South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down abortion ban

[David Collins]

Can I not shoot an intruder who invades the privacy of my house?

The intruder is making a conscious choice to invade your house when they are aware they shouldn't. They also have the option of not intruding into your house.

 

[Desk trauma]

Let's pretend this is a second separate question?

No.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

No.

Not to worry you've already answered my question, so thanks for proving that people who are for abortion are only for it when it doesn't concern their own life.

 

[Desk trauma]

Not to worry you've already answered my question, so thanks for proving that people who are for abortion are only for it when it doesn't concern their own life.

Bit superfluous to engage in conversation if you’re going ignore what people say then tell them what they actually think. Blogging with comments disabled would save a lot of time.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Bit superfluous to engage in conversation if you’re going ignore what people say then tell them what they actually think. Blogging with comments disabled would save a lot of time.

How do you know I am ignoring what people say if you are not me?

 

[Desk trauma]

How do you know I am ignoring what people say if you are not me?

Maybe you're not ignoring it yet still telling others what they think really. No real change to the end result of bothering to engage with others being superfluous if you're going to presume to tell them what they actually think.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Maybe you're not ignoring it yet still telling others what they think really. No real change to the end result of bothering to engage with others being superfluous if you're going to presume to tell them what they actually think.

I think you have the person not bothering to engage confused with someone else. I'm practically begging for a response from you and you aren't saying anything beyond. "No."

The lack thereof in the ability to communicate resides with you.

 

[Desk trauma]

I think you have the person not bothering to engage confused with someone else.

I said that engaging in conversation is superfluous if you're going to tell people what they think, not that you were not engaging in conversation.

 

[David Collins]

Bit superfluous to engage in conversation if you’re going ignore what people say then tell them what they actually think. Blogging with comments disabled would save a lot of time.

Where did he tell you what you actually think?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The discussion has been worn out.
I say the baby is not "the woman's body" it is someone else.
Science declares the baby is not the women's body, it is a different human being genetically distinguishable from the mother.

The point of contention is that it's a being that's inside of another being that they may not want to be there. So, in that regard, it absolutely is a decision about the woman's body. If you believe that a 10 week old fetus is a separate entity, that's fine, I can't change your mind on that. But the one thing that's undisputable is that it can't live outside the woman, and requires the woman's time & resources (both bodily and financially) to stay alive. You're basically asking a woman to be an involuntary human life-support machine if it's something she doesn't want for herself.

Perhaps a more interesting high level question: To what extent does one have the legal duty to support or protect the life of another being who they may not want anything to do with? Sounds harsh and unempathetic, but it's a practical question.

Point of reference: South Carolina is a state that allows one to use force (up to and including lethal) if someone is on your property or in your home and you don't want them to be. I would have to think a womb is much more invasive/personal than a backyard or garage, yes?

It also raises the question, if one in a society has a duty to protect and nurture another being (who they may not know, and may have no interest in knowing), and a duty to prevent as many abortions as humanly possible no matter the cost... does that deflate any arguments people have against using some public funding (even if that means a tax increase) for expanding social safety nets for prospective low-income mothers and for making contraception available at no-cost for low income people?

Because, in essence, that's what they're expecting women to do.

 

[NxNW]

The intruder is making a conscious choice to invade your house when they are aware they shouldn't. They also have the option of not intruding into your house.

Suppose it was someone who was kidnapped, drugged and then left in your house, with a gun taped to their hand, and they wake up moments before you walk in the door, see the gun, and blast them. If you were on the jury, would you convict the homeowner of murder or manslaughter? You may claim that is a contrived example, but I assert that it is very similar to the unwanted pregnancy.

 

[David Collins]

Suppose it was someone who was kidnapped, drugged and then left in your house, with a gun taped to their hand, and they wake up moments before you walk in the door, see the gun, and blast them. If you were on the jury, would you convict the homeowner of murder or manslaughter? You may claim that is a contrived example, but I assert that it is very similar to the unwanted pregnancy.

Your assertion is asinine and a horrible analogy.

 

[David Collins]

making contraception available at no-cost for low income people

Contraceptive pills and other birth control cause abortions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Contraceptive pills and other birth control cause abortions.

Condoms, IUDs, contraceptive foams, and birth control pills cause abortions?

 

[NxNW]

Your assertion is asinine and a horrible analogy.

Maybe you can logically explain why.

 

[NxNW]

Contraceptive pills and other birth control cause abortions.

Birth control pills and Plan B do not.

 

[NxNW]

The point of contention is that it's a being that's inside of another being that they may not want to be there. So, in that regard, it absolutely is a decision about the woman's body. If you believe that a 10 week old fetus is a separate entity, that's fine, I can't change your mind on that. But the one thing that's undisputable is that it can't live outside the woman, and requires the woman's time & resources (both bodily and financially) to stay alive. You're basically asking a woman to be an involuntary human life-support machine if it's something she doesn't want for herself.

Perhaps a more interesting high level question: To what extent does one have the legal duty to support or protect the life of another being who they may not want anything to do with? Sounds harsh and unempathetic, but it's a practical question.

It is the entire question.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So if you believe that Plan B and birth control pills cause abortions... (they don't, but I'll play along and pretend they do to get the conversation to place I wanted to move toward...)

Then you cool with public funding to get people condoms, non-hormonal IUDs, and contraceptive foams whenever they need it even if they don't have a dime to their name? Or maybe some public funding for people who do have an accidental pregnancy so that the prospect of parenthood isn't so intimidating and financially unfeasible?


Bearing in mind, any answer resembling "well, people shouldn't have sex if they can't afford..." or "well, I shouldn't have to pay for..." is tantamount to saying "I'm willing to do whatever it takes to protect the lives of as many children as possible, as long as it doesn't involve me paying an extra $8 per paycheck"

Many times, when people claim their number #1 objective is protecting the lives of as many children as possible, their proposed solutions tend to be less of the "something that would actually help the children (IE: money)" and more of the "punish the mother for making a decision that I don't think she should've made"

They'll donate hundreds of dollars a year to PACs and organizations that seek to outlaw abortions, but they won't actually pony up a dime to help contribute to funds that, if available, could be the thing that changes a woman's mind and makes her think "with that additional help, maybe I can do this even though my job only pays $14/hour"

Data doesn't lie. Finland, Spain, and Germany (and several other countries for that matter) all offer fairly generous benefits to a low income person if they opt to become a parent instead of having an abortion, and their abortion rates range from 1/4 to 1/2 of what ours are.

Translated: Being willing to contribute to a few extra bucks a paycheck toward those public funds would translate to eliminating 500,000-700,000 abortions per year in the US and those would be lives that would be saved. You willing to sign on for that?

 

[David Collins]

Then you cool with public funding to get people condoms, non-hormonal IUDs, and contraceptive foams whenever they need it even if they don't have a dime to their name? Or maybe some public funding for people who do have an accidental pregnancy so that the prospect of parenthood isn't so intimidating and financially unfeasible?

Condoms and contraceptive foams sure.

How Does An IUD Work? - Raleigh Gynecology & Wellness

An IUD provides effective long-term birth control. Wondering how an IUD will work for you? Take a look at the types and how they work!

gynraleigh.com

some hormonal IUDs also thin the uterine lining so that if a sperm is able to reach an egg and fertilize it, the fertilized egg cannot implant in the uterus.

Not sure about IUDs, so I'd say it depends on which one.

 

[NxNW]

Is the Pill an Abortifacient? What does Birth Control Do?

What exactly is abortifacient birth control, and will it end a pregnancy? Gathering data from studies and from birth control inserts, we find that there...

www.hli.org

Your source is false.