|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [11626]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 5/17/02
|
This Roe v. Wade has the iron-knee on overload....
May 6, 2022, 10:31 AM
|
|
COVID:
Liberals - Do what the government tells you or suffer the consequences.
Conservatives - My body, my choice.
Abortion:
Liberals - My body, my choice.
Conservatives - Do what the government tells you or suffer the consequences.
Fun how someone's view of bodily autonomy changes based on the political issue which is a #### shame.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [13027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14038
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: This Roe v. Wade has the iron-knee on overload....
May 6, 2022, 10:34 AM
|
|
I also cannot sell a kidney, what kind of bs is that??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63761
Joined: 10/22/00
|
A woman and her fetus has no impact on you or those around
May 6, 2022, 10:35 AM
|
|
you. None.
A person with a highly transmissible disease potentially has a huge impact on you and those around you.
This isn't that difficult, honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I get that some people don't consider the fetus...
May 6, 2022, 10:48 AM
|
|
a person. I acknowledge that. I don't agree with all of it, but I acknowledge it.
I think the debate would be more productive if people on the pro-choice side acknowledge that it is not an unreasonable position to consider it a baby and not a "just" a fetus. Of course, the arguments come in as "when", etc..., which is fine.
But outright pronouncing that abortion doesn't impact anyone other than the mother (let's put aside the father, and other family members for discussion's sake) because the fetus is "just a fetus" pays no acknowledgment to people who don't consider it to be "just a fetus" that the mother "owns" herself that is solely just a part of her body.
From where I sit, I would argue that an abortion has a really big impact on the baby, the baby's father and family. I say that while acknowledging it is still not the same as the COVID impact on others of wearing a mask, getting vax'ed, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63761
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Agree with the sentiment around family and fathers,
May 6, 2022, 11:57 AM
|
|
and that's usually not the angle I take when I approach this subject. My brain is typically autotuned to the macro, don't-know-that-person, overarching law level, rather than the micro-family personal level. That's to say that when you pass a woman in the grocery store who is 5 weeks pregnant, what happens to that fetus has no impact on you. When you pass that same woman who has a transmissible disease, it potentially has an impact on you, so they're very different situations (which I think you generally agree with).
I don't believe the people writing these laws, and the people influencing the lawmakers, are coming from a place of personal family-related concern. I believe the vast majority of them are working to legislate their beliefs and morality on people they don't know, and on a broad, macro-level, and I think that's gross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63761
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Let me abbreviate this take:
May 6, 2022, 12:00 PM
|
|
Covid proved that by and large, people in this country don't give a fraction of a shit about strangers and people they don't know. Claiming to care so deeply about a stranger's fetus in the same breath is hypocritical, given what I've seen over the past 2 years, ESPECIALLY from the right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21557]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13911
Joined: 9/7/02
|
Well said.***
May 6, 2022, 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23981]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12107
Joined: 9/1/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63761
Joined: 10/22/00
|
While true, there are some fundamental differences.
May 6, 2022, 1:02 PM
|
|
Viability is the primary one here. And, as uncomfortable as it makes people to acknowledge it, we place more value on a 5 year old than we do on a 5 week old fetus. "NO, I DON'T!" Yeah, you really do. Walk it through in your head. Compare the level of tragedy of a woman having a miscarriage, often not even knowing she was pregnant before it happens, to the tragedy of a 5 year old dying in an auto accident. Do we treat them the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23981]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12107
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: While true, there are some fundamental differences.
May 6, 2022, 1:15 PM
|
|
I acknowledge that, but neither should be ended by another human. I will assure you the tragedy of an abortion and the tragedy of miscarriages can ultimately be highly "uncomfortable".
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I won't try to speak for what motivates individual lawmakers
May 6, 2022, 12:34 PM
[ in reply to Agree with the sentiment around family and fathers, ] |
|
in this case, but my concern is for the fetus, which at some point becomes a human being, but has no voice. Like Flow above, I admit it's a tough and perhaps unwinnable argument if it depends on determining exactly when life begins, but I think we all have to acknowledge that at some point the fetus, inside the mother's body, is a human being with a right to live, but without a voice, and the mother does not have a right to deny that life just because it has no voice. That's why the "My body, my choice" argument is total, 100% bull s h i t. My fist is part of my body, but I can't smash my fist into another person's face - that would be wrong and there would be repercussions; so there are definitely limits on what we can do with our bodies, and there are laws on the books to reflect it. I have no desire to try and tell women (I'm no biologist, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to make that determination anyway) how to run their lives or control them in any way; it's not about that at all for me.
