Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[KittySlayer]

Sure. But there's enough to spread around. In states where banned, those PP locations will need to work out how to handle shutting things down. Or. Maybe PP could live up to its name and actually do pregnancy planning counseling.

I remember when I first heard about "Planned Parenthood" and what they did. It was confusing. I was like, "Planned Parenthood? They do THAT? It sounds like the opposite thing they'd be doing."

I was wondering why Planned Parenthood had to shut down just because they could not kill babies. They always tell everyone about the vital health care services they provide women and abortion is just a little portion of their operation. At least they make that argument when trying to get federal funding.

 

[Tombs]

I don’t know if there is an objective, scientific definition of viability. I am not a doctor or a scientist, so my working definition of “viability” may not be the textbook definition. For my purposes I use viability as the point at which a fetus may survive outside its mother’s womb without extraordinary medical assistance.

For the central point of your entire debate, why does viability matter? Or whether it's a life, matter?

This concept seems entirely contradictory to the concept of it being a woman's right, or permissible under the recommendation of a doctor.

If it's a right, it does not matter if it's a life or whether it's viable.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I was wondering why Planned Parenthood had to shut down just because they could not kill babies. They always tell everyone about the vital health care services they provide women and abortion is just a little portion of their operation. At least they make that argument when trying to get federal funding.

Planned parenthood offers different services at different offices.

For example, the PP locations near Purdue and IU do not offer abortion services on-site, those locations almost exclusively provide low-cost gynecological exams, low-cost hormonal contraception, and free condoms and educational information to those that seek them.

The signs are probably for optics, because it is my understanding that the vast majority of PP branches get closed only after new ones that serve the same area open.

The locations that actually perform surgical abortions tend not to have large outdoor signs.

 

[LeftyGunner]

For the central point of your entire debate, why does viability matter? Or whether it's a life, matter?

This concept seems entirely contradictory to the concept of it being a woman's right, or permissible under the recommendation of a doctor.

If it's a right, it does not matter if it's a life or whether it's viable.

Perhaps I have focused on that too much. It really isn’t my central point. I only mentioned it to object to the idea that unique DNA automatically equals independent life.

 

[HoughMade]

There is a puritanical element to this debate that just rubs me the wrong way: “I’m morally opposed to Behavior X, so the state should intervene to stop others from engaging in it.”

That isn’t how morality works in a free society. People can hold legitimately differing views, and it isn’t up to the the state impose the “correct” moral viewpoint.

Well, sure it does on many issues.

I'll use the most extreme example- what business is it of anyone else's if I want to kill my neighbor? Why should the state be involved? Wait...my neighbor has rights too? The state has an interest in protecting his rights?

Huh...crazy. If we are going to pretend that there is no debatable "victim" in this situation, I get it. However, whether there is a victim or not IS a moral issue and legislatures get to enact the will of the people to protect humans it believes are worth protecting.

In the past, there were a lot of humans deemed unworthy of protection. Things change.

Understand that people who are pro life don't hate women or want to control them. They want to protect children. Maybe you don't see them as children. Others do. Certainly, if people honestly and sincerely believe the unborn are humans, you can understand why people would want to protect them.

I understand the other side. Does the other side understand me? ...or are we going to keep pushing the tired and false "hate women" narrative?

 

[actaeon277]

Isn’t only allowing “financially responsible and stable men” to reproduce one of the plot lines of handmaidens tale?

I guess I’m just confused about the future dems want for the country

Okay.
Then, the same for women.

But, then think about who is going to be doing the deciding.
They may, or may not like who that is.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Okay.
Then, the same for women.

But, then think about who is going to be doing the deciding.
They may, or may not like who that is.

There were a lot of dirt poor people that had children back during the Great Depression that managed to take care of their kids. And that was well before the welfare state, SNAP, TANF, etc...

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well, sure it does on many issues.

I'll use the most extreme example- what business is it of anyone else's if I want to kill my neighbor? Why should the state be involved? Wait...my neighbor has rights too? The state has an interest in protecting his rights?

Huh...crazy. If we are going to pretend that there is no debatable "victim" in this situation, I get it. However, whether there is a victim or not IS a moral issue and legislatures get to enact the will of the people to protect humans it believes are worth protecting.

In the past, there were a lot of humans deemed unworthy of protection. Things changes.

Understand that people who are pro life don't hate women or want to control them. They want to protect children. Maybe you don't see them as children. Others do. Certainly, if people honestly and sincerely believe the unborn are humans, you can understand why people would want to protect them.

I understand the other side. Does the other side understand me? ...or are we going to keep pushing the tired and false "hate women" narrative?

“Understand that people who are pro life don't hate women or want to control them. They want to protect children.”

It’s hard for people on my side if this debate to take a statement like this at face value, because the way your side seeks to protect children is by controlling women (through limiting their legal options).

I struggle to understand how forcing a child to be born to a mother that doesn‘t want it to exist protects that child.

