American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

A part of the hostility towards those who are against abortions on religious grounds is that the same group typically does not support up stream determinants of abortions IE comprehensive sex education and increased access to contraceptives.

These folks are not making solutions based arguments, they are offering wishful thinking.

Its not even just that, but you are correct, this is treating symptoms without creating fundamental solutions.

Education and access to contraceptives are excellent starts, but we shouldnt ignore societal reasons for abortions.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with most of your second paragraph. People who want time limits do not. But allowing a doctor to decide based on technology and ethics I do not. Either you believe that a person has a right to remove a foreign object from their body or you don’t.

I agree the Moral question is far more ambiguous.

Considering removal =/= destruction, inducing labour or performing a C-section would fulfill that right if you believe people have it, so it doesn't actually support your position.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by fleury

The outrage of this based on the slippery slope argument is so silly. This isn’t the end of the world and the United States isn’t going to become Saudi Arabia despite the hyperbole out there. Personally I like the idea of counter arguments for and against this ruling. You have to draw the line somewhere on that you establish life. And despite the argument that men are determining womens rights the question to me is there are consequences for the man as well. Child support payments. With reference to rape and incest situations, what percentage of those are there? Should there be exemptions for this type situations? I really wish people went back to debating these subjects because lines have to be drawn somewhere. Can’t have people aborting at 5 months or something. I’ve recently spoke to a few people who did have them and the reasoning seemed pretty Willynilly which really perked up my ears and made me think hard. There should be consequences to actions for men and women equally, no?

The slippery slope argument is going to be a reality.

question. Do you think the the American Government should legislate what types of sex consenting adults are allowed to do in their own home?

Clarance Thomas has already said that's one of the items coming next that he wants to "fix"

He also wants to eliminate the right of married couples to buy and use contraception without government restriction. Do you agree with that?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its not even just that, but you are correct, this is treating symptoms without creating fundamental solutions.

Education and access to contraceptives are excellent starts, but we shouldnt ignore societal reasons for abortions.

I couldn't agree more.

[BlindMilwaukee]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

He also wants to eliminate the right of married couples to buy and use contraception without government restriction.

Honestly, what is the goal with that?

Are they planning on having sex be monitored in the future as well to ensure there is no pulling out? This is all so bizarre.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I couldn't agree more.

But thats a serious problem in the US, its still a problem here but some countries make efforts to do things like:

Assume that we're talking about a young, potentially single mother.

- Continuing Education so that once your child is born you can look into getting into a career.

- Affordable Child Care so that education can be completed and work can be found.

Maybe if having a child isnt seen as smashing an 18-year Pause Button on someone's life they'd be less inclined to consider abortion.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by BlindMilwaukee

Honestly, what is the goal with that?

Are they planning on having sex be monitored in the future as well to ensure there is no pulling out? This is all so bizarre.

What is the goal of this, and how could it be enforced? If they outlawed pharmacy contraceptive sales there is always online purchases and buying contraceptives in another state such as one that permits these sales.

Outlawing contraceptive sales baffles me more than anything.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Considering removal =/= destruction, inducing labour or performing a C-section would fulfill that right if you believe people have it, so it doesn't actually support your position.

The outcome post removal is not relevant to how the law should be written.

[timun]

Originally Posted by BlindMilwaukee

Honestly, what is the goal with that?

Are they planning on having sex be monitored in the future as well to ensure there is no pulling out? This is all so bizarre.

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

[Locke]

Originally Posted by timun

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Yeah. Well. He probably should have taken the time to institute some parameters on that decree because we've got a serious over-population issue going on now.

The 'homosexual agenda' might just be them doing their part.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Locke

But thats a serious problem in the US, its still a problem here but some countries make efforts to do things like:

Assume that we're talking about a young, potentially single mother.

- Continuing Education so that once your child is born you can look into getting into a career.

- Affordable Child Care so that education can be completed and work can be found.

Maybe if having a child isnt seen as smashing an 18-year Pause Button on someone's life they'd be less inclined to consider abortion.

The whole religious (in the US) argument is they should be less inclined to have sex period because of the reasons you stated above. Yes, amazingly, they are still teach abstinence. You go to most of the world, this is still being taught.

[Inglewood Jack]

hey remember that time God killed a dude and then told his brother to impregnate his widow, but then that dude pulled out instead and so he got killed too? those were the days.

[PsYcNeT]

I have to imagine that anyone who honestly posits that there exist women getting 30+ week abortions for fun reasons have literally either never lived with a pregnant woman, or have such little care and connection with their spouse as to not notice how ####ing grueling the pregnancy process is. Especially for women with like, Gestational Diabetes, or Hyperemesis Gravidarum, or other debilitating complications.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

The outcome post removal is not relevant to how the law should be written.

But you were just talking about a right, not a law. There is a pretty big difference. Now you're saying a law should be written? Do you believe a country like Canada, which has no laws relating to abortion, should enact some? That doesn't seem consistent.

I'm also confused about how you intend to ensure the safety of the woman if you also want abortions to exist outside of the influence of medical regulations and the code of ethics.

At this point you seem to be advocating for unsafe abortions with some laws restricting them.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

What is the goal of this, and how could it be enforced? If they outlawed pharmacy contraceptive sales there is always online purchases and buying contraceptives in another state such as one that permits these sales.

Outlawing contraceptive sales baffles me more than anything.

In all of these, there's an element of control, but also it allows them carte blanche to punish those they want to punish: Libs, people of colour, gays.


Their people will get away with it, but if they can find a reason to throw one of the above in jail, get a criminal record, etc. even better.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

hey remember that time God killed a dude and then told his brother to impregnate his widow, but then that dude pulled out instead and so he got killed too? those were the days.

Werent they though?

NSFW!

[BlindMilwaukee]

A poster mentioned earlier a number like 6 million estimated abortions since Roe v Wade?

Is it really so dark to think that parts of the US gov feel ripped off on having fewer taxpayers/military members/religious citizens/citizens they may be able to convince of their own political agendas?

[afc wimbledon]

The goal is to return sex to a sinful act that results in an appropriate punishment, the birth of a child and lifelong poverty.

The Catholic faith grew to view all sex as a sinful, even within a marriage, therefore a godly country forces its inhabitants to live a godly life by making sex an inherent risk, my guess is divorce will also be on the chopping bloc in the fulness of time

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by BlindMilwaukee

A poster mentioned earlier a number like 6 million estimated abortions since Roe v Wade?

Is it really so dark to think that parts of the US gov feel ripped off on having fewer taxpayers/military members/religious citizens/citizens they may be able to convince of their own political agendas?

Abortions happened before Roe v Wade. They were just illegal and more dangerous where they were banned.

[BlindMilwaukee]

^ For sure, I was just trying to recall the number posted.