[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

got it . . . again!

 

I think so. Catholic thoughts on abortion have been all over the map in terms of timing. Abortion is sinful, but when it qualifies as abortion has changed over time. At conception, before conception, 40 days after conception, after "quickening" (or movement is felt). In the 19th century, the common view was after "quickening" and that there was nothing wrong with using "medicine" (herbs) to end a pregnancy prior to "quickening".

This is no surprise, nobody knows when life starts. It will continue to change. The problem we get into is some people are convinced and pushed their beliefs onto others.

 

Not sure I agree with the idea that minds can't be changed on this issue. Surveys have indicated that most people are in a middle position and recognize the moral ambiguities involved with this issue. Surely their minds can be changed.

 

Ted Cruz knows damn well what she means.

 

Not so sure of that, especially when it's concerning a future grandchild.

 

You should ask that question of yourself because you actually very rarely argue your beliefs, so what are you doing here since you just post and run?

Do you think what you do here is changing people's minds and effecting social justice?

It's amazing that you think people can't see you for the troll you are and give any weight to your "arguments" I am not saying you are not capable of having an intellectual debate, the sad fact is that you would rather troll and spam, which makes you extra sad.

That's why I continue to ask what is missing in your life that trolling and spamming this board helps you cope with it.

And then you claim to be an educator and parent, which really blows my mind.

 

Catholics believe life begins at conception.

Catholic views on human sexuality and contraceptives don't really have any cross over with their view on abortion.

Masturbation and the use of contraceptives are considered wrong for different reasons. Masturbation/the use of contraceptives =/= abortion or abortion equivalents.

 

Definition defines the meaning of something. Blue is defined as a color when it's a wave that is perceived as "blue" by a human. Blue in and of itself doesn't exist. When life actually starts can't be deemed upon a few defined words. It can't be defined at all - there is no definition of when life starts as no one knows when. We only know the process (and not a very complete picture of it either).

You infer a human as something with a full human genetic code. A normal human cell has the full genetic code - 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46. Sperm and Egg have half of that, 23 chromosomes (combined to 46). Once combined to be 46, you see that as life and destroying it as abortion. But that definition, intentional killing of normal human cells is abortion. I don't think you would agree with that but that's the logical extension.

It's much more than just the combination of two things. There is a process that eventually leads to life. No one can define when in that process (or even before), life actually starts. You can only say there is potential and a process to get to life, not the exact timing of actuality of life.

 

How ironic that you want respect for the sole undemocratic branch of our federal government as proof of commitment to democracy.

Also, Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak. And I'm very interested in the findings of the investigation when they come out.

I am sometimes reminded of another great reversal, prohibition. And I think it's possible that this ends the same way -- with people realizing that this is not something we want the government regulating and demanding a dramatic liberalization.

Really, really want to primary Manchin.

I wonder if this is a bit of a panic though. Police are called and they think a woman might have had a DIY abortion. But they have no evidence. Maybe they interview the woman, but how much of their resources are they really going to spend following this lead? Unless they pass a law that can require hospitals to conduct some kind of abortion forensics exam (if such a thing exists), they'll rarely have the evidence to prosecute. And they can't even process rape kits in a timely manner (and no, I won't be all that surprised if they quickly get much more efficient at processing abortion forensics exams than they are at rape kits).

Eh, not entirely. I think its a question of whether we have a personal right to bodily autonomy. Abortion is the biggest flashpoint, obviously. But there's also issues of whether the State can force you to get a vaccine, or disallow transgender surgery, or forbid a suicide, or force you to have a vasectomy, or criminalize recreational drugs. I myself don't even have a consistent answer to all of these, but they are all issues of how much of a right do you have to do things to or with your own body.

 

IMHO this entire process is about politics and letting the evangelicals change RvW, the GOP needs them so they pander, now every GOP member has the same opinion, because if you don't the base wont back you. IMHO its not MY choice, its the choice of any woman who wants to do this.....I think its hypocritical that just last year you had GOP anti vaxers screaming "its my body, you wont tell me what to do", but now its up to SCOTUS and eventually the state representatives to tell a woman what she can and cant do........talk about a huge step back for women. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if they can do this what's to stop them from outlawing everything they don't "feel" is right, Florida is already banning books. Hell, lets go back to prohibition because drinking causes death......oh wait, all the old white dudes in DC would be affected by that so it wont happen.

 

I largely agree and when I speak of common ground it’s about addressing things like access to contraceptives, family planning, better childcare especially for poorer people, and education. If the goal is to reduce abortions then it should be about allowing women more control over their bodies, making men more responsible and making it easier to raise children.

Banning abortion won’t reduce the demand for abortion anymore than just banning alcohol reduced the demand for alcohol.

 

It's not a coincidence that nations where abortion is legal but have lower wealth inequity also have some of the lowest abortion rates.

There is a solution we can see that actually reduces abortions without interfering with bodily autonomy of women. But that solution takes hard work and caring about things like wealth inequality which unfortunately the most ardent supporters of abortion bans in this country are most adverse to.

 

and a good one at both, imagine that

 

Do you think IVF that utilizes multiple eggs should be banned? IVF usually tries to fertilize multiple (10-20) eggs to increase the odds of successful fertilization, but often not all of them are implanted. What should be done with those embryos?

I am pro-choice myself, but I understand the perspective of pro-life advocates that believe that human life begins at conception. In your opinion, are embryos and fetuses just small human beings that has all of the rights of a borned person or are they a different class of 'being' that deserves some protection but not all of the rights and protection of a borned person?

I personally think if embryos and fetuses are treated as equal to a borned person then it brings a lot of difficult questions: Should pregnant women be banned from drinking alcohol and cigarettes? Should all miscarriages be investigated? Should the government be notified of a pregnancy as soon as the person knows? How should the value of the life of the fetus be weighed against the life of the pregnant woman?

Or do you think embryos and fetuses are a different class of being that has less rights than a borned person, but still worth protecting from abortions. Value of life is not always equal. We value life of a dog and cat way more than a life of a mosquito.

I personally think the value of a life of a fetus changes as it grows. A fertilized egg is worth less than an egg that has implanted which is worth less than a fetus after 6 weeks which is worth less than one after 12 weeks etc.

The abortion debate is just an argument over the timing of when the value of the life of a fetus is high enough that it warrants protection from the government from the actions of the pregnant woman.

 

Would be a devastating blow to my wife and I as well. Nothing quite like cancer for either of us, but we're having some trouble conceiving the regular route and are going to start IVF soon.

 

Not doubting you are, which puzzles me even more why you need to do what you do on here.

And the time it takes for you to do what you do, which is really amazing.

Do your people know what an ******* you are online?

 

It is my understanding that Manchin has already announced he will not run again. So, assuming that is right, you can run anyone you like and they will face off against the Republican nominee.

This is a good example of: 'be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.'