The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, HeloDude said:

This one foot in, one foot out in a majority of the states (due to to Roe) was absurd when you remove the emotions for or against it…not to mention the constant legal challenges at the federal level.  This ruling will send it back to the individual states, where it needs to belong.

I think I agree with your general position, but I don't think this current trope of calling it a "state's issue" is consistent. Should murder be a states' issue? Murder is illegal by state law and federally. If people really consider this to be equivalent to murder, then it does require a law at the federal level outlawing it. This ain't a states' issue in just the same way murder isn't.

8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Really?  So many battleground states that will sway by very small majorities and you are telling them to just get out because of a very draconian ruling based on religion.  News flash, they won't move, abortions WILL continue even when a state says not in my backyard.  I feel sad for a lot of women who will go underground and resort to abortion in the shadows, some will pay with their lives...but hey as long as the bible bangers are happy.

This will also be the demise of the GOP who was poised to sweep the mid-terms, you just lost a LOT of independents.  All of the recent appointees refused to answer pointed questions about Roe V Wade but they each sat there and mentioned Stare Decisis and its importance, then they turned around and voted to overturn, disgusting.  Now the court has gone the way of the political parties.  Truly sad.

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter that abortions will continue if Roe happens to be overturned. Murder happens. Do you think that murder shouldn't be outlawed? Do you think outlawing guns will clean up the streets? Get real. The point of having laws is to collectively state what we-the-people are not going to accept. What we think constitutes "right" and "wrong." What we want our government to enforce on our behalf to make a society that we can all live and thrive in.

And casting proponents of the issue purely in religious terns is a convenient way of avoiding having to grapple with a very contentious issue - regardless of your religion. It's an easy way to paint the target, label it something else, and move on without ever having to lend real support to their position. I'm areligious and against abortions of convenience. It is an easy off ramp from the argument, and people love to take it because arguing that someone should be allowed to abort someone else because it's going to be inconvenient is a pretty hard position to stake out morally - hence the disproportionate focus from the left on incest, rape, danger to the mother, etc - it's a framing tactic. Most abortions are carried out for convenience - not because of one of those (arguably) reasonable exceptions.

Finally (FYI) there is plenty of fantastic precedent for overturning cases. Stare Decisis is important, but it's more important that the court is to be able to correct errors. Do you honestly think the court shouldn't be able to overturn previous decisions? JFC. Seriously. See the following:

• Plessy
• Brown
• Dred

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

The initial ruling by the court in Roe V. Wade was totally ridiculous. The court used the excuse that science hadn't demonstrated that the fetus was a human person (the word fetus actually means "child" or "offspring") and stated that if science/medicine ever established that, their ruling would and should be reversed as the baby would be protected by the 14th amendment. This was definitely not "activist" and is valid and should have been ruled correctly in 1973. We've murdered 61 million babies in the U.S. since that ruling. The most shameful thing we as a nation have ever done (and we've done plenty of other stuff).

No doubt the left will use this ruling as an excuse to continue their assault on the constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty.

This. Have whatever opinion you want to about the abortion issue - no fair reading of the constitution provides some sort of magical privacy that allows for abortion. It's the only right that has been derived from this supposed broad-based privacy which flows from the 14th amendment, and for something that is supposedly so fundamental, it is pretty strange that it doesn't rear its head in any other case law. But maybe I'm the only one that finds that strange.

No doubt this won't be the last of the issue (either way) - what it absolutely does do, however, is begin to re-establish the credibility of the court to enact decisions that actually make sense.

Edited May 4, 2022 by ViperMan

[dream big]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Whatever you think about the morality of it all (newsflash: we ain’t gonna solve it here) CH is right about one thing: This ruling will absolutely energize the left and put potential Republican midterm gains in jeopardy. It will likely continue to be a major issue in the 2024 presidential election with the Dems making the argument that despite their candidate’s fitness, the Republicans cannot be allowed any more potential nominations to the court. This is a major gift to the dems. The Republicans stomped their feet about “activist judges” right up to the point that activism tipped to their favor. 

Let them cry about it and self implode.  We have heard the tired old “republicans are waging a war against women” for over a decade now.  Doubt it will sway midterm elections which have little to do with Supreme Court rulings. 

