Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[Chuck Naill]

1. I am pro-life, but I am also pro choice, or more clearly, pro informed consent. I am not convinced Planned Parenthood properly informs.

2. I have two relatives born at 27 weeks and was a NICU volunteer, where I used to live, for 300 hours. I have recently applied again here.

3. I am also pro adoption and have an adopted daughter, my relative has three adopted children.

4. I feel that many in the pro life community have not been pro mother and willing to go beyond being against abortion.

[dneal]

To answer the title of the thread, undoubtedly "no". We can't even have a civil discussion about a politician whose hue leans to orange.

But I'll try anyway...

If you look at things in terms of polar positions, and pendulum swings; you can discern the problem amidst the hyperbole. Sure there will be the "under no circumstances" folks. Their absolutist view pushed the pendulum to Roe v Wade. Not satisfied with that, progressives (or whatever you want to label them) kept pushing the pendulum to "under any circumstance". They got to partial birth abortion, and that was too far.

So both those types will be here shortly to yell their narrative at each other. I think there is room in the middle, but that means establishing a relatively arbitrary line on what is acceptable to society and what is not. First trimester? Seems reasonable. Congenital defects? Possibly (although that leads to some murky ethics).

Then where do you go with the origins? Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood? Racist as hell, but strangely ok in today's politics.

[Chuck Naill]

To answer the title of the thread, undoubtedly "no". We can't even have a civil discussion about a politician whose hue leans to orange.

But I'll try anyway...

If you look at things in terms of polar positions, and pendulum swings; you can discern the problem amidst the hyperbole. Sure there will be the "under no circumstances" folks. Their absolutist view pushed the pendulum to Roe v Wade. Not satisfied with that, progressives (or whatever you want to label them) kept pushing the pendulum to "under any circumstance". They got to partial birth abortion, and that was too far.

So both those types will be here shortly to yell their narrative at each other. I think there is room in the middle, but that means establishing a relatively arbitrary line on what is acceptable to society and what is not. First trimester? Seems reasonable. Congenital defects? Possibly (although that leads to some murky ethics).

Then where do you go with the origins? Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood? Racist as hell, but strangely ok in today's politics.

Your attempt is appreciated @dneal. I’ll let this thread simmer to see who posts . Thank you for your post.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Very difficult subject to discuss without flaming someone.

I'm of the opinion that in the first instance abortion should be an option at the time of confirmation of pregnancy, with a short decision-making time allowed post-confirmation of, for sake of a number, two to four weeks. Under those circumstances, the development of cells and structures is still beneath the threshold for the definition of human whole body life.

If no decision is made? Then the assumption is that the mother has decided to carry to term and cannot seek abortion later. Controversial I suppose.

I have to acknowledge that there may be cases where confirmation of pregnancy doesn't occur until several weeks into it. I see these as being dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

So my opinion would appear to be based on a version of the concept of viability.


As far as pro-choice is concerned, I am happy to have the mother be the sole decision-maker if she is mentally capable of being so.


Willing to discuss, not willing to engage with anyone who tramps into the thread shouting 'you're wrong' - because there is no objective right or wrong here as far as I can see.

[Chuck Naill]

Very difficult subject to discuss without flaming someone.

I'm of the opinion that in the first instance abortion should be an option at the time of confirmation of pregnancy, with a short decision-making time allowed post-confirmation of, for sake of a number, two to four weeks. Under those circumstances, the development of cells and structures is still beneath the threshold for the definition of human whole body life.

If no decision is made? Then the assumption is that the mother has decided to carry to term and cannot seek abortion later. Controversial I suppose.

I have to acknowledge that there may be cases where confirmation of pregnancy doesn't occur until several weeks into it. I see these as being dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

So my opinion would appear to be based on a version of the concept of viability.


As far as pro-choice is concerned, I am happy to have the mother be the sole decision-maker if she is mentally capable of being so.


Willing to discuss, not willing to engage with anyone who tramps into the thread shouting 'you're wrong' - because there is no objective right or wrong here as far as I can see.
Thank you EOC. I agree with much. I learned DNA is present very early, perhaps fertilized egg. We know more than when Roe v Wade was discussed.

What’s the best way to inform the pregnant woman?

[Chuck Naill]

When I was a cuddler, I held children born at 23 weeks later on.

Synthetic surfactant became available in the mid 1990’s allowing these premature children to survive.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

My opinion is most firmly rooted in the biomedical model of health, so aligns with the concept of limit of viability - the gestational age at which a prematurely born foetus has a 50% chance of long-term life outside of the womb (using the Wiki definition).

Religion will no doubt play a central role in the views of some people.


As for how to inform pregnant women, I am not sure what you mean. Inform them of what? Their condition, their options, the law, where to get support? Can you, Chuck, be a little more specific for me please.


Edit to add a disclaimer: I am not a father, nor have I ever been a prospective father, so I have no real understanding of how abortion decisions 'feel' or affect a person.

[TSherbs]

... I think there is room in the middle, but that means establishing a relatively arbitrary line on what is acceptable to society and what is not.

First, this issue is of such grave importance to the country that it should be settled by federal law (I feel the same way about the death penalty). That various states can have widely divergent laws on this medical practice just shows that the feds need to step in and establish one standard for all.

It is possible to establish a standard reached through consensus (professional, via doctors) and legal precedent and then enforce that standard through federal law. I hope that the SC will do this, but I do not have great confidence I them.

[dneal]

... I think there is room in the middle, but that means establishing a relatively arbitrary line on what is acceptable to society and what is not.

First, this issue is of such grave importance to the country that it should be settled by federal law (I feel the same way about the death penalty). That various states can have widely divergent laws on this medical practice just shows that the feds need to step in and establish one standard for all.

It is possible to establish a standard reached through consensus (professional, via doctors) and legal precedent and then enforce that standard through federal law. I hope that the SC will do this, but I do not have great confidence I them.

Then we have a fundamental difference on how the country is supposed to function. That is not an enumerated power given to the federal government. Most federal laws aren't, and have been let in the back door through a bad SC decision using the interstate commerce clause. See: Wickard v Filburn.

[TSherbs]

Then we have a fundamental difference on how the country is supposed to function.

Yup

[Chuck Naill]

As for how to inform pregnant women, I am not sure what you mean. Inform them of what? Their condition, their options, the law, where to get support? Can you, Chuck, be a little more specific for me please.


I just mean an objective counseling as you would with any medical proceedure pros and cons.

[Chuck Naill]

I am posting this because it happened in the past ten years. Kemit Gosnell operated an abortion clinic and performed late term abortions. There are citizens who think abortions are being performed legally and therefore ethically. Maybe, maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

[Bold2013]

Well time to be that guy…

Life starts at conception. Identity even sooner. So then the killing of a human must be taken very seriously. There are true medical situations that would take a mother’s life before the baby reach current viability. Those medical issues are justified. Other than that I am hard pressed to concede a reason for the killing of innocent life.

Interestingly someone is significantly more likely to be killed by abortion than to die of covid 19.

[Chuck Naill]

Well time to be that guy…

Life starts at conception. Identity even sooner. So then the killing of a human must be taken very seriously. There are true medical situations that would take a mother’s life before the baby reach current viability. Those medical issues are justified. Other than that I am hard pressed to concede a reason for the killing of innocent life.

Interestingly someone is significantly more likely to be killed by abortion than to die of covid 19.

Regardless of your position, thank you for posting @bold2013.

[dneal]

Well time to be that guy…

Life starts at conception. Identity even sooner. So then the killing of a human must be taken very seriously. There are true medical situations that would take a mother’s life before the baby reach current viability. Those medical issues are justified. Other than that I am hard pressed to concede a reason for the killing of innocent life.

Interestingly someone is significantly more likely to be killed by abortion than to die of covid 19.

I agree that life begins at conception.

The taking of human life is morally justified by society in some cases, and not in others. War? Repugnant, but morally justified. Death penalty? Morally justified by some and not others. Euthanasia (a la Kevorkian)? Same. Abortion? well, that's this topic.

[Chuck Naill]

The 1973 ruling hinged on whether the fetus was a person, I've read the trans script between Justus Potter and the lawyers interaction. Since DNA is a maker for personhood and the fertilized egg is a separate DNA, this can establish personhood even if immature or developing. I know this only complicates the discussion. It is not an easy place to be if you are pregnant and don't want to be. If my statements are incorrect, please post how. Again, thank you for your participation and for keeping it civil.

[Bold2013]

Well this case might change how we deal with fertility clinics which have thousands of fertilized eggs on ice.

[dneal]

Well this case might change how we deal with fertility clinics which have thousands of fertilized eggs on ice.

Good point.

[TSherbs]

Life starts at conception.

No, it does not. Gametes are "alive" prior to joining into a new zygote, which also is "alive". There is no "dead" and then "alive" in the process of reproduction. All stages, all phases, are "living," or "alive." All living individuals come from already alive other individuals (or cells). In IVF there are forms of stasis, but all the material had to come from already living persons (at some point). "Life" is an unbroken chain.

I'll write a longer response from my computer later.

[Bold2013]

TS. I think you know what we are getting at with the phrase but I look forward to what you may add and how it might shape the conversation.

Edited for manners sake

[Chuck Naill]

Thank you all for participating. :)

[TSherbs]

TS. I think you know what we are getting at with the phrase but I look forward to what you may add and how it might shape the conversation.

Edited for manners sake

It's important to get the terminology clear and correct.

For example, you wrote that "identity" begins before conception. I really have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "identity" and how it could begin before conception.

[Bold2013]

Identity would be one created in the image of God (humans)

God knew all our days before our lives began (Ps 139)

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a]
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

[TSherbs]

Oh, I see. A religious belief of some Christians.

[Chuck Naill]

Identity would be one created in the image of God (humans)

God knew all our days before our lives began (Ps 139)

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a]
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

What if that's information that you don't believe?

As a former Evangelical, I have tried to separate my position about the unborn from any religous speak or basis. My own experience with twins born at 27 weeks allowed me to see "inside the womb" if you will. So, if you see a 1.5 pound child at 27 weeks, they were smaller at 22 weeks, but just as much who they were later. The girl was fussy as a premie and is still the same today at 10 years old.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Is this all going to devolve into whether a person thinks they inhabit a secular state or not?

[Bold2013]

TS I answered your question. Please enlighten further me with your soliloquy on life and gametes.

[TSherbs]

Is this all going to devolve into whether a person thinks they inhabit a secular state or not?

Why should it? I am not interested in that debate. I was just curious what the guy meant. Now I know. I have no interest in discussion of religion as part of this.

[TSherbs]

TS I answered your question. Please enlighten further me with your soliloquy on life and gametes.

I just saw this. Now I have no interest in further discussion on this thread at all.

[dneal]

Why should it? I am not interested in that debate. I was just curious what the guy meant. Now I know. I have no interest in discussion of religion as part of this.



I just saw this. Now I have no interest in further discussion on this thread at all.

65366

[dneal]

Back on topic...

Bold2013's remark about frozen embryos is something I hadn't considered. Say the "life begins at conception" argument is adopted (hypothetically). What does that mean for those embryos? Would it become illegal to let them expire? Refrigeration failure would be some sort of manslaughter or negligent homicide?

It gets legally and ethically messy really fast.

[TSherbs]

I just saw this. Now I have no interest in further discussion on this thread at all.

65366

godsake, douchebag

fuckoff already

You're acting like a vindictive weirdo

[dneal]

Well, the proof is in the posting. Hugs and kisses.

[Chuck Naill]

Viabilty is an interesting concept being considered. Synthetic surfactant was not availble until the 1990's which allows many premature children to survive.

Language is interesting. Fetus is used before birth and baby afterwards. I feel this is to make the discussion about the unborn to be less emotional. If Scott Peterson could be convicted of infanticide when he killed his wife, why do we think otherwise toward a child whose mother wishes to abort. I think it is a way to not think about what is occuring. I know this sounds like much to do about nothing for some and I mean nothing inflamatory, just thinking how language works.

[Chuck Naill]

Anyone with a New York Time subscription can read an excellent, thoughtful op-ed by David Brook this morning. Not sure if this will work for youi. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/opinion/abortion-ambivalent-majority.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACEIPuonUktbfqohlSlUbASbSRdkhrxqAwvHFx6Ygh3j4aSGQ QzdcxuAYBZTF_k7PYrBie8p13yieQJUJFo4Tc8FI770VOV1xGU 7vq4GYmZ8BLmI-9ti_Dj1v09fDBLtotGK1ZzH8IrZymfjishncPja6XPfe0HIxNU 0y98seAFKp2HYOwqnOEeRniJIpjbp6WMcMFXpXbzKKvvLrFx1-JNyHCxnd4QAwUOpbMirByZ_es_lTNVUPVi-VCS938m0-69tDONgIPKiZLxQoecf2gr15GXUVytJbcreQvoleumiNpDfo&smid=url-share

[Bold2013]

Thanks interesting article.

A portion that I enjoyed

“To me the crucial question is when does a living organism become a human soul. My intuition is that it’s not a moment, but a process — a process shrouded in divine mystery.”

I think most “evangelicals” don’t spend enough time thinking how the mother to be feels. Maybe it a little like people facing a loss of a job if they don’t get a vaccine. We want our autonomy. But at what point do we have to consider another (baby or society).

Thankfully there has been increasing Christian programs to help council woman after abortions and adoption in the church (well at least mine). Because caring for these woman and children is true and undefined religion (James 1).

[dneal]

I think most “evangelicals” don’t spend enough time thinking how the mother to be feels.

Not an evangelical, but from personal experience it seems that "cranky" and "hungry" are at the top of the list.

Sorry for the distraction, but a little levity never hurt... ;)

To your point though, the problem with introducing religion - or making an argument from it - is that there is seldom agreement. People differ in religious belief, doctrine and interpretation; with little ability to "prove" that their argument is the correct one.

The point you imply on empathy is well made though, and in the final analysis is a large factor. One side empathizes more with the pregnant woman, the other with the unborn embryo/fetus/life/person.

[Chuck Naill]

I think most “evangelicals” don’t spend enough time thinking how the mother to be feels.

Not an evangelical, but from personal experience it seems that "cranky" and "hungry" are at the top of the list.

Sorry for the distraction, but a little levity never hurt... ;)

To your point though, the problem with introducing religion - or making an argument from it - is that there is seldom agreement. People differ in religious belief, doctrine and interpretation; with little ability to "prove" that their argument is the correct one.

The point you imply on empathy is well made though, and in the final analysis is a large factor. One side empathizes more with the pregnant woman, the other with the unborn embryo/fetus/life/person.

Well stated, @dneal. Brooks said the progressives act like there is no ending of human life and the other side shows little concern for the pregnant female. There are people who think all pro life supporters are just clinging to their religion or "created in the image of God".

Having housed a pregnant person before and after, there are opportunities for all who would go beyond the rhetoric.

While probably not appropriate for a single male, I am not opposed to providing shelter for a pregnant person. Since I have a howling puppy, a crying child might be a welcomed respite...LOL!!

[Bold2013]

I can see the problem with introducing religion however we all have the moral law without religion. We all know murder and being a false witness are wrong. We all desire justice.

[Chuck Naill]

I can see the problem with introducing religion however we all have the moral law without religion. We all know murder and being a false witness are wrong. We all desire justice.

I do agree the law is embedded within us. Children complain about something not being fair.

However, an unwanted child should not be forced and a simple path to adoption at least an option. I mean, abortion is not the only path and both mother and child preserved.

[Bold2013]

I agree there is middle ground for both parties so long as no one gets killed

[kazoolaw]

I agree there is middle ground for both parties so long as no one gets killed

Do you other than, or including, the child?

[kazoolaw]

I am late to the topic, so let me first answer the original question: “Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?” No. Not unless we are able to avoid discussion of what “abortion” is, and the means by which it is accomplished.

As late to the topic, has the name “Gosnell” come up?
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20130320_Gosnells_attorney_questions_mother_in_liv e-term_abortion.html

And, has anyone addressed Justice Thomas question at oral argument:
“THOMAS: I understand we are talking about abortion here.

But what is confusing is that we -- if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we are talking about. If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we're talking about because it's written. It is there. What specifically is the right here that we are talking about?”

[Chuck Naill]

I am late to the topic, so let me first answer the original question: “Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?” No. Not unless we are able to avoid discussion of what “abortion” is, and the means by which it is accomplished.

As late to the topic, has the name “Gosnell” come up?
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20130320_Gosnells_attorney_questions_mother_in_liv e-term_abortion.html

And, has anyone addressed Justice Thomas question at oral argument:
“THOMAS: I understand we are talking about abortion here.

But what is confusing is that we -- if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we are talking about. If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we're talking about because it's written. It is there. What specifically is the right here that we are talking about?”




I did post regarding Goznell.

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz has left the building as usual….lol!

[kazoolaw]

I try to remember that there is life off FPG.

[Bold2013]

I agree there is middle ground for both parties so long as no one gets killed

Do you other than, or including, the child?

Correct. Don’t want to kill babies and don’t want to leave broken women behind.

[kazoolaw]

I am posting this because it happened in the past ten years. Kemit Gosnell operated an abortion clinic and performed late term abortions. There are citizens who think abortions are being performed legally and therefore ethically. Maybe, maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

"Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).[59] As part of this, fetuses and babies had their demise "ensured" post-operatively by severing of the spinal cord with scissors, known by staff as "snipping".... Among the "few cases" where tangible evidence existed, the jury noted a boy aged 30 weeks at six pounds; a frozen body in a water container of "at least" 28 weeks; remains of at least one abortion of over 32 weeks for which an extra $1000 had been demanded; testimony of a baby heard to make noise; and a baby left "moving and breathing for at least 20 minutes" prior to "snipping". The jury heard testimony about "special" Sunday sessions, at which only Gosnell and his wife were present, which the jury suspected (and in some cases was able to corroborate) would include cases that were more advanced in time, or more disturbing"

From the Wikipedia source Chuck quoted, in case the article was too long to read.


From the Philadelphi Inquirer link:
"It's one of the macabre mysteries in the case of Kermit Gosnell: Why did the West Philadelphia abortion doctor keep the severed feet of fetuses preserved in specimen jars?"

Grafting of fetal skin onto rodents:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71548-z

An argument for after-birth abortions:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Journal of Medical Ethics, https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

Where is the ground for civil discussion/debate of such?

[Chuck Naill]

I am posting this because it happened in the past ten years. Kemit Gosnell operated an abortion clinic and performed late term abortions. There are citizens who think abortions are being performed legally and therefore ethically. Maybe, maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

"Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).[59] As part of this, fetuses and babies had their demise "ensured" post-operatively by severing of the spinal cord with scissors, known by staff as "snipping".... Among the "few cases" where tangible evidence existed, the jury noted a boy aged 30 weeks at six pounds; a frozen body in a water container of "at least" 28 weeks; remains of at least one abortion of over 32 weeks for which an extra $1000 had been demanded; testimony of a baby heard to make noise; and a baby left "moving and breathing for at least 20 minutes" prior to "snipping". The jury heard testimony about "special" Sunday sessions, at which only Gosnell and his wife were present, which the jury suspected (and in some cases was able to corroborate) would include cases that were more advanced in time, or more disturbing"

From the Wikipedia source Chuck quoted, in case the article was too long to read.


From the Philadelphi Inquirer link:
"It's one of the macabre mysteries in the case of Kermit Gosnell: Why did the West Philadelphia abortion doctor keep the severed feet of fetuses preserved in specimen jars?"

Grafting of fetal skin onto rodents:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71548-z

An argument for after-birth abortions:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Journal of Medical Ethics, https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

Where is the ground for civil discussion/debate of such?



My concern or thoughts upon learning of Gossnell was to ask how common it is for these clinic to exist elsewhere? As a drug rep I called on an OB . He had a entry in his calendar, I can't remember why I noticed, that said "Vol 5", VOL 2". I asked him what that meant. He said it was the number of abortions he performed at Volunteer Clinic and casually commented that it brough in extra income per month. Abortion is a cash crop and I am not being "uncivil". It actually startled me. This was in the 1980's. I never called on him again. Being that insensitive toward babies was too much.

[TFarnon]

Other than this post, I won't be joining the discussion. I can't stay civil on the issue. I always end up yelling and waving coathangers around, then demanding a grilled cheddar sammich on Orowheat honey wheat berry bread. I also tend to start going on about spontaneous contractile activity of transformed 3T3 fibroblasts and nematodes and grasshoppers. I am vehemently pro-choice, and I informed myself before I chose to have an abortion. ETA: I forgot to mention the fibrinogen/coagulopathy rabbit hole. I go on about that, too.

[BoBo Olson]

I'm a male who grew up in the days when abortion was illegal. Back when bastards was not the in thing to have in High School; in fact ruined the girl for ever....she if lucky got to get a second class guy.....in she was now a second class girl.

I am against fundamentalists, passing laws that say women are third class citizens with no rights.....It's true they have no brains, or they would move to liberal states, where women have rights. Abandon any husband that wishes to remain in those hell states.

None of those fundamentalists have three or four bastard orphans living in their homes.
One thing leads to the other....abortion to the coming civil war.


Gobbles could take lessons from the 25 years of hate preaching Nazi Fox News. The Civil War is being programed. Almost happened on the 6th. I'm so, so glad I live in Germany.
In the US Concentration camps are being spoken about.....but what is needed is a second Underground Railway, to get those women north and or east and west out of Ohio, and other such Red women hating states.

I happened to be in the States when some famous Jerk on Fox News Danced for Joy, in the Great Liberal Vonnegut was dead. A dozen times said The Liberal was 80 and hadn't written a book since he was 60 and had been in the nut house (didn't mention come out cured; nor for what) .....well had I survived the Firebombing of Dresden, I'd be a bit shaky. The Dancer never flogged the many books he never wrote either.

Vonnegut was a bit too liberal for me...but I did read his easy to read books. The library was small and I'd read everything else.
In Collage girls would walk around with a book of his showing, to show they could read....but I never saw him as The Great Liberal. Enemy of all Right Thinking Draft Dodgers.....none of those jerks on Fox News ever even went to basic training. Including their Darling the Orange Haired Draft Dodger; who laughed at America's dead. That was swept quickly under the rug at goosestepping Fox.

Fear flag wavers, in they want your son to go off and die for their money. Their son's are not stupid enough to need to get a job in the Army.

I was once a Goldwater Boy....but have since joined the Union, even done time on the wage board...so am a flaming Commie..... Workers should make a living wage....and with only One Job!!!!! Not six, counting the wife.

At age 35 found out the line I was standing in was not for the free million dollars I was promised.............What do you mean they spent the extras in the Social Securities to buy votes???!!!!

Nixon was a criminal, so is orange head, who makes Nixon seem wise and restrained.

The idiots who passed what's on TV to get out of HS, have to find someone to blame....those queer liberals are at fault for everything. Those commies want the rich to pay their fair share; how Un-American can you get!!!

The Government is injecting mind controlling nano's in everyone.....so everyone will only go to Wallmarkt and no where else.
They are going to make America socialist in spite of their wishes...in they do want a roof over their heads and food. @ 1/4th of the infected have and will have long term health problems. Some un-vaccinated survivors can not work...hell, walk half a mile in an hour; and that after a year or so.

Here in 'Socialist' Germany they are covered by their worker's insurance, if not working Government insurance. (We could get the fools vaccinated if they had to pay for their hospitalization.)
How is that being handled in Capitalistic America?

What are you going to do in America.....do the Conservative thing and let them die homeless, or become Socialist, and keep the fools alive.

[Chuck Naill]

My experience has been that many many Christians adopted black and brown children, I mean hard to place children. Those with surgical requirements. Some with mental disorders due to substance abuse like "Neonatal Substance Abuse (NAS).

In the 1980's, black social workers did not want white families adopting black children. We did, and I have bi-racial grandchildren.

[BoBo Olson]

It is my experience if there is a fish on the back of the car, it's full of cheapskate hypocrites. Sect members.

I can understand why black social workers would try to keep black/brown children away from white 'look at me feel good', when there were enough unwanted white orphans.

Surely statistics say how many orphans are placed in non paying foster homes? Broken down by state.

[Chuck Naill]

It is my experience if there is a fish on the back of the car, it's full of cheapskate hypocrites. Sect members.

I can understand why black social workers would try to keep black/brown children away from white 'look at me feel good', when there were enough unwanted white orphans.

Surely statistics say how many orphans are placed in non paying foster homes? Broken down by state.

Can't comment regarding fish anaolgy.

Sure, some white familles might, but the children were difficult to place for adoption. Our church family was receptive. We adopted because we wanted to have more children. I have six bi-racial grandchildren. I am very close to the twins.

[TSherbs]

Let me try again at an answer here.

First, yes, we *can* have a civil discussion. Whether we will or not will be seen.

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.

1) The moral argument about the "child": Yes, an embryo or a fetus is being terminated in an abortion, and the degree to which you consider this a "sacred life" will likely determine the degree to which one considers abortion a moral wrong. Since not all religions see this "sacred life" equally, nor have they done so over their histories, I see no strong moral imperative concerning the "sanctity" of an embryo or fetus before viability.

2) Yes, a separate embryonic individual defined by its separate DNA from its mother (and father) is begun at conception. But a full set of individualized DNA is not how we define a "person," it is only how we identify a carrier of that DNA. Our DNA does not defineus as individual persons; it is only a unique marker. Our spit, for example, carries our DNA, but when we spit, we do not actually bud off another individual (it would be a twin, in this case). A full set of human DNA is not sufficient in defining when we have a actual complete human individual present.

3) What is a "human life," and when does it receive the full protection of its legal rights? I don't believe that any society has actually allocated full human legal personhood to any embryonic stage of development (I may be wrong, but I have never yet read of this in my readings on the topic). I won't try to summarize all the variations of legal protections (laws) over this issue (in part because I am aware that I don't know it all), but my understanding is that for the majority of recorded human history societies have "permitted" the termination of pregnancies in early stages (and the earlier, the more permissible). Yes, human societies have also had an uneasy history with this practice because, as is still the case now, we have a strong biological, ethical, and religious bias toward favoring procreation and the value of children and family and human life more generally. We don't take this away easily, nor should we. However, we also recognize that fetuses born too early rarely survive, and as such we are reluctant to accord them full legal status and protection and rights.

Part of the reluctance in our granting a pre-viable human fetus legal rights is the legal mess that this would likely cause around miscarriage and negligence, manslaughter, or homicide charges toward the mother (or other agent of stress or injury to the unborn, all the way back to conception). For example, if a legally protected life begins at the moment of conception, then many parents who engage in natural family planning (including the rhythm method) could be charged with murder because this method knowingly results in some fertilization of eggs occurring (making a "person" according to this definition) and then uses the woman's menstruation to slough off the resulting "child." We know that this occurs, because ovulation can and does occur at all times of the apparent cycle, and sometimes women are quite surprised with when they get pregnant (some even during the bleeding part of menstruation). Yes, most other fertilized embryos that occur then are lost to menstruation, but not *all.* If one goes by the strict definition of a legally protected human life begins at conception, then these would all be cases of death for investigation (and any organizations promoting NFP would have to answer to the statistical estimates of how many pregnancies are terminated through this method). There are many other legal conundrums that result from defining a legally protected life as beginning at conception; others can explore or debate them here if they wish.

4) The rights of the mother (and lesser so, the father, or donor): I believe that human patriarchal societies (I am sure not all) have been evolving in their understanding of the rights of women and/or mothers, and permissible pregnancy terminations have been a part of recognizing the burden and difficulty (and danger) that additional unwanted children can have on women, families, and other children in the families. Women are and have been for millennia abused, mistreated, assaulted, and raped by men both inside and outside of marriage, and only they most directly suffer the consequences of that abuse on their bodies and their futures. It is an unequal, unfair, and unjust reality of power, sex, and reproduction in our evolutionary biology of gender and the realities of physical dominance and patriarchal support of that imbalance. Permissible termination of pregnancy is one safety valve for the women (and their families, if they have one) to decrease the danger and burden (psychological and physical) of unwanted pregnancies. We all know this, and human societies have known this for millennia also. This imbalance in sexual power and authority and the imbalance of the burden of children and child-raising is still behind all of the talk of the "rights of the mother" today, particularly around the feeling of "taking back their bodies" and demanding that no one--especially not men--have any right to say what these women can or can't do with their bodies. The "zone of privacy" that the SC described in 1973 is, in my opinion, fueled by the understanding that women deserve better treatment and more autonomy over their bodies, especially in relation to the males of the species. And since abortions will occur whether they are legally permitted or not, making some of them permissible and less dangerous benefits the health and safety of the mothers greatly.

5) I support the legal permissibility of abortion/pregnancy termination for any reason before the medically-accepted age of "viability" as our best middle ground between all the competing interests and needs.

There are other legal and ethical issues around fathers, donors, precedence, federal versus state regulation, etc, but I am just trying to write a quick set of statements from my point of view. I am not trying to argue or change anyone's mind.

[Chuck Naill]

In 1973 synthetic surfactant was not available. Introduced in the early to mid '90's, this is what allowed premature children to survive. The point is, they were just as much human but the medical availability was not available.

We cannot use then viabilty argument to suggest the unborn is not fully human.

If someone decides to abort, and that is their right as a US citizen, they cannot say the unborn is not human or unviable. They must choose to decide to eliminate and otherwise human.

We would not abort a pregant bitch and suggest the unborn are not dogs.

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding E.O Wilson who died recently,. "“Ed’s holy grail was the sheer delight of the pursuit of knowledge,”

If we seek to understand the biology of conception and birth, is the politics more important than knowledge?

[BoBo Olson]

American a second class land, unable to provide a social net like many countries in Europe. I don't know how much of a net Canada has, in I live in Germany and don't catch the anti-Canadian rants. I expect twice as much as the US. Not as much as in Germany.
Hell we pay folks to have babies.........Kindergelt....even the well off are paid for having babies.

How many unwanted children are you going to condemn to generations of poverty? As if what we now have is not enough.
In Europe men don't have to abandon their families because of welfare problems like in America, that has destroyed an upbringing culture in the black and perhaps brown ghettos. They can stay home and do their father jobs.....of course there are those who do poorly at that.


I'm a BAP. Born Again Pagan......in India has 3,000,000 gods I'm bound to find one that satisfies me. Not into the One Eyed guy or woman chasing Jove. Buddhism strikes me as a bit selfish.
The Egyptians had a great set of commandments.
""42 laws of Ma'at or Maat. Historians believe that these laws existed at least 2000 years before the 10 commandments were given to Moses in 1490 BC."""
The most important to get into heaven was the last, all the commandments must be obeyed with a heart as light as a feather and in honor and joy.


The whole right to live BS is coming from Fundamentalist so called Christians, forcing their god and lack of godliness down the throats of everyone else. I see no honor, I see no Joy, I see Hate and the willingness to hurt others for their own self being.

You shouldn't have sex.....not even if raped nor incest. Someone who is Not going to take care of your child, that you didn't want, no matter what....is not going to let you abort.

The women I knew/know who aborted didn't go dancing to the clinic, and have thoughts about it decades later.
Too bad, they were free. I can remember the struggle for them to become free. Their daughters and granddaughters are not free.

I advise an woman who can work...no matter what age, to leave such Bible Belt states.
That would make for interesting male social problems.



Texas and other follow the leader States; Florida, Mississippi and the rest are going to jail women that get an abortion? (And the Doctor, nurse, secretary and janitor.) Well, if not today, there is always the morning.

[Chuck Naill]

No way to predict future poverty. We can predict that those aborted humans will not be present.

If we can get over religion, our discussion might be better. Prolife is biologic, not religious. If you want to end human life at least say so.

[Bold2013]

TSherbs. I agreed that there are many unequal items when it comes to the sexes (it’s almost as if it was designed that way…). Sexual stakes are a lot higher for the women who will carry the child. But I don’t think the answer is evening our differences is by letting woman kill their babies.

BoBo. You sound like a theologian.

Will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with Roe

[kazoolaw]

Let me try again at an answer here.

First, yes, we *can* have a civil discussion. Whether we will or not will be seen.

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.

1) The moral argument about the "child": Yes, an embryo or a fetus is being terminated in an abortion, and the degree to which you consider this a "sacred life" will likely determine the degree to which one considers abortion a moral wrong. Since not all religions see this "sacred life" equally, nor have they done so over their histories, I see no strong moral imperative concerning the "sanctity" of an embryo or fetus before viability.
***


TS-
As the responses demonstrate, some of us can have a civil discussion, some of us can't have a civil discussion, and some of us can have a civil discussion sometimes . I appreciate your post. It's too long for me to respond to all of it now, so I'll comment on your first point and hope to come back to address the other points later.

You include "moral" and "sacred" in your comment. Tell me if I'm wrong: I take putting "sacred life" in quotes is to ascribe that view as a religious belief, as you then go on to discuss religions. Atheists and agnostics might bristle at the notion that morality is solely a religious construct. It is possible to discuss abortion from a moral perspective without incorporating religious doctrine, don't you think?

I think we agree (and I know you'll correct if I'm wrong) that at some point we both oppose abortion. I also think that we'd agree, as a matter of biology, that the embryo/fetus/baby left to develop and grow will result in the birth of a human. Where we disagree is at what stage that person-in-development is entitled to legal protection, and whether the decision to abort pre-viability is devoid of moral considerations.

See you around.

[Chuck Naill]

Sacred means “set apart”. Is human life different? I think it is for non religious meanings.

[TSherbs]

Let me try again at an answer here.

First, yes, we *can* have a civil discussion. Whether we will or not will be seen.

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.

1) The moral argument about the "child": Yes, an embryo or a fetus is being terminated in an abortion, and the degree to which you consider this a "sacred life" will likely determine the degree to which one considers abortion a moral wrong. Since not all religions see this "sacred life" equally, nor have they done so over their histories, I see no strong moral imperative concerning the "sanctity" of an embryo or fetus before viability.
***


TS-
As the responses demonstrate, some of us can have a civil discussion, some of us can't have a civil discussion, and some of us can have a civil discussion sometimes . I appreciate your post. It's too long for me to respond to all of it now, so I'll comment on your first point and hope to come back to address the other points later.

You include "moral" and "sacred" in your comment. Tell me if I'm wrong: I take putting "sacred life" in quotes is to ascribe that view as a religious belief, as you then go on to discuss religions. Atheists and agnostics might bristle at the notion that morality is solely a religious construct. It is possible to discuss abortion from a moral perspective without incorporating religious doctrine, don't you think?

I think we agree (and I know you'll correct if I'm wrong) that at some point we both oppose abortion. I also think that we'd agree, as a matter of biology, that the embryo/fetus/baby left to develop and grow will result in the birth of a human. Where we disagree is at what stage that person-in-development is entitled to legal protection, and whether the decision to abort pre-viability is devoid of moral considerations.

See you around.


Yes, I agree with all these points of yours. And yes, morality can be discussed without religion.

And the quotes around "sacred" mean that it is a word that others use (but I would not) for what one considers the moral or spiritual status of a human fetus.

I am willing to discuss this further any time you come back to this.

[kazoolaw]

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.


2) Yes, a separate embryonic individual defined by its separate DNA from its mother (and father) is begun at conception. But a full set of individualized DNA is not how we define a "person," it is only how we identify a carrier of that DNA. Our DNA does not defineus as individual persons; it is only a unique marker. Our spit, for example, carries our DNA, but when we spit, we do not actually bud off another individual (it would be a twin, in this case). A full set of human DNA is not sufficient in defining when we have a actual complete human individual present.


Again, there is much we agree on. The presence of unique DNA is not the same as saying the presence alone makes a person. As you've noted, if that were true any time our DNA was present [think clipped finger nails, hair clippings, spit, etc] a new me would pop up. The presence of unique DNA is more significant because it distinguishes the embryo/fetus/baby from the unique DNA of the mother's body. And the father's body for that matter. If we were able to clone a person from the mother's DNA and a person from the baby's DNA they would be different people.

I'm not sure, but what you describe as a "carrier of DNA" I would call the baby. [I'm not dogmatic: if you prefer embryo/fetus that's fine.] We come back to the biology: left to develop that "carrier" becomes a full-blown human. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see much difference in our positions to this point. Those differences will appear as we discuss points 3-5, and where in the process of development the carrier becomes a person.

See you next time.

[Chuck Naill]

I remember Scott Peterson being charged with murder for his 38 week unborn child. California has a Unborn Victims Violence Act that some are critical for giving "personhood" status to an unborn child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[TSherbs]

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.


2) Yes, a separate embryonic individual defined by its separate DNA from its mother (and father) is begun at conception. But a full set of individualized DNA is not how we define a "person," it is only how we identify a carrier of that DNA. Our DNA does not defineus as individual persons; it is only a unique marker. Our spit, for example, carries our DNA, but when we spit, we do not actually bud off another individual (it would be a twin, in this case). A full set of human DNA is not sufficient in defining when we have a actual complete human individual present.


Again, there is much we agree on. The presence of unique DNA is not the same as saying the presence alone makes a person. As you've noted, if that were true any time our DNA was present [think clipped finger nails, hair clippings, spit, etc] a new me would pop up. The presence of unique DNA is more significant because it distinguishes the embryo/fetus/baby from the unique DNA of the mother's body. And the father's body for that matter. If we were able to clone a person from the mother's DNA and a person from the baby's DNA they would be different people.

I'm not sure, but what you describe as a "carrier of DNA" I would call the baby. [I'm not dogmatic: if you prefer embryo/fetus that's fine.] We come back to the biology: left to develop that "carrier" becomes a full-blown human. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see much difference in our positions to this point. Those differences will appear as we discuss points 3-5, and where in the process of development the carrier becomes a person.

See you next time.

yes, to all your points

[TSherbs]

I remember Scott Peterson being charged with murder for his 38 week unborn child. California has a Unborn Victims Violence Act that some are critical for giving "personhood" status to an unborn child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

yes, giving full legal "personhood" status to a fetus is a challenging and very complicated move in the law

[Chuck Naill]

I remember the exchange between the female attorney and Justice Potter in 1973 where the law hinged on the unborn not being considered a person. Yet, when Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, he was convicted of two murders. We talk out of both sides of our mouths, so to speak. While we might agree to disagree, we should be able to agree of the duplicity.

There is also the discussion of when the embryo becomes a fetus (unborn child). Viabilty has changed with the advances in first porcine surfactant and later synthetic. When our twins were born at 27 weeks, what alloweed them to survive was surfactant that allowed their aveoli to expand.

[TSherbs]

I remember the exchange between the female attorney and Justice Potter in 1973 where the law hinged on the unborn not being considered a person. Yet, when Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, he was convicted of two murders. We talk out of both sides of our mouths, so to speak. While we might agree to disagree, we should be able to agree of the duplicity.

There is also the discussion of when the embryo becomes a fetus (unborn child). Viabilty has changed with the advances in first porcine surfactant and later synthetic. When our twins were born at 27 weeks, what alloweed them to survive was surfactant that allowed their aveoli to expand.

Calling it "duplicitous" is poisoning the well. I am not out to persuade or argue about this (as I have said before). Don't expect any engagement on this topic from me if you expect to argue or debate. That you can do with someone else (if they want to). I've started my position on abortion clearly already. And I will not challenge anyone else's.

[Chuck Naill]

I remember the exchange between the female attorney and Justice Potter in 1973 where the law hinged on the unborn not being considered a person. Yet, when Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, he was convicted of two murders. We talk out of both sides of our mouths, so to speak. While we might agree to disagree, we should be able to agree of the duplicity.

There is also the discussion of when the embryo becomes a fetus (unborn child). Viabilty has changed with the advances in first porcine surfactant and later synthetic. When our twins were born at 27 weeks, what alloweed them to survive was surfactant that allowed their aveoli to expand.

Calling it "duplicitous" is poisoning the well. I am not out to persuade or argue about this (as I have said before). Don't expect any engagement on this topic from me if you expect to argue or debate. That you can do with someone else (if they want to). I've started my position on abortion clearly already. And I will not challenge anyone else's.

I am not trying to change your opinion either. I do think the laws are interesting that we can charge a person with the murder of an unborn child.

[kazoolaw]

To the topic:

5) I support the legal permissibility of abortion/pregnancy termination for any reason before the medically-accepted age of "viability" as our best middle ground between all the competing interests and needs.


Yes, I've jumped past 3 and 4 to discuss your final numbered point. I'd like to reverse the statement to read: "I support the legal banning of abortion/pregnancy termination for any reason after the medically-accepted age of "viability" as our best middle ground between all the competing interests and needs."

Putting aside for another day the issues of rape and incest, is this an accurate statement of your view on abortion after "viability?" What "interests and needs" would you say come into play at that point?

[TSherbs]

I don't tend to support laws with absolute prohibitions like "no matter what the reason." So, no, your reversal of language is not one that I support.

