Trump thread 2.0

[sdubfid]

Any form of birth control should be free and easily obtainable (an app on the phone for young people to make an anonymous appointment). Some of those iud gadgets aren’t cheap, but way cheaper than alternatives. It’s not something that can be abused or resold like giving out free cocaine.

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by Hehe

This is actually not true.

SCOTUS is overturning the landmark decision on the basis that abortion is not a constitutional right and should not be up to the decision of SCOTUS, but instead something that either federal or state lawmakers should make their own decision and therefore appropriate law.

To put it more precisely, in no country, including Canada, is abortion a right protected by either charter or constitution. And thus, it's not up to Supreme Court to decide whether abortion should be legal or not.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support abortion as I feel if a person is not able to give a child a proper environment or condition to grow up, they should not have kids and are therefore free to choose whether they want to have kids or not. However, there are many things involved when it comes to abortion, pretty much at the same level as assisted suicide, that make it so controversial.

Thus, I think it's ok for SCOTUS to revisit its prior decision. They are NOT BANNING it. They just left it for Fed/State gov't to decide on their own and it's not something SCOTUS would interfere.

That is categorically incorrect. There is no absolute need to challenge Roe v Wade which codifies abortion rights. Roe v Wade is integral not only to abortion but to other intimate human rights/relationships.

If Roe v Wade is struck down it essentially opens the door to unravel tied current rights, it's also tied to things like the right to procreate, access to contraception, intimate relationships, like the right to marry. All of which can be repealed and challenged on the state level if removed. Some state legislators are already cooking up ideas to ban rights to contraceptives, which in 2022 is fucking insane.

Some rights need to be codified to discourage bad actors. By your way of thinking we can also strike down the Civil Rights act, etc. Such rights can't be left to State legislators, plain and simple.

It's absolutely asinine to think so. If you want some Libertarian bastion, move the fuck to Sierra Leone.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

@68style, what is your opinion on third trimester abortions?

Or are you in favour of abortions at any stage for any reason?

Again, i'm not judging, i'm just asking.

With proper access to sex education, contraception, and early term abortions, it’s essentially irrelevant as there would be almost no situation that it would ever come to that.
Bear in mind that the same people trying to repeal the right to safe abortion access are trying to eliminate ALL of those as well.
These same people are fighting against systems that address child poverty, hunger, access to healthcare, housing, parental leave, etc.
These people are not pro life. They do not give a flying fuck about the life of anyone. They are just trying to appease their imaginary white sky daddy who they have created as an excuse for their personal malice.

[StylinRed]

I don't think it's fair to assume or paint all pro lifers as religious nuts, many of them are atheists. It feels like people paint them as religious fanatics to dismiss their views

Banning abortions is not the way to go, but handing out birth controls (iud, condoms, the pill, etc) and educating men and women about them should be where pro lifers focus their attention.

If they want to get extreme then they should consider offering support (financial, emotional, etc) to those who are considering aborting instead of trying to prevent/criminalise them for it

[Great68]

The only way a society can ethically ban abortions is that if in doing so they agree they will pay every expense so that mother can raise that child to a standard of living equal for all.

Unfortunately, once the kid is born they stop giving a shit what happens to that life.

[68style]

^ yah in fact they go out of their way to punish the person, poor single mother has got to be easily the worst category to be placed in even in a supposedly first world country.

Throw in the minority tag on top of it and you’re effectively hooped, better chance of winning the lottery than making it anywhere.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

I don't think it's fair to assume or paint all pro lifers as religious nuts, many of them are atheists. It feels like people paint them as religious fanatics to dismiss their views

Banning abortions is not the way to go, but handing out birth controls (iud, condoms, the pill, etc) and educating men and women about them should be where pro lifers focus their attention.

If they want to get extreme then they should consider offering support (financial, emotional, etc) to those who are considering aborting instead of trying to prevent/criminalise them for it

87% of atheists are pro choice.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...bout-abortion/

https://www.atheists.org/2021/09/dobbs-v-jackson-brief/

Giving out birth control would mean you support sex before marriage and that's a big no no for religious people who are pro life.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by Manic!

87% of atheists are pro choice.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...bout-abortion/

https://www.atheists.org/2021/09/dobbs-v-jackson-brief/

Giving out birth control would mean you support sex before marriage and that's a big no no for religious people who are pro life.

