The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Ghjkl63]

Note you said 'fetus', not 'zygote'. If life begins at conception, and therefore personhood, then one might ask why Tennessee does not regard it as personhood until implantation occurs. A seed doesn't become a tree until it takes root, no?

@Wesley Willis (forgot to include the quote when making this post) in response to that comment, if life is full of suffering and hardship, filled with cruelties unimaginable, why are no solutions offered to reduce abortion? The 'give it up for adoption' is a cheapskate argument. You are just giving your responsibility to someone else. And, looking at adoption rates by race, it paints an even dire picture.

a seed is still a tree just like a fetus and zygote are still XYZ organism

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Wouldn't a sapling be more comparable to a baby than a fetus? I see more parallels with the tree seed.

In this analogy yes. If you go by the baby killers rhetoric, this also fits because they consider a fetus a "potential" human life. Which is an argument that makes no sense and never did. A seed isn't a "potential tree". Its just a tree. It may not look like one, but if you put it in the ground, water it, and leave it alone, it will only ever grow up to be a tree. Saying that it is a potential tree is implying that it has the potential to be something else. It doesn't. A fetus isn't a potential human. It just is a human. It will always grow up to be an adult human being. It could potentially grow up to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a construction worker. It will always grow up to be human.

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

Saying that it is a potential tree is implying that it has the potential to be something else.

No, that does not follow. No one is even implying it can be something else.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

No, that does not follow. No one is even implying it can be something else.

That's exactly what you are implying when you use the word "potential". That it could become a tree, that it has the potential to be one, but it could not become a tree in the future. The fact is, its already a tree. It has everything that a tree will ever have inside of itself. The only way it won't grow into a full grown tree is if you kill it before that happens. Same with a fetus. A fetus isn't a potential human being. Its just as a human being. Homo sapiens sapiens. If you take a blood sample from a fetus, that sample won't say "wolf", or "coyote", or "jackal", it will test as a human being. It has a human being's blood type, chromosomes, cells, everything. Everything it needs as a human being is already built into it. It will, if left to natural processes, always grow into an adult. There is no "potential" there. It already is. Its humanity is fundamental to its being.

 

[Spiny Rumples]

I started reading this thread because I wanted to better understand the ethics or pro-choice and pro-life arguments. I have since realized that this is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is for talking over people and flinging shit.

However, I don't have anywhere else to post this idea, so into the shit pit it goes!

-----

I'm reminded of an AI ethics video I saw recently which discussed the issue with optimizers and goals.
Meza-optimizers And Inner Alignment

Going off this video, I'm thinking that the evolutionary "goal" is to continue the survival of one's genetic material for as long as possible. Those that do not pass on their genetic material are "less evolutionarily fit" and their genes are left to history.
The way that this goal is achieved is not completely hard-coded. Instead, humans have emotions and instincts etc. and a ton of variety in how we approach goals such as not feeling hungry, feeling happy, not feeling lonely, etc. This is assuming that most things that make us feel positive are good for us evolutionarily.
Because people are making emotional decisions that don't see any "big picture," this sometimes works out to improve gene survival (eating nutritious food) and sometimes doesn't (eating fast food).

For the abortion debate specifically, I was interested in the opposing sides I saw:
Don't have sex unless you want a baby.
vs.
Get laid, virgin.

It seems like women have rough pregnancies often. Especially before modern medicine, it had a decent chance of death. Based on this, an individual woman could logically say "sex is a terrible idea for me because I don't want to need more food, maybe get injured, and maybe die." This choice optimizes for the survival of the woman but not the passing-down of her genes.

As such, there would be an evolutionary pressure supporting the people who like sex and/or forget about long-term issues like pregnancy until after the sex is done.

People might have a natural instinct that makes them less bright when they're in love, horny, and/or having great sex. They might think less about consequences, and make riskier decisions as a result. If this is normal for humans, that would explain why people are getting called virgins for preaching that sex makes babies is cause and effect.

