Roe v Wade Overturned?

[Sculptor]

Enslaved livestock can’t read the instructions for how to use the wide variety of contraceptives and prophylactics available to free-range folks who have the intelligence, oft’ awakened by guidance during their formative years, to identify the implications of their actions.

Livestock whisperers have reported hearing dumb cows blaming their livestock-limited conceptions of a higher power for their personal confusions that are caused by ignorance.

Walker,

Just curious are you a born-again Christian?
Heavens no. One need not be a Christian to recognize the goodness of Christianity, and the evil that attacks it. One need not be a Christian to appreciate the patient generosity of intellect shared by Christians such as IC.

Tell us why you should have the last say over the reproduction of American women, whether your a born again Christian or not.
How about if instead, we tell you.
Heavens no to your totalitarian proposal. Life and death issues in the US Democratic Constitutional Republic are guided by, or should be guided by, the legislature that represents the will of the people. This is the root of the recent SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was not the result of a legislative decision that resulted in the death of 65 million* innocents. It was a judicial activist decision, i.e., legislating from the bench, which btw, is a favourite corrupting tactic of the Progressives.

* That's about the population of England, although they're not all in the innocent stage of human development.

God has terminated more than 100% more than that during the same time.
What is your point.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I'm talking at people who live at a level where they can't even afford the uniforms for school.

If they cannot afford a uniform, why do they even need to wear one?

Because in Developing World schools, school itself is often paid for by the government...but you aren't allowed to attend without a uniform. Getting uniforms for their children is beyond the means of many of these poor folks. They're living on less than $1 American every day...and food is the priority.

As soon as these people get money, the first thing they do is put their children in school. And if the school does what schools should do -- educate in basic literacy and maths, and so on -- the family's out of poverty within one generation.

I specialize in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. What is there so privileged about these countries?

Well, I have to ask: in what sense are you a "specialist" when you don't already know what I just told you? Even a casual acquaintance with these countries or others like them should make you know I'm telling you the truth: so what are you "specialized" in?

No cynicism intended: I'm just asking a question that seems obvious to me.

That's not an option she's allowed to have, in those cultures. Nobody's giving her any choice.

A woman can reject every serious suitor that shows up,

Nope. Not in the Developing World. In many cases, she has no say whatsoever. Her family, her tribe, or her necessities often make choice utterly impossible.

Yep, there is. I'm amazed you don't know that. You obviously don't travel much. I know for sure you're wrong about that.

I choose to live in the poorest areas of the Indochinese archipelago. I have lived here for over a decade.

I'm sorry...I find that very hard to believe. If it were so, you would surely know what I'm telling you. How could you possibly live there, and still know nothing about the conditions of the poor? It stretches the possibilities of imagination to think that.

One way is through corporate donations, and another private fund donations

Yeah, that will fund the useless degrees of millions of women.

No, no "degrees." I'm talking about basic education. Basic.

best given to sustainable initiatives like microenterprise, sustainable farming, and microschools, which create independence and self-sufficiency, not handouts and dependence.

So, the idea is to create some more "strong and independent women who need no man".

No. The idea is to create a woman who has a basic education and can provide for the children she's been forced to have with the man who abandoned her, or died in war, or was swept up by the gangs, or is a hopeless addict now, or the aged abuser her parents forced her to "marry."

And so far as population goes, the goal is to empower the people who are actually the source of the rise in population to make a different choice without having to murder their own children.

All noble goals, I'm sure you agree.

Now, here's the problem you and I are having, Godelian. I was responding to a question about how to manage world population without abortion. You, by contrast, are preoccupied with the question of how privileged and Western woman are managing the marriage "market" these days.

Both are legitimate questions. However, they are not at all the same question, and are not interchangeable. Privileged Western women have nothing to do right now with the population statistics: statistically, Western women are not even reproducing themselves in replacement numbers, let alone creating a population rise.

So let's deal with these questions separately. If you can understand the necessity of giving unspoiled, undereducated, under-optioned women in the Developing World a basic education so they can feed their children, I can go on and talk with you about the Western problem of dating and marriage. But we can't legitimately do both questions at the same time. They aren't the same.

I think you and I agree on the Western woman problem. I don't see much you've said with which I would take an issue. But if you try to apply the same solutions to Developing World women, I can't agree with you, because then, you'd just be dead wrong about that, and verifiably wrong.

So what's your choice? Do you want to keep arguing as if every woman is a privileged, Western type? Or do you want to consider that poor women in the Developing world, who are the only ones that now really have anything to do with global population control, need education not abortions?

What would you like to do here? I'll leave it in your choice.

[Immanuel Can]

So you are saying that an amputated limb is a person because it has human DNA?

It's certainly part of a person...it's not part of a dog or emu.