[pbar]

As a man, sometimes I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight but just maybe all of those people saying that abortion should be legal should avail themselves of the many safe, effective birth control methods out there.  I mean if you are too damned lazy to use a condom or the Pill or whatever but going and getting an abortion is less of a hassle, WTF?  Or maybe be just a tad bit more selective about when and with whom you have sex?    I thought they wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare...  If it were so, not so much pushback, eh?

[HeloDude]

4 minutes ago, pbar said:

As a man, sometimes I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight…

The left literally now says that men can also have abortions…

[Pooter]

34 minutes ago, dream big said:

Let them cry about it and self implode.  We have heard the tired old “republicans are waging a war against women” for over a decade now.  Doubt it will sway midterm elections which have little to do with Supreme Court rulings. 

Hugely disagree. The self implosion was well in progress until our genius justices handed the left the ultimate weapon to salvage their midterm and 2024 chances. This is a watershed moment wrt the Supreme Court and will be viewed by a statistical majority of people as a regressive move. 
 

It's not like this is a new issue or the right's scotus majority was going away any time soon, so why now? The timing is absolutely suicidal. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Pooter

[Pooter]

Pile on: and I know the court's job isn't to take political fallout or public opinion into account when writing/timing their decisions, but Jesus Christ can we just get out of our own way for once?  All you have to do is be less crazy than the people who think 5 year olds need hormone blockers, but fuck that let's alienate 70% of women in an election year. That'll work out great I'm sure

[Demonrat]

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

The initial ruling by the court in Roe V. Wade was totally ridiculous. The court used the excuse that science hadn't demonstrated that the fetus was a human person (the word fetus actually means "child" or "offspring") and stated that if science/medicine ever established that, their ruling would and should be reversed as the baby would be protected by the 14th amendment. This was definitely not "activist" and is valid and should have been ruled correctly in 1973. We've murdered 61 million babies in the U.S. since that ruling. The most shameful thing we as a nation have ever done (and we've done plenty of other stuff).

No doubt the left will use this ruling as an excuse to continue their assault on the constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty.

"Assault on the Constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty?" Since when did forcing conservative Christian values on the populace as a whole in a nation with freedom of religion count as "the American ideas of freedom of liberty?" If anything, forcing religious ethical and moral opinions on the entire nation is an assault on the Constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty. 

Christians then take the Bible and basically any passage and warp it with twisted logic to support their claims that the Bible sees life as starting in the womb. You can basically interpret anything in the Bible exactly the way you want to support whatever argument you are making. This leads to a lifestyle where Christian women go get an abortion, then turn around and scream about others who do the same. You see it all the time, and it's quite pathetic.

I always laugh when I see somebody say "we murdered X amount of babies." I truly think nobody really believes that having an abortion is equivalent to killing a 1-month old baby. Show a video of a woman having an abortion, and then show a video of somebody murdering a 1-month old baby. Which is going to garner a stronger reaction across the vast majority of people? You don't truly believe that aborting a fetus is equivalent to murdering a baby who is out of the womb.

If you really believe that a person is made at conception, then put your money where your mouth is. Start supporting research that helps stop miscarraige, because there are nearly 1 million of those every year where "people" end up dying. If you regard abortion as murder, then you would support first degree murder sentences for 1 in 4 American women who end up getting abortions by the age of 45. I hope that's not your wife, your daughter, your grand daughter, or anybody you hold close. 

I hope I can start taking out life insurance policies on my newly conceived "person." If you kill a pregnant woman, it better be a double homicide. If you skip out on a woman while she is pregnant? Better start to pay child support while their "person" is in their first trimester. The list goes on and on with the implications of calling a fetus a "person" at conception. If you want all that, then more power to you I guess. That's not the type of society I want to live in.

[Prozac]

17 minutes ago, Pooter said:

All you have to do is be less crazy than the people who think…

If only both parties would internalize this rationale. Instead we have them one-upping each other in a race to the margins where the vast majority of the public doesn’t feel represented. 

[Banzai]

If you haven’t read this, it’s an interesting read:

“The only moral abortion is my abortion”

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/15/1857976/--The-Only-Moral-Abortion-is-My-Abortion-an-article-by-Joyce-Arthur

[Stoker]

52 minutes ago, pbar said:

 I thought they wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare...  If it were so, not so much pushback, eh?

Shot themselves in the foot by fighting for late term abortions for so long. Radicalized the opposition, when something like 98% of abortions take place before the end of the first trimester (i.e. the line drawn in Florida recently). Lots of people are perfectly willing to say killing an 8 month old unborn baby is just as bad as killing a newborn.

