bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

You are the one that introduced the idea of some level of concurrence between humans and animals. Something regarding how humans were gifted the responsibility of procreation... Procreation is just a fact of life. As is abortion and the decision to not carry or support said creation.

And of course there are repercussions. Women who have abortions carry that fact with them. As does anybody for any decision they make that affects the life of another. TO not take care of a mother in need, or to coddle a child excessively, or avoid a relative that one disagrees with, etc. All these things have an impact on the person and society.

Tugg

And the implication was that because animals don't perform intentional abortions, humans doing so is somehow aberrant behavior. Lack of abortion in the animal kingdom was used as an argument against human abortion. Now that it's been pointed out that animals do eat or kill their offspring at times, which amounts to the same thing as an abortion--thereby undermining the previous contention, suddenly this line of argument is irrelevant.

The killing of their young is irrelevant, that was put out there by another poster not me. I did not start the whole line of reasoning, I did partake in it, but not start it. I just pointed out that no animals chose to have apportions. I didn't bring it up though.

Do you think there's a difference between abortion and infanticide? Because animals most certainly do the latter.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You just agreed that all men should stay out of the debate, unless you are pro-choice, because you are advocating on women's behalf. I guess all women are pro-choice then. Got it.

Huh, no. None of those statements were made - please don't put words in my mouth.

You insinuated it. Saying hear, hear to the previous post means you agree with the sentiment that men should stay out of the debate. You affirmed that by saying that none of this is your business as a man. But then say you will advocate on the females behalf (in support of the pro-choice stance) because you have female loved ones. That insinuates that all females are pro-choice.

I’m not sure why you’re having a problem understanding the position. It’s very clear cut.

1 - Unless, in the very specific instance that I’m the man involved in a woman being pregnant, it is none of my damned business what any other woman decides to do when she finds she’s pregnant.

2 - I can take the position that I support the right of a woman to be able to make the choice.

3 - (this might bend your mind) I can also take the position that I’m opposed to abortion in principle, but still support the right of a woman to chose.

None of those are mutually exclusive. Taking any of those positions doesn’t lead to the logical fallacy that all women are pro-choice.

My personal position is this - it would be nice to live in a society where abortion wan’t necessary. Until that day arrives (hint, it never will because people make mistakes), women should have the choice. The decision should be theirs, certainly not a decision for predominantly old white men and fundamental religious folks (to use a nicer word).

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Huh, no. None of those statements were made - please don't put words in my mouth.

You insinuated it. Saying hear, hear to the previous post means you agree with the sentiment that men should stay out of the debate. You affirmed that by saying that none of this is your business as a man. But then say you will advocate on the females behalf (in support of the pro-choice stance) because you have female loved ones. That insinuates that all females are pro-choice.

I’m not sure why you’re having a problem understanding the position. It’s very clear cut.

1 - Unless, in the very specific instance that I’m the man involved in a woman being pregnant, it is none of my damned business what any other woman decides to do when she finds she’s pregnant.

2 - I can take the position that I support the right of a woman to be able to make the choice.

3 - (this might bend your mind) I can also take the position that I’m opposed to abortion in principle, but still support the right of a woman to chose.

None of those are mutually exclusive. Taking any of those positions doesn’t lead to the logical fallacy that all women are pro-choice.

My personal position is this - it would be nice to live in a society where abortion wan’t necessary. Until that day arrives (hint, it never will because people make mistakes), women should have the choice. The decision should be theirs, certainly not a decision for predominantly old white men and fundamental religious folks (to use a nicer word).

Superbly succinct take. All three points and the societal hypothetical are pretty much how I see it.

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Interesting poll from 2018 shows the changing differences among women by age on abortion. Will be interesting to see if Pew/Gallup run this again soon .

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235652/you ... ights.aspx

I wonder what could make senior women shift so much in that period?

The generation of women who became becoming senior vs. the generation before them that died.

That is my guess as well.
It will be interesting to see what shift we see if they run the survey again this year now that abortion is a critical issue.
The GOP wanted to make this year about social issues, they may have bitten off more than they can chew.

[threeid][/threeid]I once held a dead 18 week fetus, my own child to be. I will say those countries that put the limit on self-chosen thereabouts is as dead on as can be. An 18 week fetus is not yet a human being, even though our parenting reflexes and emotions are maturing at that point.

The right for females to chose to abort up until week 12-18 should be at a universal human rights level. Not federal, not state, not up revolving democratically elected governments or the judicial system. It belongs as part of basic universal human rights.

However, I will say it starts getting problematic around week 20+ and up, where we are closing in on fetuses becoming actual self-sustainable babies outside the womb. I am not in favour of abortions taking place at such late dates unless the mother’s life is in danger.

I understand however those kind of abortions has been legal in some american states, and that is highly problematic and I understand those enraged about such late abortions on human ethical grounds.

Mixing your own religious ethics with other people’s lives are however never forgiveable.

Yet another mess in the US!

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

In the same manner the Constitution has never meant to give abortion rights, it does not restrict abortion in anyway. And it never has, including in the ~200 years of its existence pre-Roe.

Particularly if one is to look at this from a life versus death point of view. Murder is almost always a state issue.

Since you are one of the more rational pro-choice users in this forum, perhaps you would also recognize as it is very obvious that:

1- Democrats don't trust the electorate to side with them on the abortion debate.

2- As a result, they prefer life-appointed judges to legislate for them, in this issue as with many others

3- They need a reason to campaign in elections and gather people to vote for them. Roe for 50 years have been their major rallying cry. That's why the base of support for the Democrat party is mostly women. This has served a great political treasure for them.

