An honest conversation about Abortion

Without reading this thread, let me guess: it's going about how I expect

 

Evolution and abortion debates always go according to script.

 

Since you bring up JD Vance in your 4 cited paragraphs…

 

Well, you are attempting to have a "civil" conversation about a topic that basically has no middle ground. The reason is sort of complicated in ways I don't think I could articulate easily. But you are correct in that political parties - BOTH major parties - are using this as a weapon, not only against "the other side" but also to try to convince theirs that "our side" is the only righteous side and to abandon it would be an act of either suicide or treason. As you can tell by the sanctimonious posts you have already received. But I would also say that your initial attempt at "sincere" dialog is fraught with land mines (ie, passive-aggressive) and that won't work...EVER...in discussions this divisive.

I will only add this to the dialog, there is really only one "correct" way out of this mess, besides a civil war. Anti-abortionists have to realize that calling "them" murderers is a silly, and quite frankly elitist, exercise. It isn't going away...ever. But where "they" are setting themselves up, and the Pro-life folks have THE high ground (see where I changed the name to point out a difference?) it is when does medical science determine when is a child (or fetus/mass flesh for the heathens ) viable outside the mother's womb?

Once that line-in-the-sand has been established by the sanctimonious Science, whom most of "them" worship, the mother can decide to no longer provide natal care for her progeny, but she - OR the doctor - can NOT end its life. It can - and should be - taken from the mother and put into state care, as bad as that may be (call it the mindset of a true conservative). And, although this is likely a bridge too far for the vast majority of us, she has one mulligan. She then can't claim ignorance as to how biology works. And guess what, that line will keep getting progressively closer to the time of conception. That IS the way science and technology works. One day it may be even before the mother realizes she is pregnant via a missed cycle.

The next time she is "cavalier" in her behavior, she has only two choices: she can take the child to full term and presumably put it up for adoption, or she can do the same dance as before but that she has announced that she is too stupid to be trusted to not dump children onto the state to take care of. That means she will be permanently sterilized (ie, remove her ovaries). That is her choice.

If this helps you recognize the perilousness of the topic, then you are welcome. If you are mainly wanting to justify your need to be righteous and want to be less "acrimonious" in your dialog all while forming an army, well then you are a part of the inevitable civil war. You have been warned.

 

No it won't. You think outlawing abortion will help, but when has a law stopped something with a high demand? Did Prohibition stop people from drinking? Have we won the war on drugs? Was there no abortion before 1973 in this country, or were there full septic wards in every major hospital, filled with women who had botched abortion attempts?

There's plenty of evidence as to what happens when abortion is outlawed. For those with means, they simply travel to a location where abortion is legal, and get the procedure there. Like when Ireland had a total abortion ban, and 10 women a day were traveling to the UK to get an abortion.

For those without the means, it's a much different story. Like the women in El Salvador, previously linked, where suicide is the #1 reason for death for women ages 10 - 19, and #4 for women 20 - 39. Many of whom are pregnant, and have no means to get a legal abortion. Other outcomes include illegal abortion attempts, which have a higher rate of death for the patient, or other poor outcomes, such as potentially leaving the woman infertile and ever getting pregnant again in the future.

This is why abortion is healthcare. Abortion will happen at the same rate regardless of the law. If it's legal, it is safer. And for those with means to travel where it's legal, it will remain safe. But if it's illegal, and the woman is poor, abortion will be unsafe, causing unnecessary, reproductive healthcare issues, or worse, death.

 

Clinton conceded. There was no mass gatherings in January, 2017 to protest that Clinton won. There was a group of 4 or 5 people who lit a car on fire to protest, but nothing to the extent we saw on Jan 6, 2021. We also didn't see a group of D election denier candidates in 2018, nor did the majority of Democrats ever believe Clinton was the true winner, and Trump stole the election.

It's one thing to question the results of an election, and file lawsuits. But eventually, if there is little to no evidence of any wrongdoing, there becomes a time to give up the ghost. Concede and admit defeat. Has Trump done this yet? No, he's done the exact opposite. Years later and still on his soapbox claiming he won. And there's a whole slate of election deniers running this year on midterms, including all the R candidates running for top offices in Arizona.

It's not conducive to a functioning democracy to have one side claim it is impossible for them to lose. Either they win, or the election was rigged. This is the thinking of Fascists, and will cause any system to eventually break down. Don't know if you ever played pick-up basketball, but Trump is the player who either makes the bucket, or yells "FOUL!" on every single miss. Even when there isn't another player within 10 feet of him. Doesn't matter. The only way he can ever miss is if he was fouled. He's so convinced he's the best player ever, that the only explanation when he misses is he got fouled.

