Abortion and the Politics of Reproductive Rights in the Post-Roe Era

[oblong]

It’s futile to discuss medicine and science with people who think women are second class citizens which is what “pro life” is all about.   Pro life men only love women when they can control them. It’s all patriarchal bull**** based on religion and religion has no place in public policy.  

[Tiger337]

A lot of pro-life is about controlling women and I don't care very much what men think about abortion.  However, I do think there are people who are genuinely horrified by abortion.  Many women are against it too.  It's a complex issue.  

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Nope, you enjoy it! Indiana abortion rights are fine by me. Notice no limit to life of mother risk. My daughter is one of the Midwest right for life chapter leaders. She will be in DC for the March for life again this year in January just like she has for the past 5 years. Very proud of her and her convictions. 

 

Do you support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest?

[Tigeraholic1]

15 hours ago, 1776 said:

No, this is a misnomer. Planned Parenthood. Have a read.
 

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2021-22-annual-report/

I saw them on the D.O.G.E. priority list. 

[Tigeraholic1]

33 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Do you support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest?

I support my state laws. I am not going to play your purity games or wait for the Chas gotchya moment.....

Edited November 27, 2024 by Tigeraholic1

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I support my state laws. I am not going to play your purity games or wait for the Chas gotchya moment.....

Supporting your state laws means you do support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Since you support abortion for women and girls in cases of rape or incest, that means your concern really isn’t about the life of the child, is it? Because if it were, you would recognize that a perfectly healthy life conceived by rape or incest is just as much a life made by God as a life conceived by a man and his wife in their marriage bed.

If you have different standards for when a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion—no way if she consented to sex, yes it’s fine if she did not consent—that would explicitly mean your concern is primarily about how the woman engaged in sex and conceived the baby in the first place, and not as much about whether the fetus is a life worthy of protecting, even if perfectly healthy.

Is this truly your position?

 

Edited November 27, 2024 by chasfh

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

Supporting your state laws means you do support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Since you support abortion for women and girls in cases of rape or incest, that means your concern really isn’t about the life of the child, is it? Because if it were, you would recognize that a perfectly healthy life conceived by rape or incest is just as much a life made by God as a life conceived by a man and his wife in their marriage bed.

Because you have different standards for when a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion—no way if she consented to sex, yes it’s fine if she did not consent—that explicitly means your concern is primarily about how the woman engaged in sex and conceived the baby in the first place, and not as much about whether the fetus is a life worthy of protecting, even if perfectly healthy.

 

 

Logic isn't fair. Damn Greeks.

[oblong]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Supporting your state laws means you do support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Since you support abortion for women and girls in cases of rape or incest, that means your concern really isn’t about the life of the child, is it? Because if it were, you would recognize that a perfectly healthy life conceived by rape or incest is just as much a life made by God as a life conceived by a man and his wife in their marriage bed.

If you have different standards for when a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion—no way if she consented to sex, yes it’s fine if she did not consent—that would explicitly mean your concern is primarily about how the woman engaged in sex and conceived the baby in the first place, and not as much about whether the fetus is a life worthy of protecting, even if perfectly healthy.

Is this truly your position?

 

Or if you are a "Pro life" man (Especially a politician or pastor) who gets their mistress pregnant.

[Tigeraholic1]

41 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Supporting your state laws means you do support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Since you support abortion for women and girls in cases of rape or incest, that means your concern really isn’t about the life of the child, is it? Because if it were, you would recognize that a perfectly healthy life conceived by rape or incest is just as much a life made by God as a life conceived by a man and his wife in their marriage bed.

If you have different standards for when a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion—no way if she consented to sex, yes it’s fine if she did not consent—that would explicitly mean your concern is primarily about how the woman engaged in sex and conceived the baby in the first place, and not as much about whether the fetus is a life worthy of protecting, even if perfectly healthy.

Is this truly your position?

 

 

2 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I support my state laws. I am not going to play your purity games or wait for the Chas gotchya moment.....

 

[Edman85]

My somewhat selfish view is I'm in my late 30s and realize if I'm going to start a family with somebody my own age or close to it, she is going to be at high risk. I would rather the full array of medical options be available than some arbitrarily taken away by politicians.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Edman85

[ewsieg]

I was talking about abortion with my brother recently and we agreed that we're old school conservatives when it comes to life.  Government should always prevent the killing of innocent people, but we see nothing hypocritical with the death penalty.  Combine that with the fact that we are a Christian nation (you can argue all you want, but it's deep seeded) and our Government can not allow anyone to take away an innocent life.

That said, all good Christians know that babies are born with original sin.   We also know for Christians, born = conceived.  From a legal standpoint, our laws should not take away our religious freedom to abort the non-innocent life of a baby, a baby that sinned directly against God because of Adam and Eve.   As such, a person would be free to abort their non-baptized kid up until they are 18.  At that point, the kids freedom of religion supersedes the parents rights and they can remain non-baptized.  My brother pointed out that if they never got baptized, they may want to be careful if they ever give anyone power of attorney though, as someone may have the legal right to abort them at that time.

[1776]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

My somewhat selfish view is I'm in my late 30s and realize if I'm going to start a family with somebody my own age or close to it, she is going to be at high risk. I would rather the full array of medical options be available than some arbitrarily taken away by politicians.

Understanding your concerns, has adoption ever entered the conversation?

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

 Combine that with the fact that we are a Christian nation (you can argue all you want, but it's deep seeded) and our Government can not allow anyone to take away an innocent life.

