo under Roe et al  today and it feels like a fair line to say ok, that's the tipping point between a woman's freedom of choice and the fetus' freedom to have a life, both of which I can see the argument for.

Therefore why are we overturning an important right (in my view) and landmark precedent for the 2-5% of cases that are unsavory to my personal morals? Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair.

But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned.

I get what you're saying in that states should have the right to legislate as they see fit, but the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government.

Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree.

Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well.

If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about.

If the 14th Amendment is essentially gutted, which is where I think we're headed, i.e. the Due Process Clause (and perhaps the Equal Protection Clause also?) no longer include unenumerated rights and really it only protects rights with a (sic) "long historical tradition" as Alito puts it, that would allow states to legislate away gay marriage, sodomy, and perhaps even reinstitute segregation in schools. I can think of some very recent times when banning gay marriage and sodomy were A+ cool and not so long ago when segregated schools were also perfectly fine in the eyes of both the law and the public. None of those rights are specifically enumerated in the federal constitution nor do they enjoy a "long historical tradition" in my view, and therefore are vulnerable under Alito's logic.

I for one don't want states to be able to get rid of the right to marry who I want, stick it in whatever hole I want, or send my kids to an inclusive and equal school with peers of all races/religions/etc., just because they don't like it, and I know basically all Democrats and even a sizable share of Republicans who share that view, especially ones < age 55.

I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want.

Alito tries to says that's not on the table because abortion is a special case where there are X-factors blah blah blah, I don't believe it. Some state will argue passionately and honestly that they believe it's a huge moral imperative to preserve traditional marriage, and I think a state-level ban on gay marriage would pass muster if brought before SCOTUS again, overturning Obergefell. Despite what the polling says today, as recently as GWB's second term the GOP wanted to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage! There are certainly crazy-ass state legislators who would be chomping at the bit to ban it in their state if they had the power to do so.

Final parting shot: I know you have not argued this, but others have argued vehemently that "life begins at fertilization, and all human rights for the unborn fetus begin there." Essentially any act that intentionally destroys a fertilized egg is a heinous crime. Got it, that is a coherent worldview, even if I don't share it.

Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that.

FWIW this is the view of the Catholic Church (full disclosure that I am Catholic), and ok fair enough. But a lot of fairly hard-line pro-life protestant christians I know are fine with IVF and I'm struggling to understand their rationalization there.

Maybe it boils down to, "Look, I'm against things I don't like and think are bad and am fine with things I do like and think are good and I want the law to reflect that," with no underlying, coherent logical or legal throughline, and ok, that's probably the case honestly.

Enough for now, good talk. 🇺🇸

Edited May 11, 2022 by nsplayr

[Guardian]

CH. I took his use of the word as it is defined not as a name calling exercise. This is a logic type discussion. And if anything he was stating you are normally a person of high intelligence so what gives with your bad argument?

I can see how you could take it the other way since you seem to have an emotional trigger that overrides logic on this one. My bad.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I haven't seen this line of reasoning. What are the pre-1973 examples of abortion in common law?

Are you suggesting that abortion wasn't overwhelmingly restricted in pre-Roe America?

The Roe opinion lays out the history, and goes back into English common law tradition.  Generally the line was previously drawn at "quickening" (baby movement starts) as a delineation between murder and something of a lesser offense.  American more severe laws came into being en masse in the second half of the 19th century.  

Basically the laws in place pre-Roe were not that old in the grand scheme of things is the argument made by that court.  Alito's doesn't agree with that obviously, and there was plenty of weird stuff in Roe, but just not mentioning the previous logic is a problem in my view. 

 

[BFM this]

13 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷‍♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently...

Fair; I guess clarification is needed.

I view the abortion law passed last year as very bad public policy, ripe for use to mobilize less moderate progressives, who already have a foothold in most urban centers within the state.  Fast forward to SCOTUS striking down Roe, and a new law even more extreme than the previous iteration.  At some point it becomes a watchspring that gets wound tighter and tighter, and at some point progressives start making gains not just in TX urban centers, but in the suburbs, and at some point the political balance shifts to Illinois, where the vast majority of the land mass is conservative, but that means jack squat.

[ClearedHot]

16 minutes ago, Guardian said:

CH. I took his use of the word as it is defined not as a name calling exercise. This is a logic type discussion. And if anything he was stating you are normally a person of high intelligence so what gives with your bad argument?