If women feel this harder than men, that would explain why they blame men for this so often.
I could just be jaded by my real-life female friends pushing blame onto men (a friend telling me that if her boyfriend is away, she is in danger of a charming man seducing her and making her cheat, stuff like that), and they might not represent women as a whole.

Before anyone says, yes, I am a virgin, not in a relationship, and can only guess at this for now. Does it match the experiences of anyone or their friends?

 

[Chandelier]

The statement of 'birth control will be left alone/we're not coming after birth control' can be put to rest thanks to a judge out of Texas, a Mr. Kacsmaryk. To boot, mifepristone faces a nationwide ban, thanks to the same judge. So much for 'leaving it up to the states'.

And yes, I'm aware this is Slate and Vox. You'll find similar stories on LifeSiteNews.

The birth control story. https://archive.is/uWa5R

Last week, Kacsmaryk issued an opinion in Deanda v. Becerra that attacks Title X, a federal program that offers grants to health providers that fund voluntary and confidential family planning services to patients. Federal law requires the Title X program to include “services for adolescents,”

The plaintiff in Deanda is a father who says he is “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.” He claims that the program must cease all grants to health providers who do not require patients under age 18 to “obtain parental consent” before receiving Title X-funded medical care.

His daughters had no need for birth control, so he felt the need to ban it across the entire state. Note this wasn't done out of concern for girl's health, but because he was upset it was made available.

The mifepristone story. https://archive.is/jyUpr

Turn to the merits, and a second flaw quickly emerges: The plaintiffs’ substantive arguments are ridiculous. They accuse the FDA of fast-tracking mifepristone (in 2000) and ignoring potential adverse reactions. What they are doing here is effectively disputing the conclusions of the agency’s scientists. Yet the FDA compiled a voluminous record over the more than two decades since approval justifying every single decision it has made about the drug, and fulfilling all of its legal obligations. To boot, in an upcoming paper on abortion pills by professors David Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouché, the authors note that “after more than twenty years on the U.S. market, mifepristone has become one of the most studied drugs available and has proven to have an impeccable safety profile—many times safer than common drugs like penicillin or Viagra.” A private party’s cherry-picked attempt to disagree with two decades’ worth of scientific analysis and peer-reviewed scholarship does not give a court the authority to pull a drug from the market.

This issue of authority and expertise leads to the suit’s third flaw: Never before has a federal judge imposed a ban on a particular drug by wholly revoking FDA approval. That is what the plaintiffs demand, yet it is an unprecedented step that would radically disrupt the entire existing health care system. The plaintiffs want Kacsmaryk to outlaw mifepristone in every state, abruptly halting doctors’ ability to prescribe the drug. Given that a majority of patients use abortion pills, this move would overwhelm providers, creating monthslong waitlists for abortion procedures even in deep-blue states. The result would be an unprecedented backup as people sought to get procedures instead, and likely thousands of patients—in states like New York or California or really anywhere—would be unable to obtain an abortion in time, even if state law protects their right to do so.

Let's say this federal judge is stopped by the higher courts. This will not stop the issue from being brought to said courts. I've heard from many pro lifers to 'just use birth control', on virtually every conservative-leaning video on it. And yet, here it faces a ban (for minors, for now) and mifepristone faces a ban.

In regards to whether life begins at conception, Tennessee doesn't think so - not if it is in a test tube.

The act "does not apply to a human embryo before it has been transferred to a woman’s uterus and, therefore, disposing of a human embryo that has not been transferred to a woman’s uterus is not punishable as a 'criminal abortion,'" the opinion released this week reads.

Although an embryo that has not been implanted may fit the law's definition of an "unborn child," Skrmetti found, there are other important elements of the law to consider before its disposal can be defined as an abortion.
Nothing in the law prohibits disposing embryos that have not been implanted, Skrmetti wrote. If an embryo has not been implanted, then no one is pregnant. And "if there is no pregnancy to terminate, there can be no abortion" the opinion reads.

The opinion does not include a definition for "living." The state's strict abortion ban sets life at conception, well before an embryo reaches viability.

