US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[dimreepr]

The question's that have yet to be addressed, in this thread, are:

The psychological damage, of being a mother, before one is capable.

The psychological damage, of killing one's offspring, because one's not ready.

And the psychological damage, of not killing one's offspring, because society demands it.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

I didn't know until now, but it looks we have our own merry bands of evangelistical anti-abortion fraternity inj  the UK:

Quote

New calls for buffer zones around UK abortion clinics

Medical leaders in the UK have launched a fresh call for buffer zones to be set up around abortion clinics to prevent activists targeting patients and staff.

The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) wants a nationwide network of legally-protected spaces to be set up to shield patients from harassment and intimidation.

Anti-abortion groups said their gatherings are designed to offer help.

The government says it is reviewing the issue in England and Wales.

It comes as Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon is expected to chair an emergency summit on buffer zones next month. She has said the Scottish Government is now "actively considering" how Holyrood can legislate on the issue.

The UK's first so-called buffer zone was set up outside an abortion clinic in the London borough of Ealing in 2018.

Pro-choice campaigners had hoped buffer zones would become the norm. But only two more have been created in England since 2018.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-6162448

Edited May 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I didn't know until now, but it looks we have our own merry bands of evangelistical anti-abortion fraternity inj  the UK:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-6162448

Religion supersedes the biology because humans were given mastery over plants and animals in the Bible, otherwise you could point to how nature deals with the problem. Nobody expects every seed to become a plant or tree, or every egg to produce offspring, and I think most people understand how bad it would be if they did.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Religion supersedes the biology because humans were given mastery over plants and animals in the Bible, otherwise you could point to how nature deals with the problem. Nobody expects every seed to become a plant or tree, or every egg to produce offspring, and I think most people understand how bad it would be if they did.

 

It's not religion alone though. We seem to be biologically wired in that direction. Problems arise when we fail to include all humans, maybe due to tribal instincts, or fail to respect the importance of other species as well, mastery or not.

Edited May 30, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Religion supersedes the biology because humans were given mastery over plants and animals in the Bible, otherwise you could point to how nature deals with the problem. Nobody expects every seed to become a plant or tree, or every egg to produce offspring, and I think most people understand how bad it would be if they did.

 

15%-50% of pregnancies end spontaneously. God is a lot busier than our clinics.

Edited May 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

15%-50% of pregnancies end spontaneously. God is a lot busier than our clinics.

Isn't She/He ultimately responsible for the abortions as well?

(Hello, this is JCM's wife: He just got hit by a lightning bolt and won't be posting...oh wait...no...he's getting up...carry on)

[swansont]

On 5/29/2022 at 10:51 PM, Phi for All said:

Religion supersedes the biology because humans were given mastery over plants and animals in the Bible, otherwise you could point to how nature deals with the problem. Nobody expects every seed to become a plant or tree, or every egg to produce offspring, and I think most people understand how bad it would be if they did.

 

Which religion, though? What little the Bible has to say indicates that abortion is not murder (Exodus 21:22; if you cause a miscarriage the penalty is fine, not death, which is the penalty for murder), and a couple of passages which indicate that life and breathing are coupled. In Numbers it describes how to cause a miscarriage (i.e. an abortion) in an unfaithful wife.

The problem with the rabid anti-abortion Christians is that they don't read, or conveniently ignore, the Bible.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Which religion, though? What little the Bible has to say indicates that abortion is not murder (Exodus 21:22; if you cause a miscarriage the penalty is fine, not death, which is the penalty for murder), and a couple of passages which indicate that life and breathing are coupled. In Numbers it describes how to cause a miscarriage (i.e. an abortion) in an unfaithful wife.

The problem with the rabid anti-abortion Christians is that they don't read, or conveniently ignore, the Bible.

The Bible is a great place for picking cherries, whether you feel like turning the other cheek or plucking someone's eye out. 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The problem with the rabid anti-abortion Christians is that they don't read, or conveniently ignore, the Bible.

Some scientists suffer the same malady...

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Some scientists suffer the same malady...

I don't need to read the Bible in order to do science or state a scientific position. What's your point?

 

(the analogous position would be to make a scientific claim that's not based on science. Where is this happening?)

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't need to read the Bible in order to do science or state a scientific position. What's your point?

 

But you do have to understand what your teachers wrote, in their bible...

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But you do have to understand what your teachers wrote, in their bible...

