In case some of you dont know, the Supreme Court has already ruled on abortion. Also, Republicans are slimy bastards.

[Ajay]

Is it moral to defend yourself from rape with lethal force?

Everybody has the right to self defense. Not sure how we got here from pro-abortive drugs.

 

[dank69]

Everybody has the right to self defense. Not sure how we got here from pro-abortive drugs.

Because a woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force and calling that immoral does not fly.

 

[Ajay]

Out of curiosity, does this disdain extend to birth control? If I remember correctly, the pill causes a fertilized egg to fail to stick to the uterine lining.

Also, how is your niece doing?

I don't have a great disdain for birth control. The teaching of the Catholic Church does not permit contraceptive devices/medications (except when needed to treat other unrelated disease). Birth 'control' is allowed using newer, more advanced natural means. They are potentially very effective, but require a lot of discipline that doesn't agree with couples. I'll take your word for how the pill works - I'm too lazy atm to look it up.

My niece is still in the same condition in the hospital, sadly. I'm doing a bit better having taken some time to come to grips with her death, for now at least. Thank you for asking.

 

[Ajay]

Because a woman has the right to defend her bodily integrity with lethal force and calling that immoral does not fly.

That's a fallacious argument, and you know it.

 

[dank69]

That's a fallacious argument, and you know it.

Feel free to make your case for why it is fallacious

 

[ivwshane]

I'll be honest and say the first chart took me aback a bit at the high fetal/embryonic death rates. It's a very sad statistic. Nonetheless, the first case proceeds from right action belonging proper to the married state. If there is a life created from sexual relations, it is lost due to natural means, not by will or intention of the respective parents. So long as the couple consents to sex (their right) and to caring and providing for any offspring therein created, there is no moral offense. There is a right an proper ordering to human nature and human activity which is bound to and limited by our biological state in the natural world. This has nothing to do with controlling a women's body.

These abortive pills are controlling a women's body and forcing the death of the fetus/embryo. The creation of these chemical intervention is a grave and horrific evil.

I'm guessing we are going to have to agree to disagree on these points, but there it is.

Whoa!!! So you are all in now on the government legislating morality?!

Do you know how horrible you sound?

So if a woman is raped, too bad for her she must carry the rapists child. That’s some fucked up shit!

If it is determined that the baby will be born with defects, you are totally cool with the child suffering as well as the mother. Talk about barbaric!

And of course if the birth of the child will kill the mother, well I guess then it’s the baby’s life over the mother then right?

Let me know which if any of these you disagree with.

 

[darkswordsman17]

People wondering why, despite them existing and being as effective, that pill contraceptives for men haven't taken off, just look at the men trying to prevent women from having control of their bodies as though its some morality issue. These are the same type of assholes that won't get a vasectomy but try to push a woman to get her tubes tied, despite a huge discrepancy in how invasive and impactful the procedures are.

I don't have a great disdain for birth control. The teaching of the Catholic Church does not permit contraceptive devices/medications (except when needed to treat other unrelated disease). Birth 'control' is allowed using newer, more advanced natural means. They are potentially very effective, but require a lot of discipline that doesn't agree with couples. I'll take your word for how the pill works - I'm too lazy atm to look it up.

My niece is still in the same condition in the hospital, sadly. I'm doing a bit better having taken some time to come to grips with her death, for now at least. Thank you for asking.

Uh, you literally just called it evil? And what exactly are these newer more advanced natural means? (Why do I have a hunch you're going to say rhythm method, pulling out, or the even more bizarro newer Catholic thing of pushing anal sex as a bypass for "OMG can't have sex til married, also babies!" idiocy?) You REALLY need to know what you're talking about before spouting off then. In fact, I'll save you some time, until you've actually talked to people that know this shit (and sorry Catholic priests don't count), you really should STFU.

 

[ivwshane]

People wondering why, despite them existing and being as effective, that pill contraceptives for men haven't taken off, just look at the men trying to prevent women from having control of their bodies as though its some morality issue. These are the same type of assholes that won't get a vasectomy but try to push a woman to get her tubes tied, despite a huge discrepancy in how invasive and impactful the procedures are.



Uh, you literally just called it evil? And what exactly are these newer more advanced natural means? (Why do I have a hunch you're going to say rhythm method, pulling out, or the even more bizarro newer Catholic thing of pushing anal sex as a bypass for "OMG can't have sex til married, also babies!" idiocy?) You REALLY need to know what you're talking about before spouting off then. In fact, I'll save you some time, until you've actually talked to people that know this shit (and sorry Catholic priests don't count), you really should STFU.

His views are strong enough to push on other people but aren't strong enough to be defended let alone stand up to scrutiny.

