News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Roe vs Wade under fire, again

Started by Buddy, May 03, 2022, 02:38:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dark Lightning


billy rubin

i dont understand your post.

"strive" in hebrew has a specific meaning:

Pronounce: naw-tsaw'

Strong: H5327

Orig: a primitive root; properly, to go forth, i.e. (by implication) to be expelled, and (consequently) desolate; causatively, to lay waste; also (specifically), to quarrel:--be laid waste, runinous, strive (together).

Use: TWOT-1399,1400,1401 Verb

am i missong your intent? i am not very perceptive with language.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Dark Lightning

Abortion as practiced today doesn't fit that definition. I asked what striving meant in the context of your quote in the biblical context.

billy rubin

the verse doesnt have anythi g to do with abortion. its an example of how a foetus was given specific value in israelite culture, in this case one that had a price tag.


later on the antenicene church was generally against both abortion and infanticide, both of which were pretty common in roman and pan hellenic society

"striving" meant that two men were fighting, and a pregnant woman was injured and miscarried.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Anne D.

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.

Yes, I've heard it described as the dog (right wing) finally catching the car it always chases after.

Old-school Republicans reliably milked the antiabortion vote for years--never really caring about the issue and never intending to follow through once they were in office. Then anti-abortion true believers (along with plenty of just-plain-crazy right wing nutjobs) started to outnumber them. The Old-school Repubs just kept courting the anti-abortion folks and religious extremists and going along with their new batshit colleagues; they just couldn't give up the votes. And then they were inexplicably shocked when Trump won. And now we're living with his Supreme Court appointees and the end of Roe, which I really didn't think we'd ever see.

There are supposedly a lot of antiabortion single-issue voters, so it will be interesting to see what those folks do now that Roe is going. Hopefully it will mean that those voters either just aren't as engaged or maybe start voting based on other issues. And to what you said, BN, hopefully it will mean some people who'd been entirely checked out start voting and forcing focus on broader issues.

I also am wondering if it might go the other way, though. We're in for years of fighting in each state about whether to keep abortion legal, which means it almost has to stay a driving issue.

I think the Supreme Court just really fucked up with Roe. As grateful for its benefits as I am, the states were already headed in the direction of legalization anyway, and the issue wasn't even on the radar of most Republicans. At the time, many Protestant denominations didn't care about the issue, and Republicans were as likely as Democrats to be fine with abortion. The SC's deciding Roe when it did helped galvanize the formation of a strong religious right movement, which has created no end of problems. Had the Court decided to wait just a few years before taking the issue up, it likely wouldn't have wrought the mess it did.

No one

I sure hope the gas prices come with these 1950's views.

Biggus Dickus

I hear Republicans want to change Mother's Day now to "Domestic Infant Supplier Day:.


The following was actually posted on Facebook in 2018 by a Pastor from Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama named Dave Barnhart.

Republican Christians are not very happy with him.

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.
"Some people just need a high-five. In the face. With a chair."

Dark Lightning

Man, ain't that the truth! We've tossed that football around here at home, but he said it far more eloquently.

Tom62

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:

What I find even more amazing is that only a couple of days ago, liberals could not define what a woman is, that mothers are birthing persons and that men could get pregnant.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

billy rubin



"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Anne D.

I love that quote, P. Bruno. Beautifully said.

Asmodean

Hmm... This is interesting.

I'm looking at it from my position of being OK with abortion on the basis that I do not hold a human life to be too sacred to end by an external force and decision. This applies to assisted suicide, regular suicide and death penalty as well, so I get to ride on my tiny, non-hypocritical white horse being all happy-like.

That is to say, to a first-degree approximation. On a sweeping policy level, I'm content with that. From there, them canned worms only get wrigglier.

For 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. (I'm not using non-gendered terms out of some new-found wokeness by the way - this is just a double-edged sword. The mother and the father may want opposing outcomes - it matters little to me which party wants which)

Another 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.

That'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.

So 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: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Anne D.

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.


