The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[ClearedHot]

I presume all the fervent pro-life folks here have forced their wives to remove their IUDs. 

[TreeA10]

2 hours ago, Swizzle said:

The Ornithologist would in-turn say...I'm not an Oologist! Who they may in-turn say they're not a Chef!

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oology

 

I have always said that a good day is learning something new and I have never heard of an oologist.  Interesting.

So, does this mean that the question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" can have a corollary question, "Which came first, the omelet or the chef?" 

Edited May 10, 2022 by TreeA10

[Scooter14]

The Ornithologist would in-turn say...I'm not an Oologist! Who they may in-turn say they're not a Chef!
 
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oology
 

Which came first, the oologist or the ornithologist?

[hockeydork]

On 5/7/2022 at 4:09 PM, lloyd christmas said:

You need to get out more.

We are all products of our life’s experiences.  

My personal views are shaped by a few things.  I did get my daughter’s mom pregnant when we were dating.  She considered getting an abortion.  I was living through the worst part of my life when that happened.  Raising her was really hard in the beginning and it took a lot of sacrifices.  We got through it.  She’s 23 and is the light of my life.

I dated a girl once who had an abortion before she met me.  She was emotionally ruined by the experience.  She regretted that decision to her core.  

My buddy and his wife had their daughter at 24 weeks.  His wife had preeclampsia.  Their daughter turns 7 this weekend.  She’s a happy and healthy child.  The medical community is making incredible progress towards helping women with medical issues while they are pregnant.   

There are answers to problems we encounter in life whether they are self induced or not.  I don’t believe killing our children is the answer.  

Sure, I 100 percent don't want a kid right now. But do you want a pro-self/unable person raising a kid they don't want, or are unable to properly provide for? 

I’d rather see that child put up for adoption, raised by extended family or see the parents make the necessary sacrifices to raise the child.  I would also like to see the adoption process in this country made to work more in the favor of families that are looking to adopt.   It’s too expensive and too complicated for many couples to adopt.

Fair enough and I commend that, but you yourself are probably above average in work ethic, and are on a forum of generally highly motivated hardworking and successful people even tho everyone digs in on their opinions. Not everyone has  it in them to do that, just like not everyone has the courage to kick doors in Afghanistan. 

Adoption is complicated because it has to be, giving a kid away and hoping it will receive proper care is a large order requiring lots of work, versus simply  preventing said kid from forming. 

“I ended up sticking needles in my arm behind the 7/11”

Hyperbole 

Not quiet. My childhood best friend who I grew apart from in high school ODd on Heroin in his early 20s. Am I saying he should have been aborted? No, but the idea that bringing a child into this world without full dedication and parental guidance won't potentially lead to suffering and pain is not true. 

 

My mom miscarried before me BTW, so the other one died and I lived, we have a magnolia tree planted in the yard for him/her. Fair? No, but neither is life. 

I am truly sorry to hear that.  Miscarriages are incredibly hard on families.

Thank you, my sister did as well, it's never a good thing.

Actually, every time you make a parent raise a kid they aren't ready for, you're killing the other kid who they would have had later in life and been able to provide for of his or her life. Kids generally don't do so hot when they aren't loved.

Seriously?  Every single time?

You got me there, there is a spectrum of outcomes likely, I should not have said every.

Your turn. Just admit you're either really upset/disturbed by the idea of an innocent mini human being ended (me too, this world is as ugly as it is beautiful) and you cannot emotionally process that sight even if it is for the greater good, or your following some cult like religious guidance. 

An innocent mini human being ended?  Interesting choice of words.  And accurate.  I honestly don’t think killing our children is “for the greater good” .

Using two nukes in WW2 wrecked a lot of kids, it was done for the greater good. So that a bunch of 20 year old males could live instead of getting slaughtered to achieve the same end result. Should we call the B29 crews a bunch of baby/kid killers?

The idea that there should be no limit on when a developing fetus can be ethically halted is absurd. But the idea that there isn't a point in time to ethically halt the fetus before it develops into a conscious being is also absurd. 

Babys/formation of life are cute and part of what makes us human, which is why it is an uncomfortable thought for some Americans. The best solution for 90 percent of people is to practice safe sex but what do I know. 

[Banzai]

19 hours ago, Guardian said:

I’d rather have the extra liberal voters than them not be here.

Even if it meant we would have less percentage of republicans.

