ADVERTISEMENT

Abortion Ruling

Really? You don't think they should see first what they are aborting? Do you frequently receive a wrapped gift and throw it in the trash without opening it?

I guess the real question would be, why the aversion to an ultrasound?
lol. I think most women are smart enough to know what the “gift” is. Seriously?
 
We have plenty of “theological morality” laws. For example it’s illegal to murder another person. Also, I don’t think someone needs to be religious to be against abortion.
I agree that most laws have some moral base. But that is not a complete answer to the conundrum of when/if a law has an IMPERMISSIBLE religious basis. Speed limits are different than health care are different than grazing on federal land, etc. The reality is that abortion law has a higher “religion” and/or “morality” component factor than swimming laws. Those factors must be considered when making legal decisions that must apply to all - religious/non-religious and moral/willingly immoral. “The rain falls on the priest and the thief, but you need probable cause or consent to search either one.”
 
I agree that most laws have some moral base. But that is not a complete answer to the conundrum of when/if a law has an IMPERMISSIBLE religious basis. Speed limits are different than health care are different than grazing on federal land, etc. The reality is that abortion law has a higher “religion” and/or “morality” component factor than swimming laws. Those factors must be considered when making legal decisions that must apply to all - religious/non-religious and moral/willingly immoral. “The rain falls on the priest and the thief, but you need probable cause or consent to search either one.”
I don’t consider abortion to have any higher religious component than thou shall not murder. It’s why 80% of Americans agree with me that abortion is murder and are against it at some point. Almost all of us recognize it’s evil and wrong.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory
I don’t consider abortion to have any higher religious component than thou shall not murder. It’s why 80% of Americans agree with me that abortion is murder and are against it at some point. Almost all of us recognize it’s evil and wrong.
0-15 weeks - not murder
16-21 weeks - not murder and we need this time to ensure we identify any potential life threatening problems
22-30 weeks - i don't feel so good and there better be a really good reason
31-39 weeks - how did we get to this point and not know earlier?

80% don't agree it's murder before week 21. I'll need a poll or some other data to point that out before I believe it.
 
0-15 weeks - not murder
16-21 weeks - not murder and we need this time to ensure we identify any potential life threatening problems
22-30 weeks - i don't feel so good and there better be a really good reason
31-39 weeks - how did we get to this point and not know earlier?

80% don't agree it's murder before week 21. I'll need a poll or some other data to point that out before I believe it.
Aloha posted an article above. 79% of them were against abortions in the third trimester.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
I don’t consider abortion to have any higher religious component than thou shall not murder. It’s why 80% of Americans agree with me that abortion is murder and are against it at some point. Almost all of us recognize it’s evil and wrong.
It is far more nuanced.

First, I know folks who will tell you that you are going to hell for phrasing that commandment as “thou shall not murder“ rather than “thou shall not kill.“ Others will tell you that wearing a condom will send you to hell. Others will say wearing a condom will only send you to hell if you don’t confess and say the right number of “Hail Mary’s.” As of today, some Baptist churches won’t allow a women in the pulpit. Others will. As of today, some United Methodist churches will perform gay weddings. Global
Methodist churches won’t. Even religion has meaningful nuance.

Next, Jack the Ripper and a drug cartel hit man and a soldier and a pregnant woman who aborts an anencephalytic fetus are not the same. But under a “ ‘thou shall not murder’ makes abortion murder” rule, they all would be “murderers.”

Abortion is not always just a callous form of birth control. Neither a church nor the law should treat them all the same.
 
Why the aversion to, at the point a pregnant woman leans toward abortion, offering free pre natal, delivery, and post partem care? Includng free adoption services for parents who want to raise a child?

Since we're talking about saving lives here. Just scaring a woman with YOU'RE KILLING A BABY YOU ****ING MONSTER sure hasn't worked over the years.
Yeah I've heard this line before. It's the same as the "pro-birth" malarkey. The abortion issue is not an opportunity to demand everything on your progressive wish list.

Besides, if Republicans caved and offered free childcare and free health care for any pregnant woman and her family, Democrats still wouldn't accept a full abortion ban any way. Moot point.
 
I agree but I think Republicans should get creative with other legislation. As an example, require an ultrasound before the procedure or even better require a visit to a non profit like PreBorn. Ensure they are making an informed decision.

Not likely to pass federally either but it would be good to hold Democrat's feet to the fire on why exactly they don't think Pre-abortive mothers should have an ultrasound or explore alternatives to abortion before making their decision.
So you want to guilt trip rape and incest victims? Or are they excluded?
 
It is far more nuanced.

First, I know folks who will tell you that you are going to hell for phrasing that commandment as “thou shall not murder“ rather than “thou shall not kill.“ Others will tell you that wearing a condom will send you to hell. Others will say wearing a condom will only send you to hell if you don’t confess and say the right number of “Hail Mary’s.” As of today, some Baptist churches won’t allow a women in the pulpit. Others will. As of today, some United Methodist churches will perform gay weddings. Global
Methodist churches won’t. Even religion has meaningful nuance.

Next, Jack the Ripper and a drug cartel hit man and a soldier and a pregnant woman who aborts an anencephalytic fetus are not the same. But under a “ ‘thou shall not murder’ makes abortion murder” rule, they all would be “murderers.”

Abortion is not always just a callous form of birth control. Neither a church nor the law should treat them all the same.
I disagree it’s nuanced or difficult. Make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. The other 99% of abortions are illegal. We’re just not going to agree on the issue.
 