[Day Man]

59 minutes ago, pbar said:

As a man, sometimes I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight but just maybe all of those people saying that abortion should be legal should avail themselves of the many safe, effective birth control methods out there.  I mean if you are too damned lazy to use a condom or the Pill or whatever but going and getting an abortion is less of a hassle, WTF?  Or maybe be just a tad bit more selective about when and with whom you have sex?    I thought they wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare...  If it were so, not so much pushback, eh?

there are plenty of stories of IUD babies, pill babies, condom babies, vasectomy babies...accidents happen despite precautions. in 2020 there were 400k+ in foster care...that number, or women's deaths due to inaccessible health care, will only go up.

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, Day Man said:

there are plenty of stories of IUD babies, pill babies, condom babies, vasectomy babies...accidents happen despite precautions. in 2020 there were 400k+ in foster care...that number, or women's deaths due to inaccessible health care, will only go up.

And here you go…I literally said this was the one argument that was complete BS, and you just made it.  I have zero problems with the argument that someone should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, because it’s a valid argument to make, regardless of my personal/moral opinions on abortion.  But…suggesting that abortion is necessary because unwanted newborns will not be adopted is a flat out lie.  There is a long waiting list for adoptions of newborn children…and yes, that goes for non-white babies as well.

[Day Man]

15 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

And here you go…I literally said this was the one argument that was complete BS, and you just made it.  I have zero problems with the argument that someone should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, because it’s a valid argument to make, regardless of my personal/moral opinions on abortion.  But…suggesting that abortion is necessary because unwanted newborns will not be adopted is a flat out lie.  There is a long waiting list for adoptions of newborn children…and yes, that goes for non-white babies as well.

who said all those were newborns? who mentioned race? is it possible a couple (not just a woman) tried to make it work and realized they couldn't? only 7% of those in foster were less than a year old...most were due to neglect. so let's have kids that are raised in shitty environments whose parents weren't interested in the 1st place...that plan couldn't possibly backfire.

[jazzdude]

As a man, sometimes I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight but just maybe all of those people saying that abortion should be legal should avail themselves of the many safe, effective birth control methods out there.  I mean if you are too damned lazy to use a condom or the Pill or whatever but going and getting an abortion is less of a hassle, WTF?  Or maybe be just a tad bit more selective about when and with whom you have sex?    I thought they wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare...  If it were so, not so much pushback, eh?

A woman could be trying to have a baby and an abortion may be the right course of action.

For example, an ectopic pregnancy. This could kill (and depending on where the placenta attaches, kill with a very high pk) the mother even though the embryo is not viable by any means.

Preeclampsia/eclampsia with excessive blood pressures, potential cardiovascular damage and potential seizures/coma. Access to good healthcare and medication can help temper the symptoms in many cases, but the only way it's stopped is if the baby is born or the pregnancy terminated.

Plus, even with contraception, there is still a chance of pregnancy. Condoms are 98% effective with perfect use, but in actual practice is closer to 85% effective.

This issue doesn't have an easy answer. Yes, I'd rather there be no abortions. But there's enough cases where it may be the most rational thing to do (if the mother is at high risk for death due to pregnancy, should it be continued? What if she had 2 kids already, should those kids risk growing up without their mom? What if she was raped, should she be forced to give birth, and if so, who is responsible for raising that child?).

Point is, it's a very individual decision. And their decision doesn't directly affect me in any way. So despite believing women shouldn't get abortions except in rare circumstances, I don't believe the state should have the authority to make that decision for a woman, as it impinges on their right to pursue life/liberty/happiness.

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, Day Man said:

who said all those were newborns? who mentioned race? is it possible a couple (not just a woman) tried to make it work and realized they couldn't? only 7% of those in foster were less than a year old...most were due to neglect. so let's have kids that are raised in shitty environments whose parents weren't interested in the 1st place...that plan couldn't possibly backfire.

Well, pregnant women who want abortions usually get one, and if they don’t, they then have a newborn.  So it’s kind of hard to discuss one without the other.

Unless you’re suggesting that a pregnant woman…who wanted an abortion, but somehow couldn’t get one, decided to then not give her baby up for adoption, but then later ran into problems, is now the fault of the government for not allowing her to have an abortion?

Perhaps the left could be more pro-adoption along with being pro-abortion?  