There are a number of documented ways to reduce the total number of unwanted pregnancies, but conservatives stand against almost all of them. In effect, the party of market values does everything they can to keep demand for abortion high while simultaneously seeking to criminalize the supply.

It’s just like the war on drugs.

Why is the liberal the only one in this conversation talking about keeping the state out of the marketplace?

I am trying to understand the other side, that’s why I’m involved in this conversation with you.

Please note I have not brought up anything in my posts about conservatives hating women or seeking broad control over them, nor have I referred to the unborn as anything but human, why did you?

 

[actaeon277]

FYI. Bill Maher drops one f-bomb in this clip from the Rubin Report. Also of note is Rubin quotes a twitter post in the second half that really is a hard hitter against all the crazy liberals and their attempts to push the envelope on a lot of issues. Good stuff.

The part at 2:58


He was showing this tweet








Dr Strangetweet or How I Learned to Love the RT

@lone_rides
·
Jun 24

Replying to
@lone_rides
See, we were cool with the status quo. Yeah, we wanted abortion to go back to the states. Yeah, we wanted gun rights expanded. Yeah, we wanted our kids safe from LGBTQ indoctrination. But it wasn’t enough to fight about.


We thought you were like us, that we could argue and make small gains and lose some ground but everything staying fairly level and levelheaded. But boy, were we wrong. Because while we were copacetic and just going along to get along, you were pushing.



You pushed abortion. From “legal, safe, and rare in these specific instances”, you pushed now to the point of post birth abortion on demand for any reason.


You pushed gun control. From “background checks and gun free zones” to now “red flag laws” which deny due process.




This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules. Learn more




And during all of this, you pushed disagreeing politically to calling us Nazis and justifying violence against us, justifying harming our families and our jobs.





So now, we push back. We pushed back with Trump. We pushed back with state legislators. We pushed back with school boards. And we haven’t even begun to push back, kiddo.



We’re going to push abortion back to the “rare” side in many states. We may give you a timeframe like 12 to 15 weeks, about what your beloved “other industrialized nations” give. We may not.



We’re going to push back on gun control. We’re not going to accept your offer of “you can keep some guns until we decide to get rid of them.” We’re going to elect legislators to make ownership easier. We’re claiming our rights back.



We’re going to push back on the LGBTQ agenda. We’re going to make your lives miserable when you try to get our kids to question their gender. We’re going to remove the power you think you have and put it in the hands of the parents.



Jun 24

You had a chance to call a truce. You had a chance to be in control and be happy. You had a chance to just leave us alone. You didn’t.


You pushed and prodded and provoked. And you’re threatening to commit violence now? Good luck with that.



There’s a saying about the danger of making people who want to be left alone get involved. You’ve made us get involved. So all of it, from here on out, is squarely on you. Enjoy the whirlwind you have so deservedly reaped.

 

[Tombs]

“Understand that people who are pro life don't hate women or want to control them. They want to protect children.”

It’s hard for people on my side if this debate to take a statement like this at face value, because the way your side seeks to protect children is by controlling women (through limiting their legal options).

I struggle to understand how forcing a child to be born to a mother that doesn‘t want it to exist protects that child.

There are a number of documented ways to reduce the total number of unwanted pregnancies, but conservatives stand against almost all of them. In effect, the party of market values does everything they can to keep demand for abortion high while simultaneously seeking to criminalize the supply.

It’s just like the war on drugs.

Why is the liberal the only one in this conversation talking about keeping the state out of the marketplace?

I am trying to understand the other side, that’s why I’m involved in this conversation with you.

Please note I have not brought up anything in my posts about conservatives hating women or seeking broad control over them, nor have I referred to the unborn as anything but human, why did you?

I think your side is creating a false pretext in their heads.

The belief that it is morally and ethically abhorrent to take a child's life has nothing to do with women at all.

Does bringing this into the context of policy affect women? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the moral and ethical qualms, and it is not a belief starting out with consideration of how that affects anyone. It's simply saying that doing X is wrong.

Bringing the belief into policy is where the issues start. For your side you see it as greater harm to deprive someone of an abortion than to protect the life of a child. And there's really no intellectually honest compromise that can be made here, as it's a completely different value system that leads to both of these beliefs.

Externalities and consequences aren't really considered when the number 1 concern is protecting the life of a child. Those are lower on the list of ethical and moral qualms, as that's about the worst possible thing you can to do someone.

An analogy might help:
Someone has been shot in the leg and is quickly bleeding out. Do you tourniquet it and save their life at the risk of them possibly ending up needing an amputation? We aren't thinking about the possibility of an amputation in the future, we're thinking about keeping them from dying.

 

[ancjr]

There were a lot of dirt poor people that had children back during the Great Depression that managed to take care of their kids. It was well before the government decided to encourage via subsidy fatherless households.

Well put!

 

[KittySlayer]

The locations that actually perform surgical abortions tend not to have large outdoor signs.

