41–50 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that "logic" birth control does too.
Quoted post unavailable.
If SCOTUS indeed overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a great day for human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US.
What about the dignity of rape victims forced to carry, deliver, and raise the children of their rapists?
Also, it is noteworthy that only a very small fraction of abortions are done because of rape. [1]
[1]: Probably about 1%: https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1211175001
States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...? After all, none of those are guaranteed by the constitution either. What "rights" do you enjoy that aren't expressly guaranteed in the constitution that others might want to let states legislate away from you?
The people that have been pushing against Roe have pushed for all of those on the same basis, and the decisions on all of those were the underpinnings of Roe. So, yes, and soon.
The current Court seems to really want to distinguish closely-marriage-related rights from it's attack on Roe, so I’d see contraceptive rights of unmarried individuals and pre- and extra-marital sex as the most likely next successful targets from the list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes. Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth…
> Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. If someone believes that abortion is killing an innocent human being, and thus immoral worthy of being illegal, this line of argument won't do anything. It would be like saying, "if we ban murder for hire that will push all of the hitmen under ground!". I understand you don't beli…
As toomuchtodo has said, the gap has become impossible to bridge, mainly because any concessions to pro-life individuals simply results in demands for further concessions until the above becomes true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...? After all, none of those are guaranteed by the constitution either. What "rights" do you enjoy that aren't expressly guaranteed in the constitution that others might want to let states legislate away from you?
This is all I can imagine we'll end up with. Some states are going to force religious laws on their population and others will not. People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states under religious law will continue to decline. The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suf…
People with resources will be able to evade the bans relatively easily or flee if they can't
Those with fewer resources will be less able to leave.
> those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
Not sure this makes much of a difference. With the hurdles put in place by many state legislatures, it's kind of been in "states rights" territory for some time now.
why is this flagged?