This is a tough, tough issue for one reason - we can't know when life begins. If we did, this would be a much simpler issue. Once we know there is a living human being inside, then we know it's wrong to end that life as a matter of convenience, or even to avoid tremendous hardship. It's unacceptable. But we don't know that, and we will likely never know for certain, so in the mean time we have to acknowledge that at some point during the pregnancy the fetus becomes a human being, and deserves to have that life protected. "Controlling women" and forcing one's morals on others (unless we have people who believe it's okay to kill innocent humans) are straw men of sorts, because that's not really the issue, I don't believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3512]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4243
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: I won't try to speak for what motivates individual lawmakers
May 6, 2022, 2:01 PM
|
|
Your position on this is where I think the vast majority of people who are pro-choice reside. Most rational folks agree that there is some point between conception and birth, where although not constitutionally a person, a fetus becomes viable and is worthy of protection. Those that place this point at conception are typically guided by some religious belief, and those that place this point at birth are I think just afraid to concede any ground for fear of completely losing rights (the old slippery slope argument that everyone likes to use).
For those of us somewhere in the middle, Roe provides for a reasonable/practical compromise between these two extreme positions. It allowed the states to place reasonable restrictions, while also preserving the right to a safe abortion. We could certainly argue the constitutionality of Roe, but I think it is/was ultimately the only to ensure the states won’t go completely Handmaid’s Tale on their citizens.
Proponents of striking it down (Alito included) will point to constitutionality as the main reason it was (or will be) reversed. While this might be true for a few constitutional scholars, this is in no way the motivation for reversing Roe. The ‘pro-life’ crowd is not motivated by the constitution, they simply believe ANY abortion is murder and don’t think ANY woman has ANY right to terminate ANY pregnancy.
I used to agree with you that arguments about control over women and forcing beliefs were weak. However, I think many states are already showing their hand on just how draconian they are prepared to go. I think several have already said they will ban procedures for ANY reason…including incest, rape, health, etc. Just imagine requiring a 12-year old to carry their rapists fetus to term…or imagine your wife/daughter dying from an ectopic pregnancy because a doctor is afraid to they might be charged with murdering a zygote. The state of LA just moved a bill out of committee making it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after the moment of CONCEPTION! Does this sound like a legislative body that cares about women or not forcing their beliefs on others?
I used to think there was middle ground on even this issue, but I think it’s fair to say that the religious right/evangelicals just can’t separate their beliefs from their responsibility to govern. And for those that would point to the states remaining where abortion is legal…look me up when the pubs take control of congress and see just how long it takes to try to pass a national ban on abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
All laws amount to forcing one's beliefs on others.
May 6, 2022, 5:09 PM
|
|
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I believe murder is good, and I should be allowed to commit murder. You and others believe that murder is wrong, and pass a law against it, then you have forced your belief on me. When a law is passed, it isn't void if or when it goes against somebody's personal beliefs; rather, the law, as determined by others, perhaps against their will, is forced upon them by others.
I agree that most citizens who clamor for Roe to be overturned do so on moral or religious grounds (as opposed to constitutional grounds), but that is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. They are in no way obliged to separate their beliefs from their responsibility to govern, nor will they. They have to understand and accept, however, that the constitutional rights of others must not be violated in the process. That is all perfectly fine. That's why we have a Supreme Court. All people want their views and morals expressed in the laws that govern them. Some people will like the outcome, some won't. That too is okay. Personally, I don't agree with the legislation in LA as you described - I think that's barbaric and terribly unfair.
As I said, abortion is an extremely tough issue, above and beyond the issue of determining when life begins, for the reasons you brought up as in cases of rape, incest, ectopic pregnancy, etc.; there will never be solutions that will satisfy everyone or remedy every situation. Bottom line with abortion, it is not just about the woman - there is another person to be considered, and the law must protect that person as they have no voice. That very well can and should be accomplished without violating anybody's rights, or sliding down any slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42931
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Murder is good
May 7, 2022, 10:32 AM
|
|
war, death penalty, someone hurts your family member. Some think genocide is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
And people who believe otherwise can pass laws and force
May 7, 2022, 2:38 PM
|
|
those beliefs on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
What I think gets missed a lot in this discussion...
May 6, 2022, 1:18 PM
[ in reply to Agree with the sentiment around family and fathers, ] |
|
is the fuel for the passion on both sides.
