Can you expand on why you are against abortions generally?

Most anti-choice people are against all abortions because they believe life begins in the womb, but I’ve never seen someone justify allowing a caveat for rape victims If that is the case.

Your phone could reveal if you've had an abortion

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion proposing to overturn Roe v. Wade raises a data privacy flash point: If abortion becomes criminal in some states, might a person's data trail be treated as evidence?

When does life begin? What different religions say about abortion

The problem is that three of the biggest religions in America disagree. Because Christian teachings state that life begins at conception, different denominations such as Catholicism and Southern Baptists oppose abortion. Meanwhile, Judaism and Islam prioritize the life of the mother and support abortion.

‘Historical accident’: how abortion came to focus white, evangelical anger

@DioShiba

The religious right in the US has been laying the foundations of this decisive challenge to abortion rights for years. According to historians and researchers, it has taken decades of political machinations for the campaign to reach this zenith. The movement has intersected with nearly every major issue in American politics for the last five decades, from segregation to welfare reform to campaign finance.

The conservative anti-abortion movement “was a kind of historical accident”, said Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Dartmouth University and author of the recently released book Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right.

It wasn’t until Republican strategists sought to “deflect attention away from the real narrative”, which Balmer argues was racial integration, “and to advocate on behalf of the fetus”, that largely apolitical evangelical Christians and Catholics would be united within the Republican party. Balmer argues that advocacy was nascent in 1969.

Because the amount of thought put into ONLY allowing an exception for rape victims is approximately zero. Even pro-life politicians sometimes concede that abortions may be necessary for certain medical conditions like ectopic pregnancies or situations where the amniotic sac is broken too early.

A no-exception law, or law where for some reason rape is the only exception, requires the proponent of said law to either be ignorant of the occasional medical necessity for abortions, or a morally-depraved human being.

Louisiana Republicans advance bill that would charge abortion as homicide

And other red states are also looking into it.

That's why they just have to be seen as fighting, rather than actually doing anything, because people might actually expect them to do other things. If there's one thing Democrats hate, it's actually governing.

Yeah, you really wouldn't know that by the right, and even posters on this board, accusing Democrats of being Nazis and and tyrants when they do try to govern, while Republicans pass Orwelian laws. But, by all means, keep blaming Democrats....

Look, I used to believe the same as you, back when it was Lieberman rather than Sinemanchina holding things up. That's the thing: Democrats always have a convenient scapegoat so they can throw up their hands and say "well, we tried, it's their fault we can't get past these evil Republicans!"

Then I got older and wiser and realized: the system works exactly how they want it to work. And from what I've been seeing, many other people are catching on too.

Sure, there are always a few rubes, but for the most part, the dogs aren't eating the dog food no matter how much the Democrats and their sycophants try.

This really explains nothing. It's like you are upset that Democrats didn't prevent Republicans from slapping you on one side of the face over this. And no matter how you explain it it just never makes sense. It's like you have some personal grievance you can't let go over the Democrats by irrationally placing more blame on them than over what Republicans are outright doing

And I have been voting for about 30 years now, so I have come to my own conclusions on the mirage of politics of both sides - and libertarians

It was already Explained that Democrats didn't have a super majority for the last 30 years or more, while Republicans became more anti-abortionist crazy, melding further with the conservative Christians, in that same period of time. It has only been the last 10 years Republicans have been really chipping away at Roe vs Wade - with a conservative majority in the US supreme court, who are sympathetic to the anti-abortionists cause, and blessing those laws by Republicans. And Many of the Conservative justices seemed to outright lye over Roe vs Wade at their confirmation hearings.

Meanwhile, blue states are expanding and protecting abortion rights, while Red states are making it into a punishable crime with their Orwellian laws. So, Democrat are doing more to protect it at their state level, while they can't do much on the federal level because of all the obstacles in their way.

So, you have to find something more tangible to support your line of argument with.