Legitimately though, why do you care? It really actually doesn’t affect you whatsoever.

A more pointed question along this line of morality: why should it ever be legal for a man to pull out?

Edited May 10, 2022 by Banzai

[Guardian]

Why do I care? I’d guess I would have to say I value all life. And I value truth and logic. My subjective view point is that the right to kill the unborn doesn’t value any of the 3

[ViperMan]

For those of you who care to hear an analysis of the actual court case that led to our current state, as well as an unpacking of the draft decision, this quick podcast does a good job covering some decent ground quickly and to the point. The two gentlemen are highly regarded law professors. It's focus is on the legal case in and of itself - it generally steers clear of the political issues that surround the case. I even learned some history I didn't know before. It's from a conservative bent, so be forewarned.

https://www.hoover.org/research/law-talk-leak-heard-round-world

[Banzai]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Why do I care? I’d guess I would have to say I value all life. And I value truth and logic. My subjective view point is that the right to kill the unborn doesn’t value any of the 3

To play devils advocate, how many kids do you have and why isn’t it 10+?

We can get into never ending debates about what valuing life looks like. I can claim that you not creating life when you could have proves hypocrisy. How is denying life through family planning not just as bad as abortion, or why is it different? You’re gonna say “zygote,” but looking pragmatically at reality: you have personally denied potential life from existing by using birth control/family planning, have you not?

Edited May 11, 2022 by Banzai

[Lord Ratner]

10 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I presume all the fervent pro-life folks here have forced their wives to remove their IUDs. 

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

[Lord Ratner]

There is a lot of intentional, and frankly ignorant, binary comparisons being made where they are not appropriate.

 

If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, is that okay?

 

If you leave a trail of $20 bills from the sidewalk into your house, then shoot the person who walks in picking them up, is that okay?

 

In both cases you're shooting an intruder.

 

Of course the pro-life crowd can do the exact same thing. If it's okay to kill a fetus, why isn't it okay to kill a 2-year-old? It's your kid, what's the difference? Either side can come up with an endless list of comparisons that are provocative on their surface but clearly absurd. That's all fine and well in a good faith philosophical exploration, but that's not what's happening here.

 

There are two very different concepts being argued, the court-imposed "right" to abortion that is being overturned vs the morality of abortion, and the pro-choice side is frantically avoiding the former. 

 

I haven't yet seen a single constitutional or logically consistent argument for supporting Roe/Casey. The pro-choice crowd seems quite aware that they performed and end-run around our entire governmental system with those rulings. It's easy to look the other way when the violation favors your position. But it's bad for the country to do things that way.

 

The pro-choice crowd is also going to have to realize at some point that they are simply not the majority of the human species. Take a quick look at the European laws and you'll see that the American system of abortion until this ruling has been wildly permissive and arguably barbaric in comparison Most people simply don't agree with third trimester abortions, and even the second term is questionable to many.

 

I think the biggest fear of the ruling class is that this issue is actually going to die down with the overturning of Roe. Lots of money, and lots of votes in that fight. But the states are going to come to solutions that satisfy the majority of their citizens, meaning the majority of Americans are finally going to be relatively satisfied with whatever The New Normal becomes. 

 

Of course, the pro-choice crowd would do well to consider what the now-firmly-conservative supreme court would do if given the same power to create rights out of thin air that the 1973 SCOTUS felt entitled to...

[jazzdude]

The pro-choice crowd is also going to have to realize at some point that they are simply not the majority of the human species. Take a quick look at the European laws and you'll see that the American system of abortion until this ruling has been wildly permissive and arguably barbaric in comparison Most people simply don't agree with third trimester abortions, and even the second term is questionable to many.
 
I think the biggest fear of the ruling class is that this issue is actually going to die down with the overturning of Roe. Lots of money, and lots of votes in that fight. But the states are going to come to solutions that satisfy the majority of their citizens, meaning the majority of Americans are finally going to be relatively satisfied with whatever The New Normal becomes. 

1. Who cares what the Europeans think? They do not determine what we should do as a country. But I'll entertain that line of reasoning.

2. Don't cherry pick the European laws because context matters. I'll take your word that the Europeans are more stringent on abortion. But they also have extensive paid maternity leave and access to healthcare as part of their citizenship. So that mother and child have a much more generous social safety net provided to them by the government than what exists in the US. Meanwhile in the US a childbirth easily costs thousands of dollars, and there is no mandatory paid maternity leave. The euros probably consider our healthcare system as a whole barbaric...

