If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that abortion is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-abortion Christians? Why can't anti-abortion Christians advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

1 minute ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I guess then I would ask, what's better between keeping your cool and discusssing, continuing to make good points, vs arguing back heatedly.

Generally I'd be inclined to say "whichever one gets the job done", because it really depends on who you're trying to appeal to. Some people respect articulate civility, others respect passionate animus. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

And on the topic, I do think that the question of whether a fetus is a life human or not is a pretty big part. Clearly pro-life people believe they are.
Or is it that some think the 'potential' of a human is what's terrible to be lost.

I think pro-life folks have to base their argument on the fetus being human, or else there's not really a way to argue their position. What are they going to do, just flat out say "we want women to be treated as breeding stock and beholden to our whims"? That'll never fly, and they know that. I think some truly are pro-life for that reason, but I think far more of them are pro-life because of religious convictions or personal views on the issue.

Like I indicated before, I'm on the complicated middle ground of a rather extreme pro-choice stance (in practice) and a rather strong pro-life internal stance based on my favorable feelings towards children. The latter is purely emotional, in no way rational. The former is the opposite.

 

7 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I say the later one because I know most aren't vegetarian, and if it's just about life then what are they doing eating meat?

The meat they eat isn't human...hopefully.

[uhtred]

20 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Just so you know, some of the pro-choice crowd does view fetuses as people.
Judith Jarvis Thomson is one such example of some arguing the pro-choice position without the presupposition that a fetus is not a human being.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion (colorado.edu)

An interesting viewpoint. thanks

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Generally I'd be inclined to say "whichever one gets the job done", because it really depends on who you're trying to appeal to. Some people respect articulate civility, others respect passionate animus.
 

Very fair. It wasn't the direction I was thinking for things to go, but your answer works :P.  You have a good mind maybe

 

Quote

 

I think pro-life folks have to base their argument on the fetus being human, or else there's not really a way to argue their position. What are they going to do, just flat out say "we want women to be treated as breeding stock and beholden to our whims"? That'll never fly, and they know that. I think some truly are pro-life for that reason, but I think far more of them are pro-life because of religious convictions or personal views on the issue.

Like I indicated before, I'm on the complicated middle ground of a rather extreme pro-choice stance (in practice) and a rather strong pro-life internal stance based on my favorable feelings towards children. The latter is purely emotional, in no way rational. The former is the opposite.

Yep seems so.

And I mean I think it's normal to have 'some' kind of line like a middle ground, since at some point a baby starts to feel things, etc. I think both are emotional tho :). (if someone cares about the bodily freedom of pregant people)

 

Quote

The meat they eat isn't human...hopefully.

It wasn't what I was thinking of, more as in life is life, even if animals aren't overall as advanced as humans, but it would deserve a topic of its own probably xD.

[bare_trees]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

I think its fair to assume people on both sides of this are arguing in bad faith:

 

The pro-abortion group wants women to have control of their own bodies.

The anti-abortion group doesn't want what they see as human beings killed.

 

I expect both sides agree that killing humans is wrong.  It  all comes down to whether, or at what stage a fetus is a "human being".  This is not something that can be "measured" in some absolute sense. People disagree, but I don't see either as evil - their goals are both good, based on their understanding of whether or not a fetus is a person.

Completely disagree.  This leads to evil.  In one scenario, people have a choice.  In another, that choice is taken away by politicians who will do the very thing that they are criminalizing should they need to.  An article about the bill I was referring to earlier: https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/politics/louisiana-hb-813-abortion-murder-fertilization/289-26ef324a-28a4-4391-9bd5-c615e61676f7

 

Why should people with vaginas continue to sit back and try to be civil about this?  Kind of like how people make transphobic remarks on this forum all the time, but trans folks are supposed to just be polite about it.

[bare_trees]

2 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

In all fairness, she's said it's wrong...has she ever advocated making it illegal?

The poster said something about America needing a Christian revival of some sort, and that she would be among those Christians celebrating when Roe v. Wade is overturned (on a thread in HotBox).

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

Was this the quote to which you were referring?

 

20 hours ago, coolshades said:

I used to attend church regularly, and sometimes the preacher would say that America is due for a revival.  "Revival," in this sense, meant a time in which Americans start to "turn back" to God and we become more religious.  My mom has said it a lot, too.  I would think that to many Christians, a Roe v. Wade victory would indicate the start of this revival.

 

If so, you're at best interpolating something she didn't say and at worst putting words in her mouth.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
fixed the quote block

[coolshades]

2 hours ago, uhtred said:

I appreciate you wiliness to discuss, even if you don't expect to change your mind.