I can see how you could take it the other way since you seem to have an emotional trigger that overrides logic on this one. My bad.

Nice way to not answer the questions while saying I have a bad argument.  Good chat.

[Banzai]

My wife and I planned to not have a baby. We used a condom. Condom broke. Never intended on having a baby, so why should it be forced upon me by happenstance? Used plan B the next day. Didn’t and still don’t feel like a murderer. What I did was the exact same outcome as if the condom had worked.

Which, by the way, is why I earlier pointed out the arguable fallacy in you guys saying that you care about life above all else, while at the same time actively preventing it from occurring in your own lives via birth control, family planning, condoms, IUDs. Yes, we can all take arguments to the extreme. The point is your definition of when you care about life is laughably arbitrary. It’s impossible to say who is right.

Have children now that were planned. Don’t see how any of your guys’ religious viewpoints should be involved one bit in these personal decisions.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Banzai

[busdriver]

32 minutes ago, Banzai said:

What I did was the exact same outcome as if the condom had worked.

actively preventing it from occurring in your own lives via birth control,

laughably arbitrary

You have to be actively trying to not understand the stated pro-life positions in this thread.

 

[ViperMan]

I've seen so many people here make the claim that the right is attempting to outlaw all abortion - in this thread, I've yet to see anyone make that argument, though there have been plenty of straw men who have had the absolute shit beat out of them. In fact, most folks who come from the right seem to be saying that there are limited circumstances under which they agree abortion should be legal, so I really don't see the hyper focus on this extreme case (i.e. IUDs = abortion = 8-mos-pregnant abortion) as anything but an attempt to muddy the water, create overlap where there is none, and avoid the conversation.

Perhaps it would be best (for the country) if the conversation would distinguish between "medical" abortions and "elective" abortions. Most of us here (I think) tend to agree on what would be considered "medical" abortions. Really, circumstances make them both categorically and morally different - in the same way killing someone in combat is morally different from murder - and this is the point that I think gets lost in all the back and forth. On the left, abortion is sometimes a difficult "choice" - which it certainly is in cases of rape, incest, last night's one night stand, etc. On the right, a normal pregnancy at 8 months, which somehow becomes inconvenient, is most certainly not a choice. Is either of those positions a misrepresentation? There is a qualitative difference between a single celled human and one which has taken on a human form, heart beat, nervous system, has begun dreaming, etc. All fair people recognize this, even if they can't provide a mathematical proof. Obviously life is a continuum, and it is difficult (probably impossible) to draw clean lines anywhere.

The democrats currently in office support elective abortion, in all cases, up to birth. It is their platform. That's a moral problem in our country, and also happens to be wholly unrelated to the state of "tax payer funded paid maternity leave" for mothers. That's where the thrust of the opposition lies - not on disallowing plan B, but on stopping the governor of VA along with other radical organizations who have co-opted previously laudable movements from enacting radical policy positions in order to assert status or maintain grasp of expired political power.

 

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

CH. skin cells contain DNA that could be used i the creation of life via cloning. Does your argument mean I shouldn’t itch my arm?

That’s about how logical your argument is. Take a step back and realize LR hasn’t called you names or got all emotional, etc. he simply called out your statements using logic and reason and how your statements aren’t making sense. And if you don’t feel the need to do so then might I suggest just stepping away for a bit and either letting it go or assessing what it is that is causing you to react emotionally and without reason?

Throughly enjoy your interactions in other instances. Just seems like someone stole your login info this time around.

Be fair, I totally called him an idiot.

[Prosuper]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Yellen is HORRIBLE.  There is however a sad demographic statistic aligned to abortion.  African American women represent 7% of the American population yet they have 40% of all abortions.  This reversed ruling is going to have a big impact on a very small minority in our country.

Planned Parenthood is a cash cow for the DNC, if the 7% have 40% of the abortions which if you read the views of Margaret Sanger she strongly approves on.  So I see this as a cash flow problem

 

[arg]

On a lighter note

[ViperMan]

Update: No new opinions are circulating within the Supreme Court.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/alito-abortion-draft-opinion-roe-00031648?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

To argue percentages or intent is simply fluff to make you feel better about your choice to use an IUD which is rich given that you don't want there to be a choice.

