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

[DoggyDaddy]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

Do you think she should take responsibility for any of her life choices? It sounds like you don't. Sounds more like "If it feels good, do it" kind of philosophy. Should her choices have no consequences for her? Only for those for whom her choices have an effect (like her unborn child)?

 

[LeftyGunner]

Welcome to INGO! All civil discussion is welcome here.

Unless you are referring to the mother? In which case, I know of no one who argues against abortion when medically necessary due to risk of life to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies).


What forms of harm, specifically? Given that I have never argued against abortion when medically necessary to prevent loss of life of the mother, I'm not sure where this argument is going.


The mother's right to chose, except when her own life is at risk, ends where that choice would deny that same choice to the human life gestating in the womb.

Thank you for your reply. I shortened it to the part most relevant to my reply, but I am not ignoring the rest. You write very well, and I’ll do my best to respond at your level.

I am referring to the mother, and to the harms and risks she faces.

No pregnancy is completely safe, there is a reasonable chance of permanent disability or death in every pregnancy.

I want to suggest that only the mother has the ability to assess and consent to the risks inherent in pregnancy and birth. I further want to suggest that a woman‘s assessment of her risks may change even after learning of her pregnancy. Finally, I want to suggest that a woman has the right to remove consent to pregnancy based solely upon her understanding of the risks involved and of her level of tolerance to those risks.

When it comes to what level of risk and what amount of harm is acceptable for an individual pregnant woman to endure, it must be for that individual alone to decide, not the governemnt.

Thank you again for your reply.

 

[ljk]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Thank you for your reply. I shortened it to the part most relevant to my reply, but I am not ignoring the rest. You write very well, and I’ll do my best to respond at your level.

I am referring to the mother, and to the harms and risks she faces.

No pregnancy is completely safe, there is a reasonable chance of permanent disability or death in every pregnancy.

I want to suggest that only the mother has the ability to assess and consent to the risks inherent in pregnancy and birth. I further want to suggest that a woman‘s assessment of her risks may change even after learning of her pregnancy. Finally, I want to suggest that a woman has the right to remove consent to pregnancy based solely upon her understanding of the risks involved and of her level of tolerance to those risks.

When it comes to what level of risk and what amount of harm is acceptable for an individual pregnant woman to endure, it must be for that individual alone to decide, not the governemnt.

Thank you again for your reply.

There is nothing stopping a woman that wants to engage in sex without risk or repercussion from having her tubes tied. It's a reversible surgery in most cases. No risk to the mother. Very low (pretty much non-existent) of failure.

 

[jamil]

Do you think she should take responsibility for any of her life choices? It sounds like you don't. Sounds more like "If it feels good, do it" kind of philosophy. Should her choices have no consequences for her? Only for those for whom her choices have an effect (like her unborn child)?

This doesn’t sound like you’ve represented the point fairly. And why do you think there are no consequences for her?

 

[DadSmith]

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/COSA-SCOTUS-Protests-Full-Report-0509.pdf

The latest poll from the Trafalgar Group reveals that even Democrats think the protests at the residences of conservative Supreme Court justices go too far.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Thank you for your reply. I shortened it to the part most relevant to my reply, but I am not ignoring the rest. You write very well, and I’ll do my best to respond at your level.

I am referring to the mother, and to the harms and risks she faces.

No pregnancy is completely safe, there is a reasonable chance of permanent disability or death in every pregnancy.

I want to suggest that only the mother has the ability to assess and consent to the risks inherent in pregnancy and birth. I further want to suggest that a woman‘s assessment of her risks may change even after learning of her pregnancy. Finally, I want to suggest that a woman has the right to remove consent to pregnancy based solely upon her understanding of the risks involved and of her level of tolerance to those risks.

When it comes to what level of risk and what amount of harm is acceptable for an individual pregnant woman to endure, it must be for that individual alone to decide, not the governemnt.

Thank you again for your reply.