But your analogy is false. A child is not an "appendage" or "limb" of the woman in whom she resides. She has genetics from both parents, combined into a unique being, which within utero possesses her own heartbeat, brain waves, volitions, moods, circulatory system, fingerprints...etc.

Your attempt to reduce a child to a "clump of cells," is transparent, dishonest, and immoral. But then, so are all the rationales for abortion.

[Immanuel Can]

So what's the attraction of murdered babies? I'm not seeing it.

Maybe if we were females who got pregnant accidentally and didn't want to go through with the pregnancy, then we'd know.

I don't think so. Many women, even those who had a surprise pregancy, do not opt for abortions. It takes a special wickedness to cover up your own foolishness, irresponsibility or promiscuity by conspiring to murder your child. We might well be among those who simply would not choose to do that, and would opt for adoption instead, or better, for stepping up, becoming a real woman and a real mother, and taking responsiblity for what we had done.

That might not make us heroes, because we caused the problem in the first place: but it would at least make us decent human beings who had made a mistake and took responsibility for it.

[Immanuel Can]

2) Foetuses are not "babies".

Your gratuitious claim carries no weight by itself. Prove it.

3) For the vast majority of women the act of abortion is a very difficult thing to do and you are insulting them by using this absurd language.

Why should something that you assure us is just "not a baby" be the source of even a slight difficulty to a woman? By saying it is, you admit you know you're lying. It IS a serious and hard thing to murder one's child.

4) The embryo is not an autonomous unit.

Neither is a newborn. Do you advocate murdering them?

5) Even Ireland (a now allows abortion because people now accept that it is not the role of the state to impose their control over the bodies of their citizens who are 80% Catholic and only 10% Atheist.

If any government says you can murder your babies, then that government is doing evil. Period.

[popeye1945]

Enslaved livestock can’t read the instructions for how to use the wide variety of contraceptives and prophylactics available to free-range folks who have the intelligence, oft’ awakened by guidance during their formative years, to identify the implications of their actions.

Livestock whisperers have reported hearing dumb cows blaming their livestock-limited conceptions of a higher power for their personal confusions that are caused by ignorance.

Walker,

Just curious are you a born-again Christian?
Heavens no. One need not be a Christian to recognize the goodness of Christianity, and the evil that attacks it. One need not be a Christian to appreciate the patient generosity of intellect shared by Christians such as IC.

Tell us why you should have the last say over the reproduction of American women, whether your a born again Christian or not.
How about if instead, we tell you.
Heavens no to your totalitarian proposal. Life and death issues in the US Democratic Constitutional Republic are guided by, or should be guided by, the legislature that represents the will of the people. This is the root of the recent SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was not the result of a legislative decision that resulted in the death of 65 million* innocents. It was a judicial activist decision, i.e., legislating from the bench, which btw, is a favourite corrupting tactic of the Progressives.

* That's about the population of England, although they're not all in the innocent stage of human development.

Walker,

That Christianity is good we would disagree, as to the overturn of Roe V Wade it is not the wish of about 70 percent of the population. The thing about believers is they can be guilty of the most heinous crimes and always feel self-righteous. For someone so worried about morality perhaps you can explain the support of white supremacists head up the ass hateful Christians and neo-nazi support of the republican party. You might attempt a summation of the virtues of the Donald. The present-day Republican party is the most dangerous institution in the world today disbelief of evolution, climate change and working against environmental protection measures and just bathing in hatered not to mention American exceptionalism the seed of a fascist state headed by the Donald. THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!! GUNS CHRISTIANITY, RACISM, AND THE DUMBING DOWN OF THE POPULATION. Creationism in place of science the list is endless the violent DUH factor is sweeping the land.

[Immanuel Can]

But nothing is going to convince IC that babies maybe don't magically acquire souls at birth or that there might not even be a "soul".

Let's grant that. It's not true, because I don't believe babies "magically" acquire anything, nor that it's "at birth." But let's play the game your way, Gary.

Even were all that true, and even if we grant that I could be wrong, I have no burden to prove it: because either way, I'm not going to murder anyone.

By contrast, any advocate of abortion is supporting either the "termination" of a certain-to-become-human-being, or the outright murder of one. So such a person bears the entire burden to show he/she knows he/she is in the right. Absent that, he/she is at least acting in bad conscience, if not outright supporting murder.

I can wait for that argument to appear. Meanwhile, I'll kill nobody.

Your turn.

[Dontaskme]

What does the bible say about abortion?
Nowhere in scripture does it say, “thou shall not have an abortion.” The Gospels make no mention of abortion. And at no point in his ministry does Jesus ever talk about abortion.



