Although I dislike the anti-choice position, I can have some empathy with those who believe it's murder. It *is* life starting at conception. Does 'God' have a problem with it? I don't know, the Bible isn't clear on it. Jesus never had anything to say about it unless no one bothered to write it down. It was absolutely going on in his tim…
Although I dislike the anti-choice position, I can have some empathy with those who believe it's murder. It *is* life starting at conception. Does 'God' have a problem with it? I don't know, the Bible isn't clear on it. Jesus never had anything to say about it unless no one bothered to write it down. It was absolutely going on in his time, with herbs rather than physicians.
But, I get what the abortion-is-murder crowd - those who actually believe that, not the ones who say it for political purposes - and I can't fault the logic that it's *always* wrong even if conceived by rape. It's not the baby's fault, right? The Catholic Church goes too far in only mandating (however unobserved by the laity) that sex is *only* for procreation, but it is, in a certain spiritual sense, understandable. However, I think that would fall under a higher morality that most people don't attain unless they're monks, nuns or mystics (generic religious refererence here). Just as I think ascetism is something might strive for if one has dedicated one's life to spirituality and holiness, but it shouldn't be *mandated*.
I do, however, question whether anyone has a 'right to life', and the world is full of many people who've wished their mother had simply had an abortion. Life may be sacred, but it's also damn hard and it can be a real nightmare for many for reasons that have nothing to do with them. So I question whether anyone has a 'right' to be born, and I also argue every child should be a *wanted* child. And that, in a better world, people would think about what they're getting into before they make a baby. And consider whether they're really up to the task, because not everyone is.
I'd like to see abortion made unnecessary which most 'pro-lifers' are unwilling to do. They actually create more abortions with their anti-sex, anti-birth control, anti-education attitudes. Those that fight hard to make sex riskier fight hard to ensure the need for abundant abortion clinics.
"I'd like to see abortion made unnecessary which most 'pro-lifers' are unwilling to do."
Yep, this is also a really important angle that the "pro-lifers" never engage with. Access to contraception seems like it'll come under fire next. And it's like, "what??!! You want to end abortion but you also want to limit access to contraception? Leading to many more unwanted babies?" It's just pure religious fanaticism.
As for the "abortion is murder" crowd, yeah, I also have some empathy with their position. Just as I have empathy with the "meat is murder" crowd. I think these people should be able to make the choices that feel right for them. But I don't think, unless they have some objective, scientific basis for their feelings, that they should be able to dictate how other people live their lives.
I don't think it's a politically feasible plank even if Thomas has wet dreams about rolling this back. It's easy for him to argue that the ruling was a poor one and want to tidy up because he'll never have to face the consequences of living in a state where BC gets outlawed.
What difference does it make? If the Court rolls back Griswold, we'll be as BC-less as we now are largely abortin-less.
I wish the right was as quick to outlaw going to another state to get 'gender affirming care' for one's kid as the were for those seeking legal abortions.
They won't roll it back. The only one who has even hinted at this is Thomas. There are some repubes who would like to see this happen but it's far too regressive. You have to keep in mind whether things are politically feasible or not. This one isn't.
They'll find a way if enough are on board. Remember when we thought Roe was here to stay? Never underestimate how much many men (and not always conservatives) hate female freedom. And freedom from unwanted, life-limiting childbearing lies at the heart of everything 'wrong' with feminism. Never say never.
Interestingly, in my overseas travels, the racks with aspirin and potato chips in hotel lobbies have birth control pills hanging on the racks. You are an adult in Shanghai or Bangkok, but not in New York.
Love this. It's both thoughtful and practical. And yes, self-control is not the best policy to curb abortion since sex isn't rational. Flooding the commons with birth control would be a great approach ( I think the best compromise would be that certain types be dispensed for free, tbh ), but then the anti's wouldn't get to shame women for their promiscuity - which some of them really get off on.
To me, it comes down to this: I am the one paying the cost of the bringing the life into the world - particularly if the father has abdicated the responsibility, which is all too common. I should have the right to review my resources and capabilities and make a rational decision about whether I can support this human being for 18 years or not. Animals in the wild will kill their young if resources or conditions are lacking. Why can't I have these same rights? Because humans are different? Or answer to a higher power? (Prove it.) Or, because it's squicky? I still haven't heard a good reason why the government has the right to reduce my rights during pregancy and take control of my body by leveraging force of law and gun to coerce me to do something I don't wish to do. Do I own myself or not? I know this is a loaded question with so many caveats and edge cases that it's almost ridiculous.
And every child should be wanted. I know the cost of bringing unwanted children into the world. I was one of them and I never once had a parent that championed my welfare in a healthy way and I've endured/survived all the types of parents there are - bio, foster, adoptive. I have suffered greatly from the canard that all life is sacred. It's not if you don't belong to a tribe, and even then, this perk is provisional - based on whether you follow the rules or not. People just don't care about progeny that isn't their blood. I'm looking at you Sophie Lewis! Community rearing of children indeed. The fights over who pays would be monumental, particularly once the child reaches college age. It always boils down to cash.
I would relent to some degree on this somewhat hardcore position if men were held accountable for their part in procreation. But, they aren't, for the most part, outside of some nasty custody battles - but that's the ones that want their children (and to be fair, some women are horrible mothers). It's not a tidy formula. But, many, many men do not take responsibility and face zero consequences for this choice.
And finally, because it's so complicated, because their are no pat answers, because the stakes are so high, because people's morality is all over the map, because we can't agree, because bringing an unwanted child into the world has a seriously high cost - especially for the child, I think it boils down to the choice of the people with actual standing on the issue - the mother and father of the potential child. Everyone else needs to butt out. We can futz and compromise over how far along it can occur, but the window needs to stay open.