What alleged bible did my teachers have? Could you explain what you're talking about and stop with the tap-dancing?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

What alleged bible did my teachers have?

The book they believed in, the book they taught you from and mostly wrote; as you rightly say "The problem with the rabid anti-abortion Christians is that they don't read, or conveniently ignore, the Bible."

The thing we forget about teaching is, it didn't start today...

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Some scientists suffer the same malady...

Maybe in a different thread you can show us why any scientist anywhere would ever be a better scientist after having read the Bible.

 

 

Back to the topic, do you think this focus on overturning abortion rights has anything to do with the hundreds of thousands more Republicans that died from COVID-19? Is this a long-term attempt to replenish their numbers? Control the births, then educate the ones you want and jail the rest? 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The book they believed in, the book they taught you from and mostly wrote; as you rightly say "The problem with the rabid anti-abortion Christians is that they don't read, or conveniently ignore, the Bible."

The thing we forget about teaching is, it didn't start today...

Who is they? My teachers? I have no idea if my teachers read the Bible. They certainly didn't write it, and I can read it myself. I cited some entries above. You can read it for yourself.

WTF are you talking about?

[MSC]

Can someone help provide me with a brief summary of ground covered in this discussion so far? I will go back and read up as I find the time but a summary would be appreciated. 

Abortion is actually one of my preferred topics for explaining my research in moral philosophy and moral psychology. I could even upload a brief essay and a PowerPoint on this subject. It has a very interesting history and some rather unexpected conflicts within religious circles as well. 

In order to get people thinking about this in a different way, I tend to start of this lesson with the question; Are pro-life and pro-choice stances/beliefs/values mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another, or can a person be both pro-life and pro-choice?

 

[TheVat]

I think many here acknowledge that pro-life and -choice might be compatible, and there was some discussion of the moral obligation of pro-lifers to also support life after birth, an area where many on the Right reveal hypocrisy.  Also some discussion of unenumerated rights, and the ninth amendment, as they relate to Alito's radical departure from the norms of interpreting the full document.  It ranged across several of the ethical conflicts, as well as the scientific basis for viability and citizenship status in the womb.  Probably does help to read back through, yes.  And welcome back!

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Are pro-life and pro-choice stances/beliefs/values mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another, or can a person be both pro-life and pro-choice?

I guess it depends on how you define "pro-choice" and "pro-life". 

If they simply refer to whether or not abortion should outlawed 100% of the time, then 'no', I don't think they can be compatible.

On the other hand, a person can be pro-life and also support the right of others to choose.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Statistically at least, the majority tend to favour the right of a women to choose earlier in pregnancy and the rights of the fetus to live later in pregnancy.

[MSC]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think many here acknowledge that pro-life and -choice might be compatible, and there was some discussion of the moral obligation of pro-lifers to also support life after birth, an area where many on the Right reveal hypocrisy.

Excellent! This means we'll save some time. Yup. The hypocrisy of the right in this area has definitely marred this subject with heavy bs. Especially during the pandemic when "My body, my choice" was used to justify not getting vaccinated or wearing a mask... even though pregnancy isn't an infectious disease...

Thank you for the summary exactly what I asked for. Glad to be back also!

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I guess it depends on how you define "pro-choice" and "pro-life". 

If they simply refer to whether or not abortion should outlawed 100% of the time, then 'no', I don't think they can be compatible.

I'm glad you phrased it this way. When I say pro-life, I mean a value for life and encouraging life and an overall desire for less abortions to happen. By this standard, I am pro-life.

When I say pro-choice, I mean a value for a womans freedom to choose whether or not they have to devote a large part of their bodies resources to creating a new life, with a new set of biological needs and an inability to fend for itself. Through defending the right to seek an abortion or an adoption depending on what the individual wants to do. Legal and affordable. By this standard, I am pro-choice also.

So to most, those two values seem.at odds with one another. I want less abortions to happen, but I don't want abortions to be made illegal. 

There is a term I like to use that describes why the same value, expresses itself differently between individuals. So in this case, we are discussing a values modality. 

Now, a woman's motivations for seeking an abortion, are pretty diverse. Some want but can't afford, some can afford but don't want, some are too young, some are too old, for some the pregnancy was forced in some way, for some pregnancy carries a higher risk of death for mother, baby or both at the same time. I probably haven't exhausted the list, so by all means add to it if you wish. It can only help better lay out the different contexts that exist. 