Pro-life Christians often cite specific verses in the Bible to justify their stand on abortion. The problem is that they’re extrapolating from unrelated verses to make their case. They’ve combed the Bible for references to mothers, wombs, and anything that sounds almost like it could be applied to abortion. They’ve reverse engineered arguments about abortion based on the conclusions they’ve already reached.
Conservatives who believe that the Bible forbids abortion might want to reread the holy book. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years and the Bible does not condemn the procedure.

[Sculptor]

What does the bible say about abortion?
Nowhere in scripture does it say, “thou shall not have an abortion.” The Gospels make no mention of abortion. And at no point in his ministry does Jesus ever talk about abortion.



Pro-life Christians often cite specific verses in the Bible to justify their stand on abortion. The problem is that they’re extrapolating from unrelated verses to make their case. They’ve combed the Bible for references to mothers, wombs, and anything that sounds almost like it could be applied to abortion. They’ve reverse engineered arguments about abortion based on the conclusions they’ve already reached.
Conservatives who believe that the Bible forbids abortion might want to reread the holy book. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years and the Bible does not condemn the procedure.

The practice of abortion was very common in the ancient world. All the more remarkable for the fact that the Bible does not prohibit it in any sense.

[Walker]

Walker,

Just curious are you a born-again Christian?
Heavens no. One need not be a Christian to recognize the goodness of Christianity, and the evil that attacks it. One need not be a Christian to appreciate the patient generosity of intellect shared by Christians such as IC.

Tell us why you should have the last say over the reproduction of American women, whether your a born again Christian or not.
How about if instead, we tell you.
Heavens no to your totalitarian proposal. Life and death issues in the US Democratic Constitutional Republic are guided by, or should be guided by, the legislature that represents the will of the people. This is the root of the recent SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was not the result of a legislative decision that resulted in the death of 65 million* innocents. It was a judicial activist decision, i.e., legislating from the bench, which btw, is a favourite corrupting tactic of the Progressives.

* That's about the population of England, although they're not all in the innocent stage of human development.

Walker,

That Christianity is good we would disagree, as to the overturn of Roe V Wade it is not the wish of about 70 percent of the population. The thing about believers is they can be guilty of the most heinous crimes and always feel self-righteous. For someone so worried about morality perhaps you can explain the support of white supremacists head up the ass hateful Christians and neo-nazi support of the republican party. You might attempt a summation of the virtues of the Donald. The present-day Republican party is the most dangerous institution in the world today disbelief of evolution, climate change and working against environmental protection measures and just bathing in hatered not to mention American exceptionalism the seed of a fascist state headed by the Donald. THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!! GUNS CHRISTIANITY, RACISM, AND THE DUMBING DOWN OF THE POPULATION. Creationism in place of science the list is endless the violent DUH factor is sweeping the land.

Sheesh. A Christian must have pinched you when you were a tyke, knee high to a bullfrog.

[Immanuel Can]

What does the bible say about abortion?

The Bible says nothing about rocket ships, micro computers, skateboards or marijuana, either. But it does say quite a bit about the value of life, and the wrongness of murder. It also tells us to Whom each life rightfully belongs...

And it isn't you.

[henry quirk]

What does the bible say about abortion?

https://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall- ... urder.html

[commonsense]

A fetus is a potential baby, a potential child, a potential human, but to be a real baby, a real child or a real human requires that the being breathes air.

A fetus has potential rights. These rights become real when the fetus becomes a real human. Whenever potential rights are in conflict with real rights, what’s real should—and would if not for SCOTUS—have priority over what is not real.

Making abortions criminal has the potential to turn unwanted pregnancies into unwanted infants. Any man who thinks he has the right to tell a woman what to do is as misogynistic as he is mistaken.

[henry quirk]

to be a real baby, a real child or a real human requires that the being *breathes air

*As in on his own, yes?

If so: you've rendered anyone usin' an iron lung, or its equivalent, and, mebbe, anyone who has asthma and who uses an inhaler, as a non-person.

[Immanuel Can]

...if not for SCOTUS—...Making abortions criminal...

I'm afraid it's clear you're not understanding what's happened at all. Your "facts" are just wrong, and wrong in ways you could confirm yourself, if you went and looked.

The R v. W. decision does not make abortions criminal. It doesn't even deny that every state in the union can have unrestricted abortions. What this decision says, is that when the court formerly ruled on R v. W., back in 1973, it was overreaching and outside the constitution entirely. This decisin says, the court screwed up, and it's time to set things in right order again.

It's not actually a decision about abortion per se, at all.

Consequently, it's a decision purely about JURISDICTION. Nothing more. Nothing else.

All it says is that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to dictate to states what their choice about abortion must be. It says that that question has to be settled at the state level.

And that's all it says.

So we have to understand this situation correctly. Abortion has not been "overturned," as Gary's headline would induce us to imagine. And it certainly has not been "criminalized," as you suggest. All it is, is a decision that states must decide. Period. No more, no less.

Let's keep the discussion sane.