Although I dislike the anti-choice position, I can have some empathy with those who believe it's murder. It *is* life starting at conception. Does 'God' have a problem with it? I don't know, the Bible isn't clear on it. Jesus never had anything to say about it unless no one bothered to write it down. It was absolutely going on in his time, with herbs rather than physicians.
But, I get what the abortion-is-murder crowd - those who actually believe that, not the ones who say it for political purposes - and I can't fault the logic that it's *always* wrong even if conceived by rape. It's not the baby's fault, right? The Catholic Church goes too far in only mandating (however unobserved by the laity) that sex is *only* for procreation, but it is, in a certain spiritual sense, understandable. However, I think that would fall under a higher morality that most people don't attain unless they're monks, nuns or mystics (generic religious refererence here). Just as I think ascetism is something might strive for if one has dedicated one's life to spirituality and holiness, but it shouldn't be *mandated*.
I do, however, question whether anyone has a 'right to life', and the world is full of many people who've wished their mother had simply had an abortion. Life may be sacred, but it's also damn hard and it can be a real nightmare for many for reasons that have nothing to do with them. So I question whether anyone has a 'right' to be born, and I also argue every child should be a *wanted* child. And that, in a better world, people would think about what they're getting into before they make a baby. And consider whether they're really up to the task, because not everyone is.
I'd like to see abortion made unnecessary which most 'pro-lifers' are unwilling to do. They actually create more abortions with their anti-sex, anti-birth control, anti-education attitudes. Those that fight hard to make sex riskier fight hard to ensure the need for abundant abortion clinics.
"I'd like to see abortion made unnecessary which most 'pro-lifers' are unwilling to do."
Yep, this is also a really important angle that the "pro-lifers" never engage with. Access to contraception seems like it'll come under fire next. And it's like, "what??!! You want to end abortion but you also want to limit access to contraception? Leading to many more unwanted babies?" It's just pure religious fanaticism.
As for the "abortion is murder" crowd, yeah, I also have some empathy with their position. Just as I have empathy with the "meat is murder" crowd. I think these people should be able to make the choices that feel right for them. But I don't think, unless they have some objective, scientific basis for their feelings, that they should be able to dictate how other people live their lives.
They've already gone after contraception. Monsieur Thomas, take it away...!!!
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
I don't think it's a politically feasible plank even if Thomas has wet dreams about rolling this back. It's easy for him to argue that the ruling was a poor one and want to tidy up because he'll never have to face the consequences of living in a state where BC gets outlawed.
What difference does it make? If the Court rolls back Griswold, we'll be as BC-less as we now are largely abortin-less.
I wish the right was as quick to outlaw going to another state to get 'gender affirming care' for one's kid as the were for those seeking legal abortions.
They won't roll it back. The only one who has even hinted at this is Thomas. There are some repubes who would like to see this happen but it's far too regressive. You have to keep in mind whether things are politically feasible or not. This one isn't.
They'll find a way if enough are on board. Remember when we thought Roe was here to stay? Never underestimate how much many men (and not always conservatives) hate female freedom. And freedom from unwanted, life-limiting childbearing lies at the heart of everything 'wrong' with feminism. Never say never.
Interestingly, in my overseas travels, the racks with aspirin and potato chips in hotel lobbies have birth control pills hanging on the racks. You are an adult in Shanghai or Bangkok, but not in New York.
Love this. It's both thoughtful and practical. And yes, self-control is not the best policy to curb abortion since sex isn't rational. Flooding the commons with birth control would be a great approach ( I think the best compromise would be that certain types be dispensed for free, tbh ), but then the anti's wouldn't get to shame women for their promiscuity - which some of them really get off on.
To me, it comes down to this: I am the one paying the cost of the bringing the life into the world - particularly if the father has abdicated the responsibility, which is all too common. I should have the right to review my resources and capabilities and make a rational decision about whether I can support this human being for 18 years or not. Animals in the wild will kill their young if resources or conditions are lacking. Why can't I have these same rights? Because humans are different? Or answer to a higher power? (Prove it.) Or, because it's squicky? I still haven't heard a good reason why the government has the right to reduce my rights during pregancy and take control of my body by leveraging force of law and gun to coerce me to do something I don't wish to do. Do I own myself or not? I know this is a loaded question with so many caveats and edge cases that it's almost ridiculous.
And every child should be wanted. I know the cost of bringing unwanted children into the world. I was one of them and I never once had a parent that championed my welfare in a healthy way and I've endured/survived all the types of parents there are - bio, foster, adoptive. I have suffered greatly from the canard that all life is sacred. It's not if you don't belong to a tribe, and even then, this perk is provisional - based on whether you follow the rules or not. People just don't care about progeny that isn't their blood. I'm looking at you Sophie Lewis! Community rearing of children indeed. The fights over who pays would be monumental, particularly once the child reaches college age. It always boils down to cash.
I would relent to some degree on this somewhat hardcore position if men were held accountable for their part in procreation. But, they aren't, for the most part, outside of some nasty custody battles - but that's the ones that want their children (and to be fair, some women are horrible mothers). It's not a tidy formula. But, many, many men do not take responsibility and face zero consequences for this choice.
And finally, because it's so complicated, because their are no pat answers, because the stakes are so high, because people's morality is all over the map, because we can't agree, because bringing an unwanted child into the world has a seriously high cost - especially for the child, I think it boils down to the choice of the people with actual standing on the issue - the mother and father of the potential child. Everyone else needs to butt out. We can futz and compromise over how far along it can occur, but the window needs to stay open.