So an ideal of mine, is that less abortions happen overall. Instead of demanding it be made illegal, I would seek to address the quality and number of choices woman with real wombs and couples have when facing this decision. 

One example; addressing abuse in care situations. Orphanages, foster homes, adoptions, all of these need more oversight, scrutiny and the last could also do with a bit of deregulation. It needs to be far easier to adopt, but also far easier for effective oversight of this and keeping children out of unsuitable homes where they are likely to be abused and neglected. 

That's just one area. I'm sure a lot of people can think of more and I have a lot more in mind, but this is getting lengthy. The main point is, you can do things to reduce the amount of abortions that happen, that are truly focused on increasing the quantity and quality of people's choices when expecting a child, without having to ban it. 

Being anti abortion, to me, is the equivalent of only giving a shit about the quantity of new life that is enabled, not the quality of it. It's also about control and sheer laziness and it does not stop abortions. It just sends them underground. The rich will still get abortions when they want, they'll pay a medical professional to do it under the table. Those who can't afford it, will be left to basement dwelling charlatans, witch doctors, or their own imaginations and people will die and maim themselves, who would not have come to harm if they were in a clean, sterilized, legal and well regulated system of pregnancy termination. 

This isn't even a secular vs religious institutions issue either. There is a first ammendment argument for Jewish people to always have the right to an abortion. Rabbinic Judaism has established clear guidelines that when an expecting mothers pregnancy is discovered to be a fatal delivery or pregnancy if carried too long or to term, they must seek to terminate the pregnancy to preserve their own life. 

In Islam, there are actually four different views on abortion. Only one of the positions within Islam calls for outright banning of abortion. It's not even mentioned in the Quran. The views on abortion were born of post-prophet Islamic thought. Most believe that the process of ensoulment, the event where the earthly vessel is deemed ready to contain a soul, is at 16 weeks. 

For most of the history of the USA, abortion was legal. It's only in the last century that new evangelical ideology has condemned the practice completely in all contexts. For all intents and purposes, the length of time that passed in the USA before it was ever made illegal, could be construed as an example of an unenumerated right to be able to seek out an abortion if you wish to do so, unenumerated rights being the topic of interest in the 9th amendment.

Do I think that seeking an abortion could be argued to be immoral in some contexts? Yes. But I think making it illegal would also be immoral. Especially if you are someone who claims to value the sanctity of life. 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, MSC said:

Do I think that seeking an abortion could be argued to be immoral in some contexts? Yes. But I think making it illegal would also be immoral. Especially if you are someone who claims to value the sanctity of life. 

If one believes the fetus is a human life, there is nothing contradictory is fighting to stop abortion but not fighting for what happens to the child after birth. I am opposed to the death penalty, but don't feel I must at the same time fight to improve the conditions in prison.

13 minutes ago, MSC said:

It's also about control and sheer laziness and it does not stop abortions. It just sends them underground.

If I am against abortion, I am not going to change my stance just because it will drive women to alternative abortion solutions. IMO, it would be hypocritical to back off an anti-abortion stance just because women will seek alternative, riskier options. Similarly, I would not have opposed impeaching Trump as some did, simply because it could have riled up his supporters and put the Democrat's chance at the Presidency at risk. Doing the right thing is often important regardless of the consequences.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Doing the right thing is often important regardless of the consequences.

Some might be inclined to respond to this by saying: Sometimes whether or not a thing is right or wrong, is defined by the consequences. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

IMO, it would be hypocritical to back off an anti-abortion stance just because women will seek alternative, riskier options. Similarly, I would not have opposed impeaching Trump as some did, simply because it could have riled up his supporters and put the Democrat's chance at the Presidency at risk.

I don't know that those two things are similar enough to compare like that. I don't see that as a valid equivalence. To the former, I say if you're truly pro-life in an effective and practical way, it's hypocritical to oppose legal abortion when you know the unregulated illegal kind ends more lives. Would be far better for conservatives to just be more open to adopting unwanted children. In every protest outside an abortion clinic, where is the person holding up a sign saying "Let me adopt the child!" Instead of things like "you're going to hell, baby killer!"? The former is helpful, the latter is not. 

That's exactly what me and my wife plan to do when my daughter is a little older. Adopting a child imo is far more pro-life than hurling abuse at women and medical professionals outside of an abortion clinic, sending them death threats or pushing them into the care of unscrupulous opportunistic individuals in a basement armed with a rusty coat hanger and a distinct lack of medical training. 