I don't think most of the support for ending abortions can be categorized as simply religious groups trying to push their beliefs and morality on others. Mainly because most people against abortions believe that an abortion is the taking of an innocent life and that life is precious.
If one truly believes an innocent life is being taken in an abortion, how could that person NOT be passionate about ending the practice. That's more than just pushing "beliefs and morals" on others. Certainly everyone is against "killing"...it's just a matter of what one considers killing.
And if you approach the issue from that perspective, pro-life folks can make that same claim (pushing their set of beliefs and morals on others) against pro-choice folks.
To me, it comes down to respect of reasonable positions. Too many pro-choice folks don't respect the positions of too many pro-life folks and vice versa.
For me, I have no problem settling on legal abortions for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. If our country settled there, I would consider that a big win for pro-life and a very reasonable solution. I dare say, I would even consider supporting federal legislation codifying those exceptions and then leaving the rest to the state legislatures.
I strongly agree with the notion that Roe was wrongly decided and that a right was created that did not previously exist from the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7087]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9661
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Conveniently overlooked fact: Dangers of Covid-19 vax
May 6, 2022, 2:59 PM
[ in reply to Agree with the sentiment around family and fathers, ] |
|
It is both careless and irrelevant to compare abortions / abortion rights with Covid-19 vax / personal choices whether or not to take the vax.
Clearly you don't understand that there are many people (including myself) that have learned of a significant risk-factor associated with taking Covid-19 vaccines.
The typical vax believer is not open to even considering the risk vs. reward for taking the vaccines, commonly labeling those who are anti-Covid-19 vax'ers as 'cretins, idiots, psychopaths (for endangering those who took the vaccine ... since the non-vax'ers spread the disease to those who are protected by the vaccine), etc. etc.
This ongoing ignorance of the pro-vax'ers refuse to pay attention to continually growing data disclosures which are revealing the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccines themselves (e.g., real information), and also enlightening us to the US Gov't health agencies overstatement of the benefits and understatement of the risks of these vaccines (e.g., propaganda).
Yet those pro-vax'ers who have allowed themselves to be hypnotized by their political team's 'pro-vax' narratives are the same ones who have suspended rational thought and/or are too lazy to consider information that is contrary to their intellectual comfort zones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Other than possibly paying child support, the impact on the
May 6, 2022, 12:16 PM
[ in reply to I get that some people don't consider the fetus... ] |
|
father is far, far less than the impact on the mother.
The father does not have to carry the pregnancy to term inside his body, nor the health risks, pain and body changes of giving birth. Once the child is born, the father is not required to breast feed or care for the child. The father only has a financial responsibility to help support the child if the mother uses the courts to establish paternity and force child support payments. The South Carolina guidelines establish a basic child support obligation average between $793 to $1628.
Then there is the issue of rape and the 32,000+ US women annually who get pregnant by their rapist.
There impact on the father is nowhere near the impact on the mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't recall saying that it was...
May 6, 2022, 1:07 PM
|
|
but "impact" goes far beyond financial concerns.
If you don't think there is an (or can be) an emotional impact on the father, then we're living in 2 different worlds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Have you never listened to "Brick" by Ben Folds?***
May 6, 2022, 1:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Yep, I like that song....
May 6, 2022, 1:47 PM
|
|
I sing it in Michael Scott falsetto style
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
While I don't recall suggesting there is no potential
May 6, 2022, 6:12 PM
[ in reply to I don't recall saying that it was... ] |
|
emotional impact on the father, nothing more than financial support is even potentially required. The responsibility is not equally shared by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42931
Joined: 11/30/98
|
My ex wife gave birth to my children
May 7, 2022, 10:39 AM
|
|
we divorced when they were 3 and 5. I raised them with no financial support and little to no other support. My story is not at all uncommon.
Yes women will always get preferential treatment and demand money, but that is changing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11626]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 5/17/02
|
"highly transmissible disease"
May 6, 2022, 11:00 AM
[ in reply to A woman and her fetus has no impact on you or those around ] |
|
The common cold is highly transmissible. As is the annual flu.
.Gov has never shut down economies and required vaccinations to obtain employment for either of those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Is this really a serious post?....