4- If Roe is struck down, its over for this topic to be a rallying point, unless they legislate.

5- They won't legislate because if they resolve the issue then they got nothing else to run on.

Right now as this country is headed for a recession, high inflation, crime and immigration issues, this leak is a godsend for them. They think people will vote for them for 'abortion rights'. Nope. Those who are strongly on both sides of this issue already vote for their respective parties. Its not going to change.

This is a great distraction from the main and serious issues Democrats don't want to talk about. Trump is no longer in power, and this is for them the best to fearmonger and make the GOP and conservatives as the worse of people.

So much for uniting the country.

That ship sailed long ago...stop pretending there’s a fantasy world where the country is uniting anytime soon.

It’s just another reason why the US should split, the liberal coastal states go there own way and the remaining Bible Belt and Texas turn into Gilead.

aristoenigma wrote:

If I had a child that was clerking on any side of the spectrum in the SCOTUS I would be pissed that junior senator Cruz would be setting out clerk conspiracies without proof. Due to the many nut jobs that circulate and act to endanger the well being of anyone they perceive as guilty I fear the many clerks are now at risk . The flames are fanned worse by the leader of the senate as well.

Well said and I wholeheartedly agree.

Violent acts which threaten the personal safety of the 12 clerks could be undertaken on the basis of the suggestion by Senator Cruz - it is highly irresponsible.

It is not far fetched to believe their safety could be threatened - prominent GOP members and conservatives amplified and gave profile to the Pizzagate conspiracy, only for it to result in a man showing up armed to the restaurant at the center of it. Thankfully no one was injured, but it just shows the extent that some people will go.

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

My personal position is this - it would be nice to live in a society where abortion wan’t necessary. Until that day arrives (hint, it never will because people make mistakes), women should have the choice. The decision should be theirs, certainly not a decision for predominantly old white men and fundamental religious folks (to use a nicer word).

Another way you know conservatives don't give a toss about "life" is that we already know what is required to bring down abortion rates, whether it's access to contraception, sex education, quality healthcare, family planning services, and domestic abuse prevention.

All things the GOP stridently opposes.

MaverickM11 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Another way you know conservatives don't give a toss about "life" is that we already know what is required to bring down abortion rates, whether it's access to contraception, sex education, quality healthcare, family planning services, and domestic abuse prevention.

All things the GOP stridently opposes.

Please show me how any American today cant get access to contraception, sex education, domestic abuse prevention, or planned parenthood? Any links you can find would be helpful. I am not saying we are prefect, but a quick internet search brings up a lot of sites for free to low cost birth control:

https://www.simplehealth.com/birth-cont ... &g_source={sourceid}&g_merchantid=&g_placement=&g_partition=&g_campaignid=368281023&g_adgroupid=1276533383939407&g_ifproduct=&sid=adwords&cid=368281023&aid=1276533383939407&kid=kwd-79783597823024:loc-4126&crid=&msclkid=e596df86fa1919cc563fbdf2f01d46bb&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search_Non-Brand_Exact_Birth-Control&utm_term=birth%20control%20free&utm_content=Birth-Control_Free

https://www.nurx.com/birthcontrol/?b_ca ... line_Exact

Domestic Abuse support, including the big bad Texas:

https://www.thehotline.org/
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb/programs/f ... grams/ndvh
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/legal-hotl ... c-violence

Family Planning:
https://www.hhs.texas.gov/providers/hea ... y-planning
https://www.weareplannedparenthoodactio ... 47de309be2

Free to low cost women's heath clinics:
https://www.caredash.com/articles/how-t ... nancy-care

I found all of that in about two minutes.

MaverickM11 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Another way you know conservatives don't give a toss about "life" is that we already know what is required to bring down abortion rates, whether it's access to contraception, sex education, quality healthcare, family planning services, and domestic abuse prevention.

All things the GOP stridently opposes.

As I mentioned one or two pages ago, these people aren't concerned about numerical differences, they want absolute, like the war on drugs.
Their concern is what is life instead of quality of life.

If being "pro-life" meant more than putting a bumper sticker on your car and voting Republican, maybe we'd have better infant mortality rates in the places where such sentiments are widespread?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... tality.htm

seb146 wrote:

It's not about life, it is about control. If it were about life, to paraphrase someone out in cyberspace, there would be 20 more kids graduating from Sandy Hook. These far right wing evangelicals want to control women and gays and trans people and minorities. Look at the outrage from Republicans lately. All fake and all about control. They have no actual plans to help us who are working. They simply want control. And they are doing it by expanding the government. Micromanaging every last one of us.

Well you see, dealing with gun violence is hard. Banning abortion is easy. Can I interest you in some bumper stickers?

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Another way you know conservatives don't give a toss about "life" is that we already know what is required to bring down abortion rates, whether it's access to contraception, sex education, quality healthcare, family planning services, and domestic abuse prevention.

All things the GOP stridently opposes.

As I mentioned one or two pages ago, these people aren't concerned about numerical differences, they want absolute, like the war on drugs.
Their concern is what is life instead of quality of life.

It's not about life, it is about control. If it were about life, to paraphrase someone out in cyberspace, there would be 20 more kids graduating from Sandy Hook. These far right wing evangelicals want to control women and gays and trans people and minorities. Look at the outrage from Republicans lately. All fake and all about control. They have no actual plans to help us who are working. They simply want control. And they are doing it by expanding the government. Micromanaging every last one of us.

