[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Manfred Belheim]

But neither do they have a right to have society adopt abortion policy specifically tailored to their individual beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean their beliefs have any place in serving as a basis upon which actual policy and laws ought to be made.

They have a right to campaign to what they want to campaign for, and to prioritise things that matter most to them. It's not reasonable to demand that someone who doesn't share your beliefs campaigns for something you prioritise but they don't.

 

[Farm Boy]

That a developing human life exists at a certain point is not arbitrary. It is observed. That fundamental fact shapes and informs all following decisions and considerations. That it is a developing human is why we kill it when we kill it. That it is a developing human is why nurture it when we nurture it. What we decide to do is informed by morality. What is going on is not. When we terminate pregnancies because money, when there are safe haven laws, when there are adoptions, we aren't being real. We're lying. And if you take up that argument, you are lying. The physical and emotional costs of carrying a pregnancy are true and significant, they're more than adequate to make the point. A way out must be provided if women are not to be livestock. But stop lying about why we do things and what we gain when we do. Yes, people will be bad parents. Some of those bad parents will have their children taken from them by the state, and the foster system is underfunded. The only way abortion factors into that is if you look at the foster system and think, "Man, wouldn't it be great if these kids had been aborted before they were an issue and expense." Which, for the record, I think is pretty unstated common. It's the only rational explanation for conflating the two groups.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't think you're seeing our point the way we intend it. Some people may, in your words, "are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible." But if that is true, then how can the same people be so indifferent to the suffering and deaths of those same children? The fact that the hard core anti-choice voters has an almost complete overlap with the hard core kill them all and let God sort them out voter really makes it impossible for many of us to believe that the child matters to them at all.

I don't speak for them, but I would imagine that your own state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity that trumps anything else.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

And this is different from what you're doing how?

Seriously? This is what you're concerned about? Christianity has failed in the far right of the US. That failure to me is far more critical than my punctuation.

People imposing their will on others with their religion for a justification is the only reason why abortion is a political issue in the US in the first place.

You have odd ideas about American history. Abortion was around practically from inception and done with herbs. And shock....by American Christians.

It's a tactic by atheists to not capitalize a proper noun on purpose when in any humanities course this nonsense would be pointed out as a way of creating a fallacy in your opponent's argument that doesn't exist. No one can prove the existence of God. Either way is solely based on faith not science.

You can't have decorum in dialogue by that kind of post.

The preponderance of Roman Catholics and Protestants in America have no political will to abolish abortion. There is hope that the Supreme Court will be honest and point out that the Constitution is silent on abortion. Thus it would be a state and individual decision based on the 10th Amendment. Roe v Wade would be null and void...not to abolish abortion...but to turn the decision properly to the states and individuals and to be negotiated. Thus some states could legally elect to modify their state constitutions that abortion is a natural right to be protected....while others would not do so.

Emergency contraception has been around as long as douching was around. Standard oral contraception can induce miscarriages based upon hormone levels which vary from patient to patient.

As such, I see very little difference in douching versus oral contraception versus morning after pills. Since we have publically discussed this in America since 1971, it is odd that there is a stigma about emergency contraception.

The segment of patients who have irregular menstral cycles is the one main area where delayed decision making might result in abortions. Whereas standard emergency contraception with risky behavior might eliminate 90% of surgical and surgical/chemical abortions.

It is a no-brainer to alter the paradigm which creates an industry for Planned Parenthood that preys on minorities in an expensive manner.

 

[metalhead]

They have a right to campaign to what they want to campaign for, and to prioritise things that matter most to them. It's not reasonable to demand that someone who doesn't share your beliefs campaigns for something you prioritise but they don't.

Huh? How does this follow from what I said? I didn't say I was going to force people to campaign for things, or change their priorities? When one's individual priorities are completely arbitrary and run counter to the express prohibition of religion encroaching on public life and public policy, then their priorities have no place in the policy debate. That doesn't mean they have to stop believing what they believe.

That a developing human life exists at a certain point is not arbitrary. It is observed. That fundamental fact shapes and informs all following decisions and considerations. That it is a developing human is why we kill it when we kill it. That it is a developing human is why nurture it when we nurture it. What we decide to do is informed by morality. What is going on is not. When we terminate pregnancies because money, when there are safe haven laws, when there are adoptions, we aren't being real. We're lying. And if you take up that argument, you are lying. The physical and emotional costs of carrying a pregnancy are true and significant, they're more than adequate to make the point. A way out must be provided if women are not to be livestock. But stop lying about why we do things and what we gain when we do. Yes, people will be bad parents. Some of those bad parents will have their children taken from them by the state, and the foster system is underfunded. The only way abortion factors into that is if you look at the foster system and think, "Man, wouldn't it be great if these kids had been aborted before they were an issue and expense." Which, for the record, I think is pretty unstated common. It's the only rational explanation for conflating the two groups.

The only lie here is yours, in ignoring the practical reality of mothers and fathers not being capable of giving their child up for adoption, or availing safe havens, due to the overwhelming emotional cost of doing so. That the option to extinguish parental rights exists in no way obviates the ongoing burden of child care to parents as a competing interest. That's "real." Pretending that there aren't costs there is most decidedly not "real" at all, rather it strikes me as extraordinarily fanciful and wrong. The adequacy (or lack thereof) of foster and adoption services has nothing to do with it. Nor does the existence of bad parents.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In what I just said? I count zero times. What do you get?

