Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

Today: Satan 0 - Babies 1

Justice John Roberts is becoming a thorn in my side.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-declines-block-texas-abortion-ban-2021-09-02/

@Just_A_Guy give us a rundown.

I am frankly deliberately ignoring this whole thing.  I don’t want to get my hopes up that Roe will be overturned or significantly limited; and frankly, from what little I’ve seen the Texas approach seems a shade heavy-handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is there such a thing as heavy-handed when it comes to the fight against the murder of millions of babies?

My understanding is that the law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and facilitators even if the plaintiff has no relationship to the parties involved other than being aware that the deed happened.  I think that’s a dangerous way to seek restrictions on an activity that SCOTUS has otherwise chosen to protect (like, say, owning a gun).   My understanding, further, is that the law does not include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding is that the law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and facilitators even if the plaintiff has no relationship to the parties involved other than being aware that the deed happened.  I think that’s a dangerous way to seek restrictions on an activity that SCOTUS has otherwise chosen to protect (like, say, owning a gun).   My understanding, further, is that the law does not include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

Once again....murder...... of babies....... millions of them.

I expect you're not trying to say this, and I'll leave you to clarify, but... "don't use that method to stop them from murdering babies because then maybe it'll be used to take away our guns" doesn't quite work for me.

On the rape and incest thing -- I'm just not sure how I feel or think about that. If they count as babies then they count as babies. Why should rape or incest justify the murder of an innocent little baby? You were raped? Oh...well...okay then. Go ahead and slit that baby's throat then and put it in that trash bin over there.

On the other hand I am not, actually (despite how I may seem on many matters) unsympathetic to the idea that if I could carry a baby and was raped by some scumbag that then I'd have to go through carrying that baby...that would be exceedingly physiologically difficult. I understand that. Which is why I say I don't know how to feel. From a straight up logic only point of view...what does justify slitting that baby's throat and putting it in the trash bin? I'm not unsympathetic...but I'm also not unsympathetic to the baby getting its throat slit. So....

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]Once again....murder...... of babies....... millions of them.

I expect you're not trying to say this, and I'll leave you to clarify, but... "don't use that method to stop them from murdering babies because then maybe it'll be used to take away our guns" doesn't quite work for me.

[2]On the rape and incest thing -- I'm just not sure how I feel or think about that. If they count as babies then they count as babies. Why should rape or incest justify the murder of an innocent little baby? You were raped? Oh...well...okay then. Go ahead and slit that baby's throat then and put it in that trash bin over there.

On the other hand I am not, actually (despite how I may seem on many matters) unsympathetic to the idea that if I could carry a baby and was raped by some scumbag that then I'd have to go through carrying that baby...that would be exceedingly physiologically difficult. I understand that. Which is why I say I don't know how to feel. From a straight up logic only point of view...what does justify slitting that baby's throat and putting it in the trash bin? I'm not unsympathetic...but I'm also not unsympathetic to the baby getting its throat slit. So....

1.  I’m not unsympathetic; but what’s the benefit of saving lives in the short term if we do so in a way that undermines what’s left of the integrity of our republic and winds up threatening millions more lives in the longer term?

Would you give up your right to own a firearm, in order to save those kids?

Your right to have your child opt out of pernicious forms of education?

Your right to abstain from an otherwise-mandatory vaccine?

Your right to be observed going to a Mormon church on Sunday?

Your right to have more than a fixed number of children?

Your right to travel with the assistance of a petroleum-burning engine?

What if government said “Well, WE aren’t depriving you of your right to live in Missouri; we’re just saying we won’t stop—and may even help—private citizens when they take it upon themselves to deprive you of that right”?

It strikes me as a veneer for mob rule.  As horrendous as Roe is, I believe it can and should be overruled on other grounds; and if this is the only way to do it—in my book, it’s not worth the cost.

2.  It’s a fair point.  The Church seems to think it can be justified under those circumstances (not that rape is an automatic justification, but that it’s conceivable that a trauma victim may find a daily reminder of her trauma over the next nine months to be so potentially traumatically debilitating that the abortion becomes a necessary act of self-defense).

Let me put it this way:

If I kidnap a kid, and then every day for the next nine months I tell some random woman “let me rape you, or I’ll kill the kid”; I think she would be quite right to reply “JAG, you’re a monster.  I didn’t put the kid in this situation; you did that.  I feel bad for the kid, but I have no moral responsibility to undergo this trauma; and if the kid dies that’s on you, not on me.”

Similarly, I would say that a rape victim may not be universally morally responsible to save the life of the child* inside her, if preserving it causes major trauma.  Then again, depending on individual circumstances and the degree of trauma and the whisperings of the Spirit—it might.  Let me reiterate that I don’t think rape is an automatic justification for abortion.  But I think women and their loved ones need to be given the latitude to make that choice; especially since the woman was deprived of the choice at the moment of conception.