3. I'd wager most pro choice people are against 3rd trimester abortions, and probably would be okay with restrictions in the 2nd trimester. But that's not what's being debated or being put into law

4. The notion that we have a ruling class in the US is a tragedy, and points to our country failing to live up to it's ideals. And the abortion issue seems to be a ploy to energize the Republican base and maintain power for powers sake. The sad part is that for the wealthy or the "ruling class", the pro life laws just don't matter if they put a member of their family decides an abortion is appropriate for them.

[jazzdude]

There is a lot of intentional, and frankly ignorant, binary comparisons being made where they are not appropriate.
 
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, is that okay?
 
If you leave a trail of $20 bills from the sidewalk into your house, then shoot the person who walks in picking them up, is that okay?
 
In both cases you're shooting an intruder.

Our laws are pretty messed up here as well. There's no room for escalation of violence: no brandishing a weapon to deter an intruder, no warning shots, no rocksalt/beanbag shells, no shoot to wound. The legal precedent is that it is better to kill the intruder than it is to compel them to leave through escalation of violence, which I think is a problem

I can see the reasoning behind states with a "duty to retreat" law, even though an intruder is violating your property and space, human life is valuable so you should retreat when possible and let law enforcement bring justice to you. That intruder could be someone looking to do you harm, or just desperate for money, or maybe they are just drunk and went to the wrong house. That being said, I don't agree with those laws being in place because there can bea myriad of reasons why retreating could have been a worse option than standing your ground, so I'd rather err on the side of allowing the homeowner more leeway to defend themselves.

Now imagine that instead of your house being violated, it's your body (ie rape).

[Swizzle]

12 hours ago, Scooter14 said:

 

 

Which came first, the oologist or the ornithologist?

 

 

I know someone who'd have an answer...

[Pooter]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

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

Well if life begins at conception (sperm fertilizing and egg) and you use birth control methods that.. make it impossible for the fertilized egg (which is definitely a full human) to attach to the uterine wall.. some states with particularly backwards trigger laws may soon consider you a murderer. 

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

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

Excuse me?  Do you not understand how an IUD works?  If life begins at fertilization then IUDs are indeed killing unborn babies?  Since I am an idiot and you are so all knowing can you please explain how that is any different?

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

1. Who cares what the Europeans think? They do not determine what we should do as a country. But I'll entertain that line of reasoning.

2. Don't cherry pick the European laws because context matters. I'll take your word that the Europeans are more stringent on abortion. But they also have extensive paid maternity leave and access to healthcare as part of their citizenship. So that mother and child have a much more generous social safety net provided to them by the government than what exists in the US. Meanwhile in the US a childbirth easily costs thousands of dollars, and there is no mandatory paid maternity leave. The euros probably consider our healthcare system as a whole barbaric...

3. I'd wager most pro choice people are against 3rd trimester abortions, and probably would be okay with restrictions in the 2nd trimester. But that's not what's being debated or being put into law

4. The notion that we have a ruling class in the US is a tragedy, and points to our country failing to live up to it's ideals. And the abortion issue seems to be a ploy to energize the Republican base and maintain power for powers sake. The sad part is that for the wealthy or the "ruling class", the pro life laws just don't matter if they put a member of their family decides an abortion is appropriate for them.

 

1. Because context matters. Unless you're making a religious argument, which overwhelmingly the pro-choice crowd is not, then you have to base morality off some sort of societal context. Since the rest of the world has a much lower tolerance for third term trimesters (much, much lower), you have to make a counter-argument for how such abortions are a moral "right."

 

2. This is another false equivalence. It also wildly overstates the costs of birth in the US. If you're poor and pregnant, you can have the child, surrender it, and live a normal life. Everything you listed, like abortion, is an issue to be decided by the voters, not the court. The premise that abortion can only be illegal if you make a bunch of other stuff that I want legal is not how it works. You may not like it, but it is perfectly rational for someone to believe that you are not allowed to kill a fetus, and also not allowed to rely on the government to provide for your every need.

 

3. According to polling, correct. But I'm not sure what you mean by "what's being debated." Once again, are we talking about the supreme Court ruling, or are we talking about the morality of abortion? Overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal. Full stop. Read. The. Ruling.

