SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

[Rack]

Do not try to claim science for your position. Your position is not at all science.

If this was actually science and not evangelism, it would be scientists carrying the water on this subject, not evangelicals. In fact, the most utterly, absurdly anti-science politicians are the ones pushing this the most.

Here is a current scientific opinion on the politics of this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/report/the-science-of-abortion-rights/

When is a baby a baby?
When is it ok to kill a baby in the womb?
These are scientific arguments just as much as religious ones...actually even more so.
Why Abortion Is Wrong: The Argument from Science (hli.org)

We could swap articles all night and we would still disagree on this...it's not worth it, but this isn't only a religious, but a scientific, and ethical "choice." I can find 1,000's upon 1,000's of doctors who agree on both sides of this regarding the science, the ethics and the religion.

 

[steross]

When is a baby a baby?
When is it ok to take a baby and kill it in the womb?
These are scientific arguments just as much as religious ones...actually even more so.
Why Abortion Is Wrong: The Argument from Science (hli.org)

I have never heard of putting a baby in a womb and killing it. A baby is a baby at birth. That is the definition. Just like when someone says "I've got the flu" when they have a cold. Scientifically they have a respiratory virus that is not influenza. Common talk is not science.

"Human Life International" is not a scientific organization so I will not waste time reading that so you can pretend it is science. That would be like me linking the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology position statement and calling it a religious document if they discuss the religious aspects of the issue.

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

I have never heard of putting a baby in a womb and killing it. A baby is a baby at birth. That is the definition. Just like when someone says "I've got the flu" when they have a cold. Scientifically they have a respiratory virus that is not influenza. Common talk is not science.

"Human Life International" is not a scientific organization so I will not waste time reading that so you can pretend it is science. That would be like me linking the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology position statement and calling it a religious document if they discuss the religious aspects of the issue.

Help me understand you here - because this reads like you are ok with abortions up to the day before birth? Or at least that's the implication I see. If a baby is a baby at birth, does that mean it's not a baby the day before?

 

[steross]

Help me understand you here - because this reads like you are ok with abortions up to the day before birth? Or at least that's the implication I see. If a baby is a baby at birth, does that mean it's not a baby the day before?

Well, yes, it does mean that it is not a baby the day before. This is science. Definitions matter in science. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with how I personally feel about an extremely late-term abortion and I cannot understand how you made that jump. Aborting a healthy fetus the day before its due date would be horrible and in my opinion nearly always unethical. But, that doesn't make it a baby any more than having $900 million dollars the day prior to receiving $100 million dollars means you were already a billionaire. Close, but simply not the definition.

It is impossible to abort a baby. You can murder a baby. You can abort a fetus or embryo. This is science. He claimed science because "babies are babies" when the subject of abortion, scientifically speaking, does not even involve babies.

 

[OSUPsych]

This one is true as well...
View attachment 95618

Turning this into a battle of memes honestly comes across as you taking the discussion we had earlier about trying to understand each other and throwing it out the window. I'm not even that pro choice (safe, legal, and rare proponent) but I don't see how this is productive.

 

[Rack]

Turning this into a battle of memes honestly comes across as you taking the discussion we had earlier about trying to understand each other and throwing it out the window. I'm not even that pro choice (safe, legal, and rare proponent) but I don't see how this is productive.

I just thought they were intresting...and kind of funny...but you are right it is not a light hearted topic. I've always thought it should not be legal except in the very rare cases of life of the mother and rape and incest. I think a nation should stand for life in all ways and support that life after it's born and keep it alive late in life when that nation can. I think support should be given to women in love and understanding and financially in order to have their babies.

 

[cableok]

Dang Mayo Clinic calling an unborn thing a baby.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-...eek of,the eyelids fused and the ears low set.

 

[steross]

Dang Mayo Clinic calling an unborn thing a baby.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302#:~:text=At the beginning of the 11th week of,the eyelids fused and the ears low set.

Dang, @cableok unable to keep up with the reading comprehension again, as always. I already discussed common usage vs scientific usage. This "Mayo Clinic" is not a science website like Mayo Clinic Proceedings but is instead an educational website for the scientifically uneducated using as is typically done around 8th-grade reading level and common usage language. For another example, Mayo using the term "stomach flu" even though it isn't influenza. Wow, stomach flu from a prestigious medical center. How did Mayo become so scientifically ignorant? https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/viral-gastroenteritis/symptoms-causes/syc-20378847


The actual Mayo Clinic Proceedings, if talking about "an unborn thing," or "fetus" as people with minimal scientific competence say, uses scientific words:
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/action/doSearch?text1=fetus&field1=AllField

 

[steross]

In Texas, abortion laws inhibit care for miscarriages
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...s-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

As the Supreme Court appears poised to return abortion regulation to the states, recent experience in Texas illustrates that medical care for miscarriages and dangerous ectopic pregnancies would also be threatened if restrictions become more widespread.


One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss.


The other miscarriage treatment is a procedure described as surgical uterine evacuation to remove the pregnancy tissue — the same approach as for an abortion.


"The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same," said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.


Miscarriages occur in roughly 1 out of 10 pregnancies. Some people experience loss of pregnancy at home and don't require additional care, other than emotional support, said Dr. Tony Ogburn, who chairs the OB-GYN department at the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine. But in other situations, he said, providers may need to intervene to stop bleeding and make sure no pregnancy tissue remains, as a guard against infection.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Saying "that is not what we are focused on at this time" certainly falls well within not ruling it out when given the chance to simply and easily rule it out.
I really can't believe there is a governor who can't say that birth control will remain legal and the whine around here is not about the absurdity of that but instead about the wording of the media describing his insanity.

