In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.
Started by Buddy, May 03, 2022, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: Bluenose on May 04, 2022, 02:55:54 AMI am so angry about this, and I am not even a woman nor do I live in the USA. This issue was hard fought for both in the USA and here in Australia in the 1970s. The difference is that here the laws were changed rather than relying on some esoteric reading of the constitution by the SCOTUS that is now apparently about to be overturned. Get out there peoples and vote, vote for those who will write laws to reflect the will of the majority. In other words, not the GOP.I agree with one pundit I was reading just before that this may well be the thing that eventually comes back to bite the evangelical extremist right-wingers on their collective backsides, as it may just be the thing that prompts the non-voting middle in the USA to actually, finally overthrow the ruling theocracy.
Quote"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Quote from: Papasito Bruno on May 09, 2022, 05:03:30 PMI hear Republicans want to change Mother's Day now to "Domestic Infant Supplier Day:
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PMIn Asmo's grey lump, wrath and dark clouds gather force.Luxembourg trembles.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMFor instance, in cases where it does take two to tango (Pregnancy as a result of consensual intercourse) should the second party have a say in its termination? Personally, I'd say yes. However, when parties differ, the party that wants to bring the pregnancy to term would have to take sole custody of the child.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMAnother thing to consider is whether the party wanting to terminate a pregnancy has sufficient reasons to. This is a long and rather intricate discussion, so I'll forego it for now. Personally, I'd vote for no reason given - no surgery.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMThat's not mentioning personal responsibility, which too can be a double-edged blade in that it may well be that terminating a pregnancy is the responsible thing to do in a given situation, but then it may also be a case of avoiding responsibility for one's poor choices. That's... Difficult to arbitrate, I'd think, but still a consideration I'd make.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMSo all in all, should abortion be outlawed? No. Should it be a universal right? Also no. Should it be restricted to cases of abuse, serious health risks and the like? Hmm... I'd vote against doing that, but not if doing so meant I'd be voting for expanding the scope of the practice. (Another long conversation, maybe for later)That being my general philosophical and political position, and understanding the worst-case implications of overturning Roe v. Wade, I still find myself struggling to find good legal grounds to keep it. I guess in a perfect world, I'd be for overturning it, but against any subsequent blanket bans.That aside, it's sad, is it not, that it has long-since become the case of scoring points with one's respective political allies? At the end of the day, who among the decision-makers on either side actually cares about the mothers, fathers and children their decisions do and will affect? A precious none, I suspect. I can't even remember in my lifetime when we could have a civilised debate about the issue, weigh implications, listen to the opposing views, accept those legitimate as such even though we disagree... Ah... The innocent times that probably never existed... I miss those.
Quote from: Anne D. on May 11, 2022, 02:42:28 AMHmmm, if it's the man vetoing the woman's choice to abort, can we go ahead and require him to carry and birth the cells/zygote/embryo/fetus?
QuoteIn a world where you're king, who do you envision sitting on this panel that evaluates each woman's reasons for ending her pregnancy?
QuoteArbitrarily imposing consequences for "poor choices."
QuoteWe need more punishment of "poor choices."
QuoteIn fact, we should cease providing health care to smokers and overindulgers too.
QuoteThey've made their bed and can lie in it. Just like those women who get themselves knocked up and then want the easy out of an abortion.
QuoteWouldn't want to live in this world you've constructed in your musings. For we women people, debating abortion rights isn't just a fun philosophical parlor game. The implications hit home much harder. They affect our bodies, our health, our careers, and our earning power for the rest of our lives, much more so than fathers'.