Yes the majority of atheists are pro choice, I imagine the majority of those classified as being a part of a religion are probably pro choice too

I agree about the latter, it's like when the Vatican protested against handing out condoms, it was so absurd considering their abortion issue

[westopher]

No one’s calling all religious people anti abortion, but it’s a pretty clear fact, that the people working to overturn abortion rights are doing it under the guise of Christian values.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Great68

The only way a society can ethically ban abortions is that if in doing so they agree they will pay every expense so that mother can raise that child to a standard of living equal for all.

Unfortunately, once the kid is born they stop giving a shit what happens to that life.

Even with that it wouldn't be ethical to ban abortions. Even ignoring pregnancies from sexual assault, etc, pregnancy and childbirth are hard on the body and can be quite dangerous. I know at least four women that would be dead without modern medical science. One of them nearly died during labour even with it. If dealing with an ectopic pregnancy counts as an abortion and would be banned then that would've killed two of them too.

[PeanutButter]

You are either okay with a full-term abortion or not. If you are, then okay, end of discussion. But, if you're not okay with a full-term abortion, then we need to talk about what the definition of human life is and it's definitely not black and white.

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by underscore

Even with that it wouldn't be ethical to ban abortions. Even ignoring pregnancies from sexual assault, etc, pregnancy and childbirth are hard on the body and can be quite dangerous. I know at least four women that would be dead without modern medical science. One of them nearly died during labour even with it. If dealing with an ectopic pregnancy counts as an abortion and would be banned then that would've killed two of them too.

This is an interesting topic.

I feel like the mother should always be the top priority health-wise. It seems rather inhumane to forcibly kill an adult to save an unborn baby.

A perfect example of how complicated this subject is.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

You are either okay with a full-term abortion or not. If you are, then okay, end of discussion. But, if you're not okay with a full-term abortion, then we need to talk about what the definition of human life is and it's definitely not black and white.

I think defining it as the baby being able to survive outside of the womb would be a good starting point, and that aligns very conservatively with even the latest allowable gestation periods for abortion.
That said, childbirth is up to the women to decide whether it's something she is willing to go through with, so if WOMEN were allowed to make the decision for their OWN BODY, my opinion really means fuck all in the matter, as do all of ours. This is an individual choice for all women to make, and it's not without consequence on their own lives, so that's up to them.

[PeanutButter]

^Interestingly, I've never thought of it that way. It seems so obvious when I read what you wrote.

It's the Woman's cross to bear.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

That is categorically incorrect. There is no absolute need to challenge Roe v Wade which codifies abortion rights. Roe v Wade is integral not only to abortion but to other intimate human rights/relationships.

If Roe v Wade is struck down it essentially opens the door to unravel tied current rights, it's also tied to things like the right to procreate, access to contraception, intimate relationships, like the right to marry. All of which can be repealed and challenged on the state level if removed. Some state legislators are already cooking up ideas to ban rights to contraceptives, which in 2022 is fucking insane.

Some rights need to be codified to discourage bad actors. By your way of thinking we can also strike down the Civil Rights act, etc. Such rights can't be left to State legislators, plain and simple.

It's absolutely asinine to think so. If you want some Libertarian bastion, move the fuck to Sierra Leone.

You are trying to generalize a Supreme Court decision, which is the ultimate decision-maker as far as judicial power is concerned.

The question presented to SCOTUS was whether or not the new law of prohibiting abortion beyond 14wks by a State is against the constitutional rights granted by US constitutions. This is why SCOTUS took the case, as they are the guardian of US constitutions.

The plaintiff is using Roe vs. Wade as an argument (not sure if it was the only argument, but I'm sure it was the principal argument of precedents), thus the SCOTUS need to revisit. And they did EXACTLY what SCOTUS is supposed to do: to interpret the law to the letters and make a decision.

You are arguing that this is a human rights issue. I don't disagree. But I also expect someone to draw a line somewhere, because otherwise, a single decision would have too great of an impact on the daily life of citizens. If abortion is included, so should assist suicide. And so should many many crazy things that might happen down the road that one can do to its own body; after all, it's a personal decision and freedom, right?

So, it's a very slippery rope by allowing such a single decision to have so much of an impact, when the constitution didn't even go that far to specify it.