Being pro-life carries certain responsibilities. You have to actually have a duty of care to life, else the claim is empty. Acting like you care and showing that you care demands the moral consideration of the lives of all beings in balance with each other. 

As for the Trump stuff, again I don't see it as a valid equivalence, but good for you. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, MSC said:

Some might be inclined to respond to this by saying: Sometimes whether or not a thing is right or wrong, is defined by the consequences. 

I don't know that those two things are similar enough to compare like that. I don't see that as a valid equivalence. To the former, I say if you're truly pro-life in an effective and practical way, it's hypocritical to oppose legal abortion when you know the unregulated illegal kind ends more lives. Would be far better for conservatives to just be more open to adopting unwanted children. In every protest outside an abortion clinic, where is the person holding up a sign saying "Let me adopt the child!" Instead of things like "you're going to hell, baby killer!"? The former is helpful, the latter is not. 

That's exactly what me and my wife plan to do when my daughter is a little older. Adopting a child imo is far more pro-life than hurling abuse at women and medical professionals outside of an abortion clinic, sending them death threats or pushing them into the care of unscrupulous opportunistic individuals in a basement armed with a rusty coat hanger and a distinct lack of medical training. 

Being pro-life carries certain responsibilities. You have to actually have a duty of care to life, else the claim is empty. Acting like you care and showing that you care demands the moral consideration of the lives of all beings in balance with each other. 

As for the Trump stuff, again I don't see it as a valid equivalence, but good for you. 

Are fetuses lives included in that equation? Because unless you include just the mothers there is no evidence that making abortions illegal would cost more lives.

Also, would you think it hypocritical to oppose clinical infanticide, if you were concerned many mothers might do themselves in while illegally killing their kids?

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

If one believes the fetus is a human life, there is nothing contradictory is fighting to stop abortion but not fighting for what happens to the child after birth. I am opposed to the death penalty, but don't feel I must at the same time fight to improve the conditions in prison.

 

While I see your point, relating to how people focus on a specific social cause, I think there is one flaw there.  If I crusade to save tigers, I will also likely want to support having nature preserves where they can have a life.  Kind of a package.  The tiger savers are not in it to save tigers then stick them in little cages where children can try to get a rise out of them and throw trash in the cage.

  Similarly, if I save a fetus, then what happens to it after birth is a consequence of its being saved.  I'm not sure it's morally defensible to make sure the baby goes full term, be delivered, and then walk away saying "Yep, forced Mom to birth you, now she's facing more dire poverty and lack of support, but hey, you're on your own, kid!"

Your own example on the DP is also subject to the same problem.  Most people who march against the DP, do in fact also support better prison conditions.  And they do so, again, because the years of prison life is a consequence of not being executed.  

In all my examples there is the common thread of: quality of life is part of valuing life.  You just can't separate them without unfortunate consequences.  (I thank @MSC for also underscoring this)

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, MSC said:

Sometimes whether or not a thing is right or wrong, is defined by the consequences. 

So the end justifies the means? Too many downsides for me.

9 hours ago, MSC said:

I say if you're truly pro-life in an effective and practical way, it's hypocritical to oppose legal abortion when you know the unregulated illegal kind ends more lives.

More of "the end justifies the means". 

Should a person opposed to the death penalty change their position if they find the death penalty deters homicides?

9 hours ago, MSC said:

Being pro-life carries certain responsibilities. You have to actually have a duty of care to life, else the claim is empty.

Totally disagree. No one is required to go all in. I can be 'pro-environment' without giving away my car. 

Where does it all end? If I am pro-life must I also adopt, foster, share all my food, etc.? We are all free to choose which causes we wish to fight for. Causes don't come as part of an all-inclusive package.

9 hours ago, MSC said:

I don't know that those two things are similar enough to compare like that. I don't see that as a valid equivalence.

That's is fine. It works for me. Both are stances say 'do the right thing even if the consequences are bad'.

43 minutes ago, TheVat said:

While I see your point, relating to how people focus on a specific social cause, I think there is one flaw there.  If I crusade to save tigers, I will also likely want to support having nature preserves where they can have a life. 

The key is "wanting to", as opposed to "have to". There are only so many tasks we can take on in this world. While I might have time to attend protests against the death penalty, that doesn't mean I also have time to fight for prison reform. 

People fight for animal rights. That doesn't mean they are against human rights or any other good causes. It just means they picked something and took action on it. All of us do that. No one can take on every related cause to the one cause that prompts us into action.