And there you have it. Life begins at conception - but it's not actually a person if it's not in a woman's uterus. You can dispose as many embryos as you like - it's not murder.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

@Chandelier

The statement of 'birth control will be left alone/we're not coming after birth control' can be put to rest thanks to a judge out of Texas, a Mr. Kacsmaryk.

And yet, here it faces a ban (for minors, for now)

The person bringing the suit isn't asking for a nationwide ban on birth control for minors. He's suing against a particular federal program, asking that the program be forbidden from giving grants to health providers that don't require parental consent from minors getting their services. Which is a fairly reasonable request, and I think the courts have erred in the past by undermining a parent's control in this area. Hell, the article you link to makes an egregious legal error before it even gets into its analysis of his decision, while claiming that the judge is making legal errors. The article claims that the concept of "standing" comes from the constitution. But legal standing is not mentioned in the constitution at all. Standing was something invented by the U.S. Supreme Court, fairly recently, in the case Fairchild v. Hughes (1922). Prior to that, it was generally understood that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. So I'm not going to really take this article's analysis of the case at face value.

In regards to whether life begins at conception, Tennessee doesn't think so - not if it is in a test tube.

The AG was giving his opinion on the law as written. Whether or not a new law will be written to encompass Embryos used in IVF will be up to the state of Tennessee to decide.

Let's say this federal judge is stopped by the higher courts. This will not stop the issue from being brought to said courts. I've heard from many pro lifers to 'just use birth control', on virtually every conservative-leaning video on it...mifepristone faces a ban.

Mifepristone is one drug and its banning would hardly amount to a blanket ban on birth control. That being said, I fully expect that the courts will ultimately not move to ban the drug as that would be a very drastic action by the courts.

 

[Chandelier]

The person bringing the suit isn't asking for a nationwide ban on birth control for minors. He's suing against a particular federal program, asking that the program be forbidden from giving grants to health providers that don't require parental consent from minors getting their services. Which is a fairly reasonable request, and I think the courts have erred in the past by undermining a parent's control in this area.

Deanda - the man who brought the suit - has no intention of using birth control for his daughters. He went to Kacsmaryk because he knew he'd take the case, whereas it wouldn't be taken in others because Deanda's daughters are not using birth control. So one man has decided every teenage girl shouldn't have access, because his religion comes first. Even when he is not using the drug and his daughters are not personally affected.

Hell, the article you link to makes an egregious legal error before it even gets into its analysis of his decision, while claiming that the judge is making legal errors. The article claims that the concept of "standing" comes from the constitution. But legal standing is not mentioned in the constitution at all. Standing was something invented by the U.S. Supreme Court, fairly recently, in the case Fairchild v. Hughes (1922). Prior to that, it was generally understood that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. So I'm not going to really take this article's analysis of the case at face value.

The legal decisions are in the articles, bar the spin.

The AG was giving his opinion on the law as written. Whether or not a new law will be written to encompass Embryos used in IVF will be up to the state of Tennessee to decide.

Then it isn't consistent. If life begins at conception, you don't get to argue it's not a person if it isn't implanted. Then you're agreeing with the pro choice side: it has to implant first. IVF involves destruction of embryos on a mass scale, and if those are little people - as life begins at conception - it's murder, full stop. The pro life side never made caveats about implantation - just conception.

Mifepristone is one drug and its banning would hardly amount to a blanket ban on birth control. That being said, I fully expect that the courts will ultimately not move to ban the drug as that would be a very drastic action by the courts.

Mifepristone is the other half of Misoprostol. It aids in the work of the latter, even when the former ends the pregnancy. Even if the courts don't take it, because it's federal approval, that doesn't mean the pro life side won't try. The other aspect is using the EPA for the ban on medication abortion, as the expelled fetus is medical waste and a danger to the environment.

People thought the heartbeat bill in Texas wouldn't stick either, yet here we are. It's one federal judge in one district deliberately picked for his views. It was never just "leave it to the states."