 

[senseamp]

GOP SCOTUS will have to shit or get off the pot.
Either alienate the religious right or alienate women and suburban voters from their party. Tough decision.

 

[ecogen]

I'll be honest and say the first chart took me aback a bit at the high fetal/embryonic death rates. It's a very sad statistic. Nonetheless, the first case proceeds from right action belonging proper to the married state. If there is a life created from sexual relations, it is lost due to natural means, not by will or intention of the respective parents. So long as the couple consents to sex (their right) and to caring and providing for any offspring therein created, there is no moral offense. There is a right an proper ordering to human nature and human activity which is bound to and limited by our biological state in the natural world. This has nothing to do with controlling a women's body.

These abortive pills are controlling a women's body and forcing the death of the fetus/embryo. The creation of these chemical intervention is a grave and horrific evil.

I'm guessing we are going to have to agree to disagree on these points, but there it is.

"As long as my intentions are good taking action that causes children to die is fine"

This is one of the most pathetic attempts at rationalization I have ever seen.

 

[Ajay]

This is one of the most pathetic attempts at rationalization I have ever seen.

You must have missed many P&N arguments over the years then.

 

[Ajay]

Anyway, came down sick and just got back to AT yesterday.
It's pretty obvious that I am one of the few on this board who are opposed to abortion. Why I bother posting about it at all is beyond me. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change mine. I should just stop because it always turns into a shit show. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. Clearly, I need to revisit the catholic stance on abortion from a theological and bio-ethical dimension. I'm repeating, for the most part, the same stuff I learned 20 years ago, and some issues have changed and need to be addressed differently as well.

I'm also seriously considering switching my party to 'independent'. While I support 80%+ of the democratic agenda, abortion/choice is clearly a litmus test that I don't pass. That kind of sucks, but it's the way it is.

 

[blackangst1]

Anyway, came down sick and just got back to AT yesterday.
It's pretty obvious that I am one of the few on this board who are opposed to abortion. Why I bother posting about it at all is beyond me. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change mine. I should just stop because it always turns into a shit show. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. Clearly, I need to revisit the catholic stance on abortion from a theological and bio-ethical dimension. I'm repeating, for the most part, the same stuff I learned 20 years ago, and some issues have changed and need to be addressed differently as well.

I'm also seriously considering switching my party to 'independent'. While I support 80%+ of the democratic agenda, abortion/choice is clearly a litmus test that I don't pass. That kind of sucks, but it's the way it is.

And then there are oddballs like me who personally are against abortion, but would not support making it illegal. Abortion always comes down to "when is it viable", and our laws nationwide are all over the place. Some states one can be charged with fetal homicide, others not. And even then, qualifications are all over the place.

Anyway.

 

[dank69]

Anyway, came down sick and just got back to AT yesterday.
It's pretty obvious that I am one of the few on this board who are opposed to abortion. Why I bother posting about it at all is beyond me. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change mine. I should just stop because it always turns into a shit show. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. Clearly, I need to revisit the catholic stance on abortion from a theological and bio-ethical dimension. I'm repeating, for the most part, the same stuff I learned 20 years ago, and some issues have changed and need to be addressed differently as well.

I'm also seriously considering switching my party to 'independent'. While I support 80%+ of the democratic agenda, abortion/choice is clearly a litmus test that I don't pass. That kind of sucks, but it's the way it is.

Found your problem.

 

[Ajay]

Found your problem.

It's a two way street bub. Even if you think your way is the only way.

 

[dank69]

It's a two way street bub. Even if you think your way is the only way.

I do not think my way is the only way. I have no deeply held beliefs. I change my opinion when presented with contradictory evidence.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I'm also seriously considering switching my party to 'independent'. While I support 80%+ of the democratic agenda, abortion/choice is clearly a litmus test that I don't pass. That kind of sucks, but it's the way it is.

So would you single-issue vote for people you largely don't agree with, or go for people you agree with 80% of the time? Because finding a person or party who represents your values 100% is impossible, unless you're the candidate

 

[JD50]

It's a two way street bub. Even if you think your way is the only way.

No, it is not a two way street. It's projection and I see it all the time from conservatives. Many of us here are open to having our minds changed by reason, logic, and most importantly evidence. If you don't believe me go back and look at my posts since my join date, my mind has been changed plenty of times.