Last edited:
I disagree is nuanced or difficult. Make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. The other 99% of abortions are illegal. We’re just not going to agree on the issue.
So a woman must carry an anencephalytic baby to term, knowing it will be be stillborn or die in minutes? No exceptions for THAT? Or is that within “health of the mother”?

Asking for a relative who went through it, so please answer.
 
Yeah I've heard this line before. It's the same as the "pro-birth" malarkey. The abortion issue is not an opportunity to demand everything on your progressive wish list.

Besides, if Republicans caved and offered free childcare and free health care for any pregnant woman and her family, Democrats still wouldn't accept a full abortion ban any way. Moot point.
So we can't even get to the Handmaiden's Tale level of care?

Noted.
 
So a woman must carry an anencephalytic baby to term, knowing it will be be stillborn or die in minutes? No exceptions for THAT? Or is that within “health of the mother”?

Asking for a relative who went through it, so please answer.
I haven’t been unreasonable and replied in good faith. If you can’t figure out my answer to that question, you’re wasting my time.
 
I don’t consider abortion to have any higher religious component than thou shall not murder. It’s why 80% of Americans agree with me that abortion is murder and are against it at some point. Almost all of us recognize it’s evil and wrong.
@IU_Hickory why the laughing emoji in response to someone who has heartfelt personal beliefs about aborting a baby?
 
@IU_Hickory why the laughing emoji in response to someone who has heartfelt personal beliefs about aborting a baby?
Because I think his 80% figure is bogus and saying almost all see it as evil and wrong is laughable.

No one roots for an abortion and sure most would probably agree with none in 3rd trimester except for specific circumstances, like life of the mother at stake. But saying all think abortion is evil is crazy.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark and ulrey
Because I think his 80% figure is bogus and saying almost all see it as evil and wrong is laughable.

No one roots for an abortion and sure most would probably agree with none in 3rd trimester except for specific circumstances, like life of the mother at stake. But saying all think abortion is evil is crazy.
So post your disagreement with his post.
 
So you want to guilt trip rape and incest victims? Or are they excluded?
That amounts to probably fewer than 1/1000 abortions.

I've never understood why women get pregnant when they aren't wanting to. I've taken a multi vitamin everyday for about 10 years now. I don't think there has been 1 day when I forgot to take it. We even have plan B pills now too as a backup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
I haven’t been unreasonable and replied in good faith. If you can’t figure out my answer to that question, you’re wasting my time.
I am ASKING in good faith. Every post I have made in this thread has been in good faith. I am try to show how difficult some of these lines are to legally draw. This one is the toughest.

You not wanting to answer makes me suspect you would make a woman carry such a baby until vaginal birth. Please tell me if I am wrong.

This nation (or states) can never resolve this issue if we don’t address the hardest questions.
 
I am ASKING in good faith. Every post I have made in this thread has been in good faith. I am try to show how difficult some of these lines are to legally draw. This one is the toughest.

You not wanting to answer makes me suspect you would make a woman carry such a baby until vaginal birth. Please tell me if I am wrong.

This nation (or states) can never resolve this issue if we don’t address the hardest questions.

Ideological purists (of all stripes) always paint themselves into a corner and then refuse to acknowledge the real world consequences of their positions. "Compromise" is a dirty word, donchya know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
I am ASKING in good faith. Every post I have made in this thread has been in good faith. I am try to show how difficult some of these lines are to legally draw. This one is the toughest.

You not wanting to answer makes me suspect you would make a woman carry such a baby until vaginal birth. Please tell me if I am wrong.

This nation (or states) can never resolve this issue if we don’t address the hardest questions.

We see this playing out in Texas, women that seemingly should qualify because doctors are afraid to lose their license/fines/jail. No matter how sure one is there is an expert willing to testify against them. Until there is solid case law, no one knows how much risk is needed for "life of the mother". 100% risk, 90, 70, 30? Without case law, I don't blame doctors for being afraid.
 
So post your disagreement with his post.
I think laughing implies my thoughts perfectly and doubt my disagreement is going to sway his mind anyway. I don't care to waste time in the argument.

And plenty of posters laugh at my posts, including you
 
We see this playing out in Texas, women that seemingly should qualify because doctors are afraid to lose their license/fines/jail. No matter how sure one is there is an expert willing to testify against them. Until there is solid case law, no one knows how much risk is needed for "life of the mother". 100% risk, 90, 70, 30? Without case law, I don't blame doctors for being afraid.

The only way we'll ever get case law is for some doctor to perform the procedure and then have him get prosecuted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
The only way we'll ever get case law is for some doctor to perform the procedure and then have him get prosecuted.
Yep.

Imagine interstate speed limits listed as "a safe speed". The difference is that there will be a lot of prosecutors wanting to make a name for themselves keeping that as close to 100% risk as possible.
 
Because I think his 80% figure is bogus and saying almost all see it as evil and wrong is laughable.

No one roots for an abortion and sure most would probably agree with none in 3rd trimester except for specific circumstances, like life of the mother at stake. But saying all think abortion is evil is crazy.
The number comes from the article I linked. It does require reading it.
 
But the carrier can say it is ok and the state say welcome to the state pen.
@UncleMark most states mandate 1mil/3mil malpractice coverage for abortions. You perform one in a state that bans you’re running the risk of nullifying coverage. You then F it up your ass is out if you’re the Dr. So it’s more than just a prosecution concern
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
How is that not murder?
You can make that argument. People make similar cases for rape and incest as well. I’m ok with allowing exceptions in all those situations. I only want the other 99% of abortions outlawed. I have no issues with making exceptions.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT