Roe v. Wade Officially Overturned by SCOTUS

    ↩  enchy Stop trying to impose your will and beliefs on others you dictator!

    Just because you have different moral standing when it comes to abortion doesn't mean you have the right to take away the peoples freedom to make their own decision in this matter. Tell me, what do you think gives you the right to do that?

    just because you believe in something, that gives you no right to dictate what other people do with their bodies.
    what women do with their bodies should not be brought into politics, its their body, their choice, not a 50 year old mans choice who knows nothing about what its like to have a period, to be pregnant for 9 months, to have the constant fear of being raped when walking anywhere alone, they have no idea what it is like to take contraception and face all the pages of side effects just so they might not get pregnant. they have no idea of what its like to be a woman.
    if you dont like abortion, dont get one, simple as, it is not your body so it is not your choice.
    if men could get pregnant the world would be a different place, the penalty for rape would be much higher, period products would be free. as a woman, i should have the right to do what i want with my body.

    ↩  bowie This doesn't address the focal point of the other side's argument. They see it as murder, and therefore think it deeply immoral to allow such a thing to happen. Simple as that. Telling them that "just don't get one" if they don't like the idea therefore seems silly to me.

    ↩  SuperRyn hello! Christian with a uterus here. I'm not gonna lie, you're pissing me off by cherry picking Bible verses. In order to properly extract the meaning from ANYTHING in the Bible, you need to know the proper context and read the surrounding verses.

    I'll cover your quote of Jeremiah 1:5 first. The chapter covers God talking to a 13 year old Jeremiah who was appointed as a prophet and was feeling unsure about his abilities. God tells Jeremiah that he pre-determined his abilities and purpose before this point. The writer uses birth to describe how God transcends time, and is therefore able to know what happens before Jeremiah was born. This verse is about Jeremiah understanding that his purpose is greater than himself, and he shouldn't let temporal things like age or hard skills to deter him from pursuing that.

    There isn't any message that is explicit to birth, abortion, or even the determination of life. Here's a link to BibleHub, which is a website that collects multiple versions of the same verse and compares them to each other and with the original language as well. There's a helpful breakdown of the Hebrew if you scroll down a bit.

    Sorry to break it to you, but using Jeremiah 1:5 to justify the parameters of life without adding the appropriate context would be misquoting the Bible.

    Next, to your point about abortions being morally wrong, I'll bring up a few arguments that church friends and I have talked about.

    A friend stated that its important to fight with the pro-choice movement regardless her moral stance on abortion because of how Jesus loved the marginalized. The assuming the majority of people receiving abortions are women and out LGBT people who don't present as female, we can automatically assume they are marginalized at some level (yknow, because of how much of a hellhole the US is).

    Without bringing up any specific passages, though I could if needed, Jesus loved and fought for those who society hated. This included prostitutes, taxpayers, lepers, you name it. He sought them out first because society put them last. He preached to them and loved them first. Why should we not fight with those who are already living?

    A pastor I spoke with argued that its possible to fight for both the mother and the child. While I do agree that it's possible, it's simply not a great plan given the state of the US. America doesn't offer free healthcare or childcare, no mandatory paid maternal and paternal leave in most states, and the foster care system is shit. Kids go missing every day, teenagers who age out of the system aren't equipped to function as an adult. Hell, I was barely able to function as an adult and I wasn't in the system. By making abortions illegal we are contributing to the demise of those systems.

    Along with those systems, a solution to abortions would be promoting better sex ed and family planning, which the majority of Christians strongly oppose. So, I would love to hear, how are Christians supporting and loving the marginalized by trying to strip the means of eradicating abortion away from society? Enlighten me.

    Another thing my pastor argued is that abortion has been legal since the 70s, so the reconciliation should have happened by now if it was going to happen. First, since the legalization of abortion, I've barely seen any Christian circles try to truly reconcile with the "other side" by understanding them. All I've seen are people with signs and vans covered in repulsive images of aborted fetuses, and barely any advocacy for a better healthcare and childcare system.

    In conclusion, Christians have not done their part to reconcile with other communities, and its dumb because that's literally our job. We're called to share the good news of Christ, and we can see from Jesus himself that the proper method is to connect with the people genuinely rather than shoving Bible verses taken out of context down their throats.