 

[Ajay]

I'm not a conservatard. I don't vote based on single issues. I am not projecting, unlike kage, I do have deeply held beliefs that I only change when the preponderance of requires me to. I changed from a Republican to a Democrat, and have voted that way, because I became convinced that the democrats were trying to do more good than the republicans - who are only helping a narrow slice of Americans. I'm thinking of changing to an 'Independent'** just because I do not like the 'litmus test' of pro-abortion only that seems present in the democratic party. I don't pass that particular test. Climate change, universal healthcare, expansion of the social safety net with particular emphasis on the poor and working women (day care), etc., are all issues that deeply matter to me. Ya'll are judging me based on ONE particular issue - which is why I call it a litmus test. It's insanity that I cannot disagree with fellow democrats on one issue without being thrown to the wolves. I do not understand how it is that you cannot hear me. Or that none of you seems to know my posting history in P&N.

** Note, I didn't say 'Republican'. For crying out loud.

 

[Jaskalas]

Democrats claim to be free of the dogmatic yolk that holds Republicans as barbarians.

Yet in this case there is not a compromise presented, offered, or wanted? On the case of murdering children you convince yourselves that they are not human. Not worth consideration. Even one minute before birth. Somehow you think in an absolute. Right / wrong. Just as stupid as those who say "child" at conception, you would stand here and tell me fetus the day before they are born?

The age of viability is expanding with science. I do object to any argument telling us that killing a child at 7 months of pregnancy is not murder. Now sometimes there is a medical necessity. That part is obvious. What isn't obvious is why you are not willing to delve into the grey aspects of this, argue over when the line is crossed, and help find a compromise based on the age of gestation. To help ensure that this is done with humane consideration, without blind and wanton murder, or sidelining the mother's needs.

You could join me in finding reason with compromise, instead of reaching for that emotional reactionary response that Republicans are all too known for. You do not have to stoop to their level and counter with a measure of equal stupidity and ignorance. Yes, it is a child before they are born. No, it is not a child at conception. The earlier we can get it done - the better. Reasonable people should reach into that grey area, figure out a timeline that makes sense, and call it what it is with moral clarity. Making sure that this is handled in the most efficient and humane way possible.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not a conservatard. I don't vote based on single issues. I am not projecting, unlike kage, I do have deeply held beliefs that I only change when the preponderance of requires me to. I changed from a Republican to a Democrat, and have voted that way, because I became convinced that the democrats were trying to do more good than the republicans - who are only helping a narrow slice of Americans. I'm thinking of changing to an 'Independent'** just because I do not like the 'litmus test' of pro-abortion only that seems present in the democratic party. I don't pass that particular test. Climate change, universal healthcare, expansion of the social safety net with particular emphasis on the poor and working women (day care), etc., are all issues that deeply matter to me. Ya'll are judging me based on ONE particular issue - which is why I call it a litmus test. It's insanity that I cannot disagree with fellow democrats on one issue without being thrown to the wolves. I do not understand how it is that you cannot hear me. Or that none of you seems to know my posting history in P&N.

** Note, I didn't say 'Republican'. For crying out loud.

I’ve got news for you, there are many anti abortion democrats. The good news is that there is no litmus test for Democrat voters or for their candidates.

As a pro choice guy myself I’ll make you a promise, I’ll do everything I can and vote against any politician that forces you or anyone else to have an abortion. Will you reciprocate my good will and do everything you can and vote against any politician that forces anyone to have a baby?

 

[ivwshane]

Democrats claim to be free of the dogmatic yolk that holds Republicans as barbarians.

Yet in this case there is not a compromise presented, offered, or wanted? On the case of murdering children you convince yourselves that they are not human. Not worth consideration. Even one minute before birth. Somehow you think in an absolute. Right / wrong. Just as stupid as those who say "child" at conception, you would stand here and tell me fetus the day before they are born?

The age of viability is expanding with science. I do object to any argument telling us that killing a child at 7 months of pregnancy is not murder. Now sometimes there is a medical necessity. That part is obvious. What isn't obvious is why you are not willing to delve into the grey aspects of this, argue over when the line is crossed, and help find a compromise based on the age of gestation. To help ensure that this is done with humane consideration, without blind and wanton murder, or sidelining the mother's needs.

You could join me in finding reason with compromise, instead of reaching for that emotional reactionary response that Republicans are all too known for. You do not have to stoop to their level and counter with a measure of equal stupidity and ignorance. Yes, it is a child before they are born. No, it is not a child at conception. The earlier we can get it done - the better. Reasonable people should reach into that grey area, figure out a timeline that makes sense, and call it what it is with moral clarity. Making sure that this is handled in the most efficient and humane way possible.

I’ll give you the same offer I have Ajay, I’ll do everything I can to make sure no ones forces you to have an abortion and I’ll vote against any politician that supports forcing you or anyone else having an abortion. Will you do the same for me and do everything you can to stop above anyone from forcing anyone to have a baby and will you vote against any politician that supports forcing anyone to have a baby?