 
I think where we most differ is deciding when a human is "created".   To me its a continuous process from the development of eggs and sperm, to when the brain is fully developed, which is considerably after birth.    For me conception isn't as important a marker, since so much still happens to the embryo and then fetus as it develops.  So for me its not really human until it has something vaguely resembling a human brain.

 

I think technology is going to blur these lines a lot - in-vitrio fertilization already has.   So with IVF I would not want the lab to have to try to save known bad / damaged embryos.

 

So, I'm not trying to change your mind on being pro-choice, just on the point of development where it is human.

 

I completely understand your viewpoint.  I know some people believe there should be protection after there is a fetal heartbeat, some believe it should be when the brain has developed, others believe it should be when the baby could survive outside the womb.  Although the latter is changing all the time, and getting shorter and shorter due to technological advancements.

[coolshades]

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

I hope you can understand why someone would be frustrated that you are motivated to make it illegal for people to be able to control what happens to their own bodies based on a feeling you've had that you refuse to elaborate upon, interrogate, or consider changing if presented with new evidence.

I'm sorry if anyone misconstrued anything that I was saying as me trying to make it illegal for people to have an abortion.  I'm not out picketing or joining any political campaigns or donating money to pro-life candidates or anything like that.  I just don't support the law.  I can be against a law without actively working to have it overturned.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

12 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Was this the quote to which you were referring?

 

 

If so, you're at best interpolating something she didn't say and at worst putting words in her mouth.

Also, a slight tangent...
Being opposed to Roe v Wade isn't even uniquely a pro-life phenomenon. Many people, notably including even the late SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other SCOTUS Justices, have voiced criticism over the questionable justifications for the ruling. Some of the pro-choice camp wants to see it repealed and replaced by something more robust.
 

[coolshades]

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I say the later one because I know most aren't vegetarian, and if it's just about life then what are they doing eating meat?
that's all the thoughts I had xD. have fun.

I feel like we could have a whole other thread on the topic of if human life and non-human animal life should be viewed as equally important/worthy of protection.  But I'm not going to be the one to start it.  LOL.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

1 minute ago, coolshades said:

I feel like we could have a whole other thread on the topic of if human life and non-human animal life should be viewed as equally important/worthy of protection.  But I'm not going to be the one to start it.  LOL.

Hold my beer!

[bare_trees]

13 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Was this the quote to which you were referring?

 

 

If so, you're at best interpolating something she didn't say and at worst putting words in her mouth.

I'm not sure what I misunderstood about that post. I'm trying to be diplomatic and see your point, but it's pretty difficult to do down here right now. 

[daveb]

2 hours ago, uhtred said:

I think its fair to assume people on both sides of this are arguing in bad faith:

Or fair to assume both sides are arguing in good faith.

 

2 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Also, a slight tangent...
Being opposed to Roe v Wade isn't even uniquely a pro-life phenomenon. Many people, notably including even the late SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other SCOTUS Justices, have voiced criticism over the questionable justifications for the ruling. Some of the pro-choice camp wants to see it repealed and replaced by something more robust.
 

Sorry, but I don't trust "repeal and replace". Often seems to end up in just repeal, and no replace. And in this case I highly doubt most of the people in support of doing away with Roe v Wade are looking to replace it with something more robust in support of the right to choose. Rather, it could be built on to "repeal" other rights, too.  

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

Just now, bare_trees said:

I'm not sure what I misunderstood about that post. I'm trying to be diplomatic and see your point, but it's pretty difficult to do down here right now. 

20 minutes ago, bare_trees said:

The poster said something about America needing a Christian revival of some sort, and that she would be among those Christians celebrating when Roe v. Wade is overturned (on a thread in HotBox).

My point is that she never said anything about America "needing a Christian revival of some sort" or about her being "among those Christians celebrating when Roe v. Wade is overturned". What she did do was indirectly paraphrase and quote a preacher on something they said in the past and state that her mother concurred.

 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

3 minutes ago, daveb said:

Sorry, but I don't trust "repeal and replace". Often seems to end up in just repeal, and no replace. And in this case I highly doubt most of the people in support of doing away with Roe v Wade are looking to replace it with something more robust in support of the right to choose. Rather, it could be built on to "repeal" other rights, too.  

I trust "repeal and replace" about as much as I trusted that the PATRIOT Act would be temporary, but I don't believe that all who call for that are doing so in bad faith.

[bare_trees]

6 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

My point is that she never said anything about America "needing a Christian revival of some sort" or about her being "among those Christians celebrating when Roe v. Wade is overturned". What she did do was indirectly paraphrase and quote a preacher on something they said in the past and state that her mother concurred.

 

You're right. I apologize for misinterpreting and then misrepresenting that statement.

