US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade

[MC Bodge]

vaud said:

Newarch said:

I read a very interesting article regarding the importance of the adoption of Christianity by post Roman immigrants to Britain (Anglo Saxons, Vikings etc). Apparently pagan religions were no good for controlling a large underclass society, as they emphasised the importance of the individual, whereas Christianity emphasised the importance of working hard/humbleness in this life to be rewarded in the next.

Plus lots of big expensive churches to remind you how great god is and how insignificant you were (mighty cathedrals where you can donate money before returning to your hovel)

Can/were forced to give 10% of your income.

[Byker28i]

Tankrizzo said:

smn159 said:

Religious societies always look to keep women in their place and impose control over them.

I expect that there will be moves to keep girls from going to school next to 'protect the family'

Oatmeal on point again this morning:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Gods punishment is to let Nickleback release another album

[NRS]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There is no biblical justification for believing life begins at conception.

Genesis 2:7 says life begins at the first breath. This is backed up by the catholic church who will not baptise a stillborn baby. Exodus 21 22:25 says an unborn child is not a person. And Deuteronomy 18:24 says life is not sacred.

It gets worse for the God Squad, as not only is there no biblical evidence for life beginning at conception, but it appears God is a fan of abortion.

Kings 8:12 - God will open up pregnant women. Isiah 13:18 - God will kill unborn babies. Hosea 9 10:16 God will destroy babies in the womb and finally we get to Hosea 13:16 - God will dash infants into pieces and rip open pregnant women.

And of course, you have all the pregnant women drowned in the great flood, plus you have the killing of the first born in Egypt, the ultimate late term abortion.

I never said there was, it's what they believe though (and not all their beliefs are based on the details of the bible either). As I said before, quite a lot of non-religious people treat when life begins differently depending on the circumstances. In a miscarriage (including before 12 weeks) many morn the loss of their child. For example I have friends who each year morn/celebrate the unborn child they have lost in miscarriages. Yet when speaking about abortion rules it is not viewed as a life early on.

[InitialDave]

NRS said:

I never said there was, it's what they believe though (and not all their beliefs are based on the details of the bible either). As I said before, quite a lot of non-religious people treat when life begins differently depending on the circumstances.

The trouble is, their beliefs are allowed to have significant weight in decisions that affect those who do not share them, when said beliefs are not aligned with scientific or medical fact.

If you have a woman who is pregnant, and her doctor(s) with access to current research and data, there is no need for any other person to have an input into what is or isn't appropriate where an abortion is concerned.

[anonymous-user]

NRS said:

As I said before, quite a lot of non-religious people treat when life begins differently depending on the circumstances. In a miscarriage (including before 12 weeks) many morn the loss of their child. For example I have friends who each year morn/celebrate the unborn child they have lost in miscarriages. Yet when speaking about abortion rules it is not viewed as a life early on.

But this is a coping mechanism as much as anything else. Miscarriages are profoundly difficult events for any potential parent especially the mother who has all the hopes and optimism associated with a new baby cruelly dashed. It is often easier to process if you believe that there is a little life there which can be celebrated or commemorated.

The medical definition of the cut off for an abortion is based more on a scientific judgement on when an unborn child is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb. There is also the issue of viability, some medical conditions affecting the mother or child are judged sufficiently serious to consider an abortion medically necessary or desirable.

[Countdown]

InitialDave said:

If you have a woman who is pregnant, and her doctor(s) with access to current research and data, there is no need for any other person to have an input into what is or isn't appropriate where an abortion is concerned.

Nail on head.

To add, it must be beyond awful for the Mother having to deal with an extremely painful and personal decision. Anybody else who thinks they have the right to affect her decision should FRO.

[Jockman]

Countdown said:

InitialDave said:

If you have a woman who is pregnant, and her doctor(s) with access to current research and data, there is no need for any other person to have an input into what is or isn't appropriate where an abortion is concerned.

Nail on head.

To add, it must be beyond awful for the Mother having to deal with an extremely painful and personal decision. Anybody else who thinks they have the right to affect her decision should FRO.

Thankfully in civilised society these opinions are ignored.

It is far more complex than this.

[Rufus Stone]

Jockman said:

Countdown said:

InitialDave said:

If you have a woman who is pregnant, and her doctor(s) with access to current research and data, there is no need for any other person to have an input into what is or isn't appropriate where an abortion is concerned.

Nail on head.

To add, it must be beyond awful for the Mother having to deal with an extremely painful and personal decision. Anybody else who thinks they have the right to affect her decision should FRO.

Thankfully in civilised society these opinions are ignored.

It is far more complex than this.

Well, up to 24 weeks.

[InitialDave]

There's no need for any more complexity. Ensure women have the right to go to their doctors about abortion, and ensure doctors have the access they need to the information to correctly advise/treatment them. That's it. That's all that's required.