Or, hear me out, people don't see it your way. See that's why I called you and idiot. Not because the point is invalid, but because you somehow think it's much stronger than it is, to the point you ridiculed those who disagree.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Do you agree with that characterization?

Yup.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair.

Yes, as I've said many times, this was never an issue for the courts to decide. Bad law. 

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned.

I'm fine with that, if it is the will of the people as expressed through their representation. I disagree, but that's a feature of democracy, not a bug.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government.

Correct. And no such protections exist for abortion in the constitution.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree.

Disagree all you like, but make an actual argument for how Roe was good case law. It's not about undoing a past wrong, though that will happen too. It's about the entire concept of a judiciary. They must never create laws, even if you like them. It undermines everything. Roe was not the first absurd ruling, nor the first to be undone.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well.

If you are unfamiliar with SCOTUS proceedings, or law in general, I can see how you would think that. But they made no such promise. Plessy was "settled law" as well. These are not stupid people, and they said what they said very intentionally. I strongly recommend you listen too the linked "Honestly" podcast. Hugely informative.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about

Read the ruling. It explicitly protects against that fear, for good reason. Also, gay marriage is an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as abortion was framed.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want

No way. You won't get Gorsuch (who added trans you the civil rights act) or Kavanaugh (who was a Kennedy disciple) to go for that. Buy I'll happily take the bet. I want tequila though 😂🤣

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that.

Yeah no clue. Doesn't pass my sniff test. But that too should be subject to the will of the people. No reason States couldn't have different laws for that.

 

 

[ViperMan]

36 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

No way. You won't get Gorsuch (who added trans you the civil rights act) or Kavanaugh (who was a Kennedy disciple) to go for that. Buy I'll happily take the bet. I want tequila though 😂🤣

So, "manchester"? Or not?

[Pooter]

13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

You guys are drawing distinctions at a different location, then complaining that people draw distinctions somewhere else.

 

Is it or is it not okay to murder a 1-year-old? How about 6 months? How about 2 days after birth? Why? Is it merely the encapsulation of the body inside another body? The transfer of nutrients and blood through the umbilical cord? The one month old is still completely reliant on its mother for survival as it is post-viability, so why do we draw the line at birth?

Because life isn't black and white, and you have to draw lines somewhere.

 

I'm not religious, so I can't speak for Catholics who are against birth control or condoms, or anybody else with different views. But I believe there is a fairly obvious difference between an IUD, which is a passive measure that must be undertaken before conception, and abortion, which is an active measure taken after the life is created.

 

Is it perfect? Obviously not. I would much rather a bulletproof method of contraceptives that can be given once via handshake, has 100% effectiveness, prevents the discharge of an egg from the ovary until a reversing drug is taken, and makes my dick bigger during sex. 

 

The primary difference here is I am not acting as though your position is unreasonable or illogical, though your characterization of the opposition is. I simply disagree and have a differing view of the various factors, and the point of this whole thread the Roe ruling rather than the morality, which is clearly one of the most constitutionally unfounded Supreme Court rulings in American history. I do not consider your position absurd, nor do I view you as immoral for holding it, though I do believe the sanctity of life is a moral issue. That's why I disagree with (most) abortion, which is separate from disagreeing with the train-wreck-rulings that are Roe and Casey.

 

But it is getting tiring hearing a bunch of people act like a biological function, in fact the primary biological function, is somehow a massive imposition on the species. Billions of women living in much harsher times have endured the rigors of childbirth just fine, while the medical risks have been enormously reduced and the non-abortion options to avoid pregnancy have multiplied in both methods and access. It's never, ever been easier to be a woman (or man) of any class. The hysteria over the supposed suffering to be endured by women as a result of the banning of abortion is simply overblown.

 

If a state bans IUDs I will oppose it, for fuck's sake I'm not even in favor of banning first trimester abortions, but I will not subvert our entire system of governance for this issue. Contested social issues are decided by votes, not judges. IUDs and abortions are not immune from such considerations. If it's a matter of human rights, add it to the constitution; there's a process for that too.

 

We the people, not we the people who agree with my position and not the other ones.

My issue here is that conservatives preach responsible family planning to avoid unwanted pregnancies while simultaneously trying to ban many of the tools that enable responsible family planning. 

[bfargin]

When have conservatives ever tried to ban tools that enable "responsible family planning"? I've never seen it, unless you are somehow lumping the killing of the unborn into "responsible family planning".