[Day Man]

13 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Well, pregnant women who want abortions usually get one

If the clinic isn't bombed first (ya know, to preserve the 'sanctity of life')🙄

Edited May 4, 2022 by Day Man

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, Day Man said:

If the clinic isn't bombed first (ya know, to preserve the 'sanctity of life')🙄

Really dude?  That’s your response?  By that same logic, an argument can be made that we should allow zero immigration (legal or illegal) because there are some immigrants who murder American citizens.

Let me know one person on this page who have have advocated for blowing up an abortion clinic.  Likewise, let me know how many abortion clinics have been blown up in the last 20 years compared to the number of abortions in that same time period.  You can be against abortion and not be for blowing up clinics…hence why very few have blown up, but let me know what you find.

Again, I’m all for going full Libertarian Party platform (link below) if that’s what you and the others are advocating?  But until then, let the states decide if it’s not addressed in the Constitution.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

[jazzdude]

Well, pregnant women who want abortions usually get one, and if they don’t, they then have a newborn.  So it’s kind of hard to discuss one without the other.
Unless you’re suggesting that a pregnant woman…who wanted an abortion, but somehow couldn’t get one, decided to then not give her baby up for adoption, but then later ran into problems, is now the fault of the government for not allowing her to have an abortion?

Yes, because the government has removed decisions from the mother, so the government shares at least partial blame and responsibility for that child. Already can't get an abortion in Texas, so that is a valid scenario already. And there's significant societal pressure to try and raise the baby instead of giving it up for adoption. Not to mention that there's a physiological and emotional bond created at birth between mother and child, which will make it harder for that mother to give up the kid, even if that was the plan. Then there's also the post partum physiological/hormonal changes, which could also lead to depression. Childbirth is literally a significant emotional event, and people don't always make the best decisions while in that vulnerable emotional state.

There's also the possibility of a miscarriage or still birth, which can also cause significant health problems for the mother. Should that be considered manslaughter? What if the mother was doing coke/boozing/smoking during pregnancy? Does she have an obligation to stop doing those things and living her life the way she wants to? What if she couldn't afford meds to control preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, resulting in the loss of the baby? Or just had bad luck?

Oh, and maternal death by placental abruption is also another option. Especially if they don't have healthcare access and have undiagnosed placental previa and attempt a natural birth. Though there's a chance the infant could survive, so I guess this doesn't matter since they can be adopted or placed into foster care

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

And there's significant societal pressure to try and raise the baby instead of giving it up for adoption.

 

Do you really believe this?  Outside of the government financial welfare benefits, what is this “societal pressure” against giving a newborn baby you don’t want up for adoption?  Can you provide some examples?

[El Duderino]

7 hours ago, Day Man said:

there are plenty of stories of IUD babies, pill babies, condom babies, vasectomy babies...accidents happen despite precautions. in 2020 there were 400k+ in foster care...that number, or women's deaths due to inaccessible health care, will only go up.

Exactly. And all of those babies and foster kids would be much better off if they’d been roto-rootered out before they were born. We need to save them from what could become a possibly uncomfortable life by making ensuring they can’t have one at all.

Edited May 4, 2022 by El Duderino

[jazzdude]

Do you really believe this?  Outside of the government financial welfare benefits, what is this “societal pressure” against giving a newborn baby you don’t want up for adoption?  Can you provide some examples?

Welfare benefits are not societal pressure to keep a baby vs giving it up for adoption

It comes down to social norms that provide that pressure. I'll admit that that pressure changes based on who your peer group is and what type friends/family believe in and value.

I'd say most church goers (and probably most people that consider themselves religious, particularly Abrahamic religions) consider a baby to be a gift from God, and that life is precious and to be celebrated. If you told people in that group you have up your kid for adoption (or considering it), you'd be sure to get a lot of questions on why, and be regaled with stories of the joys of parenthood and that you should give it a chance. Maybe if your were poor/not well off, people might understand. But if you were well off and just didn't want the baby, you'd be looked down upon or pushed out from your social group.

I had my first kid last year. My unit was supportive, between paternity leave, time off to support Mom and baby, encouragement from other dad's in the unit, and some small thoughtful gifts. If I had come back and said "nah, we decided to give up the kid for adoption" it'd raise several eyebrows and question, especially as a lt col select on the bonus who could "afford" to raise a kid.

I know my parents and in-laws also would've gone WTF if I gave up my kid for adoption.

"Don't have sex unless you're willing to have a baby" really means " don't have sex unless you're willing to RAISE a baby." Because giving up that kid
would be seen as a selfish act at best, and why should taxpayers have to pay to support foster care ("don't have kids unless you can afford to raise them")?