Another false narrative these far right wing evangelicals push is "The Bible says...." or "Jesus says...." but neither are correct. There is plenty of abortion mentioned in the Bible. Jesus never spoke one word for or against abortion other than "love thy neighbor" and made no mention of who to exclude because (SPOILER!!) "neighbor" is EVERYONE!!! If you want to get all theological about it, life begins a first breath. Genesis 2:7

If it were about control those people would have supported gun control. They don't because they don't believe lax gun control is the cause behind mass murder.
Like they don't believe homosexuality or transgender are something naturally developed from people's mind. Or that they don't believe baby bearing people could have wanted its termination.
Of course all of these are wrong and outdated idea. Harmful to the society and to the people. But that doesn't prevent them from thinking this way.

And here comes Louisiana in their quest to abuse women.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 656102002/

— A Louisiana legislative committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of homicide in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged.

c933103 wrote:

If it were about control those people would have supported gun control. They don't because they don't believe lax gun control is the cause behind mass murder.
Like they don't believe homosexuality or transgender are something naturally developed from people's mind. Or that they don't believe baby bearing people could have wanted its termination.
Of course all of these are wrong and outdated idea. Harmful to the society and to the people. But that doesn't prevent them from thinking this way.

You’re thinking too deep. It’s not a matter of overall control, it’s a means of controlling things they don’t like.

Don’t like abortion? ban
New Vaccine being required? Scary. ban
Gay marriage isn’t how I live so it’s bad. Ban

Mass murder of children via guns? Well…I like guns, so…it’s ok.


It’s a party that believes children are too young and innocent to be corrupted by any mentions of gender or sex in school, but fully capable of being forced to have a child.

casinterest wrote:

And here comes Louisiana in their quest to abuse women.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 656102002/

— A Louisiana legislative committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of homicide in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged.

If you believe that life begins at conception full stop, this is actually completely logically consistent, even if it's fairly monstrous. Weird what happens when you try to fit your entire philosophical concept of life into a bumper sticker, huh?

Newark727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

And here comes Louisiana in their quest to abuse women.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 656102002/

— A Louisiana legislative committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of homicide in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged.

If you believe that life begins at conception full stop, this is actually completely logically consistent, even if it's fairly monstrous. Weird what happens when you try to fit your entire philosophical concept of life into a bumper sticker, huh?

It's a preview of what is to come when they take privacy and body rights away from Americans. I bet eugenics will be next as they will decide that the state doesn't want to pay for babies anymore.

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

You are the one that introduced the idea of some level of concurrence between humans and animals. Something regarding how humans were gifted the responsibility of procreation... Procreation is just a fact of life. As is abortion and the decision to not carry or support said creation.

And of course there are repercussions. Women who have abortions carry that fact with them. As does anybody for any decision they make that affects the life of another. TO not take care of a mother in need, or to coddle a child excessively, or avoid a relative that one disagrees with, etc. All these things have an impact on the person and society.

Tugg

And the implication was that because animals don't perform intentional abortions, humans doing so is somehow aberrant behavior. Lack of abortion in the animal kingdom was used as an argument against human abortion. Now that it's been pointed out that animals do eat or kill their offspring at times, which amounts to the same thing as an abortion--thereby undermining the previous contention, suddenly this line of argument is irrelevant.

The killing of their young is irrelevant, that was put out there by another poster not me. I did not start the whole line of reasoning, I did partake in it, but not start it. I just pointed out that no animals chose to have apportions. I didn't bring it up though.

The original sequence of posts is below for reference. I think your response of "And no other species living on this planet preforms intentional abortions" in context makes your implication and intent pretty clear.

Since you mentioned that no other living species chooses to have abortions, you must have thought it relevant to the discussion. Otherwise, why mention it? Animals generally don't have the option to choose an abortion (so it's a bit of meaningless statement anyway... like saying animals don't choose to become commercial airline pilots), but the next closest thing available is killing their offspring. If the fact that they kill their offspring is not relevant, according to you, then the fact that animals don't have abortions, if true, is even less relevant. So again, why mention it, if not to bolster your argument against abortion?

Ultimately none of this matters anyway. You avoided my previous question, and I still haven't seen a compelling reason why a woman relinquishes her right to control her body as a consequence of procreation at the point of conception.

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Its a pretty big responsibility humans have been given to be able to make life.

This is laughable. "Given"? Every living thing on earth (and anywhere else) has been given this same exact "responsibility" to make life. And don't care.

Very simply put, life does not care. Only sentient beings, human's add "caring" to the equation. And we can, and most of the time choose to no care about life. I suspect you also do very little to prevent loss of life everywhere in the world.

The only thing we care about is OUR OWN circle of life. Family, friends, community maybe. beyond that we pass laws to address it and that must meet a different standard as it is not personal.

Tugg

And no other species living on this planet preforms intentional abortions. You can suspect about me all you want, but would 100% be incorrect. I am not going into my personal life details on the internet, so go ahead and flame on, I don't care. As far as "OUR OWN circle of life.". the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Since you are one of the more rational pro-choice users in this forum, perhaps you would also recognize as it is very obvious that:

1- Democrats don't trust the electorate to side with them on the abortion debate.

2- As a result, they prefer life-appointed judges to legislate for them, in this issue as with many others

3- They need a reason to campaign in elections and gather people to vote for them. Roe for 50 years have been their major rallying cry. That's why the base of support for the Democrat party is mostly women. This has served a great political treasure for them.

4- If Roe is struck down, its over for this topic to be a rallying point, unless they legislate.