 

I have never viewed the United States as a Christian nation.  In fact, thinking of it as a Christian nation goes against everything I think the United States is histotically.  The majority of Americans have always been Christian, but I see it as a  nation where people can be free to be what they want to be. I think the notion that out laws should be based (directly) on Christianity is dangerous and un-American.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Tiger337

[Edman85]

42 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Understanding your concerns, has adoption ever entered the conversation?

Maybe I want my lineage passed on? Forcing people to adopt because others have some warped hypocritical view they've forced on others?

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I support my state laws. I am not going to play your purity games or wait for the Chas gotchya moment.....

You can hide from the issue all you like, but here’s the bottom line: the only legitimate position with integrity a pro-life person can have is no abortion for rape, no abortion for incest, period, no exceptions. Because if it’s really about protecting the life of babies, as the pro-life position repeatedly claims, there’s no other position you can have and not be hypocritical about it.

If you support the killing of a perfectly healthy baby because it was conceived under certain circumstances, but forbid the abortion if it was conceived under other circumstances, then you are not pro-life.  You are anti-women having a choice. 
 

Edited November 27, 2024 by chasfh

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I have never viewed the United States as a Christian nation.  In fact, thinking of it as a Christian nation goes against everything I think the United States is histotically.  The majority of Americans have always been Christian, but I see it as a  nation where people can be free to be what they want to be. I think the notion that out laws should be based (directly) on Christianity is dangerous and un-American.

Agree, 

Quote

First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[chasfh]

I don’t know what the confusion is here. If you find a rape-incest exception to allow the abortion of healthy babies to be acceptable, you’re not pro-life. Simple as that.

[oblong]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

You can hide from the issue all you like, but here’s the bottom line: the only legitimate position with integrity a pro-life person can have is no abortion for rape, no abortion for incest, period, no exceptions. Because if it’s really about protecting the life of babies, as the pro-life position repeatedly claims, there’s no other position you can have and not be hypocritical about it.

If you support the killing of a perfectly healthy baby because it was conceived under certain circumstances, but forbid the abortion if it was conceived under other circumstances, then you are not pro-life.  You are anti-women having a choice. 
 

That’s indicative of what amounts to conservatism or Republican politics today.  They like slogans and catch phrases but never can address the ramifications and consequences if you apply their thinking to the fullest extent.  They don’t want to hear about the details.  They just want what sounds good to secure a vote from the uninformed. 

[1776]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Forcing people to adopt because others have some warped hypocritical view they've forced on others?

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, none. That anyone could be forced to adopt a child would be news to me. 

 

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I have never viewed the United States as a Christian nation.  In fact, thinking of it as a Christian nation goes against everything I think the United States is histotically.  The majority of Americans have always been Christian, but I see it as a  nation where people can be free to be what they want to be. I think the notion that out laws should be based (directly) on Christianity is dangerous and un-American.

I need you to go with me on this if you want to get Christians to back abortion (of non-innocent babies at least)!

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

That’s indicative of what amounts to conservatism or Republican politics today.  They like slogans and catch phrases but never can address the ramifications and consequences if you apply their thinking to the fullest extent.  They don’t want to hear about the details.  They just want what sounds good to secure a vote from the uninformed. 

I agree with everything you say, and in my view it's even worse than that: I believe it's a basic hypocrisy for someone to say they are pro-life when in fact they will accept the abortion of healthy babies—babies who could be birthed, cared for, raised, and live good full lives just as much as any other healthy baby—based only on their circumstances of conception. A person who is truly, honestly pro-life would advocate for the protection of those babies, too. But so many who say they are pro-life do not advocate for them. Why not?

[oblong]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I agree with everything you say, and in my view it's even worse than that: I believe it's a basic hypocrisy for someone to say they are pro-life when in fact they will accept the abortion of healthy babies—babies who could be birthed, cared for, raised, and live good full lives just as much as any other healthy baby—based only on their circumstances of conception. A person who is truly, honestly pro-life would advocate for the protection of those babies, too. But so many who say they are pro-life do not advocate for them. Why not?

I think I mentioned this before but it’s what Michael Kinsley brought up back in the early 90s. He was talking about killing abortion doctors. If you think a fetus is deserving of all the same rights as a birthed baby then you morally have to support killing abortion doctors because obviously anybody would support killing someone you knew was murdering babies in a hospital.  

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I don’t know what the confusion is here. If you find a rape-incest exception to allow the abortion of healthy babies to be acceptable, you’re not pro-life. Simple as that.

I mostly agree with your stance on abortion and it's why regardless of what Tigerholic wants to say, pro-lifers are never going to be happy with states rights to make the decision.  Trump used that to try and deflect from a precedence he helped create.  Pro-lifers will push for a national ban, it's a matter of time and it might actually be Trumps toughest obstacle if he wants to do some things and has to tell pro-lifers he's not going to pursue a national ban as he recognizes that's a political nightmare.

But there are situations where people can simply realize the complexity of an issue and be willing to bend on certain aspects without simply being a hypocrite.  

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I was talking about abortion with my brother recently and we agreed that we're old school conservatives when it comes to life.  ...

Jonathan Swift lives.

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Agree, 

 

Legally speaking you are correct, but this country was founded by Christian men who didn't want religion to have power, but still built it on a foundation of their Christian values.  To be fair, that's all I was arguing in my joking attempt to get Christians to get on board with aborting sinful (non baptized) babies.   I think you'll find most liberals agree with me too, at least when they want to claim that this country inherently is racist, sexist, and imposes morales others may not have on them.