[kazoolaw]

I don't tend to support laws with absolute prohibitions like "no matter what the reason." So, no, your reversal of language is not one that I support.

What restrictions would you support on abortions after viability?

[TSherbs]

I don't tend to support laws with absolute prohibitions like "no matter what the reason." So, no, your reversal of language is not one that I support.

What restrictions would you support on abortions after viability?


Some, but not all. I don't know because I don't feel that I can anticipate every scenario. I'll give just one as an example: the mother's life becomes threatened by the existence of the fetus after viability has been reached. I would support termination of the pregnancy in that case. I would not support any language that would require the mother under threat of criminal action to carry to full term a late-term pre-natal child that would likely kill her, especially not one that was likely to be deceased itself at birth or very shortly after. Absolutist language precludes unanticipated critical circumstances.

I am not looking to regulate or limit abortion. That is not my inclination. But I would not strenuously object to some limitations after viability. But I don't know, at this point, which precise limitations. I have not thought about it in detail. My point was that I understand that our present practice of law in may states around this is a compromise of competing interests around the ethics and the rights, health, and safety of both the mother and the unborn "child."

[Chuck Naill]

Laws can have a determental effect on both mother and child. There was a law penalizing a woman who gave birth with a baby with opioid dependancy. I cannot remember what the penality was, but this woman gave birth to a child at the hospital where I volunteered and left the hospital without even naming the child. I was there when the foster parent came to take the baby. Very sad.

That showed me that while well intentioned, laws are not the answer. Making insurance companies pay for birth control and free birth control for poor and indigent women would/could do more good.

[kazoolaw]

That showed me that while well intentioned, laws are not the answer. Making insurance companies pay for birth control and free birth control for poor and indigent women would/could do more good.


I understand that you can't stay on-topic, but....
You must mean the laws you would use to make insurance companies pay are the answer.
Where do insurance companies get the money to pay benefits?

[Chuck Naill]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.

[kazoolaw]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.
Post 77: Chuck abandons "laws are not the answer" principle.

[kazoolaw]

I am not looking to regulate or limit abortion. That is not my inclination. But I would not strenuously object to some limitations after viability. But I don't know, at this point, which precise limitations. I have not thought about it in detail. My point was that I understand that our present practice of law in may states around this is a compromise of competing interests around the ethics and the rights, health, and safety of both the mother and the unborn "child."

TS-
When you say "I have not thought about it in detail," it may be that you don't want to discuss your thought in an online, public discussion forum. I understand that.

But if you've not thought about it in detail, I urge you to do so. That might involve you coming to a position on when the embryo/fetus/baby acquires the right to live.

Does the "right" to an abortion extend beyond birth? See, "...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled." Post 48. Governor Northam proposed that the baby could be born and be kept comfortable, while a discussion takes place about whether the baby would live or die.

If a child is not a person, and has a right to live at birth, then when?

[Chuck Naill]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.
Post 77: Chuck abandons "laws are not the answer" principle.

Remember the context?

[kazoolaw]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.
Post 77: Chuck abandons "laws are not the answer" principle.

Remember the context?

Yup, your post saying that laws are not the answer. Not "some" laws.

[TSherbs]

If a child is not a person, and has a right to live at birth, then when?

Is this question rhetorical? Sometimes you are ironic but I misread the tone.

-->At viability. I answered this already. I am not here to debate or defend. Nor repeat, really. (Except this time).

[Chuck Naill]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.
Post 77: Chuck abandons "laws are not the answer" principle.

Remember the context?

Yup, your post saying that laws are not the answer. Not "some" laws.

Laws related to abortive rights was the context. They are not going to change whether people do or don’t get an abortion. It will either make it easier or more difficult.

Rules of participation for insurance providers is different where regulations are required.

Two different topics.

[kazoolaw]

If a child is not a person, and has a right to live at birth, then when?

Is this question rhetorical? Sometimes you are ironic but I misread the tone.

-->At viability. I answered this already. I am not here to debate or defend. Nor repeat, really. (Except this time).

Thank you for your reply.
If we consider that the right to life begins at viability, does that life have the same protections against it being taken as every other life?

[TSherbs]

[
If we consider that the right to life begins at viability, does that life have the same protections against it being taken as every other life?


You go now. I've answered enough questions for a while. You can just state your position. I'd like to read what others have to say, but only if they feel like being open and transparent about it. I don't have any questions that need to be answered.

[Chuck Naill]

Yeah, Ted has answered enough.

[kazoolaw]

[
If we consider that the right to life begins at viability, does that life have the same protections against it being taken as every other life?


You go now. I've answered enough questions for a while. You can just state your position. I'd like to read what others have to say, but only if they feel like being open and transparent about it. I don't have any questions that need to be answered.

As I said earlier, I respect not wanting to discuss the issue publicly in this forum.

[TSherbs]

You go now. I've answered enough questions for a while. You can just state your position. I'd like to read what others have to say, but only if they feel like being open and transparent about it. I don't have any questions that need to be answered.

As I said earlier, I respect not wanting to discuss the issue publicly in this forum.


Right. But reciprocality helps a conversation and mutual understanding progress. This means that you were asking me questions that you yourself aren't willing to answer here. I don't mind because you were polite, but I don't quite get your motive. Maybe you were out to get me to change my mind. I dunno. But now I see that it wasn't to exchange points of view. I would not have attacked or challenged you in any way on it, but as you say, we are free not to discuss this publicly.

Have a good day. We're past the solstice, so days are getting longer. But still getting colder here in Maine. Yesterday topped out here at 11F!

[kazoolaw]

TS-
If i missed a question you asked please repeat it or refer to the post you asked it in.
I'm not shy about responding. Nor am I concerned with attacks, and enjoy being challenged.
Ask away.

[Chuck Naill]

Saw this on the other FP site, "Have you noticed that all the people in favor of birth control are already born?” – Benny Hill

This applies to abortion as well, I suppose.

[kazoolaw]

To the topic:


3) What is a "human life," and when does it receive the full protection of its legal rights? I don't believe that any society has actually allocated full human legal personhood to any embryonic stage of development (I may be wrong, but I have never yet read of this in my readings on the topic). I won't try to summarize all the variations of legal protections (laws) over this issue (in part because I am aware that I don't know it all), but my understanding is that for the majority of recorded human history societies have "permitted" the termination of pregnancies in early stages (and the earlier, the more permissible). Yes, human societies have also had an uneasy history with this practice because, as is still the case now, we have a strong biological, ethical, and religious bias toward favoring procreation and the value of children and family and human life more generally. We don't take this away easily, nor should we. However, we also recognize that fetuses born too early rarely survive, and as such we are reluctant to accord them full legal status and protection and rights.

Part of the reluctance in our granting a pre-viable human fetus legal rights is the legal mess that this would likely cause around miscarriage and negligence, manslaughter, or homicide charges toward the mother (or other agent of stress or injury to the unborn, all the way back to conception). For example, if a legally protected life begins at the moment of conception, then many parents who engage in natural family planning (including the rhythm method) could be charged with murder because this method knowingly results in some fertilization of eggs occurring (making a "person" according to this definition) and then uses the woman's menstruation to slough off the resulting "child." We know that this occurs, because ovulation can and does occur at all times of the apparent cycle, and sometimes women are quite surprised with when they get pregnant (some even during the bleeding part of menstruation). Yes, most other fertilized embryos that occur then are lost to menstruation, but not *all.* If one goes by the strict definition of a legally protected human life begins at conception, then these would all be cases of death for investigation (and any organizations promoting NFP would have to answer to the statistical estimates of how many pregnancies are terminated through this method). There are many other legal conundrums that result from defining a legally protected life as beginning at conception; others can explore or debate them here if they wish.


The history of infanticide does not mean our understanding of human rights must remain stagnant. In Sparta, sources say, the government would decide which babies would live and which would be left to die. In Rome the father had the choice to accept or reject the child, whether or not it was healthy. It was common in more recent times not to name a child until it was older because of the high rate of child mortality. We've moved beyond the caste system, and the view of people as chattel. As mores and medicine advance children are more readily understood to be people, not simply to be disposed of. [We can address the regression to the concept of "post-birth abortion" at another time.] Not everyone is so reluctant to extend the basic right to life to the unborn.

Not extending any rights to the embryo/fetus/child has created any number of thorny issues; it's too late to say that a "legal mess" militates against the extension of human rights. An embryo is without legal status: in a divorce action there are disputes over the who gets them. If the egg donor wants to keep them, have them implanted and carry them full term can she force the sperm donor, who did not want the embryo preserved, to pay child support? If she carries to term, and gives birth after remarrying the husband is deemed to be the father. Can the sperm donor reappear and claim visitation rights? Some legal thought is to address them a property in considering a division of property in a divorce? Is an embryo "property?" The egg donor doesn't want the embryo and, further, doesn't want the sperm donor to have the embryo implanted to grow to be a child. How does one weigh those competing interests? We already wrestle with the issues of injury and death to an unborn child, just as we weigh issues of injury and death to those in a coma. There is an entire legal specialty dealing with medical malpractice in neonatal care. Litigation around injuries involving lack of oxygen during labor due to constriction of the umbilical cord are not uncommon.

[Chuck Naill]

So happy our 27 week twins are alive and well. The boy is here today for virtual school.

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading about a Texas woman who performed a self-abortion or helped in an abortion this morning who is in jail with $500K bail.

[TSherbs]

The DA is dropping murder charges.

[Lloyd]

So happy our 27 week twins are alive and well. The boy is here today for virtual school.
Sounds kinda young for school. You might want to wait until they are at least 4-5 years old.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

So happy our 27 week twins are alive and well. The boy is here today for virtual school.
Sounds kinda young for school. You might want to wait until they are at least 4-5 years old.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Well, that flew right over your head didn't it?

[kazoolaw]

If you have read the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 were you able to find a definition of "abortion?"

[Chuck Naill]

If you have read the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 were you able to find a definition of "abortion?"


I read the transcript of Roe V Wade.

[kazoolaw]

I read the transcript of Roe V Wade.

Probably stayed at a Holiday Inn too.
Equally irrelevant to the question.

[Chuck Naill]

I know what an abortion is, Kas

[kazoolaw]

With all due respect, the question wasn't about your knowledge, or your position on abortion.
Words have meaning, and we've witnessed a battle for the control of language.
If there is no definition of "abortion" in the Act, does the Act prohibit restrictions on [post-birth] abortions?

[Chuck Naill]

With all due respect, the question wasn't about your knowledge, or your position on abortion.
Words have meaning, and we've witnessed a battle for the control of language.
If there is no definition of "abortion" in the Act, does the Act prohibit restrictions on [post-birth] abortions?


Post birth is settled.

Scott Peterson got 15 years for killing his unborn child.

The origins for Roe success was personhood. Potter asked about it. If the unborn was a persons, she had no argument.

Do you consider the unborn a child and why or why not?

[kazoolaw]

First, post-birth isn't settled: "Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die."

Second, Justice Potter Stewart was a man.

Third, Scott Peterson's child was unborn. The legislation referred to above would making killing a child who has been born legal.

Fourth, if you read my earlier posts you'd know my answer to your final line: yes. The child is the person created at conception.

[Chuck Naill]

Northam explained that the law would allow Second Trimester abortions outside the hospital with a doctor present and if the mother's life was in danger. He accused Republicans of misrepresenting the law.

Yes, Justice Stewart was male.

Yes, as I said, Peterson's child was unborn.

I always try to read your post, Kaz.

[Chuck Naill]

The Supreme Court is a mess. McConnell is a fool. It is not a crime to leak.

[Chuck Naill]

I am for informed consent. Now I’m concerned about botched abortions.

Oral Birth control should be covered which would prevent the need for an abortion

[Bold2013]

How about abstinence instead of drugs and murder

[TSherbs]

How about abstinence instead of drugs and murder

Be fruitful and multiply. Abstain between the rutting, sure. Red tents for the bleeding time. The good old days.

[Lloyd]

How about abstinence instead of drugs and murder

Be fruitful and multiply. Abstain between the rutting, sure. Red tents for the bleeding time. The good old days.
Why not the Rhythm method of Coitus Interruptus? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I thought the choir boys were for rutting times...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

How about abstinence instead of drugs and murder

This goes back two weeks when I pointed out to you what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery. Obviously a man was present if she was caught in the very act, but nothing was done to him nor was he identified. He didn't tell her to abstain from anything. He said go and sin no more, but ot to abstain, nor was he as naïve as you to think she could.

Abstain ace is a religious dogma and is not shared by even Evangelicals. Evangelicals bring their daughters to abortion clinics in droves. They say they know it is wrong, but do it anyway. Sexual activities among pastors has become common.

I assume ou prescribe medications for type 2 diabetes. Opt just for diet ad exercise from now on....LOL!!

[Bold2013]

He said go and sin no more. No more fornication and no more baby murdering (for “evangelicals” and everyone else).

[TSherbs]

He said go and sin no more. No more fornication and no more baby murdering (for “evangelicals” and everyone else).

Unmarried sex is not a sin. Never was, and still isn't now. This rule of "God" is a fiction.

[Chuck Naill]

We’ll see how that works for you Bold.

[Chuck Naill]

“The same mostly male politicians who oppose abortion so often do everything in their power to oppose rights to paid parental leave, subsidized child care, single-payer health care or any kind of social safety net that could improve family life.“

[Bold2013]

SC overturning Roe will save more lives than those masks and boosters ever did. Plus limit the federal government’s overreach!

[Chuck Naill]

In my state there are currently 6400 children in the system. 600 are awaiting patients to be identified.

Of those available, there are special needs including mental illness stemming form the parents substance abuse.

The cost to adopt is beteeen $38-43 K

If they could pass the background check, the Evangelical community could adopt these children. Maybe take up a love offering, lay on some hands, and sell the multi million dollar facilities.

