10.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Because people are stupid and conspiracy nuts.
Tell them the government is in league with the Church - and they believe the conspiracy. But tell them corporate lobby groups drive government policies and they think it can't happen.
Saying it’s a religious issue is an easy way to say “anyone grounded in reality and science would support abortion” to their base. It’s to sour abortion supporters against pro lifers
Religious people usually think every issue is a religious issue. Which makes sense, because when you're religious then you obviously consider it a universal way of viewing life and every aspect of it.
because people would rather pass lifes responsibilities onto others, in this case an evil invisible man they think is all powerful and compassionate...
If you read the whole decision, you'll see where the religious tells creep into Justice Alito's writing. It's like the language of diplomacy, it telegraphs but doesn't outright state or attribute the language and gives plausible deniability.
I'd encourage everyone to read the whole decision, to include the dissenting view. Its proponents are too busy cheering and claiming victory (and often ridiculing the opponents) to realize they haven't done anything but set us on a backward course as a nation.
I fully intend to read the entire thing, as well as the dissent. As for the gloating and ridiculing (of which I've seen a lot), you actually won't have any disagreements with me on that. Don't get me wrong, I am jubilant on the Court's ruling, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of posting the kinds of things I've seen here since.
If I may ask though, in what way was Roe vs. Wade a step forward, and likewise Dobbs a step back?
As sloppy as Roe was, what came out of it was it established the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy, which protects a pregnant woman's right to abortion. But it also went on to hold that right was not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. That's where the original trimester framework regarding abortion came from. Then along came subsequent decisions that tittered and tattered with it.
As imperfect as the Roe decision was, it upheld the right to medical privacy that we don't dispute. My medical issues, including pregnancy, and any procedural issues are between me and my doctor and aren't anyone else's business - not the government's, not my neighbor's, and not the church's.
What the Dobbs decision does is abolish at federal level a right that any woman of childbearing age today has enjoyed her entire life. The right of bodily autonomy, the right to make her own medical decisions, and the right even to decide (in consult with medical professionals) whether to sustain or terminate a pregnancy. Those reasons are not state or public business. Alito (and others) point out it is not unprecedented for the court to reverse a decision, and cited Plessey v. Ferguson (the decision that established segregation was constitutionally sound - "separate but equal") and the later decision (Brown v. Board of Education) that overruled it holding that "separate is inherently unequal." The problem here is those landmark decisions that were overruled effectively extended a right to those who did not enjoy the freedom, or expanded the scope of those it affected. Dobbs strips away a right at federal level that women have enjoyed for about half a century, and punts it to state legislatures. So now my freedom of choice will end up depending on which state I'm standing in.
Okay so here's how I would respond to that. The first question I'd ask is if a case or decision has weak and flawed reasoning, should it come as a surprise if it is altered or even overruled? Especially if a fundamental question, such as, in this case when life begins, is not sufficiently answered?
The next thing I'd ask is what prohibits a church, for example, from speaking on an issue like this? I'd also point out that the state IS in fact authorized to speak as well, especially when you consider factors like how this would effect the growth and stability of the population. Likewise when, as I mentioned in my previous point and in the question details, we ask the question of when life begins and the ethical implications at hand.
It actually is when you separate the philosophical from how we actually apply it. If you take the philosophical, spiritual, religious, or even personal stance that life begins at conception, therein begins the debate on biology and development. They are not wrong, and even some science supports their beliefs, such as fetal heartbeat and separate DNA. But until live birth, the fetus gets its sustenance entirely from the mother, and does not draw its first breath until birth. Even among the 200 plus Christian denominations in the US alone, many believe life does not begin until one draws its first breath (per Genesis for biblical reference). So goes life, so goes death, the two determinants being cessation of cardio and respiratory function. That does not in any way diminish how one believes regarding the value of life, or where one believes it starts. It just depends on faith and interpretation.
But governments and business do not agree fetal development and life are the same. In any case, that belief is not applied. You can't claim a fetus as a dependent for deduction and child tax credit, because government (Treasury and IRS) rules a fetus is "not a person." One cannot obtain a social security number for a baby until after live birth, as a live birth certificate must accompany the application. Moreover, the insurance industry based on best business practice will not insure a fetus, as it "cannot insure a life that does not yet exist." Although some members of Knights of Columbus have claimed KofC sells fetal insurance, I have been unable to find it, and despite my requests to see the policy and review its terms, nobody has produced it. Until I see it and review what it really says, as far as I'm concerned such a policy doesn't exist.
In death care, I can record (so can the family through the hospital) a stillbirth or death in utero after 20 weeks, but that is for the family's commemorative purposes only.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
34Opinion
Because people are stupid and conspiracy nuts.
Tell them the government is in league with the Church - and they believe the conspiracy. But tell them corporate lobby groups drive government policies and they think it can't happen.
Saying it’s a religious issue is an easy way to say “anyone grounded in reality and science would support abortion” to their base. It’s to sour abortion supporters against pro lifers
Perfectly stated.
I don't know much about a lot of religions, but I have a friend who's religion EXPLICITLY STATES that abortion is against their beliefs.
As far as being STRICTLY religious, I have no idea
Abortion is murder! That’s why it’s a religious issue. The Bible says “Thou Shalt not kill!” Abortion is the killing of unborn babies.
Right, I get that. But what of the other items I mentioned?
IF you take politics and religion out of the equation, then the discussion on abortion can be a sensible one.
Because there’s no scientific justification for prohibiting abortion in the first 24 weeks of gestation.