And I really can't believe there are some people who are more worried about a vague politician who didn't take a stance one way or the other on something than they are about one of the major national news outlets in this country creating purposefully misleading headlines.

No wait, sadly I actually CAN believe that.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdWIK_ttZV-/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Another thing I find funny about this. How many people keep accusing the Republicans of not caring about pregnant women who aren't ready for a pregnancy. Claims that Republicans are only pro birth, not pro life, etc, etc, etc.

Well guess what, here is a Republican governor who specifically addresses that very issue. Says he wants to focus on helping women with an unexpected pregnancy instead of focusing on the birth control topic right now. Guess what, the helping part isn't headline worthy (or even discussion worthy to some in this thread). Nope, can't have a headline that puts a positive spin on the pro life side, have to instead promote the narrative that the reps are coming for your birth control pills.

 

[steross]

And I really can't believe there are some people who are more worried about a vague politician who didn't take a stance one way or the other on something than they are about one of the major national news outlets in this country creating purposefully misleading headlines.

No wait, sadly I actually CAN believe that.

You yourself just called his answer vague. What is the difference between saying an answer is vague and not taking a stance on an action and saying that an answer did not rule out the action? You are holding them to a standard that even you don't meet.

If the headline was "Governor plans to outlaw birth control" you would have a point. But, saying that he did not rule it out is precisely what he did. He was given a question that if he answered in a direct, non-vague way would rule it out. He did not do it. That simple.

 

[CowboyJD]

Maybe so, but that doesn't forgive the media for intentionally trying to twist it.

"Doesn't rule out banning all contraception" is an accurate representation of the quote "That's not what we are focused on at this time".

It's not a twisting at all.

 

[cableok]

And I really can't believe there are some people who are more worried about a vague politician who didn't take a stance one way or the other on something than they are about one of the major national news outlets in this country creating purposefully misleading headlines.

No wait, sadly I actually CAN believe that.

Some people are oddly okay with misinformation and/or fake news. Just surprising some readily admit they are okay with the misinformation.

 

[Rack]

No matter our stances on this it is easy to see why it's so controversial and why many have always compared it to other great ills of our society. I don't understand why we cannot achieve as a society a balance that protects life of both the mother and the child.

The problems with abortion by choice....

Abortion doesn't protect life which is in direct violation of our constitution the highest law in the land. The practice is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment and Roe should be overturned.

Abortion of babies based on genetic deformations like downs syndrome is outright discrimination.

Abortion is higher in terms of percentage in African American communities and has been used as a tool to keep the population of blacks down historically. Women of color in NYC in 2015 had more abortions than births in that city.

Abortion promotes a culture of the disposability of human life.

The original text of the Hippocratic oath forbids, basically, doctors from preforming abortions on demand.

Abortion reduces the number of adoptable babies historically

A baby (fetus) feels pain during an abortion

Abortion is a violation of the unborn victims of violence act which holds people responsible for murder of unborn children

Abortions can cause lifelong psychological damage to the woman who has them and the doctors who perform them

Is abortion murder? This is the big question...when and why is it and what exceptions can be made...
Is this a state question or a federal one? Shouldn't states who hate the process be able to limit it to life of the mother, rape and incest only? Or at least after a certain point? OR is it a Federal question.

Once again, the issue here seems to be context of limits, when, who, where and why are they permitted and who, by law, is able to limit them. My view is clear, but I understand the hesitancy to correct this wrong due to it's overuse as contraception over the years, and the fear that it will be banned in even instances of life of the mother, rape and incest. I don't believe most states would be that heartless and if they are those drastic restrictions would also be overturned.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

You yourself just called his answer vague. What is the difference between saying an answer is vague and not taking a stance on an action and saying that an answer did not rule out the action? You are holding them to a standard that even you don't meet.

If the headline was "Governor plans to outlaw birth control" you would have a point. But, saying that he did not rule it out is precisely what he did. He was given a question that if he answered in a direct, non-vague way would rule it out. He did not do it. That simple.

If the headline was "governor says he doesn't want to focus on birth control discussion at this time" you would have a point. There is a difference between no comment and actually saying you won't rule something out. The headline made it sound like the latter which is misleading.

 

[steross]

If the headline was "governor says he doesn't want to focus on birth control discussion at this time" you would have a point. There is a difference between no comment and actually saying you won't rule something out. The headline made it sound like the latter which is misleading.

He did not say even come close to saying "No comment." He made a comment, and even limited the time frame with "at this time."

Talk about being misleading..........

 

[CocoCincinnati]

"Doesn't rule out banning all contraception" is an accurate representation of the quote "That's not what we are focused on at this time".

It's not a twisting at all.

So why put a representation of the quote instead of the quote itself?

 

[steross]

Some people are oddly okay with misinformation and/or fake news. Just surprising some readily admit they are okay with the misinformation.

And some people simply can't comprehend what they read.

 

[CowboyJD]

So why put a representation of the quote instead of the quote itself?

Why not both?

They put the total quote in the article and an accurate representation of the quote.

I get that you would have preferred that they focus on the platitudes and lip service this politician gave instead of his refusal to rule out the banning of birth control in Mississippi.

That does not make the headline a mischaracterization or twist of what he said.

It just doesn't.