Now, if all the other players on the court tell him to stop it, the first thing out of the guys mouth is going to be, "Other players call fouls too!" But if it's explained only when they are really fouled, and all other players tell the trouble maker either play by the same rules or go home, the game can continue. But if the player who either scores or cries foul is allowed to continue, the game quickly goes off the rails. The team with the whiner will give him the ball every time, because either he scores, or they get possession after he cries foul. Other players on both teams start crying foul the same way too. Why? Because it works. Eventually, someone who wants to play fair gets fed up, and decides if a foul is going to called anyway, he's going to get his money's worth, and try and draw blood the next time the whiner has the ball. Then, it's game over.

The currently R party is now convinced they score every time. And if they don't, they cry foul. We'll see it in Arizona if any of the Rs running for top offices happen to lose. Forget the abortion debate for a minute, and ask yourself, if one party either always wins or is always cheated out of a win, what's the eventual end game scenarios?

 

And Trump most likely never will.

 

If you are as discerning as you seem to be, do you not recognize how you are, proverbially speaking (even though this was in Mathew and not Proverbs), seeing the speck in your neighbor's eye but you are not recognizing the plank in yours? Demonizing in any form "the other side" is never going to work. And the rhetoric you use is mainly passive-aggressive instead of incendiary. Po-tA-to po-tAH-to. If any efforts to "bridge a gap" does not begin with "here is where 'our side' got it wrong in spades and this MUST change" first, then it is merely an exercise in righteousness. And it won't end well for any of us, including any children you may have or want to have in the future.

I know this is tangential, you DO realize that all this is based on what is in the bible, correct? Yes, we also have a moral compass and we feel as if a wrong is being done without the bible for others. And as a result of the bible, Man has decided to build a religion around it. There are two historical references I want to present in that light. The first is The Crusades. The second is The Inquisitions. All of them in the name of God and Jesus. Can anyone explain how God has given us scholarship to "cleanse" people of their "afflictions"?

And to a more salient aspect, as well as a more modern incarnation, there have been plenty of folks who think it appropriate to bomb - and maim/kill - folks in and around abortion clinics. Perhaps a great many are saying "gee, that is too bad, but they kind of did it to themselves", kind of like what some want to say (at least used to in the past before the "MeToo" movement) "gee, that is too bad she got raped, but she kind of deserved it by the way she dresses and acts in public". Righteousness is a VERY insidious concept. And all it really does is to cause "the other side" to hear fighting words.

And so the inevitable civil war. Does it make sense now?

 

Abortion is the decision to pay a healthcare provider to intrude one’s body to kill the new life created that is separate from the mother with its own DNA and 46 chromosomes for convenience the vast vast majority of the time. It is not healthcare to kill the life one created for convenience.

Abortion only becomes healthcare when the awful situation of either the mother or child’s life is in danger and decisions have to be made to save one or both of them.

 

Everything in this entire post is incorrect.

 

Intrude is clearly the incorrect word as it implies a lack of consent. The definition requires the presence to be unwelcome or univited. If it is her body and she agreed to it, nobody is intruding.

Beyond that, should the state be able to incarcerate a pregnant person for any crime that they committed? If it is true that there is a person within her with the same legal rights as a person, you would also be incarcerating an innocent person, whom you know is innocent, purposefully. Should pregnant people be immune from incarceration for the duration of their pregnancy?

 

Sorry. Invade may work better. As the mother is paying someone to invade her body to kill the new life she created for convenience the vast majority of the time. That is not healthcare. That is paying someone to kill another. It is not healthcare.

Your second point is just nonsensical. There are mothers that commit crimes and end up in jail for the birth of their child. The child has done nothing wrong and will be taken care of accordingly.

 

No, it does not. Invade, again, implies a lack of consent by the owner of the body. The operative definition of invade is to infringe, which means to encroach upon in a way that violates the law or another. If the body belongs to the woman and she consents to the Doctor's presence, that doesn't work either. You need to use a word that implies consent, not the lack of it.

And that is the point. That is a massive violation of human rights if you take the fetus as a person with rights like any other person. The state incarcerated somebody (the fetus, which you are calling a "child") and locked them away in prison without them having committed a crime. If you are not opposed to the notion that pregnant women can be incarcerated for the duration of their pregnancy, you are fundamentally recognizing that the fetus is not a "child" (whom we can't incarcerate without them having committed a crime). Again, we don't appear to grant the rights that we would for a separate life at that stage.