Even if the risk is inconvenience for 18 years while she has to raise her kid and instead of the current life she currently leads?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This doesn’t sound like you’ve represented the point fairly. And why do you think there are no consequences for her?

Speaking from experience, the consequences are minimal. A little inconvenience from having to schedule the appointment, but very little else.

 

[chipbennett]

Thank you for your reply. I shortened it to the part most relevant to my reply, but I am not ignoring the rest. You write very well, and I’ll do my best to respond at your level.

I am referring to the mother, and to the harms and risks she faces.

No pregnancy is completely safe, there is a reasonable chance of permanent disability or death in every pregnancy.

Even so: of the mother or the unborn child, which one is responsible for the pregnancy, through decision and action? Regardless, current medical technology mitigates nearly every risk of pregnancy. So, I am not persuaded by the general risk related to pregnancy.

I want to suggest that only the mother has the ability to assess and consent to the risks inherent in pregnancy and birth. I further want to suggest that a woman‘s assessment of her risks may change even after learning of her pregnancy. Finally, I want to suggest that a woman has the right to remove consent to pregnancy based solely upon her understanding of the risks involved and of her level of tolerance to those risks.

General, potential risk of pregnancy does not compare to the guaranteed risk of loss of life of every abortion procedure. The mother should have considered the general risk of pregnancy prior to willfully engaging in the sole act that could result in that pregnancy. To paraphrase the 4th DCA in Stinson v State: "That the [mother] sustained a [pregnancy] is a matter that should have been considered by the [mother] before [she] committed himself to the task [she] undertook."

When it comes to what level of risk and what amount of harm is acceptable for an individual pregnant woman to endure, it must be for that individual alone to decide, not the governemnt.

Thank you again for your reply.

And yet, it is the government that has prevented the unborn child from participating in the decision that costs that unborn child its life.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Even if the risk is inconvenience for 18 years while she has to raise her kid and instead of the current life she currently leads?

It’s a good question, and I don’t have a satisfying answer.

An unborn child does not have a voice of its own, I tend to assume the best person to speak for that unborn child it it’s mother. When a mother says the best thing she can do for her child is not bring it into the world, I would tend to believe her.


When it comes to the woman in your example we are talking about a woman who wants to end the life of their own unborn child for nothing more than their own convenience? That isn’t the kind of person I really want to force into parenthood.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[DragonGunner]

Neither the Bible, nor any other scripture belonging to a major religion (AFAIK), gives a written out definition that "human life begins at conception." What the bible says is do not murder. The fact that that applies to human beings from the point they come into existence was figured out logically, not because it was handed to us in a book. Even during the middle ages, arguable the height of Christianity, many main-stream, Christian thinkers believed that the human did not have a soul until a certain point during pregnancy. But they still believed that abortion was wrong, because you don't have to believe in a soul to believe in human rights for ALL humans, not just those who meet certain criteria.

The reason religious types tend to believe more firmly that life begins at conception isn't because that was laid out to them in a book, it's because they take the idea of "do no murder" much more seriously than non-religious types, as a general rule, and so are much less willing to try bending the rules and testing the boundaries on that point. Now there are some who do blindly believe what a book says, and won't argue with any sort of logic except what's in there book. But I an several others in this thread have already tried, several times over, to make logical arguments not based on any scriptures. Why do you continue to level these accusations at us, instead of refuting our arguments?

We want principles that are simple and clearly defined, because that's how you get rights that last, and a society that stays the course. For decades smarmy politicians and elites have been telling us that our knuckle-dragging, antiquated ideas need to be updated and nuanced. "Oh, your right to bear arms shall not be infringed? You can't possibly think that applies absolutely; nobody needs a machine gun. Oh, free speech? But hate speech is violence, and we can't have that. Oh, right to life? But if someone isn't at the mental level to have a human experience of life, surely you can't really believe they're really a person?"