 

[Enjoy_the_Soylence]

There's a story out of Quebec of a woman aborting a healthy 38 week fetus. (I guess I should insert here her life was not at risk.) I think most of us pro and anti abortion would agree that's fucked up? (I'm pro early abortion for the record. Actually pro abortion not just pro body autonomy.) At 38 weeks she could have handed that off to an adoption agency with a flick of a pen. They begged her for it. She said no. They euthanized it. The only media running it are maudlin pro-life sites. I couldn't find a good link. It's fucked up and it's bothered me all day, so I'm sperging here.

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

Canada has no time limit for abortion. We might be one of the most liberal countries on this issue, and I think that's for the best. I think elective abortions should be minimized as much as possible, but prolife lawmakers don't seem to be able to not add retarded restrictions. They always sneak in stuff to fuck it up, like Chandelier said about abortion pills and birth control.
This is ultimately the price we pay due to prolifer stupidity and it's their fault.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Deanda - the man who brought the suit - has no intention of using birth control for his daughters. He went to Kacsmaryk because he knew he'd take the case, whereas it wouldn't be taken in others because Deanda's daughters are not using birth control. So one man has decided every teenage girl shouldn't have access, because his religion comes first. Even when he is not using the drug and his daughters are not personally affected.

Except this wouldn't stop any teenage girl from getting it? This guy is suing to remove funding from any programs that don't ask for parental consent first.

Then it isn't consistent. If life begins at conception, you don't get to argue it's not a person if it isn't implanted. Then you're agreeing with the pro choice side: it has to implant first. IVF involves destruction of embryos on a mass scale, and if those are little people - as life begins at conception - it's murder, full stop. The pro life side never made caveats about implantation - just conception.

Except nobody is really arguing here whether or not IVF embryos count as life. That's not the question here. The question is what does the law as currently written say. The law, as currently written, may not cover IVF embryos. There is nothing stopping Tennessee from rewriting the law in the future to do such. It will be interesting to see if somebody does push for that. As it is now, this is a quirk of this law in particular, but nothing more.

Mifepristone is the other half of Misoprostol. It aids in the work of the latter, even when the former ends the pregnancy. Even if the courts don't take it, because it's federal approval, that doesn't mean the pro life side won't try. The other aspect is using the EPA for the ban on medication abortion, as the expelled fetus is medical waste and a danger to the environment.

People thought the heartbeat bill in Texas wouldn't stick either, yet here we are. It's one federal judge in one district deliberately picked for his views. It was never just "leave it to the states."

If you are bitching about the issue of judicial activism, the Supreme Court opened the door to that can of worms in the first place with decisions like Roe v. Wade. Legal challenges were never going to end just because Roe got overturned. Ultimately, this is pearl clutching over what will probably turn out to be nothing.

We might be one of the most liberal countries on this issue, and I think that's for the best.

I don't think mass murder is for the best.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Imagine thinking test tube babies are people.

 

[gang weeder]

If women feel this harder than men, that would explain why they blame men for this so often.
I could just be jaded by my real-life female friends pushing blame onto men (a friend telling me that if her boyfriend is away, she is in danger of a charming man seducing her and making her cheat, stuff like that), and they might not represent women as a whole.

Before anyone says, yes, I am a virgin, not in a relationship, and can only guess at this for now. Does it match the experiences of anyone or their friends?

You're making this way more complicated than it is. Women like to blame other things for their problems in general. They prefer to complain and have a man take care of it rather than take responsibility themselves. This is not some kind of put-down on women, it is just pure evolutionary biology. Men provide in large part because yes women are vulnerable and have to bear the physical cost of pregnancy. Men are expendable hence why every dangerous job in history including fighting wars has been carried out by men. Etc.

Deanda - the man who brought the suit - has no intention of using birth control for his daughters. He went to Kacsmaryk because he knew he'd take the case, whereas it wouldn't be taken in others because Deanda's daughters are not using birth control. So one man has decided every teenage girl shouldn't have access, because his religion comes first. Even when he is not using the drug and his daughters are not personally affected.

