Respectful debate about abortion, anyone? (Mississippi, constitutional, medical, society)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in a really privileged position here, personally. I cannot get pregnant. I work from home. I will have an inheritance within the next handful of years to work with, and I'm being told by my husband that he doesn't care where we live and it is up to me. I might feel better about paying taxes in a blue state, I might feel happier socially in a particular blue/purple state... But do I owe it to my country to fight against the threat I believe exists, by taking my very blue vote to a red state and fighting the ideological segregation of our people? Is this something, perhaps, that people should consider doing, especially if they are privileged enough to not face actual threat from the policies going on?
I mean, I know that this thread was not started to be about the politics of the matter, but I think it's dangerous for us to ignore them. And very dangerous to think that "hey maybe we'd be better off if we weren't one big country, it's just too hard to live with those crazy other people on the other side..." There IS a "they" and that is 100% what "they" want you to think, I swear...and it is to our peril if we cooperate with it. I refuse.
This respectful discourse is in and of itself a patriotic act of defiance, as far as I'm concerned, and one I am proud to participate in.
Yeah, the respectful discourse is great, this thread has been great (thank you all!), but I sure would like to hear more from the side who want women to have no choice but to carry any and all pregnancies to term. Maybe they're reading and not commenting.
Especially when so many of our representative politicians take that precise stance, especially in the red states. And they will of course use the distracting marketing term "pro-life", and whatever other distractions about what the issue is actually discussing. Which of course is, that they want to ban safe abortions performed by medical doctors, and let people use coat hangers and whatever else. They want that.
I just want to hear their full set of reasoning for why they want that. For almost all of them, I assume it's because of their personal and subjective Christian beliefs about souls and how they begin at conception and whatnot. They want that belief to be the law for everyone, whether they believe that or not.
As far as your moving dilemma, I know what you mean, and recently a few years ago faced the same type of question after living in a red state all my life. But, for many reasons (mostly not involving politics), I ended up moving to a blue state. And now my former home state (GA) I guess is more of a purple state, maybe soon to be a blue state at some point? But, like the other red states, they still have a trigger law ready to go that will ban abortion this year as soon as the conservative SCOTUS gives the signal, and it's going to be just... crazy fallout to see what all happens, and all the consequences. And if the masses revolt against the theocracy.
(As an aside, the SCOTUS situation is so ridiculous... I mean maybe 40% of this country is conservative, but 6 out of 9 of them on the bench are conservative. That is simply not representative.)
Me being a middle-aged guy who's never had kids, probably doesn't want kids... and considering all of my general values, I'm happy enough residing in Seattle which I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford. No place is perfect, for lots of various reasons, but it is good to know here that in case I ever do get someone pregnant unintentionally, we know that we could obtain an abortion procedure without much hoops or hassle.
Mainly all around I just want to live in a place that I feel is sane, mostly rational, and shares most of my basic values. But, yeah, without a doubt some of these excess blue votes are wasted on heavily blue states, that could really be much more needed in the purple and red states. A lot of the red states are getting more purple, even Texas these days, is trending towards that direction. But, that's their problem, you know. I would say stay there, or move, based on what you want to do and what your needs are. Either option is solid. Wishing you the best of luck!
As far as this whole larger question, of will this so highly polarized country turn into 2 countries... I don't know what to think, right now. Probably not, but a part of me almost thinks we'd all be happier if we we were... divorced, as it were.
Probably the union will continue on, but the cultural divide between red and blue America is not going anywhere, and it's looking right now like it's going to end up where abortion is banned in some states, and very much protected and valued in other states.
Which is kind of dumb, because you can travel freely between the states in this country, so women who want abortions can just travel to the nearest non-theocratic state. It's hard to have different laws in different states. Like, they can attempt to ban guns in Chicago, but red state Indiana is right next door. It's not going to be as effective, as, say, Japan setting a policy. The 50 states are not different countries.
That’s getting close to crossing a line people should not cross. First off there are poor and wealthy people in every state, regardless of skin color or ethnic origins. Second, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who wanted to use abortions to control the population of black people. Third, people who don’t want a baby should first take preventative methods to not become pregnant when they have sex. If they’re raped or those preventative methods fail then there’s the morning after pill, adoption, or abortion. I work at a hospital. We have special door signs in the maternity ward with symbols for special circumstances. One of those is adoption. The mother has put her baby up for adoption and after the baby is born is eventually handed over to the adoption parents. Going this route means the baby never enters an orphanage. There are options other than abortion on demand. It makes me sad to hear some celebrities brag about the number of abortions they have had as if it’s a badge of honor. It should be a last resort method. The methods before abortion include condoms, BC medication, BC devices, and morning after pill. If all those methods fail then either abortion or adoption if you still don’t want the baby.
You have a lot of "shoulds" in your post. You would like to see people live their lives according to your very strict rules. Unfortunately, most people's lives are not so structured. BC fails. People forget pills sometimes. Stuff happens in life.
I believe abortion must always remain available.
The only thing I agree on in your post is that adoption services need to be more visible and available.
The day of the artificial womb is coming, so every fertilized egg could be saved.
It will be up pro-life people to save every egg and raise it to adulthood, ethically speaking.
How would you force/require those pro-lifers to care for those babies? In today's world, many of them want to force birth but not even give food (WIC) to the new mother and baby. (referring to another thread)
My point is that I am definitely open to compromise.