Our family has adopted 4 children. I am pro life, but life for everyone including the parents.

I am concerned about those that survive birth only to be abused, abandoned, and killed later.

I wish adoption cost less.

[Chuck Naill]

This leak could be the Democrat’s best thing that’s ever happened.

[TSherbs]

This leak could be the Democrat’s best thing that’s ever happened.

Alito doesn't give a shit about precedent or cultural opinion. He's on the fringe, and he says so in this opinion on this topic. I don't see how the leak will do anything. But we'll see.

[Linger]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

[dneal]

This leak could be the Democrat’s best thing that’s ever happened.

Alito doesn't give a shit about precedent or cultural opinion. He's on the fringe, and he says so in this opinion on this topic. I don't see how the leak will do anything. But we'll see.

Clearly someone hasn’t read the draft. I suppose it is easier to just toss unsubstantiated opinions. Less thinking required…

[TSherbs]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

[Chuck Naill]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

[TSherbs]

Susan Collins may be done in my state. But she has four more years before her term is up, so I am sure that she hopes that her electorate has a short-term memory....And she is now basically trying to say that these candidates fooled her. Sorry, Sue, we know that you are not actually naive.

Tick, tock. You've got four years left...

[TSherbs]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

White men have been scared of all other men. We have a deep notion of illegitimacy because we know that our western culture has been built on the backs of robbed, tortured, and massacred peoples who resent our presence on their lands and who resent the institutions of corporate and political oppression that maintain that privileged status.

[dneal]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

Chuck answers his own question in the thread’s title with a resounding “no”.

[dneal]

The Atlantic, of all places, has a reasonable view of the draft decision. Clearly the author took the time to read it before pontificating - unlike many.



What Alito Got Right

The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather which rights we do possess.
MAY 04, 2022

We do not know if Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health represents the current consensus of a majority of the Supreme Court. We certainly don’t know yet if it’s a preview of the Court’s actual ruling. Decisions are not final until opinions are issued, and dramatic history exists of a Supreme Court justice changing his mind on abortion during deliberations. In 1992, The Washington Post reported that Justice Anthony Kennedy initially voted to reverse Roe v. Wade when deciding Planned Parenthood v. Casey but later switched his vote to affirm Roe, “a flip attributed in court circles to liberal constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe’s pulling strings backstage.”

Even so, Alito’s draft is consequential. It not only represents a potential preview of one of the most significant Court decisions in a generation, but also articulates a compelling understanding of the nature of liberty and the role of the judiciary in American constitutional law.

First, it’s important to understand the question before the Supreme Court. It is not “Should American women possess a right to abortion?” but “Does the American Constitution protect abortion rights?” The distinction is of paramount importance. The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather the rights we do possess.

A surface reading of the Constitution would indicate an easy answer to the question. Because the Constitution doesn’t even mention abortion, how can one argue that it protects a right to an abortion? Don’t we have to locate the right in the text itself?

But the matter is not so simple, and the reason relates to the basic theory of American liberty. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex debate, the quick explanation is that many of the Founders viewed the Constitution as reserving “all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government” to the people or the states. In plain English, this means that the Constitution did not need to spell out our individual rights. They existed unless a constitutional provision declared otherwise.

Anti-federalists, however, insisted on the Bill of Rights as a belt-and-suspenders safeguard against federal encroachment. By spelling out (some) of our fundamental liberties, the citizens of the new republic could be assured that the federal government would be restrained. And how do we know that the Bill of Rights didn’t outline all of our liberties? Because the Ninth Amendment specifically states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court located the right to an abortion in the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment prohibits any state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Prior courts have used this provision of the Constitution as the textual hook to protect not just procedural rights but unenumerated substantive rights, including rights to interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, and contraceptives.

In his draft opinion, Alito calls this approach “controversial” (after all, the due-process clause says nothing about substantive rights) but accepts the conceptual approach anyway. He notes that Court precedent has protected “two categories” of substantive rights.

The first category is the list of liberties guaranteed by the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights. That category doesn’t apply to abortion, which isn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The second category refers to those rights “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and “essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’”

Alito’s opinion represents a thorough dismantling of the idea that—prior to Roe—abortion rights were rooted at all in American history and tradition, much less “deeply rooted.” In fact, the deep roots that exist are of state regulation and prohibition of abortion. The draft opinion concludes with a 31-page appendix listing statutes that criminalized abortion in “all states of pregnancy” when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

The draft opinion also rejects the idea that the right to an abortion is an “integral part of a broader, entrenched right.” Alito distinguishes the long line of cases recognizing the rights to interracial marriage; to obtaining contraceptives; to engaging in private, consensual sexual acts; and to same-sex marriage by noting that abortion “destroys” what Roe and Casey call “potential life” and what the Mississippi law at issue in the current case “regards as the life of ‘an unborn human being.’”
It’s the impact on the unborn child that sets apart Dobbs, the case on which Alito wrote his draft opinion, from, say, Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court’s ruling on same-sex unions. Gay marriage involves consenting adults. No unborn child consents to his or her own destruction.

The inherent weaknesses of Roe’s approach have long been recognized even by the strongest defenders of abortion rights. In 1992, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe as a “breathtaking” precedent during a speech at New York University.
Her lecture addressed “measured third-branch decision making,” and she spoke words that have proved remarkably prescient. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable,” she said. And what was a prime example of a too-swiftly shaped doctrinal limb? Roe v. Wade. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day … might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”
If Alito’s draft opinion answers whether the Constitution does protect abortion, it does not answer whether states should protect abortion. Voices on the right argue that the Constitution should be read to prohibit abortion entirely—and at least one amicus brief made that very argument—but Alito does not go that far. His opinion would leave the ultimate legality of abortion to the democratic process, to state legislatures and to Congress.

And that brings us to the final key element of Alito’s opinion. He calls abortion “a profound moral question,” but it’s one that he does not settle. He does not believe that it is the role of the judiciary to settle such questions.
Here is where the differences between conservative and progressive jurists are perhaps starkest. Going back to Justice Ginsburg’s 1992 remarks, she argued (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes) that “judges do and must legislate.” Even though Justice Ginsburg argued for a change slower and more interstitial than Roe, conservative justices such as Alito would still strenuously disagree.

Instead, enacting legal change is precisely the role of the people’s elected representatives. Legislation is for the legislature, and if the people of the United States want to create a right to abortion, they have that power. They had that power before Roe, and if Alito’s opinion holds, they will still have that power.

[Chip]

Funny how that lip-smacking regard for fetal tissue expires once the poor kid is born black, grows up half-starved on welfare, then gets locked up by a white jury or murdered by a white cop.

Pro-life, indeed. What a vile travesty.

[Lloyd]

The Atlantic, of all places, has a reasonable view of the draft decision. Clearly the author took the time to read it before pontificating - unlike many.



What Alito Got Right

The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather which rights we do possess.
MAY 04, 2022

We do not know if Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health represents the current consensus of a majority of the Supreme Court. We certainly don’t know yet if it’s a preview of the Court’s actual ruling. Decisions are not final until opinions are issued, and dramatic history exists of a Supreme Court justice changing his mind on abortion during deliberations. In 1992, The Washington Post reported that Justice Anthony Kennedy initially voted to reverse Roe v. Wade when deciding Planned Parenthood v. Casey but later switched his vote to affirm Roe, “a flip attributed in court circles to liberal constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe’s pulling strings backstage.”

Even so, Alito’s draft is consequential. It not only represents a potential preview of one of the most significant Court decisions in a generation, but also articulates a compelling understanding of the nature of liberty and the role of the judiciary in American constitutional law.

First, it’s important to understand the question before the Supreme Court. It is not “Should American women possess a right to abortion?” but “Does the American Constitution protect abortion rights?” The distinction is of paramount importance. The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather the rights we do possess.

A surface reading of the Constitution would indicate an easy answer to the question. Because the Constitution doesn’t even mention abortion, how can one argue that it protects a right to an abortion? Don’t we have to locate the right in the text itself?

But the matter is not so simple, and the reason relates to the basic theory of American liberty. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex debate, the quick explanation is that many of the Founders viewed the Constitution as reserving “all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government” to the people or the states. In plain English, this means that the Constitution did not need to spell out our individual rights. They existed unless a constitutional provision declared otherwise.

Anti-federalists, however, insisted on the Bill of Rights as a belt-and-suspenders safeguard against federal encroachment. By spelling out (some) of our fundamental liberties, the citizens of the new republic could be assured that the federal government would be restrained. And how do we know that the Bill of Rights didn’t outline all of our liberties? Because the Ninth Amendment specifically states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court located the right to an abortion in the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment prohibits any state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Prior courts have used this provision of the Constitution as the textual hook to protect not just procedural rights but unenumerated substantive rights, including rights to interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, and contraceptives.

In his draft opinion, Alito calls this approach “controversial” (after all, the due-process clause says nothing about substantive rights) but accepts the conceptual approach anyway. He notes that Court precedent has protected “two categories” of substantive rights.

The first category is the list of liberties guaranteed by the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights. That category doesn’t apply to abortion, which isn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The second category refers to those rights “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and “essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’”

Alito’s opinion represents a thorough dismantling of the idea that—prior to Roe—abortion rights were rooted at all in American history and tradition, much less “deeply rooted.” In fact, the deep roots that exist are of state regulation and prohibition of abortion. The draft opinion concludes with a 31-page appendix listing statutes that criminalized abortion in “all states of pregnancy” when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

The draft opinion also rejects the idea that the right to an abortion is an “integral part of a broader, entrenched right.” Alito distinguishes the long line of cases recognizing the rights to interracial marriage; to obtaining contraceptives; to engaging in private, consensual sexual acts; and to same-sex marriage by noting that abortion “destroys” what Roe and Casey call “potential life” and what the Mississippi law at issue in the current case “regards as the life of ‘an unborn human being.’”
It’s the impact on the unborn child that sets apart Dobbs, the case on which Alito wrote his draft opinion, from, say, Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court’s ruling on same-sex unions. Gay marriage involves consenting adults. No unborn child consents to his or her own destruction.

The inherent weaknesses of Roe’s approach have long been recognized even by the strongest defenders of abortion rights. In 1992, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe as a “breathtaking” precedent during a speech at New York University.
Her lecture addressed “measured third-branch decision making,” and she spoke words that have proved remarkably prescient. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable,” she said. And what was a prime example of a too-swiftly shaped doctrinal limb? Roe v. Wade. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day … might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”
If Alito’s draft opinion answers whether the Constitution does protect abortion, it does not answer whether states should protect abortion. Voices on the right argue that the Constitution should be read to prohibit abortion entirely—and at least one amicus brief made that very argument—but Alito does not go that far. His opinion would leave the ultimate legality of abortion to the democratic process, to state legislatures and to Congress.

And that brings us to the final key element of Alito’s opinion. He calls abortion “a profound moral question,” but it’s one that he does not settle. He does not believe that it is the role of the judiciary to settle such questions.
Here is where the differences between conservative and progressive jurists are perhaps starkest. Going back to Justice Ginsburg’s 1992 remarks, she argued (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes) that “judges do and must legislate.” Even though Justice Ginsburg argued for a change slower and more interstitial than Roe, conservative justices such as Alito would still strenuously disagree.

Instead, enacting legal change is precisely the role of the people’s elected representatives. Legislation is for the legislature, and if the people of the United States want to create a right to abortion, they have that power. They had that power before Roe, and if Alito’s opinion holds, they will still have that power.

It's interesting that, according to the article, Alito's rationale doesn't involve when a fertilized egg becomes a human (with US citizenship) as opposed to bring a potential human.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Alito had wanted to write this majority piece for years, and conservatives put him on the court and others with the same frame of mind in order to be able to have this piece be a majority opinion. And they have succeeded, apparently. This has been a 40-yr process of training young law school students in conservative legal principles, getting them in to clerkships and then benches and moving them up the nominee lists for the presidents to draw from. I read about this effort probably 10 years ago (I was late to understand). Mission accomplished. There is no moral or legal high ground here, just a flat out who's got the most votes in any given SC term. Thanks to Mitch's tactics and RBGs refusal to resign as she aged out and the balance of power in the Senate, we have what we have. And the balkanization of America continues. Self-righteous tribal mentality is enhanced with this geographic emphasis on state lines and the primacy of state law.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I read that one of Alito's arguments was that abortion was not the 'American way' throughout its history until Roe v Wade. Which is fair if you think that tradition is a good substitute for reason.

He also seems to be a big fan of Sir Matthew Hale, an English 17th century jurist who apparently was the epitome of scientific ignorance in his day.

These and other details are laid out in a Huff Post article, so I don't know how accurate they are.

[dneal]

It's interesting that, according to the article, Alito's rationale doesn't involve when a fertilized egg becomes a human (with US citizenship) as opposed to bring a potential human.


He doesn't attempt to, and the decision doesn't address when an abortion is or isn't permitted.


Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.' That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

You can find the full document HERE (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf).

[Chuck Naill]

I listened to a history of abortion in the US. Doctors petitioned to take abortion practices away from mid wives and others, even self abortion in the 1800's. This led to the idea that only a doctor could decide. I think most have heard that the decison is between the female and her doctor.

Until the 1960's abortions were occuring until politicans discovered a disinterested electorate, white Evangelicals which made abortion political.

I heard that South Carolina, one of the most historical raciest states in the nation will make abortion illegal even for rape and incest.

I saw what laws can do to women. It was illegal to have a child if the mother was on opioids. One young female gave birth and left the child in the nursery never to return.

Again, if you are really pro life, you need to be an advocate for free birth control because there are thousands of children in foster care that would cost an adoptive parent tens of thousands of dolloars. Which means they will most likely never experience a family that loves them.