Honestly there’s no scientific justification for keeping a lot of people alive.
Some people want to creat a Taliban style religious government in the USA , they go to mega churches run by OBVIOUS con men and think fox is news.
Cause it’s mostly religious people who are against it
I think it’s a way to discredit the movement. Most of the pro-life people I know are not explicitly religious.
maybe because one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"
Right, but that doesn't explain the many Christians who support abortion and claim that the Bible doesn't mention it, so it's therefore a non-issue.
I always say that you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.
Mostly in an effort to delegitimize opposition to it in the public eye.
Religious people usually think every issue is a religious issue. Which makes sense, because when you're religious then you obviously consider it a universal way of viewing life and every aspect of it.
christian lore leads us to believe killing babies and children is fine.
Same with Jewish and Muslim
Because most conservatives getting high on the pronatalist debate are religious fanatics
Probably because it was churches and religious groups that took up the fight first and have been on of the loudest voices
because people would rather pass lifes responsibilities onto others, in this case an evil invisible man they think is all powerful and compassionate...
Have you read the Dobbs decision in its entirety?
Not in its entirety. And I did say "... from what I've heard and read so far", so there may be something I haven't come across yet.
If you read the whole decision, you'll see where the religious tells creep into Justice Alito's writing. It's like the language of diplomacy, it telegraphs but doesn't outright state or attribute the language and gives plausible deniability.
I'd encourage everyone to read the whole decision, to include the dissenting view. Its proponents are too busy cheering and claiming victory (and often ridiculing the opponents) to realize they haven't done anything but set us on a backward course as a nation.
I fully intend to read the entire thing, as well as the dissent. As for the gloating and ridiculing (of which I've seen a lot), you actually won't have any disagreements with me on that. Don't get me wrong, I am jubilant on the Court's ruling, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of posting the kinds of things I've seen here since.
If I may ask though, in what way was Roe vs. Wade a step forward, and likewise Dobbs a step back?
As sloppy as Roe was, what came out of it was it established the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy, which protects a pregnant woman's right to abortion. But it also went on to hold that right was not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. That's where the original trimester framework regarding abortion came from. Then along came subsequent decisions that tittered and tattered with it.
As imperfect as the Roe decision was, it upheld the right to medical privacy that we don't dispute. My medical issues, including pregnancy, and any procedural issues are between me and my doctor and aren't anyone else's business - not the government's, not my neighbor's, and not the church's.
What the Dobbs decision does is abolish at federal level a right that any woman of childbearing age today has enjoyed her entire life. The right of bodily autonomy, the right to make her own medical decisions, and the right even to decide (in consult with medical professionals) whether to sustain or terminate a pregnancy. Those reasons are not state or public business. Alito (and others) point out it is not unprecedented for the court to reverse a decision, and cited Plessey v. Ferguson (the decision that established segregation was constitutionally sound - "separate but equal") and the later decision (Brown v. Board of Education) that overruled it holding that "separate is inherently unequal." The problem here is those landmark decisions that were overruled effectively extended a right to those who did not enjoy the freedom, or expanded the scope of those it affected. Dobbs strips away a right at federal level that women have enjoyed for about half a century, and punts it to state legislatures. So now my freedom of choice will end up depending on which state I'm standing in.
Okay so here's how I would respond to that. The first question I'd ask is if a case or decision has weak and flawed reasoning, should it come as a surprise if it is altered or even overruled? Especially if a fundamental question, such as, in this case when life begins, is not sufficiently answered?
The next thing I'd ask is what prohibits a church, for example, from speaking on an issue like this? I'd also point out that the state IS in fact authorized to speak as well, especially when you consider factors like how this would effect the growth and stability of the population. Likewise when, as I mentioned in my previous point and in the question details, we ask the question of when life begins and the ethical implications at hand.
I said it was messy, not flawed. The problem with the debate on when life begins is that both sides of the question are right.
How so?
How so to which point?
How are both sides right as to when life begins? That's not possible.
It actually is when you separate the philosophical from how we actually apply it. If you take the philosophical, spiritual, religious, or even personal stance that life begins at conception, therein begins the debate on biology and development. They are not wrong, and even some science supports their beliefs, such as fetal heartbeat and separate DNA. But until live birth, the fetus gets its sustenance entirely from the mother, and does not draw its first breath until birth. Even among the 200 plus Christian denominations in the US alone, many believe life does not begin until one draws its first breath (per Genesis for biblical reference). So goes life, so goes death, the two determinants being cessation of cardio and respiratory function. That does not in any way diminish how one believes regarding the value of life, or where one believes it starts. It just depends on faith and interpretation.
But governments and business do not agree fetal development and life are the same. In any case, that belief is not applied. You can't claim a fetus as a dependent for deduction and child tax credit, because government (Treasury and IRS) rules a fetus is "not a person." One cannot obtain a social security number for a baby until after live birth, as a live birth certificate must accompany the application. Moreover, the insurance industry based on best business practice will not insure a fetus, as it "cannot insure a life that does not yet exist." Although some members of Knights of Columbus have claimed KofC sells fetal insurance, I have been unable to find it, and despite my requests to see the policy and review its terms, nobody has produced it. Until I see it and review what it really says, as far as I'm concerned such a policy doesn't exist.
In death care, I can record (so can the family through the hospital) a stillbirth or death in utero after 20 weeks, but that is for the family's commemorative purposes only.
What @JessicaEarl said.
Because you people think those fetuses have souls.
Definitely yes! Only superstition is in the way