 

4. This is a rather ironic statement, considering the Roe and Casey rulings were foisted upon the American people at a time when 49 or 50 states had some sort of restrictions on abortion more restrictive than the viability precedent set by Roe. No one voted on it, and no one legislated it. That is by definition the actions of a ruling class.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vUlNWMjM0NzE0Mjg4MQ/episode/OTAwYWNlNjItNjI3MC0xMWVjLWFmNzctNTdhMTc3ODNmMmJj?ep=14

Once again, Bari Weiss saves the Day. This is a Democrat interviewing a Democrat about why Alito's ruling is correct and constitutional.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

Well if life begins at conception (sperm fertilizing and egg) and you use birth control methods that.. make it impossible for the fertilized egg (which is definitely a full human) to attach to the uterine wall.. some states with particularly backwards trigger laws may soon consider you a murderer. 

 

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Excuse me?  Do you not understand how an IUD works?  If life begins at fertilization then IUDs are indeed killing unborn babies?  Since I am an idiot and you are so all knowing can you please explain how that is any different?

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.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[ClearedHot]

32 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

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

Probably the most illogical post you've ever made on this forum.  You and others have been quoting the science on where life begins.  If indeed it is at conception (fertilization), then IUD's are just as bad as an abortion, you are purposely killing a viable form of human life.  Those who use IUDs and adhere to the Pro-Life mantra are hypocrites of convenience.

35 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

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.

As I've stated I think abortion is abhorrent and my personal vote in 51% in favor.  I think if abortion is legal there should be reasonable limits like 1st term, very limited 2nd term and by medical exception like survival of the mother in the 3rd term.  The post birth comparison is specious at best because someone else can step in and take care of a child post viability.

43 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

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, witch is an active measure taken after the life is created.

I am catholic (well sort of)...and have several aunts that are nuns but I have always pushed back (as has my mom who is the oldest of 7 siblings with parents who really wanted her to become a nun).  It is my opinion that religious groups are opposed to contraception and abortion because they want more followers of whatever group they are in.  Regardless of my take, your argument is completely flawed, an IUD is not a passive measure, it may have been inserted before sex, but it kills a fertilized egg which is exactly the same as taking a Plan B and killing it 24 hours later.

 

52 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Is it perfect? Obviously not. I would much rather a bulletproof method of contraceptives that can be given once via handshake, has 100% effectiveness, and prevents the discharge of an egg from the ovary until a reversing drug is taken, and makes my dick bigger during sex. But I don't get to live in a fantasy land where whatever I want is possible.

Agreed, it is a very complicated issue which lends itself to the science argument everyone was spouting on here until the IUD came up.  Intellectual honesty goes a long way.

 

54 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 and makes my dick bigger during sex.

I'm Irish so if you happen to hear anything on this front I would greatly appreciate if you passed it along.

55 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The primary difference here is I am not acting as though your position is unreasonable or illogical. I simply disagree and have a differing view of the various factors, and the point of this whole thread the 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, not 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.

I simply disagree as well, 49% of me is sickened to think abortion is possible, but I live in a country and swore an oath to a Constitution that supports a government that gives freedom of religious belief, so this being a moral issue is irrelevant to me, it is a freedom choice for a woman.

 

58 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

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.

Again we disagree, as you attempt to impose on a woman that she must "endure" and you have made the assessment of "her risk", both statements are an anathema to the foundation of freedom in our country.  

 

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

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 issues are decided by votes. 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.

I sincerely hope states don't ban IUDs, but the door is now open.  The far left has obviously seized on this almost decision and will use it for political capital to say the conservatives are coming for everything.  In my opinion what would have been a clean sweep in the house and the senate in November is now far less likely (although with inflation numbers like we saw this morning, even abortion won't stop the sweep). 

The bottom line is for all the folks screaming life begins at conception please done be a hypocrite, acknowledge an IUD does the exact same thing as an abortion.  Condemn them and insist your spouse or significant other stop using them immediately.

[GrndPndr]

 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

You and others have been quoting the science on where life begins

No, I have not. Personally I think fertilization is the logical point. But I recognize the limits of the technology we have. As I said, I'd like a better way, but we don't have it.