Thus, going back to your original statement, that SCOTUS is about to ban abortion. This is FALSE. They are not banning it. They are simply correcting its overreach of the Roe vs. Wade case, and returning that power to Federal/State lawmakers. The reversal of this decision does not prohibit such practice. Did they make it easier for states, especially Republican-controlled ones, to pass anti-abortion laws? Sure. But each state elects their own representatives. If the vast majority of the people in the states believe that this value is what they want... who the fuck are we to say otherwise?

By trying to FORCE our value onto someone else, that in my book, is a serious interference of freedom... don't you think?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by westopher

I think defining it as the baby being able to survive outside of the womb would be a good starting point, and that aligns very conservatively with even the latest allowable gestation periods for abortion.

To add to that, I believe the only time anyone is even getting one that late anyways is when the pregnancy isn't going to be viable (stillbirth etc). Not that it matters anyways because:

Originally Posted by westopher

This is an individual choice for all women to make, and it's not without consequence on their own lives, so that's up to them.

[68style]

Originally Posted by Hehe

Did they make it easier for states, especially Republican-controlled ones, to pass anti-abortion laws? Sure. But each state elects their own representatives. If the vast majority of the people in the states believe that this value is what they want... who the fuck are we to say otherwise?

Do you still believe this argument when you know full well they have been and currently still are enacting voter laws in those states to make sure the people who are able to vote are primarily white?

Your entire hypothesis relies on a fair, balanced, transparent, equitable, democratic electoral system, which in most states, particularly red ones, is not currently the case... and is getting worse.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by 68style

Do you still believe this argument when you know full well they have been and currently still are enacting voter laws in those states to make sure the people who are able to vote are primarily white?

Your entire hypothesis relies on a fair, balanced, transparent, equitable, democratic electoral system, which in most states, particularly red ones, is not currently the case... and is getting worse.

The value of democracy has never been what is right, but what the majority of people choose. Politicians know well what policy would cause them to win/lose votes through highly precise Big Data surveys throughout the country at any given time. Every move and word is carefully chosen.

I will give you a local example. Why do we have this fucked up RE market with seemingly no law passing to curve it even it's so out of touch with average income? It's because true RE market curving policies are not popular.

It's not the RIGHT decision, it's the MAJORITY decision.

The earlier you realize that the world doesn't need you to be right, it needs you to be on the majority side, the easier it is for you to understand my comments and everything around the world and see further than you could ever see, which is not much... just the every next associated consequence of any given decision.

Do I agree with all these shits going around the world? Fuck the hell no. But do you know what I realized after working like a dog for over a decade for the sake of accomplishing something and hoping to move up the pyramid? The way our society works is the way why a pyramid needs to exist.

Lefties argue that business is not paying a livable wage and we should all raise minimum wage to $25 so that their employees can live a life, like affording some nice shits and baller every now and then. You know what really happens if we set the minimum wage at $25? Everything becomes more expensive and soon they'd realize that in order to have some nice things in life, you need a $50 wage. They can't see beyond that single decision. They can't see the consequences.

If the pyramid didn't exist and it's a perfect flat line, why would anyone want to work? Why do I need to take shit from my boss/customers/whoever if everyone is the same? By trying to make everyone equal, you just make equality harder and harder.

I don't fully agree with SCOTUS reversing the decision, but I can understand why they decided to go that way. They are the last line of interpretation of the constitution. They decided to not allow constitutional freedom to be overreaching. It's that simple.

You want them to allow abortion? Then elect abortion-friendly politicians. They see data every day. If they see that the "majority" is shifting to pro-abortion, they would change their view in no time. The only reason Republicans can hold ground in those states is that majority want it that way.

[320icar]

I think people need to understand how ‘dead’ a fetus really is until it’s actually born. I think westopher has a great point about being able to survive outside the womb.

Full gestational period is about 40 weeks. My son was born at 35 weeks unexpectedly. He was about half his birth weight (not even 5lbs) and needed to be on a ventilator for a week with heart monitoring. That’s at 35 weeks. The industry accepted threshold for even being able to survive with full NICU care is 25 weeks, and even then the survival rate is minimal, and with extreme defects later in life.

If a woman wants to abort at 6 weeks, you go right ahead miss. Ain’t no one’s choice but your own (though if in a relationship it’s best to also talk with your partner)

[320icar]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

You are either okay with a full-term abortion or not. If you are, then okay, end of discussion. But, if you're not okay with a full-term abortion, then we need to talk about what the definition of human life is and it's definitely not black and white.