Probably a wise idea for their organization. Discretion is a good idea.

 

[KittySlayer]

…low-cost hormonal contraception, and free condoms…

Sounds like a poor business model for a group that makes money on ending pregnancies.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

My body,my convenience.

 

[BigRed]

I have not been following this in detail so please forgive me if this has already been covered.

What does this mean for federally funded (ie central state confiscating property from citizens to hand to others) abortions?

 

[BigRed]

Sounds like a poor business model for a group that makes money on ending pregnancies.

I understand parts is where the money is.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It’s hard for people on my side if this debate to take a statement like this at face value, because the way your side seeks to protect children is by controlling women (through limiting their legal options).

While some may have that viewpoint, I don't. I think most of the pro-life side has been advocating for the men to take responsibility too.

There are a number of documented ways to reduce the total number of unwanted pregnancies, but conservatives stand against almost all of them.

Again, I haven't seen this. Kind of goes along with having responsible sex, which is what (most) pro-life folks have also advocated for.

Why is the liberal the only one in this conversation talking about keeping the state out of the marketplace?

I think most want "the state" (as in the Federal Government) out of it. Which is what this decision does. It returns it to the individual states, which is where it should belong.

 

[ancjr]

I understand parts is where the money is.

Sad but true. Also why they have to close clinics.

 

[ancjr]

That little detail they don't want to talk about.

All the lefties that call people "Hitler" while they support the exact barbaric treatment of babies that Hitler's scientists did to Jews.

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, there’s a lot to address in your post, so let me apologize in advance if I miss some key points of yours, please know that I’m not trying to gloss over or bypass any part of your stated opinions.

I don’t know if there is an objective, scientific definition of viability. I am not a doctor or a scientist, so my working definition of “viability” may not be the textbook definition. For my purposes I use viability as the point at which a fetus may survive outside its mother’s womb without extraordinary medical assistance.

I notice “or others” is parenthetical to your definition of viability. It is central to mine.

For my purposes “pre-viability” is the time before a fetus can survive delivery without special medical intervention. Viability is exactly when “or others” can provide the normal care necessary for a child.

I am not sure if I confused you, or if you are distilling my separate points into a single point for the purposes of building a straw man, but in my view viability normally precedes full-term by a number of weeks.

There still seem to be two different points/arguments intertwined, and I'm trying to address them separately: the question of viability, and risk of life to the mother posed by childbirth.

Currently, we know with medical certainty that ex utero viability is no more than 21 weeks (a few days fewer, IIRC?). That point of viability has decreased in gestational age as medical technology advances. My issue with linking life, and its attendant, natural rights, with ex utero viability is that the former changes based on medical technology advances, while the latter, if it exists, must be fixed. It makes no sense that life is a function of the advancement (or lack thereof) of human technology. If that were true, humans today would more of a right to life than humans from 500 years ago - which would undercut the natural, unalienable quality of the right to life. I simply cannot square this.

You admit that morality and the law allow for termination in the face of “legitimate“ risk.

On this point we agree.

However I don’t think you and I are going to agree on who gets to determine the “legitimacy” of risks.

From my view, only the opinion of the pregnant woman and the woman’s medical providers carry any weight when assessing risks associated with her pregnancy. It simply doesn’t matter what justifications others see..no one owes them any.

The question of risk to life of the mother is, more or less, objective. There are very real - and, thankfully, very rare - pregnancy-related risks to the life of the mother. This is not an area where one doctor would decide that something is a risk to the life of the mother and a different doctor would decide otherwise. Ectopic pregnancy, if untreated, is a death sentence for mother and embryo, fullstop.

The only voices that matter in discussing the risks she faces in pregnancy are her own and that of her medical provider.

And we're back to the fundamental disagreement. Since I believe that the gestating being is a living human being, I believe that the gestating being also has a voice that matters in that discussion.

If a pregnant woman has no moral objection to ending her pregnancy, and her medical provider has no moral objection to ending her pregnancy, there is no moral ground for any other person to interfere, and I can imagine no worse place for the state to insert itself.

Again, I would argue that the third human being directly impacted by the decision/act has moral ground to object.

On a personal note, not directed at anyone in particular:

There is a puritanical element to this debate that just rubs me the wrong way: “I’m morally opposed to Behavior X, so the state should intervene to stop others from engaging in it.”

That isn’t how morality works in a free society. People can hold legitimately differing views, and it isn’t up to the the state impose the “correct” moral viewpoint.

At one time, some people said, "I'm morally opposed to slavery, so the state should intervene to stop others from engaging in it." I don't think any would question that this statement, and acting upon it, was correct.

There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se - in declaring "behavior X" wrong merely because we say it is, vs declaring "behavior X" wrong because it is inherently wrong. The key determinant is when "behavior X" is something that infringes upon the natural rights of another. Slavery did. If one believes that the gestating being is a living human being, then elective abortion does so, as well.