5- They won't legislate because if they resolve the issue then they got nothing else to run on.

Right now as this country is headed for a recession, high inflation, crime and immigration issues, this leak is a godsend for them. They think people will vote for them for 'abortion rights'. Nope. Those who are strongly on both sides of this issue already vote for their respective parties. Its not going to change.

This is a great distraction from the main and serious issues Democrats don't want to talk about. Trump is no longer in power, and this is for them the best to fearmonger and make the GOP and conservatives as the worse of people.

So much for uniting the country.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... -slightly/
The different between party support across gender is just about ~10%.

College educated women, 35%. That makes a huge difference.

It's almost like people learning stuff is bad for Republicans. What if... wait, almost had a thought there for a second. Oh well, time to ban and burn more books!!!

casinterest wrote:

And here comes Louisiana in their quest to abuse women.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 656102002/

— A Louisiana legislative committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of homicide in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged.

What I'm looking for is the first GOP that will take away a woman's shoes and her right to vote. I don't think either of those was ever fully enshrined. Pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen getting the table ready...mmmm..mmmm..mmmm. 1680's here we come.

PPVRA wrote:

In the same manner the Constitution has never meant to give abortion rights, it does not restrict abortion in anyway. And it never has, including in the ~200 years of its existence pre-Roe.

Particularly if one is to look at this from a life versus death point of view. Murder is almost always a state issue.

Exactly....

Just look at the individual state laws that were on the books concerning the taking of the life in the womb before Roe v Wade in the the two Appendixes to the leaked Decision:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -draft.pdf

DIRECTFLT wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

In the same manner the Constitution has never meant to give abortion rights, it does not restrict abortion in anyway. And it never has, including in the ~200 years of its existence pre-Roe.

Particularly if one is to look at this from a life versus death point of view. Murder is almost always a state issue.

Exactly....

Just look at the individual state laws that were on the books concerning the taking of the life in the womb before Roe v Wade in the the two Appendixes to the leaked Decision:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -draft.pdf

Or how about - if you don't like abortion, don't knock women up unless intending to stick around and/or for women - don't have one. Much more simple. Don't like it? Don't partake. Just like same-sex marriage. Don't like certain kinds of sex? Don't partake. Hello Lawrence v. Texas

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

In the same manner the Constitution has never meant to give abortion rights, it does not restrict abortion in anyway. And it never has, including in the ~200 years of its existence pre-Roe.

Particularly if one is to look at this from a life versus death point of view. Murder is almost always a state issue.

Exactly....

Just look at the individual state laws that were on the books concerning the taking of the life in the womb before Roe v Wade in the the two Appendixes to the leaked Decision:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -draft.pdf

Or how about - if you don't like abortion, don't knock women up unless intending to stick around and/or for women - don't have one. Much more simple. Don't like it? Don't partake. Just like same-sex marriage. Don't like certain kinds of sex? Don't partake. Hello Lawrence v. Texas

Another reasonably simple option would be to pass laws requiring all males to undertake a vasectomy at puberty, which can be reversed quite easily in almost all cases when they are in a situation where they want to reproduce.

Kent350787 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Exactly....

Just look at the individual state laws that were on the books concerning the taking of the life in the womb before Roe v Wade in the the two Appendixes to the leaked Decision:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -draft.pdf

Or how about - if you don't like abortion, don't knock women up unless intending to stick around and/or for women - don't have one. Much more simple. Don't like it? Don't partake. Just like same-sex marriage. Don't like certain kinds of sex? Don't partake. Hello Lawrence v. Texas

Another reasonably simple option would be to pass laws requiring all males to undertake a vasectomy at puberty, which can be reversed quite easily in almost all cases when they are in a situation where they want to reproduce.

Can you imagine a majority-male legislative body voting for that? Talk about opposite day lol

Aaron747 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Or how about - if you don't like abortion, don't knock women up unless intending to stick around and/or for women - don't have one. Much more simple. Don't like it? Don't partake. Just like same-sex marriage. Don't like certain kinds of sex? Don't partake. Hello Lawrence v. Texas

Another reasonably simple option would be to pass laws requiring all males to undertake a vasectomy at puberty, which can be reversed quite easily in almost all cases when they are in a situation where they want to reproduce.

Can you imagine a majority-male legislative body voting for that? Talk about opposite day lol

But I thought the GoP was pro-life and seeking to reduce the number of abortions? The vasectomy option reduces unwanted preganancies, also reducinbg any obligation on males to support children who may be carried to term after a casual encounter.

I can't see why people woul dresist the absolute logic as the best way to prevent abortions.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Another way you know conservatives don't give a toss about "life" is that we already know what is required to bring down abortion rates, whether it's access to contraception, sex education, quality healthcare, family planning services, and domestic abuse prevention.

All things the GOP stridently opposes.

Please show me how any American today cant get access to contraception, sex education, domestic abuse prevention, or planned parenthood? Any links you can find would be helpful. I am not saying we are prefect, but a quick internet search brings up a lot of sites for free to low cost birth control:

All in spite of conservatives--show me anywhere where conservatives are expanding and/or improving access? You can't. Instead they're gunning to ban contraception in LA--and other states are sure to follow--and including ectopic pregnancies in the scenarios of prohibited abortions.

Do you understand how batsh!t insane it is to punish women for ectopic pregnancies? Merely contemplating it should be license for a lifetime sentence in a padded cell.

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Aaron747 wrote:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Pfft. If that were the case, then we wouldn't be able to live in a country where tax-exempt billionaires can launch dueling penis rockets to space. If you can call that "living." Priorities.