Read what I wrote above, but I didn’t see this until after typing it out. Are you saying if full term is 40 weeks, a woman can abort at 39? I think as a society we need to define a correct time, and I think most provinces already have (for example bc is 24+6)

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Hehe

it's the MAJORITY decision.

If that was the true, then Abortion would be legal. 60% of all Americans support legal abortion.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Great68

If that was the true, then Abortion would be legal. 60% of all Americans support legal abortion.

And SCOTUS did NOT ban it. If the actual passes revision is the one leaked, it doesn’t outlaw abortion. It simply returned that right to lawmakers as abortion is not something within the scope of constitution and therefore SCOTUS decision should not be in the way of state legislature wanted to pass laws to either allow or ban abortion.

Dems controls both senate and house, why do you think they aren’t drafting federal laws to allow abortion if as you said, 60% supports it? It’s because they are afraid of losing ground on any conservative states that would vote for a more conservative liberal candidate. If they go all in, they might lose the votes from that middle ground.

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by 320icar

Read what I wrote above, but I didn’t see this until after typing it out. Are you saying if full term is 40 weeks, a woman can abort at 39? I think as a society we need to define a correct time, and I think most provinces already have (for example bc is 24+6)

I personally don't think a woman should abort a baby in the third trimester, but that's simply my opinion based on very limited knowledge.

I think there should be proper definitions and protocols, but I don't know what those should be.

I'm not educated enough on the subject to have any governance on the topic. But I like hearing and discussing the matter as it's such a hot topic.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Hehe

And SCOTUS did NOT ban it. If the actual passes revision is the one leaked, it doesn’t outlaw abortion. It simply returned that right to lawmakers as abortion is not something within the scope of constitution and therefore SCOTUS decision should not be in the way of state legislature wanted to pass laws to either allow or ban abortion.

Indirectly, it does for many states as they revert back to laws that were superseded by Roe v Wade.

Dems controls both senate and house, why do you think they aren’t drafting federal laws to allow abortion if as you said, 60% supports it? It’s because they are afraid of losing ground on any conservative states that would vote for a more conservative liberal candidate. If they go all in, they might lose the votes from that middle ground.

Lol, You've never heard of the filibuster? You should read up on how that works, and why the Dems don't actually "control" the senate because of it.

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by Hehe

You are trying to generalize a Supreme Court decision, which is the ultimate decision-maker as far as judicial power is concerned.

The question presented to SCOTUS was whether or not the new law of prohibiting abortion beyond 14wks by a State is against the constitutional rights granted by US constitutions. This is why SCOTUS took the case, as they are the guardian of US constitutions.

The plaintiff is using Roe vs. Wade as an argument (not sure if it was the only argument, but I'm sure it was the principal argument of precedents), thus the SCOTUS need to revisit. And they did EXACTLY what SCOTUS is supposed to do: to interpret the law to the letters and make a decision.

You are arguing that this is a human rights issue. I don't disagree. But I also expect someone to draw a line somewhere, because otherwise, a single decision would have too great of an impact on the daily life of citizens. If abortion is included, so should assist suicide. And so should many many crazy things that might happen down the road that one can do to its own body; after all, it's a personal decision and freedom, right?

So, it's a very slippery rope by allowing such a single decision to have so much of an impact, when the constitution didn't even go that far to specify it.

Thus, going back to your original statement, that SCOTUS is about to ban abortion. This is FALSE. They are not banning it. They are simply correcting its overreach of the Roe vs. Wade case, and returning that power to Federal/State lawmakers. The reversal of this decision does not prohibit such practice. Did they make it easier for states, especially Republican-controlled ones, to pass anti-abortion laws? Sure. But each state elects their own representatives. If the vast majority of the people in the states believe that this value is what they want... who the fuck are we to say otherwise?

By trying to FORCE our value onto someone else, that in my book, is a serious interference of freedom... don't you think?

What are you on about? You're being pedantic again which is quite boring to debate with. By repealing Roe V Wade you are effectively banning abortion by allowing individual states the ability to ban abortion within their legislature. There is literally no reason to have litigated any further.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, it's that simple. There is now discussion being had within some states that will ban abortion after the repeal, and also potentially levy travel bans or murder charges to those who leave the state for an abortion.

You bring up assisted suicide as well, I believe that's also a fair choice that should be able to be made by the person. One should not have to suffer with a debilitating disease or illness simply due to some idiot's religious beliefs. That decision should be left to the person of burden themselves. This is outside the discussion we're having here though.