It just says Title X grants shouldn't go to these certain health providers, not that those health providers are somehow banned from providing contraception entirely. I don't see how you're getting the latter from the former. Oh noes teenagers who indeed should not be sexually active at all (they are literally minors) might have to pay for their BC pills? What kind of weird hill is this to die on?

Then it isn't consistent. If life begins at conception, you don't get to argue it's not a person if it isn't implanted. Then you're agreeing with the pro choice side: it has to implant first. IVF involves destruction of embryos on a mass scale, and if those are little people - as life begins at conception - it's murder, full stop. The pro life side never made caveats about implantation - just conception.

Yes IVF (an IVF practice involving destruction of embryos at least) is murder, yes it is wrong, and yes over time pro life people will become consistent on this. Yawn. Next.

There's a story out of Quebec of a woman aborting a healthy 38 week fetus. (I guess I should insert here her life was not at risk.) I think most of us pro and anti abortion would agree that's fucked up? (I'm pro early abortion for the record. Actually pro abortion not just pro body autonomy.) At 38 weeks she could have handed that off to an adoption agency with a flick of a pen. They begged her for it. She said no. They euthanized it. The only media running it are maudlin pro-life sites. I couldn't find a good link. It's fucked up and it's bothered me all day, so I'm sperging here.

Why is it wrong though? What's the difference that makes a 38 week fetus a person and 8 weeks or 18 weeks not?

Canada has no time limit for abortion. We might be one of the most liberal countries on this issue, and I think that's for the best. I think elective abortions should be minimized as much as possible, but prolife lawmakers don't seem to be able to not add retarded restrictions. They always sneak in stuff to fuck it up, like Chandelier said about abortion pills and birth control.
This is ultimately the price we pay due to prolifer stupidity and it's their fault.

Why should elective abortions be minimized?

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

Why should elective abortions be minimized?

Because it's fairly invasive compared to birth control.

 

[Chandelier]

You're making this way more complicated than it is. Women like to blame other things for their problems in general. They prefer to complain and have a man take care of it rather than take responsibility themselves. This is not some kind of put-down on women, it is just pure evolutionary biology. Men provide in large part because yes women are vulnerable and have to bear the physical cost of pregnancy. Men are expendable hence why every dangerous job in history including fighting wars has been carried out by men. Etc.

Women don't get pregnant on their own. It's become redundant to say this, but whatever: you stuck your dick in them. You impregnated them. And I see a lot more men get angry over being forced to pay child support or any social services than they do over women. By Guttmacher statistics, it isn't those brow beaten trailer park trash getting abortions 1/4 of those getting abortions are good Catholic women, and 68% of those in general are religious. The women protesting with signs outside the Capitol or singing pro life songs very likely got an abortion and don't want anyone to know. If they want any woman who has an abortion to be imprisoned or severely punished, well, there goes nearly 2/3rds of their female base.

Yes, men fight wars. And guess what happens to the womenfolk of the army that loses? I think the Red Army might provide an answer. Evo-bio also provides a nice answer to that.

It just says Title X grants shouldn't go to these certain health providers, not that those health providers are somehow banned from providing contraception entirely. I don't see how you're getting the latter from the former. Oh noes teenagers who indeed should not be sexually active at all (they are literally minors) might have to pay for their BC pills? What kind of weird hill is this to die on?

Deanda, the man who brought the suit, has daughters who do not need or use contraception. He went judge shopping and found one to influence policy based on personal decisions he does not make. Why? Because he felt like it.

What a weird hill to fight on, especially when your daughters are not using birth control. Deanda is using his religion to influence public policy. It literally does not affect him in the slightest. It has never stopped him or the movement from using the FDA or the EPA to ban it - and mifepristone faces a ban, even when the drug is also used for miscarriages.

Yes IVF (an IVF practice involving destruction of embryos at least) is murder, yes it is wrong, and yes over time pro life people will become consistent on this. Yawn. Next.