Aaron747 wrote:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

The future of earth’s civilization is looking into Asia and Africa. Countries that have a higher reproductive rate than 2, whats needed to keep the human race alive and not exctinct.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, we need to have excellent and amazing conditions to even consider the continuation of our civilization.

Thats whats coming.

Ask your cousin what would happen when there arent enough people to actually populate the earth if all of the sudden the bar is constantly being raised and as a result we are to have less children and thus not enough people to keep this going.

Yeah sounds crazy but look at the birth rates in the west.

Elon Musk does have a point and the guy is smart.

A quick recap of how this case and this draft evolved. Please note I worked for 43 years as a litigation paralegal and related fields and help prepare motions and appeals to the NY State and Federal courts including to the US Supreme court.
Mississippi passes a law to limit abortions to not more than 6 weeks of pregnancy, when a 'fetal heartbeat' can be medically detected and with other limits on access, in particular as to minors. Citizens and groups affected and object to the law file a case as Plaintiffs vs. the State of Mississippi with the US District Court for Mississippi. Plaintiffs lose in the District Court. They appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit which includes Mississippi. The Plaintiff-Appellants lose in the 5th Circuit. They then apply to the US Supreme Court on a 'Writ of Certiorari'. The Supreme Court Justices (with their clerks) then decide if to grant a writ, to allow the petitioner to have their case heard and briefed to the Court or deny it. Usually a Constitutional issue needs to be involved to be granted 'Cert'. Here the Petitioners were granted the right to be heard before the court. The Petitioners file their briefs, supporting record and documents, the Respondent, the State of Mississippi, files it briefs and supporting record and documents. Interested others can apply to file 'friend of the court' briefs, usually in support of one party or another.
The Supreme Court sets an oral argument date (if needed), the oral arguments are held in this case in January (i believe). Shortly after the oral arguments, the Justices meet to discuss the case, take a preliminary internal vote, the Chief Justice assigns a Justice from the majority side, in this case Samuel Alito, to prepare an Opinion and Decision of the Court. Drafts are prepared and circulated to the Justices, they and their clerk's review and continue discussion of the matter in closed meetings. Comments on the proposed decision are exchanged. The final decision will likely be issued in late June. Here the early draft which only appears to be all of Justice Alito's work leaks by someone for who knows for sure the reason. Since February, likely this draft has been discussed, comments made and the proposed decision altered, narrowing the scope (or not) of it. By this leak, we see a hard line potential decision that many are upset by and many are pleased by. Protest ensue, anger and praise for the 'leaker', an issue takes a huge and ugly political turn.
It is likely after more discussions among the Justices some moderation of the time period when an abortion may be done but that is not a sure thing, indeed the draft opinion may be close to the final decision also affecting laws in many other states pending it.

So a couple observations:
1. The low count of educated women, is that a result of past denials of access to higher education?
2. To the Democrats the American people are represented by folks in Washington, to the GOP it is local legislatures, the Dems need to go local, the USA is not Europe
3. Even if the next mid-terms give the Dems greater control, I do not see them passing true federal law, they could have done so long ago, I think there are more pro-life
Dems around than they want to admit. As for the politics, the GOP controlled all and could not overturn Obamacare which they campaigned on, so...
4. Who on either side of the divide pushes for increased adoption in the USA, is it a chicken and egg? The GOP does not support because it will kill their argument that the pregnancies are intentional, or the Dems not supporting because it would aid the GOP in their quest, in either event, its not about the women
5. How about the men, do these women rape them to get pregnant, why was it so difficult to finally have laws to force support? If states now want to control what is done in other states will they support garnishment across states without federal mandate?

I guess the mindset can be that it is the males right to procreate, so ensuring that the woman is available for that is all the justification needed.
The dems need to return to the states for battle as most laws / rules / regulations for day to day life are done at the local level. We can talk about gerrymandering but dems used to control much more state legislatures inclusive of counties, they just chose to focus on Washington instead, when you look at what the GOP has done, I think it is / was a failed strategy. The vast majority if not all of the GOP mandates affecting civil liberties are being driven at the state level, the dems have not been as successful getting federal protections.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

The future of earth’s civilization is looking into Asia and Africa. Countries that have a higher reproductive rate than 2, whats needed to keep the human race alive and not exctinct.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, we need to have excellent and amazing conditions to even consider the continuation of our civilization.

Thats whats coming.

Ask your cousin what would happen when there arent enough people to actually populate the earth if all of the sudden the bar is constantly being raised and as a result we are to have less children and thus not enough people to keep this going.

Yeah sounds crazy but look at the birth rates in the west.

Elon Musk does have a point and the guy is smart.

Your comments are wholesale divorced from reality. World population today is 7.9 billion and counting. When I was born it was 4.5 billion.

My cousin practices medicine in a supposedly developed country, and those are the standards mothers and patients are facing up to, not somewhere else. Higher economic performance has always depressed birthrates, that’s just human nature.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

The future of earth’s civilization is looking into Asia and Africa. Countries that have a higher reproductive rate than 2, whats needed to keep the human race alive and not exctinct.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, we need to have excellent and amazing conditions to even consider the continuation of our civilization.

Thats whats coming.

Ask your cousin what would happen when there arent enough people to actually populate the earth if all of the sudden the bar is constantly being raised and as a result we are to have less children and thus not enough people to keep this going.

Yeah sounds crazy but look at the birth rates in the west.

Elon Musk does have a point and the guy is smart.

Your comments are wholesale divorced from reality. World population today is 7.9 billion and counting. When I was born it was 4.5 billion.