[Tetus]

11 minutes ago, coolshades said:

I'm sorry if anyone misconstrued anything that I was saying as me trying to make it illegal for people to have an abortion.  I'm not out picketing or joining any political campaigns or donating money to pro-life candidates or anything like that.  I just don't support the law.  I can be against a law without actively working to have it overturned.

I'm not sure that I appreciate the distinction between "I would like to have it be the case that abortion was illegal," and "I am not actively campaigning for abortion to be illegal."

 

10 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Also, a slight tangent...
Being opposed to Roe v Wade isn't even uniquely a pro-life phenomenon. Many people, notably including even the late SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other SCOTUS Justices, have voiced criticism over the questionable justifications for the ruling. Some of the pro-choice camp wants to see it repealed and replaced by something more robust.

I guarantee you that no one who is pro-choice, Ginsburg very much included, is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. They may think that Roe is vulnerable and what They WOULD like to see is Congress to pass an actual law or constitutional amendment protecting women's right to bodily autonomy. Roe can stay the law of the land AND we could pass a new law.

 

Since that law isn't going to get passed with today's Senate, overturning the ruling just makes it harder for women to have access to abortions, especially with states passing bounty hunting acts and trying to pass laws that allow them to sue out of state providers.

[daveb]

Just now, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I trust "repeal and replace" about as much as I trusted that the PATRIOT Act would be temporary, but I don't believe that all who call for that are doing so in bad faith.

Well, this is a case where they could have worked to strengthen the laws to make sure freedom of choice was secured before they get the precedent overturned, but that wasn't part of the plan. So pardon me if I have my doubts about many on the side that wants Roe v Wade overturned. As far as bad faith, I'm not sure if that wasn't the case for justices who, in their confirmation hearings, said Roe v Wade was settled, etc., or the politicians who selected them and confirmed them, while making up rules and then breaking them as it suited them.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

1 minute ago, Epic Tetus said:

I guarantee you that no one who is pro-choice, Ginsburg very much included, is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. They may think that Roe is vulnerable and what They WOULD like to see is Congress to pass an actual law or constitutional amendment protecting women's right to bodily autonomy. Roe can stay the law of the land AND we could pass a new law.

I've met several people who claim to be pro-choice and of that opinion, take that for what it's worth. I would like to see the replacement codified before the overturning of the previous decision, but I think both things need to happen nonetheless. Replace then repeal. 
 

 

4 minutes ago, daveb said:

Well, this is a case where they could have worked to strengthen the laws to make sure freedom of choice was secured before they get the precedent overturned, but that wasn't part of the plan. So pardon me if I have my doubts about many on the side that wants Roe v Wade overturned. As far as bad faith, I'm not sure if that wasn't the case for justices who, in their confirmation hearings, said Roe v Wade was settled, etc., or the politicians who selected them and confirmed them, while making up rules and then breaking them as it suited them.

Many probably are, I'll agree with you there.

[coolshades]

9 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

My point is that she never said anything about America "needing a Christian revival of some sort" or about her being "among those Christians celebrating when Roe v. Wade is overturned". What she did do was indirectly paraphrase and quote a preacher on something they said in the past and state that her mother concurred.

Yes that is what I said.  I said it in response to someone saying that overturning Roe was the start of the Christian right wanting to move us toward a theocracy.

[daveb]

1 minute ago, coolshades said:

Yes that is what I said.  I said it in response to someone saying that overturning Roe was the start of the Christian right wanting to move us toward a theocracy.

That's fair.

 

I am sad that that is even a possibility, however remote. It would certainly be a violation of core principles of the US Constitution. But we have seen some people are not averse to that.  

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

Just now, coolshades said:

Yes that is what I said.  I said it in response to someone saying that overturning Roe was the start of the Christian right wanting to move us toward a theocracy.

I apologize for jumping up to defend you unasked, that may have came across as patronizing or chauvinistic. My doing so is just a matter of having a personal thing about this specific sort of situation and I think I've gotten a bit carried away at this point.

 

9 minutes ago, bare_trees said:

You're right. I apologize for misinterpreting and then misrepresenting that statement.

I apologize for the way I worded some of those comments. My tone was unnecessary and that came across a bit different than I meant it to now that I reread. What I was taking issue with -which frankly wasn't my place to intervene- was my perception that you were trying to use the old Straw Man Fallacy there. I'm used to people doing that in bad faith and I wrongly presumed that to be what was occurring here. 

[bare_trees]

7 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I apologize for the way I worded some of those comments. My tone was unnecessary and that came across a bit different than I meant it to now that I reread. What I was taking issue with -which frankly wasn't my place to intervene- was my perception that you were trying to use the old Straw Man Fallacy there. I'm used to people doing that in bad faith and I wrongly presumed that to be what was occurring here. 