They aren't, though. Many are barely even aware of it. The largest pro life organizations don't have much to say on it, and when you have a state that says life begins at conception yet flip-flops on that, that's a major hole in their beliefs and argument. But since many good Christians (with money) use IVF, they don't want to see it banned. They do want to see fetal tissue research banned, as they did with stem cell research in the early 2000's.

So, the Tennessee AG doesn't think life really begins at conception, but implantation. You can't have a pregnancy without it, after all, and if there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion. Those are their words, not mine.

Why is it wrong though? What's the difference that makes a 38 week fetus a person and 8 weeks or 18 weeks not?

38 weeks it's practically fully developed and conscious, and has viability. At 8 weeks it doesn't have a brain. It only recently has the impulses forming a heart, and a primordial heart muscle. It has only just begun sex differentiation.

Why should elective abortions be minimized?

Uh, that's your argument, isn't it? To have it banned/reduced/whatever?

---

Except this wouldn't stop any teenage girl from getting it? This guy is suing to remove funding from any programs that don't ask for parental consent first.

His daughters are not using birth control. He went to a specific federal court to stop it from being handed out even when it objectively does not affect him or his daughters at all.

If you are bitching about the issue of judicial activism, the Supreme Court opened the door to that can of worms in the first place with decisions like Roe v. Wade. Legal challenges were never going to end just because Roe got overturned. Ultimately, this is pearl clutching over what will probably turn out to be nothing.

The mifepristone decision will be made on Friday, with a ruling later this month or in March. Mifepristone isn't just used for abortion - it's used to terminate miscarriages that do not solve on their own. So that's a lot of women who had a shit luck of the draw suffering from the actions of a few doctors and organizations that wanted to ban a pill. Again, they chose a very specific court for this, otherwise the FDA wouldn't be challenged. This isn't a class action lawsuit, either.

Correct, the battle was never going to end. And it wasn't going to stop at abortion, either, as evidence by the Deanda birth control ruling and the mifepristone decision.

Except nobody is really arguing here whether or not IVF embryos count as life. That's not the question here. The question is what does the law as currently written say. The law, as currently written, may not cover IVF embryos. There is nothing stopping Tennessee from rewriting the law in the future to do such. It will be interesting to see if somebody does push for that. As it is now, this is a quirk of this law in particular, but nothing more.

The pro life side argues life begins at conception. That it is a full human being. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is a big 'but'. It establishes that 'if there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion', which means an embryo created in a tube is not a person, legally or morally. If the pro life side is arguing that it begins at implantation, that's an inconsistency. Either IVF clinics must be banned or they are kept under a veneer of 'well it's not in a uterus so it isn't murder'. Tennessee bans abortion from conception, so it's more than a quirk it doesn't see IVF as murder. Once other states start to ban it, I will start to take the 'life begins at conception' side seriously.

 

[gang weeder]

Because it's fairly invasive compared to birth control.

The operative word here is "elective," though. If a woman wants to have an invasive procedure, why are you discouraging her from doing so?

Women don't get pregnant on their own. It's become redundant to say this, but whatever: you stuck your dick in them. You impregnated them. And I see a lot more men get angry over being forced to pay child support or any social services than they do over women. By Guttmacher statistics, it isn't those brow beaten trailer park trash getting abortions 1/4 of those getting abortions are good Catholic women, and 68% of those in general are religious. The women protesting with signs outside the Capitol or singing pro life songs very likely got an abortion and don't want anyone to know. If they want any woman who has an abortion to be imprisoned or severely punished, well, there goes nearly 2/3rds of their female base.

What's your point with this?

Deanda, the man who brought the suit, has daughters who do not need or use contraception. He went judge shopping and found one to influence policy based on personal decisions he does not make. Why? Because he felt like it.

His position appears to be that underage girls shouldn't be able to get contraception without the health provider informing the parent. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. What's your problem with it? Are you in favor of minors having sex and hiding it from their parents?

38 weeks it's practically fully developed and conscious, and has viability. At 8 weeks it doesn't have a brain. It only recently has the impulses forming a heart, and a primordial heart muscle. It has only just begun sex differentiation.