It's all part of the same tired old game; they know what they're up to. Once you start to complicate, then "nuance", then water down the definitions of human rights, that's when you can get the sheeple in line and slowly take away and whittle down those rights. If you won't give an understandable, consistent definition of a right, then you may as well not believe in that right at all. My definition of a human being with a right to life is ANY human organism. What's yours?

Better go back and
read the Bible again. "substance","made in secret", "were fashioned." May take notes on some those words.

Palsms 139:
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

 

[DragonGunner]

Democrats lost in the Senate 51-49. All republicans and RINO's voted against it plus the WV Democrat. It was the Woman's Health Protection Act. A federal law to force abortion rights nationwide. Brandon is furious and demanding more democrats be voted in this fall.

 

[chipbennett]

It’s a good question, and I don’t have a satisfying answer.

An unborn child does not have a voice of its own, I tend to assume the best person to speak for that unborn child it it’s mother. When a mother says the best thing she can do for her child is not bring it into the world, I would tend to believe her.

When it comes to the woman in your example we are talking about a woman who wants to end the life of their own unborn child for nothing more than their own convenience? That isn’t the kind of person I really want to force into parenthood.

Thank you for your reply.

I cannot ever agree with this. What you are saying is that the mother is saying that the best thing she can do for her unborn child is to take that child's life. If that is true, why is it true only up until the point of birth?

 

[KG1]

I cannot ever agree with this. What you are saying is that the mother is saying that the best thing she can do for her unborn child is to take that child's life. If that is true, why is it true only up until the point of birth?

Yep. Why not do it after birth as well? "Sorry my child but it looks like you are gonna have a rough life and I don't want to see you go through it so I will do you a favor and terminate you".

 

[ljk]

The atheists keep drinking it all

Believers think they have the monopoly on morals.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Wow that was a painful read. Keep it between the ditches, folks.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

If there's anything that I would want those of you who don't agree to at least acknowledge, is that there are reasons for people's pro-choice stances other than just not caring as much as you do about murder.

I apologize; it was unfair of me to say that.

It's that you believe that it's murder even to abort even a fertilized egg, because it's living, and it has the DNA it's going to have outside the womb, and so on. And I think I've represented what you all have said to me in support of your point. It would be a way less controversial topic if people could represent the other's arguments fairly.

Thank you. You've represented my position fairly well, the only small thing I would add is that I specifically believe that these reasons are the most valid ones because they are the only ones consistent, objective, and understandable enough to be used as a workable definition of when human life begins. That was all I've really been trying to argue, so I guess we've kind of reached the point where further explanation on my part isn't useful.

I do honestly wish I understood your position well enough to represent it as fairly as you have represented mine, but I think in order to do that I'd have to understand your definition of human life. But it sounds like based on what you're saying that it's a bit too complicated to convey in a format like this. Or maybe that is the jist of your position?

At any rate, I think I've used up enough of the word supply in this thread, and I doubt I'm going to make any more progress by using more, so I'm content to leave the discussion at that, for my part.

 

[Tombs]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

This is where things get complicated to respectfully disagree over, because we return back to some fundamental elements of the debate.

What is a human life? When does a human life have rights?

I strongly disagree with the notion that it isn't taking the life of a child. I feel as if that perspective is unnecessary and is trying to shirk responsibility for actions. We take lives legally all of the time, there's no reason why we need to be debating what is a human being and what isn't.

We should be able to share a common ground on the principle that ALL human beings have rights, and where those rights conflict with each other, there is clearly a negotiable and equitable path to resolving the problem. We may all have different opinions on what is the best resolution, but I feel as if the argument was on these terms we'd have a much more civil discourse on the topic as a nation.

Should we really be so open to the concept of taking a life over such a simple and common thing? I don't think that's the best resolution to the problem, especially since there were many steps that had to be ignored to end up in that situation.

 

[BugI02]

Science can neither prove the existence of God nor disprove it

Thus atheism no more represents 'the science' than Christianity does, they are both belief systems

 

[ljk]

Religion: I believe it, so you have to believe it.
Atheism: I don't believe it, so you can't believe it.

Same crap, different pile.