Hmmm, 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?

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.

In a world where you're king, who do you envision sitting on this panel that evaluates each woman's reasons for ending her pregnancy?

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.

Arbitrarily imposing consequences for "poor choices." Always an important "consideration." We need more punishment of "poor choices." In fact, we should cease providing health care to smokers and overindulgers too. They'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.

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.

Wouldn'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'.

Bluenose

The main point for me is bodily integrity, but a close second is the fact that pregnancy is probably the most dangerous thing a woman can do health wise in a modern developed western nation.  The idea of forcing a woman to udergo that risk against her will is repugnant to me.  Never mind that the whole anti abortion push totally ignores the well-being of any such child that actually does get born.  Are these idiots proposing to support the children that they seem so much in favour of *before* they are born?  No.  This simply exposes their total hypocrisy.
+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


Asmodean

#29
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?
We cannot. We can, however, put certain financial responsibility on him. For instance, reasonable medical expenses/lost wages arising from pregnancy, liability in case of injury or death... In the world where I am tyrant, a lot is on the table.

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?
The service provider. This is, however, a bit of a layer cake that would require tiers of oversight.

QuoteArbitrarily imposing consequences for "poor choices."
...Is not something I'm doing. That's what we have Cancel Culture for. What I am doing, is not helping clean up somebody else's mess if they have put themselves in it by choice, unless (and this relates to the above, what with all the reason stuff) they have explored and/or attempted alternate solutions.

EDIT: It may have been prudent of me to expand on the whole reason for termination thing, and as I tend to, I get the feeling that I've created the need for a long-form discussion while trying to avoid one. Well, here goes.

In that utopia of dog-eat-dog Capitalism we may refer to as Kingdom of Asmodea, His Majesty does not care one iota about a woman's life story with regards to abortion. Nor do the courts or the health care providers or like... Random passer-bys.

When I talk about the need for sufficient reason, I do not speak of that particular woman's moral/ethical/economical justification for terminating a pregnancy... The reverse, if anything. Why is carrying pregnancy to term not a reasonable course of action? I think it's a valid question. If it's a reasoned decision, it should also be an easily answerable one.

And if the decision is not reasoned, then it would be up to the service provider to do their best to aid with that. Should the decision stand afterwards - fine. Due diligence was done, and all is well. Thus, "sufficient reason" here does not need to speak to abortion being a good choice - just to other options having been weighed and deemed unreasonable, or tried but failed (For instance, failure of contraception would be a shiny golden bastion of sufficient reason, while failure to use contraception would not - not quite that black and white - does not address the "if you pay for it yourself" side of it, for starters, but for illustrative purposes)

Anyhoo, I hope that illustrates my case a little better.

QuoteWe need more punishment of "poor choices."
We don't? Then I suggest we start by legalizing a whole slew of crimes. Murder for hire, for instance. I mean, it's little more than a poor career choice when you think about it.

A little [EDIT] here, too, because that came off a bit snarky with little substance. We do not necessarily need more punishment for poor choices, but that does not mean that we should have none. That depends on the poor choice in question. (see the above snarkiness for an example) There is another side to it though. That same "we" may not always need to help with the consequences of someone's conscious decision. Personally, I'd say that is especially true in cases of "repeat offenders" who can be reasonably expected to have known better. For instance, I'm OK with using my tax coin to get someone through drug rehab - once. You fall off the wagon, and that's on you - unless you can show to a different and preferably unforeseen set of circumstances that happened to lead to the same conclusion.

QuoteIn fact, we should cease providing health care to smokers and overindulgers too.
...And there are cases in which "we," by which I mean the tax paying public, should. There are others, in which "we" as in the healthcare system should, too. For instance, transplanting a set og shiny new lungs into a active smoker..? Nah.

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.
That is indeed a possibility. :smilenod:

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'.
Indeed..? What is it you object to about my world though? And on what grounds? I do get self-determination, but like... It's not an absolute, nor do I see any practical reasons for it to be.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.