 

That's doesn't change the distinction between an abortion and an IUD, which is obvious.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

As I've stated I think abortion is abhorrent and my personal vote in 51% in favor.  I think if abortion is legal there should be reasonable limits like 1st term, very limited 2nd term and by medical exception like survival of the mother in the 3rd term.  The post birth comparison is specious at best because someone else can step in and take care of a child post viability

We hold the same position on abortion, except I believe the people get to decide, not just me, just just the court. I follow the constitution wherever I can.

 

And someone can take care of a baby delivered after viability that isn't the mother. Just like someone else is required to perform most abortions.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

your argument is completely flawed, an IUD is not a passive measure, it may have been inserted before sex, but it kills a fertilized egg which is exactly the same as taking a Plan B and killing it 24 hours later.

Semantics. Once in (and always inserted before pregnancy), you do nothing to enable the function of an IUD. Again, if you can't see the difference you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

Also, you're forgetting that overwhelmingly IUDs prevent ovulation in the first place, as well as prevention sperm from reaching the egg. The comparison falls apart even more.

 

Plan B is a middle ground insofar as you don't actually know if you're pregnant (and can't be at the time of taking it). Go figure, another shade of gray in an issue everyone wishes was black and white.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

it is a freedom choice for a woman

And where exactly is that "freedom" provided for?

 

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Again we disagree, as you attempt to impose on a woman that she must "endure" and you have made the assessment of "her risk", both statements are an anathema to the foundation of freedom in our country

Once again, by what basis do you make this statement? There's nothing in any of our founding documents that protect someone from consequences. The logical extrapolation of this unenumerated right is extreme. Do I have a right to keep my house if I gamble away all of my money and can no longer afford the payments? 

I have always been in favor of abortions for rape cases, so that only leaves voluntary associations made between a man and a woman that result in pregnancy. I really can't see how the obvious outcome of such associations is somehow anathema to the foundation of freedom in our country..

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The far left has obviously seized on this almost decision and will use it for political capital to say the conservatives are coming for everything.

So... Just another Tuesday. It's been 50 years in the debate surrounding this subject hasn't cooled off one iota. If anything it's gotten worse. Our system is by design meant to resolve those issues at the ballot box. 

 

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

In my opinion what would have been a clean sweep in the house and the senate in November is now far less likely (although with inflation numbers like we saw this morning, even abortion won't stop the sweep)

Perhaps. I suspect a lot of Republicans would argue that taking control of the legislature is meaningless if you can't pass legislation that is most important to you. You pose a catch 22 that the Republican party has been grappling with since the Bush years.

 

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The bottom line is for all the folks screaming life begins at conception please done be a hypocrite, acknowledge an IUD does the exact same thing as an abortion.  Condemn them and insist your spouse or significant other stop using them immediately.

I suppose you'll completely step back from this argument once you realize that IUDs do in fact stop fertilization? Honestly I think it's absurd even without that technicality, but it is fully invalid with it.

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Personally I think fertilization is the logical point. But I recognize the limits of the technology we have. As I said, I'd like a better way, but we don't have it.

Also, you're forgetting that overwhelmingly IUDs prevent ovulation in the first place, as well as prevention sperm from reaching the egg. The comparison falls apart even more.

I suppose you'll completely step back from this argument once you realize that IUDs do in fact stop fertilization? Honestly I think it's absurd even without that technicality, but it is fully invalid with it.

Traditional IUDs do NOT stop ovulation.  In more recent years IUD have been "impregnated" with low dose hormones which in fact do stop ovulation, but that is not for all.  Also, some copper based IUDs actually prevent fertilization by deterring sperm, neither one of those mechanisms is 100% which is why they retain the IUD form factor which ultimately stops a fertilized egg (which crosses your logical line), from implanting in the mother. 

There is no stepping back from the logic that says you are killing a fertilized egg, I am sorry but ignorance does not suffice in a logical argument because the result is the same...in some cases the baby dies period dot.

[ClearedHot]

3 minutes ago, FormerPilotCandidate said:

I’ve never thought much about this topic before today.
 

<2 hours ago my wife took a positive pregnancy test for the first time in our lives! Between the excitement (and slight fear) of the news I’ve realized that I fully believe there is a life in there, even this early on. 
 

I’m not here to say what you should believe but life begins at conception and I won’t move from that position.

Congrats...and it is America...where you are supposed to be free to have an opinion and or belief.  