Even the nonsense strawman points that come up about very late term abortions are covered by doing this.

[rscott]

Despite Pelosi's local archbishop refusing to give her communion because of her support of abortion, she managed to receive it at a papal Mass in the Vatican.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pope-francis-p...

[Blakewater]

Gweeds said:

And this lot won’t stop here. They’ll want contraception and gay marriage next. Thomas has already said so.

And as usual the people championing the loss of rights are those unlikely to lose theirs.

There are also the women using fertility drugs or having IVF, who've struggled to become pregnant and definitely want children, who end up with more embryos than they can realistically bring to term. It's rarer with modern IVF, but there have been cases of people being pregnant with four or more children.

There are also parents stuck not knowing what to do with frozen embryos after IVF. Would destroying these be considered abortion and illegal?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/parenting/ferti...

[rscott]

Several reports of women being denied their medication by pharmacists because it can also be used as an abortifacient - https://twitter.com/JenMichelleCrow/status/1543328...

Methotrexate is a common treatment for Lupus, but some pharmacists are refusing to prescribe it to women of childbearing age.

[anonymous-user]

Anyone picked up on this snippet yet?

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said his office is looking into fining Texas based businesses over $100,000 each time they pay for an employee to obtain an out-of-state abortion.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteDEM/comments/vp6ld9/t...

[Jockman]

Texas won't be the only state doing this.

[MC Bodge]

BlackWidow13 said:

Anyone picked up on this snippet yet?

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said his office is looking into fining Texas based businesses over $100,000 each time they pay for an employee to obtain an out-of-state abortion.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteDEM/comments/vp6ld9/t...

Somebody needs to stop, step back, think and have word with themself.

Idiot.

[lord summerisle]

10 year old raped by her uncle, has to travel across state line to get an abortion with Ohio banning abortion after six weeks

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/oh...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/10-year-ol...

[ATG]

Newarch said:

NRS said:

As I said before, quite a lot of non-religious people treat when life begins differently depending on the circumstances. In a miscarriage (including before 12 weeks) many morn the loss of their child. For example I have friends who each year morn/celebrate the unborn child they have lost in miscarriages. Yet when speaking about abortion rules it is not viewed as a life early on.

But this is a coping mechanism as much as anything else. Miscarriages are profoundly difficult events for any potential parent especially the mother who has all the hopes and optimism associated with a new baby cruelly dashed. It is often easier to process if you believe that there is a little life there which can be celebrated or commemorated.

The medical definition of the cut off for an abortion is based more on a scientific judgement on when an unborn child is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb. There is also the issue of viability, some medical conditions affecting the mother or child are judged sufficiently serious to consider an abortion medically necessary or desirable.

Apologies for picking out your post. There are plenty of others I could have picked.

"Just a coping mechanism etc" isn't an argument. Regardless of whether or not you think the "child's life" had value, its parents do think it had value, and it is meaningless to say they are "wrong" to think that way. They do think that way; end of story. The particular unborn child's life had value by definition because it was valued by its parents. That's what having value means. I can say a work of art has non-financial value to me because I value it. Everyone else is free to think it is valueless ste, but nonetheless it has value to me.

Falling back on medial or pseudo-scientific definitions of "when life begins" based on unassisted viability or other similar ideas is also hopeless for defining when moral obligations have started. (Pseudo-scientific, because "when life begins" is not a scientific idea.) If I've been knocked off my bike, I may not be able to survive without medical intervention. Does that mean my life has no value? Does that mean bystanders don't have a moral obligation to try to preserve my life? No, obviously not. So why would we judge the value and obligations we owe to an unborn "child" differently? Ans: because that value/obligation does not arise as a result of viability. We may perfectly legitimately not value that unborn child's life yet, but it hasn't anything to do with unassisted viability.

[ATG]

InitialDave said:

There's no need for any more complexity. Ensure women have the right to go to their doctors about abortion, and ensure doctors have the access they need to the information to correctly advise/treatment them. That's it. That's all that's required.

Even the nonsense strawman points that come up about very late term abortions are covered by doing this.

Unfortunately you cannot reduce this to women and their doctors just making their decisions in private. That requires the women and the doctors to always behave ethically, individually and collectively, without any external regulation or oversight. We don't apply that degree of blind faith to any equivalent situations. Why on earth would we do that with abortion? What would safeguard women from poor medical advice? If as a society we thought late-term abortion on non-medical grounds was unjustified, which is precisely what most societies that allow abortions seem to think, how would we protect the unborn child from doctors and mothers who wished to proceed with an abortion anyway?

[57 Chevy]

Has anyone else noticed how many of the states that are banning abortion still have the death penalty

[vaud]

57 Chevy said:

Has anyone else noticed how many of the states that are banning abortion still have the death penalty

Probably "Gods will"