A large amount of churches tell or even demand their members to vote a particular way, usually but not always Republican. These same churches are also usually tax-exempt organizations. Since they meddle in politics, I would say such churches should not be tax-exempt. Want tax-exempt status? Don't meddle in politics. Churches are supposed to remain neutral in politics anyway, and there are ones which are neutral.

It is not unheard of that people have been excommunicated from their churches for voting the "wrong way" or supporting the "wrong causes".

Many of those places are simply brainwashing institutions, where none of the members (or very few) bother to think for themselves and instead blindly obey whatever the church leadership tells them. In many ways, the pastor or priest or whatever you want to call him (and these problematic churches almost exclusively have only male pastors/priests, because how dare a woman lead anything) becomes their god.

Amazingly, such churches tend not to even get along with each other, over even very minor differences. They hate each other, but they hate the unchurched more.

Also you have politicians who openly espouse their religion as a reason to vote for them. If we are to have separation of church and state, which we should, then this should not be allowed either. Want to have a personal religion? This is fine, but it should not qualify you for nor disqualify you from political office, and really should not be a factor for anyone to vote either for or against you.

so do you think democratic supreme court picks would have abolished roe vs wade

and do you think democratic states are going to charge women for murder over miscarriages

i mean if they're no different than republicans than this must be true

Gario, listen to me.

Remember all that hubbub about a wall 6 years ago? Where is it today? Non-existent. See: border crisis worse than ever.

Republicans always promise the moon to their voters and never deliver.

This isn’t going to become the Handmaid’s Tale, alright? I am giving you a good reason not to panic here

I think we are already seeing how that is going with Florida, and Texas, as they lead the charge of right-wing Orwelliainism in the US because they have normalized it after 6 years of right-wing insanity - all because because people didn't think they would do it. In part, it's because they have a strong right-wing media downplaying how terrible they are these days, while feeding right-wing victimization to justify it.

bruh, there is no border crisis

also i never panicked about the wall, that was always a pipe dream unable to survive trump's presidency (even though it was an expensive windmill to chase); SCOTUS upending the 14th amendment is a little more serious than trump's delusions of grandeur

they just overturned roe and set a precedent against using the 14th amendment to protect privacy

maybe you weren't aware

also louisiana is passing a bill to make contraceptives illegal, because they consider contraceptives a form of abortion, what's gonna stop that from becoming law? there is no more 14th amendment privacy protections to stop them

c'mon, smart guy, you were wrong about covid-19, what makes you think you're correct here?

Some of the cringe worthy comments by Republicans:

Kellyanne Conway on Sen. Maj. Leader Schumer: "I don’t want this old white guy telling me what to do with my body.”

Matt Gaetz Lashes Out At ‘Over-Educated’ Women Protesting For Abortion Rights

Bonus:

Brian Kilmeade Questions Why A Pregnant Woman Got An 'Important' Job

You know, originally when I wrote my essay in this thread I made it sound like that the neighbor I was referring to was supporting it. I found out from my dad that supposedly it was for a shelter for abused women and children and I think that abortion was mentioned briefly, whether or not she was for or against it neither myself or him can remember.

So there was a fuck up on my end but that's what I get for typing late at night and not thinking wait, revise it, then post. Hrmm. I hope that it didn't muddle my point overall to how politics and religion have intersected themselves too much.

This book is something that I should look into because personally I'm interested into seeing the history to how Evangelicals pretty much injected itself into modern politics to the point where it's kind of become cancer at this point.

The way I look at abortion personally is this: I have a penis, so it's not my place to tell a woman what she should do with her body or her kid, born or not.

The problem with abortion is that, I think there's a lot of factors that go into it that technically either way aren't my business. For all I know, there could be health complications, rape or abuse, or that the fetus itself was going through a miscarriage or the woman may not be mentally or financially stable to have a baby.

There are other situations that I can think of where I was asked on my opinion on abortion in the same church by another woman who actually happened to be a tutor of mine from elementary back in the day, she didn't say she was for or against it buy I explained to her the exact stance that I have and why it's not really my place to get involved in that discussion too deeply.