No worries! I can see how it looked that way. I got hasty and reacted to things without reading carefully. I'm just very upset, but you didn't do anything at all inappropriate.

[coolshades]

17 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I apologize for jumping up to defend you unasked, that may have came across as patronizing or chauvinistic. My doing so is just a matter of having a personal thing about this specific sort of situation and I think I've gotten a bit carried away at this point.

No need to apologize.  In fact, I appreciated someone coming to my defense.  So thank you.

[Mult]

3 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Just thought to share a thought, one that I've been asking myself, .. 'why' does someone advocate and talk on certain points? If the conversation becomes just uncivil throwing out points that no one on either side will listen to anyway, then what's the point in doing so?

And a lot of the time when there isn't a talk where people respect and listen to each other, it tends to lead to misunderstanding or missing the full points that are being made anyway, so.. again, what's the point, 'why' are people intent on having any talk that can be heated?

It's easy to feel strongly when something actually affects you. 

 

If I am forced into sex and have the horrible result of being impregnated and some assholes decided it was their right to tell me whether I'm allowed to terminate it, then I'd very much rather die. I'm not gonna soften this and say that planning suicide hasn't been something I've thought of before, but pregnancy would flip that switch in an instant. 

 

Other people just don't have the right over my body and my choice. I don't care what they consider to be an individual, I will not be an incubator. I will not. It will end on my terms whether they like it or not. 

 

Simply enough, this topic is a threat. It is a threat to my rights as an individual. It is a threat to my bodily autonomy. It is a threat my life. I will not accept people dictating that I must act as incubator for some unwanted baby that will just get dumped in foster care. It will be aborted one way or another regardless of the law.

 

People who aren't personally affected by a topic like this are just unable to understand its impact on people that would actually get affected by it. 

 

I've already talked my head of here about solutions that actually decrease elective abortion. The "Pro-life" agenda is too busy trying to throw people behind bars or give the death penalty to actual give a crap about supporting parents and families. It's impossible for me to agree with criminalizing abortion. Impossible. So it is impossible to agree with them. They should get their hands off my body and my life. 

[Black Tourmaline]

Exodus 21:22-25

[Tetus]

10 hours ago, Mult said:

People who aren't personally affected by a topic like this are just unable to understand its impact on people that would actually get affected by it. 

For what it’s worth, I have to disagree with this statement. It both sells people short and lets them off the hook for their positions. I don’t think we should buy into the narrative that people can only care about themselves, which carries the implication that anyone who stands up for someone else is running some sort of scam.

 

Sticking up for one another is normal. It’s good. We should all be doing it. And if you’re failing to come to the defense of your fellow humans, that’s not the default or natural state of things, that’s a choice you’re making. I’ll say this about the disningenuous accusations of virtue signaling that get thrown around these days: I agree that you shouldn’t get credit for defending people who are being abused, just like you shouldn’t get credit for not pushing people in front of buses. 

[Tetus]

1 hour ago, Black Tourmaline said:

Exodus 21:22-25

I mean this does seem to devalue women. It both directly gives control of the reparations to a man, and implies that striking a woman hard enough to cause a miscarriage is less serious than knocking someone’s tooth out. And endorses retributive justice. I think those are all bad points. I guess this is kind of a both sides of the aisle can join together to condemn the text situation.

[uhtred]

14 hours ago, bare_trees said:

Completely disagree.  This leads to evil.  In one scenario, people have a choice.  In another, that choice is taken away by politicians who will do the very thing that they are criminalizing should they need to.  An article about the bill I was referring to earlier: https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/politics/louisiana-hb-813-abortion-murder-fertilization/289-26ef324a-28a4-4391-9bd5-c615e61676f7

 

Why should people with vaginas continue to sit back and try to be civil about this?  Kind of like how people make transphobic remarks on this forum all the time, but trans folks are supposed to just be polite about it.

But as a society we take away lots of choices - like the choice to commit murder.  

 

I don't think abortion is murder, but some people do.

[uhtred]

14 hours ago, coolshades said:

I completely understand your viewpoint.  I know some people believe there should be protection after there is a fetal heartbeat, some believe it should be when the brain has developed, others believe it should be when the baby could survive outside the womb.  Although the latter is changing all the time, and getting shorter and shorter due to technological advancements.

I don't like viability as a standard because that is changing -an eventually we may have the technology to fertilize an egg and grow it completely outside the womb. 

 

As for the other possible choices, is there some reasonable way to decide?   You have (I think) picked the point where it has its fully formed DNA, I've picked the point where it has a human brain.   Can you think of any way to proceed?  As a society we need a single standard and I don't know how to get there.