I'm not saying you're a *****, I'm saying you're acting like a ******.

Yeah try that with your partner and see how well that goes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't speak for them, but I would imagine that your own state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity that trumps anything else.

Yawn more baby killing

Yeah and outlawing abortion is the only thing that can be done to stop abortion or is even the best course of action to get that outcome. /s

 

[onejayhawk]

Nope it was intentional. Agree to disagree

This is fundamental. The only time abortion is ever a need is in a life/death medical emergency.

How do you think I got the information I posted? I googled it.

In case of uncertainty it would be wise to refrain from labeling someone as a white supremacist and eugenics proponent just to score cheap points.

I'm not a Democrat.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is fundamental. The only time abortion is ever a need is in a life/death medical emergency.

Well hey I did not expect you to admit that.

 

[onejayhawk]

All of the morality arguments rather miss the point.

The idea that a human being exists the moment a zygote attaches to the wall of a uterus (or maybe even before attachment, but that would make a lot of people involuntary manslaughterers) is totally arbitrary. It's also fundamentally a religious belief, and as such would be improperly foisted upon the public-at-large in violation of the First Amendment, were it allowed to happen.

Before that. Hence the objections to IUDs and morning after pills.

Well hey I did not expect you to admit that.

Why not? Medical emergency is rare but it happens. More commonly they will do an emergency surgical birth and treat the two separately.

Note that there is two persons involved.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Why not?

Because one side of this debate is completely incapable of acknowledging nuance and shades of grey in the issue. That's your side, btw.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Onejayhawk is but a single voice on the pro-life side. You could make the argument that my thought process is theologically unsound since it facilitates "making a brother stumble". I of course disagree as America is not a theocracy but a republic. Thus we "render to Caesar what is Caesar's".

His position makes douching illegal and honestly standard birth control pills.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Onejayhawk is but a single voice on the pro-life side. You could make the argument that my thought process is theologically unsound since it facilitates "making a brother stumble". I of coursee disagree as America is not a theocracy but a republic. Thus we "render to Caesar what is Caesar's".

His position makes douching illegal and honestly standard birth control pills.

No one cares one iota how theologically sound your argument is. Stop trying to project your religious views into our political system while gaslighting to the effect that you are doing no such thing.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

No one cares one iota how theologically sound your argument is. Stop trying to project your religious views into our political system while gaslighting to the effect that you are doing no such thing.

This is so uncivil.

Atheists and antitheists do not get to control other's posts. Even more so shut out dialogue made by the preponderance of the American People.

You see. Some claim to like democracies but then ignore the consequences of democracies.

The reason abortion is legal is because we live in a Republic which fosters minority political views. For if it was majority rule...Roe v Wade would NEVER have passed.

I am chortling with laughter. My theological post LIMITS what a Christian can do in the American Republic...not expands it!

But yoyo would deny a Christian can voice their political opinion whatsoever! Flip that around. It would be a repressive government which would make atheists unable to discuss their views on abortion.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Huh? How does this follow from what I said? I didn't say I was going to force people to campaign for things, or change their priorities?

When did I say you said that? You just jumped in the middle with "that doesn't give them the right to [big list of stuff I never said they had the right to do]". I just reminded you what I was actually talking about. If you don't get why I said it maybe go back to the beginning of the exchange.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is so uncivil.

Atheists and antitheists do not get to control other's posts. Even more so shut out dialogue made by the preponderance of the American People.

You see. Some claim to like democracies but then ignore the consequences of democracies.

The reason abortion is legal is because we live in a Republic which fosters minority political views. For if it was majority rule...Roe v Wade would NEVER have passed.

I am chortling with laughter. My theological post LIMITS what a Christian can do in the American Republic...not expands it!

But yoyo would deny a Christian can voice their political opinion whatsoever! Flip that around. It would be a repressive government which would make atheists unable to discuss their views on abortion.

So is the separation of church and state a concept you recognize or what?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not saying you're a *****, I'm saying you're acting like a ******.

Yeah try that with your partner and see how well that goes.

I said you did a stupid thing. Even if you insist on interpreting that as "you are stupid" (which is stupid), that's still only a count of 1 (okay 2 now). So yeah... I'm still not sure what you mean by "how many times".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yawn more baby killing

Is it boring or sick? Make up your mind. Either way I think this explains the problem you're having relating.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I said you did a stupid thing. Even if you insist on interpreting that as "you are stupid" (which is stupid), that's still only a count of 1 (okay 2 now). So yeah... I'm still not sure what you mean by "how many times".

Twice by you alone.

Is it boring or sick? Make up your mind. Either way I think this explains the problem you're having relating.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

So is the separation of church and state a concept you recognize or what?

I get it. You don't understand what that term means. Then what is worse...you expose such extreme bias that it is clear bigotry about Christians and political representation.

Basically no Christian could even speak about abortion as their central understanding on abortion is based on theology.

Welcome to a brave new world where only antitheists get political representation on abortion. The very basis for natural rights theory is that either Nature or God granted these by virtue of being created. So it is completely cattywampus to claim only those who deny God can debate the topic!

If God doesn't exist and Nature is not personfied, then in reality...no one has natural rights. Then the entire political structure is predicated on a fallacy. Thus no one could claim a right to an abortion.

Nor the 1st Amendment!