My cousin practices medicine in a supposedly developed country, and those are the standards mothers and patients are facing up to, not somewhere else. Higher economic performance has always depressed birthrates, that’s just human nature.

Right

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/chil ... 50x600.svg

That can show you that even in countries which have all of those benefits you mention the fertility rates are low, yes looking at you EUROPE.

Its because our overly educated and egoistical society of me, me and I dont want the responsabiluty and the inconvenience.

Well there you have it, very soon the population will age out. Africa will lead the world. Yes despite them being worse off in abject poverty.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The future of earth’s civilization is looking into Asia and Africa. Countries that have a higher reproductive rate than 2, whats needed to keep the human race alive and not exctinct.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, we need to have excellent and amazing conditions to even consider the continuation of our civilization.

Thats whats coming.

Ask your cousin what would happen when there arent enough people to actually populate the earth if all of the sudden the bar is constantly being raised and as a result we are to have less children and thus not enough people to keep this going.

Yeah sounds crazy but look at the birth rates in the west.

Elon Musk does have a point and the guy is smart.

Your comments are wholesale divorced from reality. World population today is 7.9 billion and counting. When I was born it was 4.5 billion.

My cousin practices medicine in a supposedly developed country, and those are the standards mothers and patients are facing up to, not somewhere else. Higher economic performance has always depressed birthrates, that’s just human nature.

Right

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/chil ... 50x600.svg

That can show you that even in countries which have all of those benefits you mention the fertility rates are low, yes looking at you EUROPE.

Its because our overly educated and egoistical society of me, me and I dont want the responsabiluty and the inconvenience.

Well there you have it, very soon the population will age out. Africa will lead the world. Yes despite them being worse off in abject poverty.

The relevant discussion here is abortion rate, not fertility rates. That’s is all a long non sequitur. Economic and social conditions influence the decisions pregnant women make, full stop.

Abortion rates are at 30-year lows in Europe.

Aaron747 wrote:

The relevant discussion here is abortion rate, not fertility rates. That’s is all a long non sequitur. Economic and social conditions influence the decisions pregnant women make, full stop.

Abortion rates are at 30-year lows in Europe.

The comments aren’t just wholesale divorced from reality, they’re pushing the boundary of racist. The US shouldn’t allow abortions because otherwise African people will out-reproduce white people and maybe take a leading role in the world? What?


It’s also nonsense. Look at countries with massive populations. Not quite the picture of modern achievements and world leadership….

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The future of earth’s civilization is looking into Asia and Africa. Countries that have a higher reproductive rate than 2, whats needed to keep the human race alive and not exctinct.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, we need to have excellent and amazing conditions to even consider the continuation of our civilization.

Thats whats coming.

Ask your cousin what would happen when there arent enough people to actually populate the earth if all of the sudden the bar is constantly being raised and as a result we are to have less children and thus not enough people to keep this going.

Yeah sounds crazy but look at the birth rates in the west.

Elon Musk does have a point and the guy is smart.

Your comments are wholesale divorced from reality. World population today is 7.9 billion and counting. When I was born it was 4.5 billion.

My cousin practices medicine in a supposedly developed country, and those are the standards mothers and patients are facing up to, not somewhere else. Higher economic performance has always depressed birthrates, that’s just human nature.

Right

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/chil ... 50x600.svg

That can show you that even in countries which have all of those benefits you mention the fertility rates are low, yes looking at you EUROPE.

Its because our overly educated and egoistical society of me, me and I dont want the responsabiluty and the inconvenience.

Well there you have it, very soon the population will age out. Africa will lead the world. Yes despite them being worse off in abject poverty.

Wait, are you saying it’s my responsibility to have kids I don’t want so the world will continue to populate? Why?

I’ll be gone long before that comes and fortunately my life won’t be ruined with kids I don’t want.

I’m legit curious as to why it’s important to continue to populate the world. For real

The judicial branch—has always been considered the weakest of the three branches by many because it cannot ensure that its decisions are enforced.

illegal abortions were common before 1973. Their decisions won't stop abortions from not happening, it just sweeps them under the rug.
This is a very sad day for women in republican controls states that live on the nickel and dime income spectrum as well as those woman whose partner has money, but are in a controlling relationship, and are not allowed to leave the state for an abortion. Don't get me started with the homeless women, rape victims, and incest survivors.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your comments are wholesale divorced from reality. World population today is 7.9 billion and counting. When I was born it was 4.5 billion.

My cousin practices medicine in a supposedly developed country, and those are the standards mothers and patients are facing up to, not somewhere else. Higher economic performance has always depressed birthrates, that’s just human nature.

Right

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/chil ... 50x600.svg

That can show you that even in countries which have all of those benefits you mention the fertility rates are low, yes looking at you EUROPE.

Its because our overly educated and egoistical society of me, me and I dont want the responsabiluty and the inconvenience.

Well there you have it, very soon the population will age out. Africa will lead the world. Yes despite them being worse off in abject poverty.

Wait, are you saying it’s my responsibility to have kids I don’t want so the world will continue to populate? Why?

I’ll be gone long before that comes and fortunately my life won’t be ruined with kids I don’t want.