 

[Vic]

I'm not a conservatard. I don't vote based on single issues. I am not projecting, unlike kage, I do have deeply held beliefs that I only change when the preponderance of requires me to. I changed from a Republican to a Democrat, and have voted that way, because I became convinced that the democrats were trying to do more good than the republicans - who are only helping a narrow slice of Americans. I'm thinking of changing to an 'Independent'** just because I do not like the 'litmus test' of pro-abortion only that seems present in the democratic party. I don't pass that particular test. Climate change, universal healthcare, expansion of the social safety net with particular emphasis on the poor and working women (day care), etc., are all issues that deeply matter to me. Ya'll are judging me based on ONE particular issue - which is why I call it a litmus test. It's insanity that I cannot disagree with fellow democrats on one issue without being thrown to the wolves. I do not understand how it is that you cannot hear me. Or that none of you seems to know my posting history in P&N.

** Note, I didn't say 'Republican'. For crying out loud.

Democrats are not "pro-abortion." They are pro-womens rights. That's a distinction that's lost on many folks, especially the self-righteous.

 

[Paratus]

I'm not a conservatard. I don't vote based on single issues. I am not projecting, unlike kage, I do have deeply held beliefs that I only change when the preponderance of requires me to. I changed from a Republican to a Democrat, and have voted that way, because I became convinced that the democrats were trying to do more good than the republicans - who are only helping a narrow slice of Americans. I'm thinking of changing to an 'Independent'** just because I do not like the 'litmus test' of pro-abortion only that seems present in the democratic party. I don't pass that particular test. Climate change, universal healthcare, expansion of the social safety net with particular emphasis on the poor and working women (day care), etc., are all issues that deeply matter to me. Ya'll are judging me based on ONE particular issue - which is why I call it a litmus test. It's insanity that I cannot disagree with fellow democrats on one issue without being thrown to the wolves. I do not understand how it is that you cannot hear me. Or that none of you seems to know my posting history in P&N.

** Note, I didn't say 'Republican'. For crying out loud.

The litmus test is one you (potentially) hold. If you won’t vote for any candidate because of a postion they are for or against then you have a litmus test.

There is no litmus test to as the voter. Your vote will be counted regardless.

Democrats claim to be free of the dogmatic yolk that holds Republicans as barbarians.

Yet in this case there is not a compromise presented, offered, or wanted? On the case of murdering children you convince yourselves that they are not human. Not worth consideration. Even one minute before birth. Somehow you think in an absolute. Right / wrong. Just as stupid as those who say "child" at conception, you would stand here and tell me fetus the day before they are born?

The age of viability is expanding with science. I do object to any argument telling us that killing a child at 7 months of pregnancy is not murder. Now sometimes there is a medical necessity. That part is obvious. What isn't obvious is why you are not willing to delve into the grey aspects of this, argue over when the line is crossed, and help find a compromise based on the age of gestation. To help ensure that this is done with humane consideration, without blind and wanton murder, or sidelining the mother's needs.

You could join me in finding reason with compromise, instead of reaching for that emotional reactionary response that Republicans are all too known for. You do not have to stoop to their level and counter with a measure of equal stupidity and ignorance. Yes, it is a child before they are born. No, it is not a child at conception. The earlier we can get it done - the better. Reasonable people should reach into that grey area, figure out a timeline that makes sense, and call it what it is with moral clarity. Making sure that this is handled in the most efficient and humane way possible.

Quite a bit of hubris you’ve got there. So you’ll be the one telling the mother of a wanted 7 month old fetus with a neural tube defect that she does not have the right to decide how her child’s life will end?

Or maybe you’ll be the one to tell the next 80lb 9 year old girl, raped by her step father they will have to risk death carrying twins to term like the local Catholic Church did in Brazil?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2018

This report summarizes abortion data for 2018 and describes trends in abortions during 2009–2018.

www.cdc.gov

.In 2018, approximately three fourths (77.7%) of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.2%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. In 2018, and during 2009–2018, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). In 2018, the highest proportion of abortions were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks’ gestation (52.1%), followed by early medical abortion at ≤9 weeks’ gestation (38.6%), surgical abortion at >13 weeks’ gestation (7.8%), and medical abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation (1.4%); all other methods were uncommon (<0.1%). Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 50.0% of abortions were early medical abortions. In 2017, the most recent year for which PMSS data were reviewed for pregnancy-related deaths, two women were identified to have died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion.

Facts don't care about feels. Roe v Wade decided a base line for viability and a woman's right to choose. We have far less abortions now than 40 years ago, and less than 10% are even after 13 weeks.

Meanwhile, you have the party of feels over facts making up whatever they want in their continuous virtue signaling

Heartbeat bill - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org