the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

I wonder when we will obtain freedom FROM religion. The anti-abortion stance appears to be based on certain religious beliefs that are not shared by other religions (e.g., Jewish beliefs about the fetus being a part of the mother prior to birth…), or by the majority of secular society. If someone does not believe in abortions, then they are free to avoid having an abortion; but now someone with different beliefs about the fetus can only get an abortion if their state legislature (and their particular religious based viewpoint) allows it?

I find that the religious viewpoint that life begins at conception, and therefore is a sacred, God given, special event, rather than a simple biological event, to be absurd. In nature, 3/4 of fertilized embryos fail to implant and are therefore expelled from the body as waste. If some God were so concerned with the life of embryos, then why do 3/4 of them simply die? And what about miscarriages and stillbirths? These are pregnancies that were terminated unintentionally! Does “God” really care that much???

I am not a member of any religion, and I want secular laws, not laws based upon religious beliefs. I want freedom FROM religions.

windwalker wrote:

origami_itto wrote:
Your command of logic is indeed stunning.

your ignorance is not.

seems to be part of your sitch

It is a discussion no?

People have different view points....

Putin ?

FWIW

"Abortion in Russia is legal as an elective procedure up to the 12th week of pregnancy, and in special circumstances at later stages."

The time seems to be arbitrary, depending on medical science, or religious societal underpinnings.

States in the US, run by legislators voted in by their constituents
the ability to have an abortion was made harder or easier adhering to the law of the land not legally supported by the constitution .
Only a matter of time when it would be challenged as now.

The law has been corrected. They now have full control over their view points
on this..In some states, its legal in others not...

Indeed my ignorance is boundless.

I have no idea how someone could support the removal of this protection. I don't know how people could be so intellectually dishonest and un self aware.

How can you celebrate opening the door to government interfering in your reproductive rights?

Like so many other difficult issues, this one is solely the result of human need to categorize. Even the "at conception" idea is about as vague as it gets... What is that moment of conception? There isn't one; not an hour, or a day, or a week:
https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/co ... w-it-works

Instead of making "absolute laws" with a specific strict cutoff"moment in time" (because there simply isn't one), each scenario should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

But we apparently can't, at least not any more than we can stop trying to split the entire population, with all the subtle differences in almost every aspect, into just two enormous, artificial, and overall ludicrously stupid buckets of "conservatives" and "liberals".

Best response I've seen so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpc40dmPlVM

Dmitri wrote:Like so many other difficult issues, this one is solely the result of human need to categorize.

I'm just going to let that sit there for posterity. Well played.

As far as I am concerned there is only one situation where an abortion is appropriate and the law should not prevent a woman from obtaining one legally and safely.

That situation is that the woman does not wish to continue gestating the fetus.

Anything else, and I am vehemently opposed.

origami_itto wrote:As far as I am concerned there is only one situation where an abortion is appropriate and the law should not prevent a woman from obtaining one legally and safely.

That situation is that the woman does not wish to continue gestating the fetus.

Anything else, and I am vehemently opposed.

Yep.
Hmm, I didn't realize you were a libertarian...

Dmitri wrote:

origami_itto wrote:As far as I am concerned there is only one situation where an abortion is appropriate and the law should not prevent a woman from obtaining one legally and safely.

That situation is that the woman does not wish to continue gestating the fetus.

Anything else, and I am vehemently opposed.

Yep.
Hmm, I didn't realize you were a libertarian...

Profit is theft.

Ah, the return of Dmitri`s helpful commentary. The master of "neutrality" and rationality.

Of course, centrists are exactly the problem and it's them we can thank for enabling theocratic maniacs to take control of other peoples' freedoms.

As for Windy, who could possibly be surprised that a right-wing reactionary educated by "the school of hard knocks" and youtube algorithms is defending the like of Clarence Thomas.

GTFOH.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Ah, the return of Dmitri`s helpful commentary. The master of "neutrality" and rationality.

Of course, centrists are exactly the problem and it's them we can thank for enabling theocratic maniacs to take control of other peoples' freedoms.

As for Windy, who could possibly be surprised that a right-wing reactionary educated by "the school of hard knocks" and youtube algorithms is defending the like of Clarence Thomas.

GTFOH.

not defending anything

Just pointing out that the law as written was bad law, known at the time it was written..
Now challenged and lost....

The "right" being returned back to the states for the people to decide....

The fight over abortion restrictions could soon go from statehouses to Capitol Hill, as the Washington Post reports Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion rights activists are working to enact a federal abortion ban if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer as expected and the GOP regains control of Congress.

Would anyone object if there is a federal ban on abortions?

origami_itto wrote:That situation is that the woman does not wish to continue gestating the fetus.

Anything else, and I am vehemently opposed.

Interesting

How many have been told " I'm late" by their partner

it takes 2 people to make a baby...and yet it would seem many here believe only 1 should have the "right" to say whether it's carried to term or not

What if the man feels he doesn't want a child because it would interfere with his life or is not ready, does he get a say ?

What if the woman wants to keep the child but not the man, is the man still responsible for providing financial support for child ?

What if the man wants to keep the child but the woman does not, feeling it would interfere with her life ?

In all of this, there is no representation for the life created, does that life have a say ?

why not make a law, allowing the man to opt out of Financial support ahead of a pregnancy not agreed on by the couple.

Oooooooooooooh, edgy Devil's advocate!

Does it always take two? Two willing participants? What about all the women who die in places like Poland and South America because their doctors won't risk their licenses to save the women because of Christian theocracy?

I guess it takes two to commit a murder with your beloved guns, too, no? Who has the choice there? Guess you don't care about life so much after all. Just your own personal liberties (as in, you take the liberty to do as you please, fuck everyone else). It's a common Western ego-centric POV.