Is This the End of Roe v. Wade?

[LordofPillage]

Thank you for the response.

It sounds like your journey to faith was primarily an intellectual one. Was there ever any experiential evidence for you along the way?

I guess what I’m asking is, how would you historically expect someone without your background and knowledge and ability to critically analyze the Bible to come to faith? What about the person who does what you did, but draws completely different conclusions?

Edit: I should state that I AM NOT “attacking” your faith in any way. I am genuinely curious about these things.

[LordofPillage]

@H_factor

I don’t think life is meaningless at all I just don’t think I will “go somewhere” when dead.

I’m referring to ultimate meaning. Not subjective, daily purpose.

[Bauber]

@Andrewgen_Receptors

Just stop pretending that government overreach is “okay” when it’s your party bending you over the table… It’s never okay.

Exactly.

[mnben87]

@DoubleDuce

I can’t run out onto the highway, or even lay on the train tracks (where no one else is at risk). I can’t jump the counter at the DVM.

These impact others, so IMO they are justified. If we don’t have a good justification for a law, I would remove my support of that law.

@DoubleDuce

And you don’t see an argument that abortion negatively impacts another?

Yes I do. Here though we have conflicting rights. Right to life and right to personal autonomy. I think personal autonomy trumps right to life in this situation, and society / the law for other topics of similar scope also favors personal autonomy over right to life (ex. we don’t have forced blood, or organ donations).

[Andrewgen_Receptors]

@mnben87

If we don’t have a good justification for a law, I would remove my support of that law.

Curious what your thoughts on the Patriot Act are.

[mnben87]

TBH, I don’t know that much about it. I think one of the provisions allows federal officials to hold migrants for indefinite amounts of time, right?

[zecarlo]

@Bauber

As if anybody would fuck them anyways.

If I have learned one thing in life it’s that no matter how ugly, fat, mean, stupid, etc. a woman is, there is at least one guy out there who will fuck her.

[Andrewgen_Receptors]

Maybe, but I’m getting at allowing the US government to effectively spy on it’s own citizens ‘for the good of the people’ post-9/11 (which is still in effect).

By ‘spying’ I DO mean spying btw.

[DoubleDuce]

@mnben87

These impact others, so IMO they are justified. If we don’t have a good justification for a law, I would remove my support of that law.

So jumping the desk at the DVM is enough impact to justify losing bodily autonomy, but slitting the throat of another human is not. I think your calibration is off. You’d have more of a case if abortion was the removal of a fetus. It isn’t. Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn. Like, in the later term abortions they literally go in and slit the baby’s throat to kill it first which isn’t necessary to getting the fetus out.

@mnben87

Yes I do. Here though we have conflicting rights. Right to life and right to personal autonomy. I think personal autonomy trumps right to life in this situation, and society / the law for other topics of similar scope also favors personal autonomy over right to life (ex. we don’t have forced blood, or organ donations).

Hold on here. Creating a child imposes all kinds of limits on autonomy. And not just on what I’m not aloud to do. There is a minimum standard of care REQUIRED of parents or you go to jail. Even to get rid of the kid you HAVE to do it in proper channels. When my 3 year old is home I HAVE to take care of him and I CANNOT walk out of the house and leave him there. We force people who create other humans to do all sorts of things with their bodies. If a pregnant woman gives birth in a bathroom and literally walks away leaving the child to die, they go to prison. It isn’t some special imposition or right being asked for the unborn, it’s the opposite. Pro-life people want the same applications of requirements as the born.

[mnben87]

Well, I don’t want to get ahead of myself and my limited knowledge of the bill.

I don’t think we should be able to hold migrants for indefinite amounts of time on suspicion of terrorism. I don’t think one should have to be a citizen to get a speedy trial.

I have heard the bit about spying IIRC. I don’t know all the details. What triggers them spying for example. It is a bit different to spy on a guy that posts on 4 chan about shooting up a school vs general citizens. For the former, I would say:

@mnben87

Or even “your rights to swing your fist ends when there is a reasonable chance your fist hits my nose”.

Would be justification. There is a reasonable chance that this guy is going to do some bad shit. I think his right to privacy there ends because allowing him to keep that results in a reasonable chance of serious harm.

IDK, I haven’t thought all that much on this topic.

@DoubleDuce

Like, in the later term abortions they literally go in and slit the baby’s throat to kill it first which isn’t necessary to getting the fetus out.

Maybe you haven’t seen some of my posts above? I was taking with RTNomad, and we discussed some of this.

Based on my line of argument, abortion isn’t necessarily killing the unborn. It is aborting the pregnancy. Removal of the fetus to be on it’s own is satisfactory to me.