[Chuck Naill]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

Chuck answers his own question in the thread’s title with a resounding “no”.

@dneal thinks speaking the truth is uncivil. roll eyes emoji inserted.

[Chuck Naill]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

White men have been scared of all other men. We have a deep notion of illegitimacy because we know that our western culture has been built on the backs of robbed, tortured, and massacred peoples who resent our presence on their lands and who resent the institutions of corporate and political oppression that maintain that privileged status.

Emmet Till came to mind. I read that later the white female admitted he had done nothing to her.

[dneal]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

Chuck answers his own question in the thread’s title with a resounding “no”.

@dneal thinks speaking the truth is uncivil. roll eyes emoji inserted.

"White men wear [sic] petrified of black male slaves" is neither truthful nor civil.

[Chuck Naill]

No sex before marriage, no masturbation, no same-sex sex, no condoms, no birth-control pills, no abortion, celibacy, etc.

And the solution to all related issues is abstinence.

Wow.

The idea of sexual sin tends to take over extremist minds. Especially male minds, like that of Paul of the New Testament. He was an early promulgator of neurotic ideas of sexual purity culture. One of the worst things to happen to women of the world was the elevation of Paul's writing in the cannon.

White men wear petrified of black male slaves.

Chuck answers his own question in the thread’s title with a resounding “no”.

@dneal thinks speaking the truth is uncivil. roll eyes emoji inserted.

"White men wear [sic] petrified of black male slaves" is neither truthful nor civil.

Did Tucky tell you that?

[dneal]

"White men wear [sic] petrified of black male slaves" is neither truthful nor civil.

Did Tucky tell you that?

You're the only one who pays attention to what Tucky says.

Probably a good time for this reminder:




This is Chuck.
When the topic is too tough for him to understand Chuck goes inanely off-topic.
Chuck thinks his distraction prevents you from noticing his inability to engage in genuine discussion.
Don't be Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

You are so consistently and persistently either ignorant or just wrong that it surprises me you can continue to post here.

[dneal]

You are so consistently and persistently either ignorant or just wrong that it surprises me you can continue to post here.

Hmmm.


Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.

and


Who wants to be associated with such hypocrisy?


Yeah, Don't be Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

And please, I’d you want to be the sort who can never do the right thing, be a dneal. He consistently provides a template of what’s wrong in America.

[dneal]

And please, I’d you want to be the sort who can never do the right thing, be a dneal. He consistently provides a template of what’s wrong in America.


Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.


Who wants to be associated with such hypocrisy?

lol

[Chuck Naill]

Oh my, the ad hominem queen cry’s foul….🤣😂🤪

[dneal]

Oh my, the ad hominem queen cry’s foul….🤣😂🤪

Cry foul? No Chuck, I'm laughing at you because they're your words! LMAO!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Oh my, the ad hominem queen cry’s foul….🤣😂🤪

Cry foul? No Chuck, I'm laughing at you because they're your words! LMAO!!!

I had heard you didn't have an ass.

[dneal]

That one was pitiful.

[Lloyd]

To answer this thread's title question, I doubt that a civil discussion can be held regarding ANY subject in this subforum, whether about abortion, Trump, religion, misinformation, global warming, pizza toppings, ice cream flavors, or bunion pads.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

To answer this thread's title question, I doubt that a civil discussion can be held regarding ANY subject in this subforum, whether about abortion, Trump, religion, misinformation, global warming, pizza toppings, ice cream flavors, or bunion pads.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, you're right. I wish it were otherwise.

[Chuck Naill]

Troll usually win since the rest of us just put them on ignore or stop posting. The trolls would never admit their the reason.

[dneal]

Chuck, you already outed yourself as the troll in the Ukraine thread.

[Chuck Naill]

That was your sacred cow.

[dneal]

That was your sacred cow.

Umm, no; but your reasons for being a troll do not change the fact that you are a troll - all the while leveling the charge against others - reinforcing that you’re also a hypocrite.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, you already outed yourself as the troll in the Ukraine thread.



That was your sacred cow.

Umm, no; but your reasons for being a troll do not change the fact that you are a troll - all the while leveling the charge against others - reinforcing that you’re also a hypocrite.

Yeah, you got your shorts in a wad and it shows. That you bring it up after a month proves the point.

Your neither as bright or right as you pretend.

I have fewer who ignore me than you if that helps.

[dneal]

I got my shorts in a wad? I simply got you to show your true colors in the Ukraine thread. All it took was a little faux outrage. "Chuck, STOP!!!"; and you went in full troll mode.

Easy.

Truth be told, you're the one who is concerned with: being ignored, trolling, who is "bright", rep power and all sorts of silly things. You post about it all the time. Confession through projection. It's kind of sad.

[Lloyd]

dneal - re-read your post, #147. Are you acting in a way to support your entry? Bickering like school girls?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Bickering like school girls?

School girls are usually smarter and more entertaining. :flirt:

[Chip]

A cartoon on the topic.

https://i.imgur.com/fmpym9q.jpg

I was wondering if the businesses (MacDonald's, WalMart, Amazon) that keep wage slaves on the brink of starvation support so-called pro-life causes, as a matter of supply-side economics.

[TSherbs]

Bickering like school girls?

School girls are usually smarter and more entertaining. :flirt:

FYI, in my experience of 37 years of teaching high school, the males bicker much more than the girls. True on the faculty and administration, also.

[dneal]

dneal - re-read your post, #147. Are you acting in a way to support your entry? Bickering like school girls?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I still wish it were otherwise, and remember the discussions here before Trump broke many and turned them into babbling morons, now devoid of reason and only capable of rhetoric and vitriol as they view the world through their hyper-partisan lenses.

This is the place where supposed adults lost their fucking minds over raising a reasonable question about how to deal with a pandemic while minimizing economic damage. This is the place where morons now parrot "HORSE DEWORMER" instead of being reasonable and considering all options for treating a novel corona virus. This is the place where people were incapable of answering a genuine question about what (aside from the obnoxiousness) they disagreed with in regard to Trump. Nothing but chimpscreaming about he's a racist, he's a mysoginist, etc...

It didn't use to be like this. I wish it were otherwise. I've tried to be reasonable. Again, look at the Ukraine thread as a more recent example. I'm not the idiot posting "TRUMP" in there.

It's not just the far left, but that's what predominately resides here. There are plenty of far right places I visit, and I fuck with those guys too.

So be it. It's not the real world. It's an internet forum, and has zero impact on my life. I'll play along and post as it suits me. It's occasional entertainment during a week of rain. A virtual round of whack-a-moron. Chuck's the only one who'll regularly play, but Chip does pop up on occasion.

[Lloyd]

Based on your second to last paragraph, it seems that you actually want to cause this havoc. It's sort of a game. Unfortunately, triggering the others is triggering you. When they name call, you name call. According to the last paragraph, you're referring to this as fun. However, you're saying you wish you weren't becoming like this.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I saw an interview with a Planned Parenthood rep from Maine who said that they've already seen an uptick (in recent years) in out-of-state patients for abortions and are now making changes in anticipation of more. The governor said yesterday that these women are welcome. New England governors met yesterday to solidify their commitment to encoding abortion protections into law. Someone has to help the women of those red states.

[dneal]

Based on your second to last paragraph, it seems that you actually want to cause this havoc. It's sort of a game. Unfortunately, triggering the others is triggering you. When they name call, you name call. According to the last paragraph, you're referring to this as fun. However, you're saying you wish you weren't becoming like this.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Part of the problem is that everyone wants to ascribe motive, which is bickering little girl levels of discussion. "Susie is a big meanie". "Amanda hates purple people".

You do this. "dneal wants to cause havoc".

I'm certainly not triggered. I point out the irrationality and hypocrisy of a poster's own statements. I literally mimic Chuck's posts back to him. I quote his own words to point out his hypocritical behavior. I have said repeatedly "don't be an ass, and I won't either". Many demonstrate repeatedly that they can only dish it out, and not take it; but it never dawns on them that they play a part in the "havoc". More hypocrisy. I find the faux outrage (hell, maybe it's even genuine) humorous, mainly in that those who exhibit it seem completely unaware of their own behavior. Perhaps that's why they (you?) assume I must be triggered, or outraged, as well. Nope.

So if that's the way posters here want this forum to be, fine. I can indeed find fun in it. It becomes a game of "dozens". Although you are attempting some high ground here, your hands are not clean either.

That doesn't mean I don't wish it were otherwise.

[Chuck Naill]

From what I am reading, most Americans support first trimester abortive rights. By week 20-22 lots of things are going on inside the womb. What Kermit Gosnell was doing, most people would be appalled if they knew what was occurring if they were informed.

One problem is that the Pro Life movement is being mischaracterized. Most do not understand the issues except abortion rights being diminished or taken away.

If it were possible to come to a sense of compromise that would allow free birth control and in the situations of rape, incest, or life, abortion would be available.

I am also learning that adoptions are not as expensive as I had read. This is good news.

[dneal]

Good post, Chuck.

It seems that much of the problem is each extreme (under any circumstance vs under no circumstance) attempting to force the discussion into those choices. The Mississippi 15 week law seems reasonable, although generally I find abortion to be a reprehensible alternative to other contraceptive choices that should have been made.

[TSherbs]

One problem is that the Pro Life movement is being mischaracterized.

Mischaracterized how? I understand the legal movement to be about eliminating abortion on demand (which has been eliminated) and now more recently as an effort to restrict access even more (down to 15 weeks, which also succeeded), and then combine with an effort to move conservative justices onto the SC (which has succeeded) and then to try to overturn Roe (which appears to have succeeded). This is how the pro-life movement has been characterized for decades, and they never denied it.

Do you see any part of this a mischaracterization?

I have also read of pro-life legislators attempting to introduce laws defining the start of life and personhood at the moment of conception. This, I would characterize, has been an attempt by prolifers to begin the process of criminalizing and outlawing all forms of termination of pregnancy, including pharmacological. Is this a mischaracterization of those attempts at establishing new laws?

[TSherbs]

If it were possible to come to a sense of compromise that would allow free birth control and in the situations of rape, incest, or life, abortion would be available.

Having no legal elective abortion available at any stage of pregnancy (except for victims of rape, etc) is not a "compromise" after 50 years of legal abortions sanctioned by the SC. I am an advocate of "compromise," but what you are suggesting is not one.

[Chuck Naill]

If it were possible to come to a sense of compromise that would allow free birth control and in the situations of rape, incest, or life, abortion would be available.

Having no legal elective abortion available at any stage of pregnancy (except for victims of rape, etc) is not a "compromise" after 50 years of legal abortions sanctioned by the SC. I am an advocate of "compromise," but what you are suggesting is not one.

Thanks for responding. I am open to suggestions. What sort of compromise would you support?

[TSherbs]

If it were possible to come to a sense of compromise that would allow free birth control and in the situations of rape, incest, or life, abortion would be available.

Having no legal elective abortion available at any stage of pregnancy (except for victims of rape, etc) is not a "compromise" after 50 years of legal abortions sanctioned by the SC. I am an advocate of "compromise," but what you are suggesting is not one.

Thanks for responding. I am open to suggestions. What sort of compromise would you support?

up to 15 weeks, abortion on demand (in other words, our present circumstance is already the compromise that has been worked out)

[Chuck Naill]

If it were possible to come to a sense of compromise that would allow free birth control and in the situations of rape, incest, or life, abortion would be available.

Having no legal elective abortion available at any stage of pregnancy (except for victims of rape, etc) is not a "compromise" after 50 years of legal abortions sanctioned by the SC. I am an advocate of "compromise," but what you are suggesting is not one.

Thanks for responding. I am open to suggestions. What sort of compromise would you support?

up to 15 weeks, abortion on demand (in other words, our present circumstance is already the compromise that has been worked out)

And I am not being argumentative, but have you seen a 15 week old fetus aka "little one"/Latin?

"Your baby now measures over 5 inches. They are the roughly the size of an orange. They are gaining weight and now weigh around 3 ounces.

The fetus is starting to experience light and sound for the first time.

The bones in its ears will be developing for the first time, and the fetus will be able to hear the sounds of your heart, digestive system, and voice. Even though the eyes of the fetus will remain closed, it will be able to sense and respond to light.

Week 15 will also see the fetus begin use of their arms and legs. Over the coming weeks, you may notice kicking and fidgeting.

A fetus will also be developing its grip at this stage and will be able to suck its thumb along with squinting and grimacing."

[TSherbs]

I am well aware of the stage of the fetus at that point. That's my compromise. I am not here to argue. You asked, I answered.

[Chuck Naill]

I am attempting to respond to your several previous posts. You said mine was no compromise. I gave you an opportunity to provide your compromise. I am not here to argue as well, but ending the life of a 15 week old fetus, does not feel like a compromise to me, based on the appearance and characteristics of a child at that stage. Maybe it does to you. I'll post a picture for those less informed of the stages.


The argument for abortion is two one sided. Abortion is what it is and Kermit Gosnell appalled many that took the time to see what he did. I would add that a female should be able to receive enough information to provide an informed consent.


As before, I am for the taxpayer providing free contraception and allowing a woman to have an abortion for her health, rape, incest, and other reasons possibly.

Not trying to be graffic. Maybe I should post a motorcycle ER trama or COVID 19 ICU photo to promote safe driving and vaccines.

[Chip]

I do enjoy a good verbal tussle, but get tired of screechy insults, ducking and dodging, faith-based BS, and trumperies.

That is, in this context I lack a worthy opponent. Alas!

[TSherbs]

One problem is that the Pro Life movement is being mischaracterized.

Mischaracterized how? I understand the legal movement to be about eliminating abortion on demand (which has been eliminated) and now more recently as an effort to restrict access even more (down to 15 weeks, which also succeeded), and then combine with an effort to move conservative justices onto the SC (which has succeeded) and then to try to overturn Roe (which appears to have succeeded). This is how the pro-life movement has been characterized for decades, and they never denied it.