Why would any of this matter? Cats have brains and hearts and yet clearly aren't people.

They aren't, though. Many are barely even aware of it. The largest pro life organizations don't have much to say on it, and when you have a state that says life begins at conception yet flip-flops on that, that's a major hole in their beliefs and argument. But since many good Christians (with money) use IVF, they don't want to see it banned. They do want to see fetal tissue research banned, as they did with stem cell research in the early 2000's.

Well then maybe you can go find some people who are hypocrites about this and yell at them. I would fully be on your side.

Uh, that's your argument, isn't it? To have it banned/reduced/whatever?

Of course, but I believe unique human lives come into existence at conception. The person I was responding to clearly doesn't believe that but still suggests that elective abortions should be restricted. I asked him why, since I've yet to see any coherent viewpoint along these lines. The two coherent viewpoints are either it's a person or it isn't, and if it isn't, there's no apparent reason why you need to restrict elective abortions.

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

The operative word here is "elective," though. If a woman wants to have an invasive procedure, why are you discouraging her from doing so?

Bc it's more expensive and risky when it could be prevented altogether by bc.

 

[gang weeder]

Bc it's more expensive and risky when it could be prevented altogether by bc.

Okay, so you have no moral objections to elective abortions, only fiscal ones. I misinterpreted your post then.

 

[Pokemon Conquistador]

It's only a matter of time before baby murder becomes legal. What difference is there between a viable fetus and a baby completely dependent upon its mother to survive? Sure, the mother could hand her baby off to others, but the state will declare it an extension of her and her decisions over its fate inviolable. I fully expect at some point in my life, a woman will elect to kill her infant, the State will let her, and all of the Conservatives will shit themselves and do nothing. That's all Conservatives do these days.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

@Chandelier

His daughters are not using birth control. He went to a specific federal court to stop it from being handed out even when it objectively does not affect him or his daughters at all.

No, that isn't what he's asking for. What he's asking for is literally quoted by you in your initial post. He wants to cease a federal grant program from providing grants to organizations that don't offer parental consent. This won't stop birth control from being handed out to anyone. Those organizations will continue to exist and continue to hand out said birth control, they just won't get federal funds to do so.

The mifepristone decision will be made on Friday, with a ruling later this month or in March. Mifepristone isn't just used for abortion - it's used to terminate miscarriages that do not solve on their own. So that's a lot of women who had a shit luck of the draw suffering from the actions of a few doctors and organizations that wanted to ban a pill. Again, they chose a very specific court for this, otherwise the FDA wouldn't be challenged. This isn't a class action lawsuit, either.

Correct, the battle was never going to end. And it wasn't going to stop at abortion, either, as evidence by the Deanda birth control ruling and the mifepristone decision.

Once again, this is the legal system as it exists, and its the legal system decisions like Roe inculcated. Forum shopping is a time honored tradition in our court system, as is people bringing out ludicrous lawsuits, and judges issuing nationwide injunctions and the like. I question whether or not this judge will even ban the drug, since the legal jurisprudence all but ensures that he will overturned. But in either case, this reaches into issues regarding our legal system that are really beyond this thread to discuss.

The pro life side argues life begins at conception. That it is a full human being. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is a big 'but'. It establishes that 'if there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion', which means an embryo created in a tube is not a person, legally or morally. If the pro life side is arguing that it begins at implantation, that's an inconsistency. Either IVF clinics must be banned or they are kept under a veneer of 'well it's not in a uterus so it isn't murder'. Tennessee bans abortion from conception, so it's more than a quirk it doesn't see IVF as murder. Once other states start to ban it, I will start to take the 'life begins at conception' side seriously.

Once again, the question isn't whether or not life begins at conception, but what Tennessee's law states on the issue of IVF embryos. This is a legal question regarding current law, not larger moral questions. The fact is, the focus has been on abortion for so long, no one has really even tried to parse this issue of IVF embryos. Sure its been brought up, but the legal focus has been on abortion primarily because of Roe. So it will be a while before actual jurisprudence on this subject begins to truly form.