[Lord Ratner]

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Traditional IUDs do NOT stop ovulation.  In more recent years IUD have been "impregnated" with low dose hormones which in fact do stop ovulation, but that is not for all.  Also, some copper based IUDs actually prevent fertilization by deterring sperm, neither one of those mechanisms is 100% which is why they retain the IUD form factor which ultimately stops a fertilized egg (which crosses your logical line), from implanting in the mother. 

There is no stepping back from the logic that says you are killing a fertilized egg, I am sorry but ignorance does not suffice in a logical argument because the result is the same...in some cases the baby dies period dot.

And where exactly are these traditional IUDs being prescribed? They are quite rare, but sure, I guess with your twisted logic we can ban those, if the voters so decide. The technology advanced to meet your hypothetical. Great news for everyone. 

 

Further, my logical line regards the point at which life begins, not when a person should no longer have the ability to prevent/end a pregnancy. Since we don't yet have the tech to fully prevent crossing "my" logical line, more allowances are justified. 

 

Further further, the 100% standard isn't used anywhere, so why bring it up here? 

 

Further further further, you are still avoiding the topic of the constitutionality of abortion.

 

You are arguing that despite the complete absence of any constitutional basis for Roe, despite the wild variation in voter opinions, despite your own beliefs on abortion, despite the position of the rest of the developed world... That Roe should stand because of the mid term elections? Yikes.

 

This is exactly why Ron needed to be overturned. You are twisting yourself into knots trying to come up with some sort of excuse to bypass the American system of governance. We do not rule through judicial decree. "To have neither force nor will, but only judgement."

 

14 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Congrats...and it is America...where you are supposed to be free to have an opinion and or belief.

Which is an excellent way of bringing us back to the actual topic at hand. Should the right to abortion be through judicial decree, or should it be through the will of the people?

 

There are no constitutional arguments for abortion, and there is no shortage of liberal scholars, rooting the justices that wrote roe in the first place, who will point this out.

 

Have you read the ruling? I don't really care what your position on IUDs is in relation to abortion, because the rest of America is not required to conform their moral positioning around your logic.

 

Is abortion a right? Why?

[ClearedHot]

You are so contorted I am surprised you can even stand. 

8 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And where exactly are these traditional IUDs being prescribed? They are quite rare, but sure, I guess with your twisted logic we can ban those, if the voters so decide. The technology advanced to meet your hypothetical. Great news for everyone.

From what I've read approximately 11% of IUDs used around the world are traditional non-hormonal and non-copper based, there were no stats for here in the U.S. which is likely different.  Regardless, a large portion of copper based IUDs are prescribed in the U.S. and they have a very high effectiveness rate but they still fail and allow fertilization. Even though that is your moment of life argument I guess you are killing 1 baby in 100 as long as it meets your ignorance doctrine.

 

14 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Further, my logical line regards the point at which life begins, not when a person should no longer have the ability to prevent/end a pregnancy. Since we don't yet have the tech to fully prevent crossing "my" logical line, more allowances are justified.

You are parsing words and concepts to force your ignorance doctrine to work.  Again, by your definition if life begins at fertilization then IUDs are IN FACT killing babies but that's ok in your mind because you don't have to know about it

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Further further further, you are still avoiding the topic of the constitutionality of abortion.

Further, Further, further, further check yourself.  I made a single comment about the logic of IUDs as compared to the other logic used on this forum and you used it to launch an insult at me.  Sorry you were triggered by a single comment, lets see if we can find you a crying room or some safe space.

[Lord Ratner]

7 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Sorry you were triggered by a single comment, lets see if we can find you a crying room or some safe space.

Do you answer questions that are posed in the safe space? 

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

 

23 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I presume all the fervent pro-life folks here have forced their wives to remove their IUDs. 

You reduced an incredibly complicated issue down to a barely cogent comparison, while clearly not realizing that your comparison is irrelevant in the vast, vast majority of IUD cases. You then fell back on the well it's not 100% argument which is a nearly useless rebuttal. And despite all of that, I even addressed the (silly) comparison by pointing out that both the use of iuds and abortion should be decided through our constitutionally directed system of voting and representational democracy.

 

And through all of it, your primary concern seems to be the divisive nature of the topic, in which case I really don't see how telling people who are using iuds, specifically to avoid the necessity of an abortion, that they are hypocrites based on a very shallow logic, somehow addresses the issue decisiveness rather than stoking it.