Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

[Darat]

Oh, God totally thinks children should be punished for the crimes of their parents.

The youngsters say something about incoming needlework

• Ezekiel 18:20: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child."
• Deuteronomy 24:16: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

And

• Exodus 20:5: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
• Exodus 34:7: "Maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."


Hard to keep track of this perfect being who never changes.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Oh, God totally thinks children should be punished for the crimes of their parents.

Especially the crimes he makes the parents do. Which is all of them, now that I think of it.

 

[jimbob]

Very few women consider it as a convenience. It's not like blowing your nose.

You're a bloke. Your opinion and feelings are irrelevant.

It's such a dishonest framing. And we know that as @Silly Green Monkey put it, mothers "are dying with their pregnancies rather than living to try again"

Nobody wants to legalize abortion to protect the excision of ectopic pregnancies.

That might be true, however it seems that a significant minority of so-called pro life campaigners are comfortable with insisting that non viable pregnancies are carried to stillbirth, which is vile and harmful to the mother.

That's just the excuse they use when abortions of convenience get denounced in their face.

Most people who are campaigning for a woman's right to autonomy over her body are indeed pointing out the worst consequences of the policy. That is normal debating.

You and I could agree here and now about abortions of medical necessity - and we do! - but you'd still call me a monster for opposing abortions of convenience.

What about the medical justification for a ten year old wanting an abortion? I guess that would be "inconvenient" for her to have to give birth to and bring up a paedophile rapist's child.

What about a twelve year old or a fifteen year old? If they are pregnant, regardless of whether they wanted to have sex, they were still too young to fully consent and are still at best victims of statutory rape.

What about a 25 year old?

What about someone who has a miscarriage?

What about a couple where the birth control failed and the woman would be bankrupted by the costs of giving birth? It's very easy for someone who cannot be at risk from the adverse consequences to condemn others to suffer for them.

Calling it abortions of convenience is disgusting.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

It's such a dishonest framing. And we know that as @Silly Green Monkey put it, mothers "are dying with their pregnancies rather than living to try again"

That might be true, however it seems that a significant minority of so-called pro life campaigners are comfortable with insisting that non viable pregnancies are carried to stillbirth, which is vile and harmful to the mother.

Most people who are campaigning for a woman's right to autonomy over her body are indeed pointing out the worst consequences of the policy. That is normal debating.


What about the medical justification for a ten year old wanting an abortion? I guess that would be "inconvenient" for her to have to give birth to and bring up a paedophile rapist's child.

What about a twelve year old or a fifteen year old? If they are pregnant, regardless of whether they wanted to have sex, they were still too young to fully consent and are still at best victims of statutory rape.

What about a 25 year old?

What about someone who has a miscarriage?

What about a couple where the birth control failed and the woman would be bankrupted by the costs of giving birth? It's very easy for someone who cannot be at risk from the adverse consequences to condemn others to suffer for them.

Calling it abortions of convenience us disgusting.

As the US is showing the two sides in this debate are the pro-choice and pro-femicide sides.

 

[jimbob]

As the US is showing the two sides in this debate are the pro-choice and pro-femicide sides.

Well put

 

[catsmate]

Oh, God totally thinks children should be punished for the crimes of their parents.

Exactly.

 

[jimbob]

Apparently, Jesus' sacrifice to atone for the original sin has not relieved women of their punishment for their part of it.

I hadn't actually considered that, given all the rest of the idiocy surrounding that doctrine

 

[bruto]

I hadn't actually considered that, given all the rest of the idiocy surrounding that doctrine

Yes, Jesus presumably died for our sins, but not that original one. That's still on the books. It was such a clever "gotcha" sin, he had it framed.

 

[Cain]

Chemical, or medical abortions are not convenient, but contain severe punishment in itself. I have read an article about the incredible pain women have when they are aborting the foetus as a result of medical abortion drugs.

Sure, but how does it compare to an unwanted pregnancy? A thousand dollars is a lot of money for lunch, but it's not a lot for a brand-new Ferrari.