I'd be lying if I said that I would have seen Howard Stern as one of the first public figures to speak on the issue of abortion and women's rights.

Maybe this is mainly how I perceived him as being conservative but then I had to ask myself whether or not he was one until I looked up his political views to find him being a Libertarian.

That's exactly what they want everyone to believe.

Ah, denying science in order to fit a puritanical worldview. What's worse is that it isn't even surprising at this point.

In all fairness to Matt Gaetz, he’s used to mingling with people who haven’t yet passed their junior year of high school

So what is the morality of aborting a fetus? Are you killing a child or are you not? Let's say, hypothetically, that it is killing a child. So you are essentially saying that the murder of a child is moral IF that child is a product of rape? That doesn't seem moral to me, the child would be innocent.

And if an abortion isn't murder, then why does it matter if a woman gets an abortion? It sounds to me like you care more about punishing women than you do for morality.

Did anybody in this thread say freedom of speech is bad? You're grossly and I would suggest purposefully misrepresenting people's viewpoints to try to paint yourself as some kind of victim. There are people that are actively engaging in rhetoric that is a great detriment to society and people's liberties, and because people have a problem with it, you say they "believe freedom of speech is a bad thing". Get the fuck out of here.

You commit slander or libel, and you can get in great trouble for committing "free speech" that ends up causing harm to somebody. However, when people say things that are either factually incorrect or without evidence, that would cause harm to MAGNITUDES of people, well then it's just free speech?

I think there are many poor arguments over abortion, by both sides. I'm not really a supporter of abortions. I find it uncomfortable to defend, and even to talk about - and that may be because of my conservative upbringing. But I think there are a lot of reasons why woman may seek an abortion, which can't easily be encapsulated into one generalized reason that some arguments try to frame it as, and will remain a morally grey area because of it's complexity. I think it's a deeply personnel, and private, matter by a woman, which isn't helped by those virtual signaling over it for political points.

Abortions have been around for thousands of years, done by many cultures around the world, for a lot of the same reasons you hear about. Two millenniums back, abortions was widely practiced by the Romans, and ancient Greeks, but was treated mostly apolitically. Even in the America's, abortions were performed by the native American people, and even by colonial and post colonial Americans - though, it varied in legality for them.

What concerns me the most about what is going on right now is that this decision by Christian activists in the US Supreme Court is more about blurring the lines between church and state to take away privacy under the pretext of religious morality, when it doesn't solve the problem of why woman seek abortions in the first place, while turning them to use more dangerous underground methods to have them. And this same reasoning could be used to undermine other past cases on religious and partisan grounds. And this is at a time when abortions are going down because of more contraceptive use. It's all about religious control, using politics to do it.

And it doesn't help that the same party that is so anti-abortion will attack welfare, where 70% who use it are single mothers, while in more recent times they are often going after school lunches to save on spending. It's hard to reconcile how outright hypocritical all of this is.

This is where the problem lies. People want to assume that it has to be a moral choice to abort something but more often than not, it becomes a matter of survival. There is no morality in situations where you have to do things that are unthinkable to live.

Even if it's in a situation where a woman's life is not at stake because of the pregnancy in of itself, it's that same morality people preach to keep a child a live where a woman would get killed whether she does have an abortion or not. Whether or not a woman is raped is irrelevant because that's not the only reason why a fetus is aborted if you read the article that EdyKei had posted, especially in cultures where women are both punished for rape or abortion one way or the other.

So here are a couple of things I question about the kind of morality that people preach:

1) Is it right to force a woman to keep a child just because she is forced to have one, when we live in a culture where it's shunned to rape a woman?

2) If we were to live in a culture where both rape and abortion are immoral and even illegal, but women are punished severely for one or the other, is it not contradictory to kill a woman for the sake of a child that is not born?

3) Even if the child is born and the mother is dead, how would it profit humanity if the child is unable to reproduce until legal age or when the child could have a life threatening aliment of their own?