I have a feeling that in most cases the unborn is killed because that is more humane than not doing so (leaving it to die on it’s own).

@DoubleDuce

Even to get rid of the kid you HAVE to do it in proper channels.

You are legally allowed to drop a baby off at the fire department and they have to take it. Maybe the post office too?

I think that what the limits are for what you can do with your body, vs what you can do to your body is a bit apples to oranges.

@DoubleDuce

It isn’t some special imposition or right being asked for the unborn, it’s the opposite. Pro-life people want the same applications of requirements as the born.

This is interesting to me. I’ll pose the same question I posed to RTNomad above here. I think this thought experiment is pretty good at sorting out inconsistent thinking.

@mnben87

1. The born and unborn have equal rights
2. If the unborn have rights to the mother, so do the born (given it doesn’t kill the mother)
3. The born requires a kidney donation and no other is available besides the mother’s kindney
4. The mother should be forced to donate a kidney

I think that is consistent. Where it wouldn’t be consistent is if you disagreed with #4.

It could be consistent if you didn’t agree with #4, if you also didn’t agree with #1, specifically that the unborn have more rights than the born.

Or you could take my line of reasoning that neither the born or unborn have rights to the mother’s body.

[DoubleDuce]

@mnben87

Based on my line of argument, abortion isn’t necessarily killing the unborn. It is aborting the pregnancy. Removal of the fetus to be on it’s own is satisfactory to me.

That’s a fine stance, but we then agree many types of abortions currently legal should be made illegal. This is closer in line with the conservatives.

@mnben87

I have a feeling that in most cases the unborn is killed because that is more humane than not doing so (leaving it to die on it’s own).

I disagree. And my moral judgments aside, I’m assuming you would take this view of unwanted, destined to suffer, born children also. Since all the same arguments apply.

@mnben87

You are legally allowed to drop a baby off at the fire department and they have to take it. Maybe the post office too?

You mean you’d force me to use my body to provide those services?

@mnben87

I think that what the limits are for what you can do with your body, vs what you can do to your body is a bit apples to oranges.

There are plenty of other similar regulations for both cases already mentioned.

@mnben87

1. The born and unborn have equal rights
2. If the unborn have rights to the mother, so do the born (given it doesn’t kill the mother)
3. The born requires a kidney donation and no other is available besides the mother’s kindney
4. The mother should be forced to donate a kidney

I think that is consistent. Where it wouldn’t be consistent is if you disagreed with #4.

It could be consistent if you didn’t agree with #4, if you also didn’t agree with #1, specifically that the unborn have more rights than the born.

Or you could take my line of reasoning that neither the born or unborn have rights to the mother’s body.

There are a lot of logical inconsistencies here. Caring a child is the default, natural non-intervention. Kidney donation is not.

Making abortion illegal also doesn’t negate the ability to remove a child from the mother. You’re using an especially narrow idea of abortion. Inducement is still legal. C-section is still legal. I don’t think anyone has argued against either of those things. And I don’t think there are any proposed laws against them. Abortion being illegal literally just means that you can’t poison the child or slit their throats first. You are missing that the killing is an integral step in abortion. If a woman goes in for an abortion and the child ends up surviving the procedure, but is successfully removed from the mother, it’s called a failed abortion. What they did instead was deliver a baby which is still perfectly legal even with abolition outlawed… Literally the only point of an abortion vs inducement or c-section is to kill the fetus first and remove, not the requirements on the mother during pregnancy, but after birth.

[RT_Nomad]

Well, for grins, how would Clarence Thomas having a vote of only 3/5 have changed the outcome of the vote?

[DoubleDuce]

Dissecting jokes is like dissecting frogs. It’s unpleasant, no one likes it, and the frog always dies as a result.

[DoubleDuce]

To be clear with MNben, it sounds like we mostly agree that much of what is done at planned parenthood should be illegal. But I don’t like the overly broad use of terminology. There is a lot of political pandering and obfuscation that uses these sorts of untrue word usages. MOST people favor banning at least things like partial birth abortions (even many on the left) which would put them in favor of overturning roe if things were discussed honestly.

[mnben87]

@DoubleDuce

@mnben87

Based on my line of argument, abortion isn’t necessarily killing the unborn. It is aborting the pregnancy. Removal of the fetus to be on it’s own is satisfactory to me.

That’s a fine stance, but we then agree many types of abortions currently legal should be made illegal. This is closer in line with the conservatives.

It is kinda semantics on what should be done. Before viability, what difference does it make? The result is the same.