 

 

*I would also note that from a theological standpoint, I don’t think it’s at all clear that life begins at conception or even at the beginning of a heartbeat.  From a church culture standpoint, we seem to have this notion of “quickening”; which comes into play a lot when a couple suffers a miscarriage (of which Just_A_Girl and I have been through four).

Now, from a policy standpoint, I do define life at conception; because I think any other benchmark is arbitrary, and if we can be arbitrary about when life begins, we can’t argue against being arbitrary about when it ends.  And I think that a major reason Roe damns our country isn’t necessarily because of what it objectively does, but because so many people are willing to tolerate what they think it does.  I don’t think most Roe supporters can make a scientific or moral argument about why a particular embryo isn’t “human” beyond the fact that the embryo poses a threat to their sex lives.  As far as they’re concerned, they are literally trading life for sex.

But from a rhetorical/personal conscience standpoint, I confess I’m not particularly moved by suggestions that first-trimester abortions are indistinguishable from killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I expect you're not trying to say this, and I'll leave you to clarify, but... "don't use that method to stop them from murdering babies because then maybe it'll be used to take away our guns" doesn't quite work for me.

How about, "Don't allow flagrantly foolish and antisocial measures such as allowing anyone and everyone to sue for damages from an entity that does a morally bad thing"?

The SC majority's unsigned opinion seems legally solid, if a bit unusual. Sotomayor Sotomenor is a blithering idiot, as usual. I'm just stunned that such a woman sits on our nation's highest court. But the fact remains that if such a law were passed to allow indiscriminate collection of damages by any party, involved or not, against the provider of an action you don't like, 100% of those who support the action and a large fraction of those who do not support it would oppose the legislation.

Maybe you're anti-marijuana legalization; I certainly am. So then, does it make sense that some private, uninvolved individual in Alabama should be able to sue and collect damages from a pot dispensary in Colorado? If California passes anti-firearm legislation, are you okay if someone from New York sues a gun shop in Chula Vista?

That element of the Texas law, at least, is nonsense. It's mob mentality, ganging up on those who engage in something you don't like.

I doubt you hate abortion much more than I do. I believe we as a nation are guilty of the murder of our unborn. I believe God will sweep many of us off the face of this land to hide our filth from his face. But a law like this looks to me like an assertion of the tyranny of the mob. I am absolutely sure that I, my family, and my coreligionists will be on the short end of the mob stick sooner or later, most probably sooner.

That's how it looks to me. I invite corrections of my facts or logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the only thing this does is make Texans more responsible with birth control.  It's a great win.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/texas-abortion-law-facts.html

From the above:

Abortion providers in Texas estimate that 85 percent of patients seeking abortion are at least six weeks pregnant and would be denied care under the new state law.

About 70 percent of abortions in Texas in 2019 were provided to women of color, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  I’m not unsympathetic; but what’s the benefit of saving lives in the short term if we do so in a way that undermines what’s left of the integrity of our republic and winds up threatening millions more lives in the longer term?

This is a fair point, but I don't think it fully logically connects.

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Would you give up your right to own a firearm, in order to save those kids?

Your right to have your child opt out of pernicious forms of education?

Your right to abstain from an otherwise-mandatory vaccine?

Your right to be observed going to a Mormon church on Sunday?

Your right to have more than a fixed number of children?

Your right to travel with the assistance of a petroleum-burning engine?

If Hitler wins World War II it's bad. We defeat him. Period.

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What if government said “Well, WE aren’t depriving you of your right to live in Missouri; we’re just saying we won’t stop—and may even help—private citizens when they take it upon themselves to deprive you of that right”?

It strikes me as a veneer for mob rule.  As horrendous as Roe is, I believe it can and should be overruled on other grounds; and if this is the only way to do it—in my book, it’s not worth the cost.

Don't get me wrong though. I get your point. I just don't necessarily see the full connection. There are certain things that are our business even if they aren't our business. Most things aren't, and the principle of freedom means we should live and let live on most issues (though there's a broader disconnect, it seems, when you're comparing apples to...potato bugs or something...). But it seems to me like the murder of babies should be everyone's business and everyone should have the right to pursue the means to stop it whether it's your baby or not. To connect that, logically, to the fact that others will then say, "well anyone can interfere in anything that oughtn't be their business then", disregards the severity of what it actually means to murder babies, I think. It's like saying that seatbelt laws equate to the potential that the government might tell you what kind of music you can and cannot listen to on your drive to work. Some people think that way. And I suppose (as I said, I do get your point) that there is some level of legitimate slippery-slope concern in many matters. But even with the potential slipper-slopes, it strikes me that it really ought to be a one at a time battle.

You think like the supreme court judges seem to on some of these matters. Which is to say, you think like a lawyer. And it's an interesting question I've struggled with. Upholding the law over morality. I struggle on that concept, but think I sort of understand the idea. Don't make me a supreme court justice along those lines. I'll immediately simply vote in favor of my moral code in every case!  :D

Sure...I get your point. But I cannot help but wonder if the approach could somehow be defined as an exception due to the nature of the severity of the crime. We shouldn't bomb Hitler's army because he may bomb ours in return seems like a guaranteed losing strategy.