Do you see any part of this a mischaracterization?

I have also read of pro-life legislators attempting to introduce laws defining the start of life and personhood at the moment of conception. This, I would characterize, has been an attempt by prolifers to begin the process of criminalizing and outlawing all forms of termination of pregnancy, including pharmacological. Is this a mischaracterization of those attempts at establishing new laws?

Chuck?

[Chuck Naill]

I’m confused by the last two responses. Rather than comment, explain yourselves.

[TSherbs]

You wrote that people have "mischaracterized" the pro-life movement. I am asking you to explain how you think that they have been mischaracterized.

[Chuck Naill]

You wrote that people have "mischaracterized" the pro-life movement. I am asking you to explain how you think that they have been mischaracterized.

The Pro Life Movement has been characterized as religious based. The idea that the unborn is a person has been misrepresented as a religious view. As I mentioned before, Scot Peterson was found guilty of murdering both his wife and unborn child.

We also now know a new DNA is present in the fertilized egg. This is science and not religion based.

In these conversations, the fetus are mostly ignored. Perhaps the Pro Life community has accomplshed an education for society that has been taught by the Pro Choice community that the fetus early on is a clump of cells.

My problem with the Pro Life community is you don't hear much about contraception, maybe this has a faith based component. Again, if you and your partner don't want to have children, there are better methods than abortion.

[Bold2013]

The problem with some contraception methods is that they prohibits implantation which would be equivalent to abortion at anytime for those who affirm life begins at conception.

[TSherbs]

You wrote that people have "mischaracterized" the pro-life movement. I am asking you to explain how you think that they have been mischaracterized.

The Pro Life Movement has been characterized as religious based. The idea that the unborn is a person has been misrepresented as a religious view. As I mentioned before, Scot Peterson was found guilty of murdering both his wife and unborn child.

We also now know a new DNA is present in the fertilized egg. This is science and not religion based.

In these conversations, the fetus are mostly ignored. Perhaps the Pro Life community has accomplshed an education for society that has been taught by the Pro Choice community that the fetus early on is a clump of cells.

My problem with the Pro Life community is you don't hear much about contraception, maybe this has a faith based component. Again, if you and your partner don't want to have children, there are better methods than abortion.

The core (base) of the pro-life movement in politics and efforts to change the law is mostly based in religious beliefs. But of course, not *only* religious beliefs.

[TSherbs]

The problem with some contraception methods is that they prohibits implantation which would be equivalent to abortion at anytime for those who affirm life begins at conception.

1) "Life" does not begin at conception. The gametes are just as "alive" as the zygote.

2) Natural menses in women destroys thousands and thousands (I can't remember the estimated number now) of fertilized eggs a year. This has been demonstrated and estimated statistically. In other words, most couples who practice unprotected sex (rhythm method or natural family planning) actually create fertilized eggs but do so so close to menses that they then destroy the fertilized egg/embryo through the the female's menstruation. In other words, they enjoy the benefit of the killing of the new "person" (not a word that I would use) through the natural bleeding process of the female. Heartless killers! (I wouldn't call them killers, but perhaps you will).

[Bold2013]

I’m not trying to argue (not smart enough to put up a good fight).

Just saying why many pro-lifers are not on the contraception train.

[Chuck Naill]

I read once that during the Obama years abortions decreased due to free contraception.

Bold mention abstinence. I’ve read that oral and anal sex are more popular since it does not lead to pregnancy.

Unwanted pregnancy and unwanted babies is a problem with no easy answers. There is no way most people don’t recoil from seeing pictures of an aborted late term fetus aka “little one “.

Our 27 week twins turn 11 today. I still can’t believe they made it. Most born so early don’t make it unscathed. Life is precious and I don’t want to not do all I can to allow life to happen.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The picture didn't bother me. Dealt with many unborn fetuses in my time. You get inured.

As for the abortion laws, it occurs to me that clinics could provide free morning after pills for women who feel that they are at risk of pregnancy. Of course that has to be within three days of conception to work. You can have oral contraceptives taken regularly to prevent a pregnancy and morning after pills in case of likelihood of pregnancy. There will always be some who cannot take these meds, and some who reject taking them, so it's never going to be 100% coverage but it will reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.

[Chuck Naill]

I’d hate to get to the post that an aborted person would no longer bother me, but I guess folks can get used to anything

[Empty_of_Clouds]

If you cannot find a way of internally dealing with stuff like that then you cannot be effective at your work.

[Bold2013]

Do you do research with dead babies?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No. I worked for nearly two decades in a Pathology department. Dead babies need to be examined, and then prepared suitably for the parents, if that is what they want.

[Bold2013]

Pathology is an amazing field.

[Chuck Naill]

If you cannot find a way of internally dealing with stuff like that then you cannot be effective at your work.

Were you taking care of living children before they died as a part of your work? In the NICU there is a room where caregivers can go when a patient doesn't make it. Usually when the child is dying or passing they staff sets up privacy screens for the parents and caregivers. Have you been in that situation with the dying child and parents?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No. These were aborted foetuses - for a variety of medical reasons, mostly genetic. However, that doesn't diminish the overall unpleasantness of the work and the need to find a form of acceptance.

[TSherbs]

In these conversations, the fetus are mostly ignored. Perhaps the Pro Life community has accomplshed an education for society that has been taught by the Pro Choice community that the fetus early on is a clump of cells.


No one here has been "ignoring the fetus." And, at the earliest moment, the fertilized egg is actually just one cell--not even a "clump" of cells. We have known this for decades (maybe a century?).

You wrote somewhere above that your grandchildren (I believe I am right about that) survived an early birth at 27 weeks. That's awesome. Some children have survived even earlier, some rather miraculously. This is why I offered the "compromise" of 15 weeks, because no fetus has survived being born that early, and several states had already worked out that limit as a form of legal compromise acceptable to many interested parties and to much of the electorate of America (if you check recent polls). You suggested that 15 weeks was not a compromise, that it was "ignoring" something. *Compromises* always involve both give and take. Perhaps it is you, actually, who is not able to compromise on this idea and will accept nothing but a total ban.

[Lloyd]

Is it that the fetus/cell-mass is assumed to have cognition, perhaps a thinking "soul", this early on, or is it that the cell-mass has the potential of being, in time, a human that determines when an abortion can no longer occur?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

As a aside, it is interesting to consider that only around 43% of an adult human being is human cells. The rest is made of microbial colonists. We are more microbe than human.

[Lloyd]

As a aside, it is interesting to consider that only around 43% of an adult human being is human cells. The rest is made of microbial colonists. We are more microbe than human.
Is this by volume, mass, or significance (you can live without your legs but not your heart)?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Mass I think. Though an argument could be made for significance too.

[Bold2013]

Is it that the fetus/cell-mass is assumed to have cognition, perhaps a thinking "soul", this early on, or is it that the cell-mass has the potential of being, in time, a human that determines when an abortion can no longer occur?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Ecc 11
5 As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb[a] of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

[Lloyd]

Is it that the fetus/cell-mass is assumed to have cognition, perhaps a thinking "soul", this early on, or is it that the cell-mass has the potential of being, in time, a human that determines when an abortion can no longer occur?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Ecc 11
5 As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb[a] of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
"God" makes dogs, too. They have cognition, have dreams when they sleep, have emotions. Should they be equally protected? What about cattle?
I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs. I'm vegetarian and have considered veganism. Humans seem to have less regard for non-humans (as well as wartime civilians and our homeless) than for a 15 week old fetus. I'm not sure why.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Only humans are made in His image.

Man has dominion over earth, plants and animals.

However the Bible is clear we are to treat them well. A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

[TSherbs]

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Only humans are made in His image.

Man has dominion over earth, plants and animals.


Yeah, the way that these words have been used to justify the self-righteousness of humanity has been one of the worst scourges on the planet. This anthrocentrism has spread like a disease across the planet, "subduing" all and having "dominion" the only way we know how: selfishly.

[Bold2013]

God is the focal point of the universe/existence but He has made us the focal point of earth

[Lloyd]

Does ruling over sentient animals give man the right to kill it for unnecessary food? To raise it for food? Medical testing? You get the gist. I'm not trivializing your beliefs, I'm trying to better understand them.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Not interested in going deeply into it (really off topic).

Just wanted to address your question about soul of the unborn and why humans are distinct from other forms of life.

[Lloyd]

I understand not wanting to have this drift. Your quotation doesn't mention a soul nor say if other creatures have a soul. It doesn't address when a human becomes a human, either.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

I take soul and spirit to be synonymous in Ecc 11:5.

Also the Bible says God knows people before conception. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you

[Bold2013]

And that’s why we have a hard time compromising on gestational age.

I can compromise on life threatening medical issues but they are truly limited and there is a way to handle those in good faith.

[Lloyd]

Does the Bible state if everything formed in the womb has a spirit? Could some (stillborns) have never had a spirit even of, at one point, it showed signs of life?
I know it's outside of the topic, but does the Bible say if God did or didn't know the other creatures before they were conceived? Once again, I'm not trying to mock you nor your religion, I'm sincerely curious what your Bible states to fully convince yourself of your thought on this topic.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

No. These were aborted foetuses - for a variety of medical reasons, mostly genetic. However, that doesn't diminish the overall unpleasantness of the work and the need to find a form of acceptance.

You wouldn’t know if it lessens unpleasantries.

EMT students work on cadavers.

The point is to abort a living fetus and let it die in front of your eyes, as with the staff who served Kermit Gosnell, MD.

[Chuck Naill]

Does the Bible state if everything formed in the womb has a spirit? Could some (stillborns) have never had a spirit even of, at one point, it showed signs of life?
I know it's outside of the topic, but does the Bible say if God did or didn't know the other creatures before they were conceived? Once again, I'm not trying to mock you nor your religion, I'm sincerely curious what your Bible states to fully convince yourself of your thought on this topic.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
There is an account of King David’s child dying 7 days post birth. He had fasted and prayed for God to allow the child to live. When the child died his response was there was no longer any reason to fast because the child is not coming back, but that later he, David, would go to him. So, clearly David considered his soul to be in a place where David would be with the child.

[Lloyd]

Does the Bible state if everything formed in the womb has a spirit? Could some (stillborns) have never had a spirit even of, at one point, it showed signs of life?
I know it's outside of the topic, but does the Bible say if God did or didn't know the other creatures before they were conceived? Once again, I'm not trying to mock you nor your religion, I'm sincerely curious what your Bible states to fully convince yourself of your thought on this topic.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
There is an account of King David’s child dying 7 days post birth. He had fasted and prayed for God to allow the child to live. When the child died his response was there was no longer any reason to fast because the child is not coming back, but that later he, David, would go to him. So, clearly David considered his soul to be in a place where David would be with the child.
That's not clear to me in your summary.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Does the Bible state if everything formed in the womb has a spirit? Could some (stillborns) have never had a spirit even of, at one point, it showed signs of life?
I know it's outside of the topic, but does the Bible say if God did or didn't know the other creatures before they were conceived? Once again, I'm not trying to mock you nor your religion, I'm sincerely curious what your Bible states to fully convince yourself of your thought on this topic.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It talks about Him knowing people before they were formed but no specifics how the spirit is applied to and away from the physical body (at least that I recall).

There are a few instances of God knowing or ordaining/predestined animals and plants. For example: the fish that swallowed Jonah.

It also talks about Gods continued provision for animals by giving them breath, shelter and food (that’s probably why the birds sing His praise continually).

[Chuck Naill]

I tend to think every living being has a soul.

That said, my twins born at 27 weeks continue to exhibit the same soul, which I think of as their personality characteristics. It was just that at 27 weeks it was not as developed.

I’m not offering this as proof to anyone, but it did impact me significantly.

[Lloyd]

It sounds like your Bible (remember, I was only taught the Old testament, and I don't believe it anymore) doesn't help in the abortion debate. If not all life started in the womb has a soul, perhaps human is right in aborting certain ones. Does the Bible give human the right to kill other human in times of war (what justifications for war are granted man) of in issuing a death penalty to another human?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My understanding of scripture both explicitly and implicitly is that all humans have souls (image bearers) which cannot be separated after conception or before death.

Yes biblically there are times when killing is permitted or even commanded.

[Chuck Naill]

It sounds like your Bible (remember, I was only taught the Old testament, and I don't believe it anymore) doesn't help in the abortion debate. If not all life started in the womb has a soul, perhaps human is right in aborting certain ones. Does the Bible give human the right to kill other human in times of war (what justifications for war are granted man) of in issuing a death penalty to another human?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don’t understand your concern. What’s evidence you have a soul? What’s a soul?

Are you asking if the 22 week fetus that Gosnell snipped their spinal cord has what you say you have?

Do you think something magic occurs immediately or soon after delivery?

[Chip]

What’s evidence you have a soul? What’s a soul?

Do you think something magic occurs immediately or soon after delivery?

What occurs upon delivery is the drawing of breath. Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul". It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach רוח in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament.

In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma

That is, the classical definition of a soul depends on the drawing of breath, taking in the air of the world. Before this, the flesh is only flesh, not possessed of a soul.

I think the Greeks had it right and the fanatical Catholics and fetus people have it wrong.

[Lloyd]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My understanding of scripture both explicitly and implicitly is that all humans have souls (image bearers) which cannot be separated after conception or before death.

Yes biblically there are times when killing is permitted or even commanded.
Your understanding is that all humans have souls by conception. Is this clear in the Bible or your interpretation?
Can you explain how the Bible gives humans the right to execute an imprisoned murderer versus only trying to rehabilitate them? Does it give humans the right to some type of self-judging system to determine who broke a law, sometimes a law that isn't mentioned in the Bible?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

It sounds like your Bible (remember, I was only taught the Old testament, and I don't believe it anymore) doesn't help in the abortion debate. If not all life started in the womb has a soul, perhaps human is right in aborting certain ones. Does the Bible give human the right to kill other human in times of war (what justifications for war are granted man) of in issuing a death penalty to another human?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don’t understand your concern. What’s evidence you have a soul? What’s a soul?