Adoption, just like abortion, is a very personal decision that people will judge and second guess you on

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I'm areligious and against abortions of convenience. It is an easy off ramp from the argument, and people love to take it because arguing that someone should be allowed to abort someone else because it's going to be inconvenient is a pretty hard position to stake out morally - hence the disproportionate focus from the left on incest, rape, danger to the mother, etc - it's a framing tactic. Most abortions are carried out for convenience - not because of one of those (arguably) reasonable exceptions.

So in a country based on freedom we are going to regulate based on YOUR morals and beliefs, not mine, YOURS.  It is just too convenient for a woman to control her own body, YOUR morals get to dictate her body and moral choices.  Line up everyone and get your mandatory vaccine, I believe it is the morally right thing for YOU to do.

Next it will be against your morals to kill animals and eat meat - everyone gets to be a vegan. 

1 hour ago, El Duderino said:

Exactly. And all of those babies and foster kids would be much better off if they’d been roto-rootered out before they were born. We need to save them from what could become a possibly uncomfortable life by making ensuring they can’t have one at all.

I am going to tread very carefully here but I would invite you and others to read Freakanomics.  The authors attempt a purely statistical analysis of the impact of political and social decisions.  They present some rather compelling (and disturbing), data that shows a drop in crime rate aligned directly to abortion.  They go fairly deep and show a drop in crime in each state based on the date abortion became legal in that state.  The insinuation is the aborted were that bad part of the population...yes a horrific argument.  I think what they are actually trying to say is those on the lower end of the economic spectrum have a fewer support mechanisms that lead to them being productive members of society.  Again, a very clinical and sad observation.  What we do know is that minorities resort to abortion at a FAR greater rate.  As an example the abortion rate for African American women is FIVE times that of white women.  

[Banzai]

Is it moral to ever use birth control? You’re unfairly denying a potential life from existing. Is it moral to even abstain from sex if you and your partner have the capability to create life? You’re unfairly denying a potential life from existing.

I for one think we should go full catholic and ban masturbation. Every sperm is sacred!

 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Welfare benefits are not societal pressure to keep a baby vs giving it up for adoption

It comes down to social norms that provide that pressure. I'll admit that that pressure changes based on who your peer group is and what type friends/family believe in and value.

I'd say most church goers (and probably most people that consider themselves religious, particularly Abrahamic religions) consider a baby to be a gift from God, and that life is precious and to be celebrated. If you told people in that group you have up your kid for adoption (or considering it), you'd be sure to get a lot of questions on why, and be regaled with stories of the joys of parenthood and that you should give it a chance. Maybe if your were poor/not well off, people might understand. But if you were well off and just didn't want the baby, you'd be looked down upon or pushed out from your social group.

I had my first kid last year. My unit was supportive, between paternity leave, time off to support Mom and baby, encouragement from other dad's in the unit, and some small thoughtful gifts. If I had come back and said "nah, we decided to give up the kid for adoption" it'd raise several eyebrows and question, especially as a lt col select on the bonus who could "afford" to raise a kid.

I know my parents and in-laws also would've gone WTF if I gave up my kid for adoption.

"Don't have sex unless you're willing to have a baby" really means " don't have sex unless you're willing to RAISE a baby." Because giving up that kid
would be seen as a selfish act at best, and why should taxpayers have to pay to support foster care ("don't have kids unless you can afford to raise them")?

Adoption, just like abortion, is a very personal decision that people will judge and second guess you on

You originally made an argument that society would judge people more harshly for having a baby and giving it up for adoption vs having an abortion.  And you didn’t provide any examples other than some personal opinions on what “could happen”.  By the way, would your parents and in-laws be “WTF, you have up your baby for adoption instead of just having an abortion?”

So let’s try again…do you really believe abortion is a better and more approved societal option to an unwanted pregnancy vs giving up the unwanted baby for adoption?  

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

So in a country based on freedom we are going to regulate based on YOUR morals and beliefs, not mine, YOURS.  It is just too convenient for a woman to control her own body, YOUR morals get to dictate her body and moral choices.  Line up everyone and get your mandatory vaccine, I believe it is the morally right thing for YOU to do.

Are you full up supportive of the Libertarian Party and it’s platform now?  If so, jump in, the water is definitely warm.  If not, then your argument based on personal freedom is quite selective.