There is a valid compromise based on science and legal decisions from the Supreme Court.
Let's start small. What is the definition of death?
The heart stops beating? No. That is the clinical definition.
The legal, scientific, and technical definition is the absence of brainwaves outside the brain-stem.
The brain stem is not you. All it does is control involuntary functions like respiration, heart-beat etc. It has no memories; it has no bearing on your personality; and it does not make you conscious.
So, if the absences of brainwaves in the "big brain" is death, then the presence is life.
The fetus does not have brainwaves in the "big brain" until the 22-24 week of life.
Prior to that time, it is effectively dead.
There's a difference between a body functioning and a body being alive.
In the 1st trimester, an abortion is a nothing-burger, but after that, we're talking about taking the life of a sentient being, a being who can think and is aware of its own existence and it is more than just functioning.
The argument that life begins at conception is a purely religious argument which has no place in the debate.
Just as we have freedom of religion, we also have freedom from religion and no one has a right to ram their religious views down the throats of others.
It's ironic, but that's exactly what the Pilgrims were trying to do. They weren't persecuted. They were shunned and ignored --which does not rise to the level of persecution -- because their religious views were whacked out and no one was stupid enough to entertain their whacked out views, so the Pilgrims got mad, took their toys and left.
I got no problem with abortions in the 1st trimester. I'm willing to allow abortions in the 2nd/3rd trimester to save the life of the mother, or to prevent permanent life-threatening medical conditions or complications.
With respect to the rape/incest arguments, those are quite silly.
Victims of rape/incest did not have a choice. No one chooses to be raped.
But none of that matters since that's in the 1st trimester.
In the rare cases where a woman, and especially a teen, might be reluctant to report a rape, or where a woman got Cosbied and so she's not even aware or 100% sure she had sex, and it is beyond the 1st trimester, it is still the woman's choice.
That is the best compromise possible, but it will never happen.
It's the Politics of Power.
The Abortion Game Industry, like the Homeless Game Industry, is a multi-Billion dollar a year business (the Homeless Industry was an $86 Billion game in 2017.)
People profit off of it.
These people in the Pro and Con Game, that is their raison d'être. It's why they get out of bed in the morning.
They're on the radio, talk-show circuit, and all the marches, rallies, demonstrations and protests, traveling to testify before Congress and the State legislatures, and oh, the fund-raising events where they get to rub elbows with the Beautiful People.
That's true for the followers, too, even though they may not be profiting off of it like the leaders of those groups are.
If you think for a minute they're just gonna give that up and walk away because the Supreme Court issued a decision, you're dead wrong.
Sadly, all that wasted energy could be used for bettering things, like cleaning up neighborhoods, tutoring kids, helping the elderly with their homes, comforting the sick and dying and such.
... The brain stem is not you. All it does is control involuntary functions like respiration, heart-beat etc. It has no memories; it has no bearing on your personality; and it does not make you conscious.
So, if the absences of brainwaves in the "big brain" is death, then the presence is life.
The fetus does not have brainwaves in the "big brain" until the 22-24 week of life.
If that us your definition of 'death' [i.e., the absence of brainwaves from the 'big brain', then my grandson would be dead.
He was born with Cerebral palsy [hydrocephalus], effectively no detectable brain beyond his stem. He will be 5 yo this year.
I don't see much discussion about a person's body autonomy, more just discussions of when a person begins. A person does not have a parasitic relationship with another person. An individual should have total control over her own body as long as the fetus is parasitic (not viable separate from the woman).
I also don't see discussion of what I think is a major or THE major issue underlying this. Women being sexual and not having to "pay to play."
I don't see much discussion about a person's body autonomy, more just discussions of when a person begins. A person does not have a parasitic relationship with another person. An individual should have total control over her own body as long as the fetus is parasitic (not viable separate from the woman).
I also don't see discussion of what I think is a major or THE major issue underlying this. Women being sexual and not having to "pay to play."
The relationship between mother and fetus is not parasitic. In order for it to be parasitic, the fetus would have to be a different species from the mother. A host never gives birth to their parasite. In addition the relationship between mom and baby during pregnancy is mutually beneficial providing mom with a decreased cancer and Alzheimer’s risk.
When you say that an individual should. Have total control over their body, I mostly agree but abortion is complicated because you have more than one individual’s body to consider.
When a woman has sex when she’s ovulating, there is a good chance she will become pregnant. It would be great if more women took precautions to avoid pregnancy but that’s probably for another discussion.
The relationship between mother and fetus is not parasitic. In order for it to be parasitic, the fetus would have to be a different species from the mother. A host never gives birth to their parasite. In addition the relationship between mom and baby during pregnancy is mutually beneficial providing mom with a decreased cancer and Alzheimer’s risk.
When you say that an individual should. Have total control over their body, I mostly agree but abortion is complicated because you have more than one individual’s body to consider.
When a woman has sex when she’s ovulating, there is a good chance she will become pregnant. It would be great if more women took precautions to avoid pregnancy but that’s probably for another discussion.
I misused "parasitic" apparently. But it's hard to deny that the fetal life is living off the woman life. The fetus is not an individual (unless I misunderstand the biologic term). Yes, I do wish people would be meticulous about birth control but I can't wave a wand for that.
When you say that an individual should. Have total control over their body, I mostly agree but abortion is complicated because you have more than one individual’s body to consider.
In the case of abortion, you have one person's body to consider. A fetus is not a person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