I’m legit curious as to why it’s important to continue to populate the world. For real

Yup, and that post also said it’s a doctor’s responsibility to ensure that America stays ahead of Africa Nevermind any of that stuff about being responsible for health and welfare of patients...

seb146 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So a couple observations:
1. The low count of educated women, is that a result of past denials of access to higher education?
2. To the Democrats the American people are represented by folks in Washington, to the GOP it is local legislatures, the Dems need to go local, the USA is not Europe
3. Even if the next mid-terms give the Dems greater control, I do not see them passing true federal law, they could have done so long ago, I think there are more pro-life
Dems around than they want to admit. As for the politics, the GOP controlled all and could not overturn Obamacare which they campaigned on, so...
4. Who on either side of the divide pushes for increased adoption in the USA, is it a chicken and egg? The GOP does not support because it will kill their argument that the pregnancies are intentional, or the Dems not supporting because it would aid the GOP in their quest, in either event, its not about the women
5. How about the men, do these women rape them to get pregnant, why was it so difficult to finally have laws to force support? If states now want to control what is done in other states will they support garnishment across states without federal mandate?

I guess the mindset can be that it is the males right to procreate, so ensuring that the woman is available for that is all the justification needed.
The dems need to return to the states for battle as most laws / rules / regulations for day to day life are done at the local level. We can talk about gerrymandering but dems used to control much more state legislatures inclusive of counties, they just chose to focus on Washington instead, when you look at what the GOP has done, I think it is / was a failed strategy. The vast majority if not all of the GOP mandates affecting civil liberties are being driven at the state level, the dems have not been as successful getting federal protections.

Part of the problem is Democrats are trying to play catch-up and Democrats are lobbing soft ball answers. Republicans run bumper sticker campaigns that really energize (read: they get angry!) the base. Look at the current issued Republicans are running on:

CRT BAD!
TRANS BAD!
BOOKS BAD!
SCIENCE BAD!
ABORTION BAD!
HIGH PRICES BAD!
VOTING BAD!

That's it. That's their whole campaign until November. Democrats launch into this whole debate and paragraphs and science of why they are better but people lose interest and it has been indoctrinated by Republicans that Democrats are "liberal socialist communist" and that's bad. Too many people hear "Democrat" and automatically knee-jerk to "bad" and get all red faced and get mad.

And all the Democrats have is:

ORANGE MAN (Still) BAD!

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So a couple observations:
1. The low count of educated women, is that a result of past denials of access to higher education?
2. To the Democrats the American people are represented by folks in Washington, to the GOP it is local legislatures, the Dems need to go local, the USA is not Europe
3. Even if the next mid-terms give the Dems greater control, I do not see them passing true federal law, they could have done so long ago, I think there are more pro-life
Dems around than they want to admit. As for the politics, the GOP controlled all and could not overturn Obamacare which they campaigned on, so...
4. Who on either side of the divide pushes for increased adoption in the USA, is it a chicken and egg? The GOP does not support because it will kill their argument that the pregnancies are intentional, or the Dems not supporting because it would aid the GOP in their quest, in either event, its not about the women
5. How about the men, do these women rape them to get pregnant, why was it so difficult to finally have laws to force support? If states now want to control what is done in other states will they support garnishment across states without federal mandate?

I guess the mindset can be that it is the males right to procreate, so ensuring that the woman is available for that is all the justification needed.
The dems need to return to the states for battle as most laws / rules / regulations for day to day life are done at the local level. We can talk about gerrymandering but dems used to control much more state legislatures inclusive of counties, they just chose to focus on Washington instead, when you look at what the GOP has done, I think it is / was a failed strategy. The vast majority if not all of the GOP mandates affecting civil liberties are being driven at the state level, the dems have not been as successful getting federal protections.

Part of the problem is Democrats are trying to play catch-up and Democrats are lobbing soft ball answers. Republicans run bumper sticker campaigns that really energize (read: they get angry!) the base. Look at the current issued Republicans are running on:

CRT BAD!
TRANS BAD!
BOOKS BAD!
SCIENCE BAD!
ABORTION BAD!
HIGH PRICES BAD!
VOTING BAD!

That's it. That's their whole campaign until November. Democrats launch into this whole debate and paragraphs and science of why they are better but people lose interest and it has been indoctrinated by Republicans that Democrats are "liberal socialist communist" and that's bad. Too many people hear "Democrat" and automatically knee-jerk to "bad" and get all red faced and get mad.

And all the Democrats have is:

ORANGE MAN (Still) BAD!

He is, so what's your point? Speaking of TFG, anybody gonna step up and get his kid into rehab anytime soon? Nice video Junior put out yesterday, guy needs serious help.

Republican party = Taliban ...

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your comments are wholesale divorced from reality. World population today is 7.9 billion and counting. When I was born it was 4.5 billion.

My cousin practices medicine in a supposedly developed country, and those are the standards mothers and patients are facing up to, not somewhere else. Higher economic performance has always depressed birthrates, that’s just human nature.

Right

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/chil ... 50x600.svg

That can show you that even in countries which have all of those benefits you mention the fertility rates are low, yes looking at you EUROPE.

Its because our overly educated and egoistical society of me, me and I dont want the responsabiluty and the inconvenience.

Well there you have it, very soon the population will age out. Africa will lead the world. Yes despite them being worse off in abject poverty.

The relevant discussion here is abortion rate, not fertility rates. That’s is all a long non sequitur. Economic and social conditions influence the decisions pregnant women make, full stop.

Abortion rates are at 30-year lows in Europe.

And that’s probably because the birth rates are at all time lows, people aren’t making babies either.

par13del wrote:

So a couple observations:
1. The low count of educated women, is that a result of past denials of access to higher education?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184 ... by-gender/
college educated rate for women is 38% but for men is 36%. So rather than denial of access it would more be like lacl of availability.
But then another question is does this count community college level of education, since other countries with good higher education coverage and lower costs usually seems to achieve so via non-universities.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The future of earth’s civilization is looking into Asia and Africa. Countries that have a higher reproductive rate than 2, whats needed to keep the human race alive and not exctinct.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, we need to have excellent and amazing conditions to even consider the continuation of our civilization.