I think one could make an argument that if killing the unborn is safer for the mother, that she would then be justified to make that decision.

@DoubleDuce

I’m assuming you would take this view of unwanted, destined to suffer, born children also. Since all the same arguments apply.

No. I think terminating the pregnancy is justified by the woman having rights to her own body. There wouldn’t be a justification for the killing of a born child.

I don’t think suicide should be illegal though. If that individual is suffering and doesn’t want to go on, then they should be allowed to make the call.

@DoubleDuce

You mean you’d force me to use my body to provide those services?

Do we really need to pretend that taking a baby to the fire department is anywhere close to the scope of pregnancy and delivery?

One of those things involves major changes to the woman’s body, puts here at a risk of death (that is much higher than going to the fire department).

It is reasonable to require someone to rescue a child drowning in a fountain, it isn’t so reasonable require someone run into a burning building to save a child. That is about the difference in scope that you are proposing is the same.

@DoubleDuce

There are a lot of logical inconsistencies here.

Can you point them out?

@DoubleDuce

Caring a child is the default, natural non-intervention. Kidney donation is not.

This isn’t one of them. Assuming one is better because it is natural and the other isn’t is not rational. Dying of untreated cancer is natural, chemo isn’t. Which one is the better option. Which one should be done for someone with cancer? The natural non-intervention?

@DoubleDuce

You’re using an especially narrow idea of abortion. Inducement is still legal. C-section is still legal.

Those things are for after viability. What if the mother doesn’t want to wait until viability because she doesn’t want her body to change in a way she doesn’t like?

@DoubleDuce

You are missing that the killing is an integral step in abortion.

I am not missing that. I don’t necessarily see the killing being logically supported with my line of reasoning. I think it is a convenient side effect for the mothers of unwanted pregnancies. They wouldn’t do an abortion if the unborn were removed and survived. I think that the viability bans are correct, but not for the stated reasons (the child feeling pain). It is correct because at that point abortion should only remove the unborn. The fact is basically nobody would do that procedure, so in practice has the same effect (no abortions after viability).

@DoubleDuce

But I don’t like the overly broad use of terminology.

Terms are important, and I am not always the best with them.

@DoubleDuce

MOST people favor banning at least things like partial birth abortions (even many on the left) which would put them in favor of overturning roe if things were discussed honestly.

I could be wrong here, but didn’t Roe establish that abortion would be banned after viability? I think they got that right.

[Alrightmiami19c]

“honey I’m going into labor. Grab a gun and let’s get to a school.”

“Why don’t we go to the hospital?”

“Because this is what the supreme court wants!”

“Should I grab the Glock or SIG?”

“We’re having a girl.”

“Ah, Benelli it is.”

[RT_Nomad]

@LordofPillage

It sounds like your journey to faith was primarily an intellectual one. Was there ever any experiential evidence for you along the way?

I would prefer to call it more analytical. I don’t know of any experimental evidence that was shared with me. In fact, most here would be surprised that if I did find proof that God existed, I would greatly question the existence of the God of the Bible. (Heb 11:1)

@LordofPillage

I guess what I’m asking is, how would you historically expect someone without your background and knowledge and ability to critically analyze the Bible to come to faith?

I would not expect anyone without a strong mathematical/science background to find faith in the Bible as I did. I look for contradictions (reasons to question the Bible as the word of God). IMO, most people are looking for affirmation of their faith.

@LordofPillage

What about the person who does what you did, but draws completely different conclusions?

In different life circumstances I might have come to a different conclusion. Maybe it was Holy Spirit led quest in my case at that moment of my life.

Each person’s relationship with God is personal. If it isn’t personal, maybe “give diligence to make your calling and election sure,” 2 Peter 1:10

IMO, there is no certainty that I at a different time would come to the same conclusions.
Remember, that I started in high school as a devote atheist/agnostic whose sole religious purpose was to critique the ignorance of professing Christians.

[Bauber]

@Alrightmiami19c

“Ah, Benelli it is.”

Girls would not enjoy my M4 Benelli with 3 inch slugs. Hell even I don’t after awhile.

Now a M2 Field in 20 gauge… yes sir.

I am a little offended though because I love Benelli shotguns.

[Alrightmiami19c]

@mnben87

but didn’t Roe establish that abortion would be banned after viability?

Nope. There were, and are plenty of states with on demand abortion up to the moment of birth.

[Alrightmiami19c]

@Bauber

I am a little offended though because I love Benelli shotguns.

Lol. I like their shotguns too, but frankly can’t afford them. All my duck hunting buddies run Benellis, so I like to pick on them due to my jealousy. The M4 is sweet.