4) If the life of a mother is threatened for the sake of the child when no foul play is involved and both her and the child are left to die, is it morally right to allow for the death of one or both?

I feel like there is a contradiction in the "pro-life" argument because it seems very much the opposite of what it's supposed to be about. You're basically devaluing the exact thing that gives life to a child to begin with and in nature if lets say, a bird hatches a chick that happens to have a health issue, it will toss it out of the nest and let it die because the survival of herself and her other chicks are more important than the one that is suffering. This isn't to say that it's impossible for it to survive, but the chances of it may be unlikely that it will in nature.

Yes, you can make the argument that we humans are not the same as other animals, but we are still animals nonetheless in the sense that we're mammals with intelligence. Shouldn't it be more moral to base our morality based on wiser decisions for survival of the human race as a whole? I'm not saying that a child should die but in a case where the mother matters more than the child, then the mother should be kept alive. Not the child.

It sucks but at the end of the day it's very counter-intuitive to allow a child to be born whether it's a bastard child or not. It's a step backwards for the states to even think of abandoning the decision made by Roe Vs. Wade in a practical sense if we were thinking about it like that because it's forcing our culture to act like a third world country when it shouldn't have to be.

That's why this is not a decision that men should be making on the behalf of women. Or a decision that another woman should make for a woman. Only the mother and the mother of the said child alone should make that decision.

I'm not for it, but I'm not against it, it's a heavy question with consequences that suck. But I sure as hell know that I have a penis and I am not someone with breasts or a vagina. So I can not have a say in the matter of whether or not a prospective mother should abort or not.

I can not blame you on this and perhaps this is because of a similar upbringing on my end. But you have a point that this has been a thing historically for some time. I think this is where religious morality does more harm than it does good because from a certain point of view, it's blinds humans to the basic elements of survival in that sense.

There's also a good other deal of problems where I have issues with religious culture and the morality it poses. Yet people identifying as Christian preach about the forgiveness of sins all the time and then persecute others for them and that's where I have strong feelings on the matter. In the end I agree where this is hypocritical from the Anti-Abortion side.

I am mostly against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. If they are in a position where they can't raise the child I think it's better to put them up for adoption over killing them.

Unless you can prove to me that a fetus can think, as in have conscious sentient thoughts, it shouldn't have rights, and it's life certanly shouldn't be considered above the mother's. That's the short and long of it.

It often is, Tec. That is why platforms with free speech rights like Twitter and Facebook have a moral responsibility to push back on those factual inaccuracies.

I say we should abort all the babies, they're a bunch of gross A-holes anyway.

Also abort all the singers who overuse the word baby.

Just look at what happens when you don't abort all the babies! You get a bunch of people with PP-PFPs to spout a bunch of dumb shit in a dumb-ass politics forum!

The white whale the Federalist's society have been hunting for 30 years finally got harpooned !

Truly sad and depressing. And completely predictably since the Republicans manipulated the senate stealing seats.

Completely ideological, and not in any way driven by public opinion which overwhelmingly supports abortion being legal. Setting the country back by at least a couple of decades.

Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

It amazes me that you love to virtual signal over this with a huge stereotype while arguing we should go back to a time of slavery, 2nd class citizenry, and the mass slaughter of indigenous people - all to feel special about your race and culture. Dude, have your brain checked out. Seriously!

This is actually what the slippery slope fallacy was meant to suppress: posts like this.

But the only thing “logical fallacies” have ever prevented are nerds on the internet losing to common ridicule.

Alright so tell me @gario of 36 years of age, what rights do you think women and minorities will lose first after filicide is abolished? I bet it’s the right to ask for no tomatoes on a burger. That’s always been a stickler for them.

DAILY REMINDER THAT THE RVW OPINION IS JUST A DRAFT AND FEDERAL TROOPS ARE OUTSIDE THE HOMES OF EACH AND EVERY SCOTUS JUSTICE TO PREVENT 30 y/o TERRORISTS FROM [redacted]