Are you asking if the 22 week fetus that Gosnell snipped their spinal cord has what you say you have?

Do you think something magic occurs immediately or soon after delivery?
The word SOUL I'm using was Bold's choice.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

What’s evidence you have a soul? What’s a soul?

Do you think something magic occurs immediately or soon after delivery?

What occurs upon delivery is the drawing of breath. Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul". It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach רוח in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament.

In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma

That is, the classical definition of a soul depends on the drawing of breath, taking in the air of the world. Before this, the flesh is only flesh, not possessed of a soul.

I think the Greeks had it right and the fanatical Catholics and fetus people have it wrong.

I don’t think most people, religious or not think breath and soul are the same.

I’ve read that the personality is a part of the soul. What’s your opinion?

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, just read your subsequent post.

[Chuck Naill]

Like I said, my personal experience is that premature children have traits which I consider personally. Others can agree or not, but I have seen this first hand.

[Lloyd]

Non-human animals have personalities, too. A baby has less personality than a mature monkey. Which was used in testing?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Non-human animals have personalities, too. A baby has less personality than a mature monkey. Which was used in testing?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Refer to my post #209. First sentence.

My Labrador puppy was more mature than a baby when I got her at 8 weeks. She knew how to poop and pee without getting it all over her and wipe herself if she needed.

That said, an 8 week old baby will surpass a Lab puppy over time. Human don't rub their rears on the ground to clean.

My Lab puppy has a different personality than my grandson's puppy. I think she had her personality before she was born and adapted to experiences after birth.

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding birth control, what if it becomes illegal. Do the Republicans want to make sex illegal also? What about living together?

If doctors go to jail for abortions, do preachers go to jail for marrying folks not okayed by the Republicans?

[Lloyd]

Non-human animals have personalities, too. A baby has less personality than a mature monkey. Which was used in testing?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


That said, an 8 week old baby will surpass a Lab puppy over time. Human don't rub their rears on the ground to clean.

Sadly, not all humans.
Also, humans scratch their butts when they itch. https://www.pawposse.com/why-do-dogs-rub-their-bottoms-on-the-floor/blog-394/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Non-human animals have personalities, too. A baby has less personality than a mature monkey. Which was used in testing?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


That said, an 8 week old baby will surpass a Lab puppy over time. Human don't rub their rears on the ground to clean.

Sadly, not all humans.
Also, humans scratch their buttons when they itch. https://www.pawposse.com/why-do-dogs-rub-their-bottoms-on-the-floor/blog-394/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

True…lol😂, but I suspect you get my point ?

[Chip]

I don’t think most people, religious or not think breath and soul are the same..
I gave you some evidence. You gave me an ill-informed opinion, based on your limited knowledge and considerable bias. Here's another view of the "soul."

It's a difficult thing to imagine, but according to Buddhist ideology, the you that you think of when you think of yourself -- the you reading this article right now -- doesn't really exist. Unlike almost every other religious faith or spiritual practice, in Buddhism, there is no concept of a "soul," eternal or otherwise. Instead, Buddhists believe that the soul, or "self" is only a temporary composite of matter, sensations, perceptions, thought and consciousness that dissipates and ceases to exist at death. For Christians, Jews and Muslims, the soul is largely synonymous with consciousness, and survives the demise of the body. In contrast, Buddhists believe the self, or the soul, to be an illusion -- merely the product of an impermanent mind, perception, sensation and ego. Because the mind, perception, emotion and consciousness are constantly changing, the self is ephemeral and cannot be considered an abiding entity.

https://classroom.synonym.com/the-buddhist-concept-of-the-soul-12086646.html

Buddhist practice relies strongly on the awareness of breathing and means to regulate and enhance it.

One of the oldest forms of Buddhist meditation is breath meditation, which was called anapanasati, or “mindfulness of breathing” in the early texts. The Buddha’s description makes it clear that this one form of meditation leads to advanced practice that culminates in liberation itself.

At its most basic, mindfulness of breathing is simply “keeping the breath in mind,” or being continuously aware of the sensations of the in- and out-breath. With practice, the mind can develop the ability to stay absorbed in the breath in a way that leads to blissful states of clarity and focus. Following the Buddha’s instructions, practitioners can then use meditation on the breath to cultivate liberating insight into the nature of mind and reality.

https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/meditating-with-the-breath/


I’ve read that the personality is a part of the soul. What’s your opinion?

See above. Not sure what you mean by personality or soul.

I believe in sa’áh naagháí bik’eh hózhóó, which I don't expect you to understand.

[TSherbs]

.

I believe in sa’áh naagháí bik’eh hózhóó, which I don't expect you to understand.

Several people are reading this thread. Just tell us what this means, for our collective curiosity and edification.

[Chuck Naill]

.
I gave you some evidence. You gave me an ill-informed opinion, based on your limited knowledge and considerable bias. Here's another view of the "soul."

It's a difficult thing to imagine, but according to Buddhist ideology, the you that you think of when you think of yourself -- the you reading this article right now -- doesn't really exist. Unlike almost every other religious faith or spiritual practice, in Buddhism, there is no concept of a "soul," eternal or otherwise. Instead, Buddhists believe that the soul, or "self" is only a temporary composite of matter, sensations, perceptions, thought and consciousness that dissipates and ceases to exist at death. For Christians, Jews and Muslims, the soul is largely synonymous with consciousness, and survives the demise of the body. In contrast, Buddhists believe the self, or the soul, to be an illusion -- merely the product of an impermanent mind, perception, sensation and ego. Because the mind, perception, emotion and consciousness are constantly changing, the self is ephemeral and cannot be considered an abiding entity.

https://classroom.synonym.com/the-buddhist-concept-of-the-soul-12086646.html

Buddhist practice relies strongly on the awareness of breathing and means to regulate and enhance it.

One of the oldest forms of Buddhist meditation is breath meditation, which was called anapanasati, or “mindfulness of breathing” in the early texts. The Buddha’s description makes it clear that this one form of meditation leads to advanced practice that culminates in liberation itself.

At its most basic, mindfulness of breathing is simply “keeping the breath in mind,” or being continuously aware of the sensations of the in- and out-breath. With practice, the mind can develop the ability to stay absorbed in the breath in a way that leads to blissful states of clarity and focus. Following the Buddha’s instructions, practitioners can then use meditation on the breath to cultivate liberating insight into the nature of mind and reality.

https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/meditating-with-the-breath/


I’ve read that the personality is a part of the soul. What’s your opinion?

See above. Not sure what you mean by personality or soul.

I believe in sa’áh naagháí bik’eh hózhóó, which I don't expect you to understand.

For someone who admits they don’t know what I said, you sure blathered on for a while.

Simmer down man. You’ll live longer…::lol!😂😂😂

[kazoolaw]

As much of this thread has devolved into a religious debate, I refer (without endorsement) you to prolifesf.com for an atheist prolife point of view.

[Chuck Naill]

:noidea:

[Chip]

. I believe in sa’áh naagháí bik’eh hózhóó.

Several people are reading this thread. Just tell us what this means, for our collective curiosity and edification.

If you copy the phrase and search it, you'll find quite a lot of material. In brief, it's the core belief of the Diné (Navajo) people, which translates as something like: Walk in Beauty. They believe in a universal harmony that orders all things, and try to stay in balance with it. I taught and counselled Diné students, who began teaching me their language (starting with jokes). As my interest developed, I took it on as my MA language and studied Diné culture and beliefs, which made a profound sort of sense.

The Diné have an intricate conception of the role of wind (and breath) in the scheme of things, pervading both the natural world and human and animal bodies. A good reference, which doesn't require knowledge of the Diné language, is Holy Wind in Navajo Philosophy by Jame Kale McNeley (U. Arizona Press, 1981).

[TSherbs]

Very interesting, thanks.

[Chip]

The language (Diné Bizaad) is very precise in describing the natural world, distance, direction, action, animal behavior, etc. Diné cosmology is detailed and given the lack of instruments and experimentation, strangely accurate.

For instance, it incorporates something very much like Bell's Theorem (quantum entanglement or "spooky action at a distance.")

Given the complexity of the known universe, virtually any account of creation rests on metaphor and assumes the form of an extended folktale. While I don't take any of it literally, the Diné creation myths are much richer and more beautiful than the euro-christian ones.

Yá'át'ééh.

[TSherbs]

I once read about a dozen Native American creation myths. Some were quite wild, and so refreshing not to have sin and punishment have such a central role in humans' first interactions with the divine.

[Chuck Naill]

The concepts of “total depravity” and “sin” are interesting to consider. Let’s say no Bible did exist. H

“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.

Let’s say all have not measured up to the glory of Donald Trump.

[Chip]

He who works in mysterious ways, his Twitter posts to form. . .

[kazoolaw]

...so refreshing not to have sin and punishment have such a central role in humans' first interactions with the divine.

Why do you think that is the case?

[Chip]

The Diné don't believe people are born bad (original sin) but only that they can become bad through their choices and actions.

Much of the belief system is based on cause and effect, in present terms. The causes are not always immediately clear, which lends a role to specialists who interpret them, and to practitioners, who prescribe and conduct ceremonies to alleviate them.

[kazoolaw]

...so refreshing not to have sin and punishment have such a central role in humans' first interactions with the divine.

Why do you think that is the case?


Bad question. Meant to ask what makes you think humans' first interaction with the divine was sin and punishment?

[Chip]

Bad question. Meant to ask what makes you think humans' first interaction with the divine was sin and punishment?

You have read Genesis and the Garden of Eden tale?

Takes a quick fella to beat the snake. . .

https://i.imgur.com/IboxVQt.jpg

[kazoolaw]

Yes Chip, I've read it. If you have you'd know that there were many interactions between God and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the episode of the apple.
I can't tell if TS [and you] are misrepresenting the story intentionally or from lack of familiarity with Genesis.

[Chuck Naill]

There were two trees in the garden. One led to death and the other life. One introduced the idea of good and evil. The other a path for living. Lots to unpack when considering, but I think most would agree with those concepts.

Trying to be good is a hard row to hoe.

[Chuck Naill]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

[TSherbs]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

It's the latter. They are prioritizing the survival of an unviable fetus over several other concerns, rights, and health problems, and ethical issues. It's pretty basic: either the survival of an unviable fetus counts more than all these other matters combined, or it does not. For me, it does not.

[Lloyd]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

It's the latter. They are prioritizing the survival of an unviable fetus over several other concerns, rights, and health problems, and ethical issues. It's pretty basic: either the survival of an unviable fetus counts more than all these other matters combined, or it does not. For me, it does not.
Some lawmakers are prioritizing solely on career/party advancement.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

It's the latter. They are prioritizing the survival of an unviable fetus over several other concerns, rights, and health problems, and ethical issues. It's pretty basic: either the survival of an unviable fetus counts more than all these other matters combined, or it does not. For me, it does not.
Some lawmakers are prioritizing solely on career/party advancement.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Yes, there's always the matter of winning elections, getting committee leadership appointments, running for higher office, etc.

[Chuck Naill]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

It's the latter. They are prioritizing the survival of an unviable fetus over several other concerns, rights, and health problems, and ethical issues. It's pretty basic: either the survival of an unviable fetus counts more than all these other matters combined, or it does not. For me, it does not.
Some lawmakers are prioritizing solely on career/party advancement.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I agree.

I dislike the vilification of Pro Life groups because there is a moral and justifiable reason to support the unborn. I think when you allow yourself to overlook the value of human life, it bleeds over in how you think of those around you.

[Lloyd]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

It's the latter. They are prioritizing the survival of an unviable fetus over several other concerns, rights, and health problems, and ethical issues. It's pretty basic: either the survival of an unviable fetus counts more than all these other matters combined, or it does not. For me, it does not.
Some lawmakers are prioritizing solely on career/party advancement.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I agree.

I dislike the vilification of Pro Life groups because there is a moral and justifiable reason to support the unborn. I think when you allow yourself to overlook the value of human life, it bleeds over in how you think of those around you.
Will those that support Pro Life continue to support the mother and child after the birth, throughout the child's adolescence?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Lawmakers are either ignorant or don’t care about the unintended consequences of making abortion a crime.

It's the latter. They are prioritizing the survival of an unviable fetus over several other concerns, rights, and health problems, and ethical issues. It's pretty basic: either the survival of an unviable fetus counts more than all these other matters combined, or it does not. For me, it does not.
Some lawmakers are prioritizing solely on career/party advancement.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I agree.

I dislike the vilification of Pro Life groups because there is a moral and justifiable reason to support the unborn. I think when you allow yourself to overlook the value of human life, it bleeds over in how you think of those around you.
Will those that support Pro Life continue to support the mother and child after the birth, throughout the child's adolescence?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes, the Pro Life community adopts both normal and hard to place children, plus provides gestational housing.

[Chuck Naill]

If one is simply for abortion and no restrictions, there is nothing required afterwards.

Abortion takes a toll. It is not the same as an appendectomy or tooth extraction. Females go through changes which serve to bring new life into the world. You can’t just turn off the faucet.

[Chip]

The faucet? :bad:

[Linger]

As of recent, Spain allows 16 year olds to have an abortion up to 14 weeks without parental consent.

As of beginning 2022, Columbia allows abortion up to 24 weeks.

Ireland introduced legislation that allows abortion up to 12 weeks in 2019.

Afghanistan just decreed that women have to cover their faces when presenting on tv.

Which direction does your state move towards?