May 6, 2022, 11:22 AM
|
|
do you seriously believe that health impacts of the common cold and the "flu" are comparable to COVID?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14038
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: A woman and her fetus has no impact on you or those around
May 6, 2022, 11:58 AM
[ in reply to A woman and her fetus has no impact on you or those around ] |
|
how many un-vaxxed were charged with murder? Anyway, it was proven that the vaccine did not keep you from getting it/nor keep you from transmitting it. Therefore, the only "risk" was to your own body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63761
Joined: 10/22/00
|
As usual, you're wrong almost across the board.
May 6, 2022, 12:05 PM
|
|
The vaccines were highly effective against the first strain and slowed the transmission and spread. Efficacy waned with the later (and less deadly) variants, but still slowed transmission by an estimated 45-75% (not to mention it kept most people out of hospitals). "The vaccine didn't prevent you from getting or transmitting it" is disingenuous garbage. If 100 unvaccinated people are exposed to Covid and 95 get it, and 100 vaccinated people are exposed and only 50 get it, the vaccine is still working, even if it's less effective than it was with the first strain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14038
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: As usual, you're wrong almost across the board.
May 6, 2022, 12:34 PM
|
|
Wrong again. I suggest you take your degree back to tri-county tech and ask for a refund.
First’s you stated “effectiveness” then “efficacy”, which are you referring as they are very different. Also, efficacy rates only counted via persons with symptoms, when it was proven later that it can be transmitted without such…
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111421]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73686
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: This Roe v. Wade has the iron-knee on overload....
May 6, 2022, 10:36 AM
|
|
Agreed, and the political issues can be explained as:
COVID:
Liberals: The government can tell you what to do with your body if it's to prevent harm to the community.
Conservatives: My body, my choice.
Abortion:
Conservatives: The government can tell you what to do with your body if it's to prevent harm to a developing human.
Liberals: My body, my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: This Roe v. Wade has the iron-knee on overload....
May 6, 2022, 8:59 PM
|
|
Abortion:
The government can make it illegal to proactively, intentionally end the life of a totally innocent, defenseless human being. Nothing in the constitution recognizes the right of any human being to do so, or to make the determination as to when life begins.
COVID:
The government can not force anyone to put something into their body that may harm them, even if doing so may provide a net benefit to the rest of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Constitutionally you're right on abortion and wrong on COVID***
May 7, 2022, 7:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I don't think so ... I know the government can issue vaccine
May 7, 2022, 10:13 AM
|
|
mandates, but that's different from forcibly injecting people against their will. In other words, if you don't get vaccinated, you may not be able to ride a bus or board a plane or go to school, but nobody is legally allowed to hold you down and forcibly inject you with the vaccine. If you don't get the vaccine, life can be made extremely difficult, but if you choose to deal with that, you still don't have to get the vaccine. Here's a good article that explains it and makes that distinction: https://www.wpr.org/what-does-law-actually-say-about-vaccine-mandates
For the record, I and my family are fully vaxxed and boosted, and I have been on board with the vaccines from the get-go. I am not an anti-vaxxer; that's not what this is about for me. I wish everyone who safely can would get the vaccine. I have relatives who already had an irrational fear of medicines and their side effects (one who won't take Tylenol because she swears it makes her hallucinate) and they flat out refuse to be vaccinated. They have heard stories of people who died or were paralyzed from the vaccine, so they believe it's not safe. There is absolutely no reasoning with them. They all are retired or work from home, and have been almost totally isolated and homebound since the pandemic started. As sad and pathetic as that is, it would be, in my mind, a crime if they were forcibly injected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I see what you're saying.
May 7, 2022, 12:21 PM
|
|
I thought you were talking about vaccine mandates, which are constitutional. I agree they can't hold you down and vaccinate you. (My law firm represents people seeking to avoid vaccine mandates.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5648]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12124
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: This Roe v. Wade has the iron-knee on overload....
May 6, 2022, 3:51 PM
|
|
I think it should be this:
COVID:
Liberals - Do what the government tells you or suffer the consequences.
Conservatives - My body, my choice or let the states decide.
Abortion:
Liberals - My body, my choice.
Conservatives - Let the states decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3512]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4243
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: This Roe v. Wade has the iron-knee on overload....
May 6, 2022, 4:02 PM
|
|
To play devil’s advocate…what other things should the state’s decide that aren’t specifically spelled out in the constitution? Gay Marriage? Sodomy laws? Interracial Marriage? Use of contraceptives?
There are some things that the framer’s could not have anticipated that are nonetheless an infringement upon individual freedom. Just because a state has the right to ban any/all of the above doesn’t make doing so any less an attack on individual liberty…and exactly the type of infringement the federal gov’t is designed to prevent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