 

[steenkh]

Sure, but how does it compare to an unwanted pregnancy?

The question is rather how it compares to a surgical abortion.

But I have to add that the article about the pain caused by medical abortion only told about the experiences of some women. I am left wondering if this primarily affects women who have painful periods. Those women for whom the period is nothing special (or even the best part of the month, as one woman I know has said) might experience painless medical abortions.

 

[Helen]

Afaik, and aside from individual differencies, medical abortions later in pregnancies are generally more painful, since the contractions are more intense due to the size of the foetus.

 

[Cain]

The question is rather how it compares to a surgical abortion.

The inflection point article I read a long while ago, which is where I likely first even learned about "medical abortion," said the method was used in about a quarter of US abortions. Between the alternatives, it claimed that going in was slightly safer, but that some women preferred privacy pills to suction and stirrups. The article noted that medical abortion was utterly common in some European countries. I figured then that most women would have preferred medical abortions, but the option was just not as widely available or known. When I later learned that over half of abortions in the US were now medical abortions, it seemed to confirm what I expected -- and, indeed, a larger point about technology driving human behavior rather than ideas/arguments (the most obvious and effective technology used to oppose abortion is the sonogram).

But I have to add that the article about the pain caused by medical abortion only told about the experiences of some women. I am left wondering if this primarily affects women who have painful periods. Those women for whom the period is nothing special (or even the best part of the month, as one woman I know has said) might experience painless medical abortions.

I don't know anything about pain. My own views on abortion have become complicated in recent years. While I generally have no problem with killing babies, I am 100% opposed to women having control over their own bodies.

 

[jimbob]

I don't know anything about pain. My own views on abortion have become complicated in recent years. While I generally have no problem with killing babies, I am 100% opposed to women having control over their own bodies

So on the nose, again

 

[The Atheist]

I don't know anything about pain. My own views on abortion have become complicated in recent years. While I generally have no problem with killing babies, I am 100% opposed to women having control over their own bodies.

I'm going to get that framed.

10/10

 

[Resume]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2110060790497595779

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

 

[smartcooky]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2110060790497595779

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I guess it never occurred to these pro-life geniuses that going undercover to do something at the same time as posting a photo of you doing the thing you're doing rather defeats the purpose?

 

[bruto]

ED is obviously Nature's way of telling you that you shouldn't have sex anymore, let alone children.
Anyone taking Viagara is having a Boner of Convenience, clearly against God's wishes.
We need to ban all types of medication of the sort, only allowing it by doctor's orders in medical emergencies - they do, after all, have some serious side effects.

Of course, and not only is it a boner of convenience, but it's gender affirming!

 

[Stacyhs]

The youngsters say something about incoming needlework

• Ezekiel 18:20: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child."
• Deuteronomy 24:16: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

And

• Exodus 20:5: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
• Exodus 34:7: "Maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."


Hard to keep track of this perfect being who never changes.

What are you saying? That the Bible contradicts itself? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Planigale]

The youngsters say something about incoming needlework

• Ezekiel 18:20: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child."
• Deuteronomy 24:16: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

And

• Exodus 20:5: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
• Exodus 34:7: "Maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."


Hard to keep track of this perfect being who never changes.

It is consistent. Humans must not punish parents for the sins of their children (or vice versa), but an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent god can.

 

[cosmicaug]

Oh, look! Our lawyer, not actually a lawyer press secretary used to sit on the board of an organization that wants public executions of women who have had an abortion!

From https://jessica.substack.com/p/katie-zacharia-trump-abortion-death-penalty :

The Trump administration has taken on its first open abortion “abolitionist.” Buckle up.

Up until this year, new White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia sat on the advisory board of an organization that calls for women who have abortions to be executed “in the public square,” and for pro-choice Americans to lose their right to hold public office.

The White Rose Resistance (WRR), where Zacharia sat on the board until February, is best known for its anti-abortion disinformation, harassment campaigns against providers, and for collecting the country’s worst extremists.


[...]