    If there's anything I can clear up, let me know

    This thread is fucking horrid I’m gonna be straight up. I can usually be civil with other peoples opinions but- those of you saying there shouldn’t even be an exception for rape cases, you are truly just acting gross. Literally misogynistic. Whatever opinion or religion you follow, that’s fine. But you’re full of shit if you see this as an entirely moral or religious issue. Stop picking random bible verses and step back for a second. This is a war against women, not about saving fucking children. I’d like to see anyone anti abortion go on a maternity ward and hear an 11 year old give birth. I can tell you, it’s not pleasant.

    just a question for those who don't support abortion and claim it's murder: at what point is killing the foetus/embryo murder?

    many abortions occur before 13 weeks and the thalamo-cortical complex which provides networks for elaborate consciousness begins to connect around 17-28 weeks (24 is the point at which you cannot abort for non-medical reasons).

    if i were to abort a child at around 4 weeks (when symptoms of pregnancy begin to show) the embryo would barely resemble a living creature and would be better described as a cluster of cells. is the embryo as alive as a fetus or baby?

    i do not believe a human embryo deserves any more rights than much more intelligent creatures - we can put down dogs for medical reasons or hunt deer - especially when this embryo may grow up to harm the mother (economically, physically, or mentally) or have a horrible standard of living itself due to it's environments or due to it's disabilities.

    i've seen people give up their lives caring for their extremely disabled child but atleast they had the choice to abort and they could decide to stick with the baby

    many religions believe in the idea of the lesser evil and so the chance for parents to abort in case of medical or mental issues should be protected in case the mother is going to be detrimentally affected by the birth - abortion only affects the child and the mother.

    also i find it funny how the process of abortion (going to a place with protests, watching a video on why it's bad, seeing the ultrasound of your baby) is much more tedious than buying a gun but that's another topic

    ↩ @'luca nyahoooo'

    The problem here is that you're still not addressing any of the opposing side's viewpoints & arguments. I understand that the subject matter may be offensive, and that is fine - but you're not going to be convincing anybody with appeals to emotion instead of simply giving a rebuttal to their arguments.

    Quote

    This is a war against women, not about saving fucking children.

    The above quote blatantly makes clear that you're not even listening to the other side. The opposing side thinks that they're saving children. Your objective here is to tell them why that is not the case, or why we shouldn't consider jizz a kid.

    Quote

    ↩  ClayCoconut Is that what you want? For children who are fully developed to suffer in a world that never wanted them? Because from what I see it, you’re not pro-life, you’re pro-birth? You ask them to birth the children then do not wonder what comes next. The potential of children being erased is not the same as children being murdered. You’ve stopped potential, not an existence.

    There is not a single person in this thread who has even close to argued this.

    Alright since the guy dipped, lets make a new point instead:

    A fetus has a heart STEM at 6 weeks. It doesn't an actual heart until 10 weeks. The "first heartbeat means it is alive" makes no sense here.

    Second point: People sometimes say "Don't punish the baby for the crime if the father did it!" You know who's suffering in that situation? The pregnant person. You know who isn't? The fetus. Exactly how are you punishing something that has no concept of pain or suffering, and lacks the ability to process those things?

    I have not seen the "no exception for rape" part, so I am rather confused here? @"luca nyahoooo"#78

    ketchup aX0Qxn3.png

    ↩  ClayCoconut exceptions for things like rape and incest are dependent on the state you live in (overturning Roe and Casey means the right to abortion is no longer enforced, which means the states' mayors get the final say about abortion rights. most, if not all of the Democratic Party is pro-choice, so the states controlled by them (should) allow abortion. most of the Republican Party is anti-abortion, so the states controlled by them banned abortion after Roe and Casey were no longer in effect (with a few exceptions, of course))

    oh im sorry, was my explanation excessively detailed?


    Quote

    ↩  square

    many abortions occur before 13 weeks and the thalamo-cortical complex which provides networks for elaborate consciousness begins to connect around 17-28 weeks (24 is the point at which you cannot abort for non-medical reasons).

    […]

    i do not believe a human embryo deserves any more rights than much more intelligent creatures - we can put down dogs for medical reasons or hunt deer - especially when this embryo may grow up to harm the mother (economically, physically, or mentally) or have a horrible standard of living itself due to it’s environments or due to it’s disabilities.

    Good point. Why do we seem to value consciousness in an unborn baby over the conscioussness of a deer, cow or pig - one could argue that they're "more conscious" than the unborn child. I therefore don't think that consciousness in and of itself should be the deciding factor in when we consider somebody to be human. It seems as though there is more to "personhood" than simply being conscious.

    Do you support late-stage (<4 weeks before birth) in cases of rape and medical emergencies (say an issue that has a 30% chance of killing the mother, but saving the baby in all cases).

    Quote

    ↩  ClayCoconut Exactly how are you punishing something that has no concept of pain or suffering, and lacks the ability to process those things?

    Anti-abortionists would here claim that it seems as though a fetus can feel pain somewhere between 7-26 weeks' gestation. How are you - not - punishing the "child" when it in fact can feel pain?

    Quote

    ↩  ClayCoconut I have not seen the “no exception for rape” part, so I am rather confused here?

    I am unaware of any states that don't allow abortion in cases of rape, but here's an article from POLITCO detailing the troubles of even getting an abortion if you were raped.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2…ortage-00042373