Thats whats coming.

Ask your cousin what would happen when there arent enough people to actually populate the earth if all of the sudden the bar is constantly being raised and as a result we are to have less children and thus not enough people to keep this going.

Yeah sounds crazy but look at the birth rates in the west.

Elon Musk does have a point and the guy is smart.

According to quick google only countries in Asia that have reproduction rate over 2.1 is like:
- Yemen and Oman
- Iraq and Syria
- Cambodia and Laos
- East Timor
- The seven countries between Pakistan and Kazakhstan

Each of them have not a high population count to begin with and have a population cery easy to die due to numerous internal and external factors.

I don't think Asia as a whole is going to stay above the population replacement threshold.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Right

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/chil ... 50x600.svg

That can show you that even in countries which have all of those benefits you mention the fertility rates are low, yes looking at you EUROPE.

Its because our overly educated and egoistical society of me, me and I dont want the responsabiluty and the inconvenience.

Well there you have it, very soon the population will age out. Africa will lead the world. Yes despite them being worse off in abject poverty.

So you think the solution to the population pyramid, is to reduce "overly educated" education, and somehow make people less "egoistical", that people don't want to bear responsibility and inconvenience of having babies?
How do you propose to make people having babies even if doing so would degrade the quality of life of them?

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

One area that I’ve always found curious about the abortion debate here in the US is how much the pro-choice lobby loves to weave this narrative of theocratic oppression and level accusations of US abortion law being somehow akin to the Taliban…or Quran adherents as mentioned earlier in the thread. The reality is that under Roe and to this day, the US pole vaulted to having more or less the most liberal abortion policies in the world. Looking to the rest of the developed world, and Europe in particular, abortion at will is prohibited in many countries and late term abortions outside of medical emergencies are illegal. Most impose limits at 12 weeks of pregnancy or even earlier. It’s therefore unsurprising to me that Roe has remained so “unsettled,” we in the US weren’t allowed to hash out this debate and come to more codified, stable legislative protections compared to countries in Europe who didn’t have to grapple with judicial review of the sort found in the US. It’s pretty evident that the vast majority of public opinion in the US tracks with the normie abortion policies found in most other countries…safe, legal and rare, limitations after a certain stage of viability, no late term abortion outside of medical necessity…but Roe clearly hasn’t been a sound, stable vehicle to that end. Roe has always been the elephant in the room for pro-choice advocates, roundly critiqued by eminent legal scholars from both sides of the spectrum. So I’m not particularly sorry to see shoddy judicial review like Roe brushed aside…but at the same time, as a limited government type who generally doesn’t think the state should intercede in such decisions, I can’t say I’m necessarily looking forward to its aftermath if Roe ends up being struck down.

Not sure this is anywhere near an accurate summation. Because of the language in Roe establishing abortion is not an unlimited right, there are various situations according to which state a woman lives in.

For one, only seven states allow late-term abortions with zero threshold:

States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.

And there are multiple states with gestational limits:

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, as of August 1, 2020, 24 states prohibit some abortions at a specific gestational age.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... m-abortion

While you are correct there are several European countries that do not allow abortion at-will or have significant restrictions, like Poland and Germany, there are many others where abortion is more accessible than one would initially assume.

Switzerland is no questions asked until 12 weeks, but gives doctors wide latitude to approve abortions after that point:

https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/switze ... n-abortion

Abortion was significantly liberalized in Ireland in 2018, after decades of severe restrictions, but holds to the 12 weeks you mentioned in most cases

https://theconversation.com/one-year-on ... ons-129491

Spain allows termination up to week 14 and under physical or mother's mental distress up to week 22

https://www.centromedicoaragon.com/en/a ... ur-rights/

Italy has a 1st trimester limit with allowances beyond for certain conditions, but those allowances are apparently hard to access depending on region of the country

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/201 ... tion-intl/

Belgium extended the decision time from 12 to 18 weeks two years ago

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/ ... parliament

France recently granted extension from 12 to 14 weeks. Sweden allows at-will up to 18 weeks, and the Netherlands up to 24

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/01/fra ... -key-moves

https://www.government.nl/topics/abortion

And other laws among other US-aligned nations:

Japan allows without restriction up to 22 weeks

https://telljp.com/lifeline/tell-chat/h ... y-options/

New Zealand allows up to 20 weeks

https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/ ... n-abortion

Most Australian states allow termination up to 20-22 weeks, but a couple are more restrictive

https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/res ... -practice/

In Canada abortion is essentially unrestricted at any gestational stage but access depends on provincial priorities:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8158399/cana ... le-access/

What helped put the referendum in Ireland on abortion over the line, aside from demographic changes and the multiple scandals with once the real power in the country and main opponent of abortion, the Catholic Church, was the death of a woman due to doctor’s being forced by law, to essentially abandon their Hippocratic oath.
So a decision made by the people not some politically appointed judges (how did Frat Boy Brett get his substantial financial debts suddenly disappeared prior to the hearings for him?), there for life.

There is no need to replace the population. With our technology and civilizational level, we could survive with 10 million people on the planet instead of 10 billion. And of course we would all have a much better life, and all other species too. The only downside would be a slower tech advancement as there would be much less scientific research because of less scientists overall.