Maybe I'm missing some important nuance though.

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Church seems to think it can be justified under those circumstances

I don't think this is necessarily true. Saying you won't get automatically excommunicated for something is not the same as saying it's justified.

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think women and their loved ones need to be given the latitude to make that choice

I don't disagree, per se. I simply don't know what to think on the matter. I have a very hard time with the, "go ahead and kill the little innocent person then" thinking no matter what. But I acknowledge the complexities.

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think it’s at all clear that life begins at conception or even at the beginning of a heartbeat.

Just so we're clear, this is the entire debate. Where people buy into the abortion debate is entirely based on when life begins. My response to you is based on an "if they're a baby then they're a baby" idea. I make no claim as to when the life begins other than the implication by church policy that all abortion (pending those two exceptions) is wrong. Obviously that may be a better safe than sorry and a sanctity-of-sex approach to the matter, policy-wise. But that's the best I can figure.

Legally, I might be able to allow for compromise accordingly.

Anyhow...I don't think I'm really even debating you on the matter. I'm just thinking as I type and.... I dunno. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

How about, "Don't allow flagrantly foolish and antisocial measures such as allowing anyone and everyone to sue for damages from an entity that does a morally bad thing"?

See my previous reply to @Just_A_Guy. I'm not sure my thinking is even clear on it, but I've expanded on my thinking at least there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interpretation of Roe vs. Wade to a degree...at least.

I'm not against Roe vs. Wade and I think the original ruling has actually let a LOT of things advance in the medical community.  It is more the later rulings regarding Roe vs. Wade that have created many of the problems I may have regarding pro-abortion today.

What Roe vs. Wade has done beyond abortion is to say that when you have a medical condition a DOCTOR is allowed to perform what medical procedures they feel are necessary for your health and well-being.

A SIDE effect (ironically) that one could say could be seen is that for those who are anti-vaccination (especially in relation to Covid-19) have a precedence where their doctor can say that the best treatment or way to keep them healthy is to NOT be forced to get a vaccination if the Doctor so deems that is the correct course of action (many doctors would not do this, but some would).  The Doctor gets to decide what is best for the health of their patient...NOT necessarily the government.

It wasn't necessarily abortion that was at the heart of the debate at the time (though many portray that it was, abortion was the issue of the case, but not really the issue being discussed  at the SC.  It was about who had the right to make the medical decisions on certain things, and by focusing it on the doctor and making it a doctor's call, one could say if a doctor deemed it necessary that one has an abortion to save their life or health or well-being, he was allowed to make that medical judgement.

This, of course, opened the doors to later rulings on it (the case of abortions and a woman's right to choose did NOT end here, in fact, it continued to evolve and is one of the items Ginsburg is notable for expressing thoughts upon in later rulings on the subject) which caused the current views and situation of abortion in the US.

The problem with Texas law is the same thing that applies to many other rulings that occur.  Precedence is a powerful thing and can be connected to things later on that one would have not seen would be connected to them later.  One of the BEST books I've read on the subject is called "Supreme Power" by Ted Stewart.  It actually is from a Conservative which some are cautious about, but I think it does an EXCELLENT job explaining precedence and how it can affect later decisions.

Good Reads page on the book Supreme Power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sure...I get your point. But I cannot help but wonder if the approach could somehow be defined as an exception due to the nature of the severity of the crime. We shouldn't bomb Hitler's army because he may bomb ours in return seems like a guaranteed losing strategy.

Lots of good thoughts; the one I've cited above is perhaps the only one to which I might have anything salient/potentially useful to add in response

I think a better analogy would be:  Do you bomb Hitler's army, knowing that a nuclear Stalin will be overthrowing free governments throughout eastern Europe in the next three years??  How hard do you push the Imperial Japanese Army, knowing that Mao Tse-Tung is lying in wait to slaughter a hundred million Chinese?  As Americans, it's easy for us to tut-tut about the necessity of annihilating Hitler and Imperial Japan; because we didn't have to really deal with what came afterwards--not in the same way others did.  If we'd grown up in East Germany or Taiwan, we might see things differently.  

I fear that our confidence in our ability to keep "winning" short-term battle after short-term battle, rather than implementing and building up systems that will (if not always letting right prevail, at least) maintain our own liberty, keep a lid on open warfare, and withstand the test of time; is the primary difference between ourselves and our American ancestors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Similarly, I would say that a rape victim may not be universally morally responsible to save the life of the child* inside her, if preserving it causes major trauma.  Then again, depending on individual circumstances and the degree of trauma and the whisperings of the Spirit—it might.  Let me reiterate that I don’t think rape is an automatic justification for abortion.  But I think women and their loved ones need to be given the latitude to make that choice; especially since the woman was deprived of the choice at the moment of conception.

If we carve out an exception for rape won’t that invite collateral damage? If a woman is pregnant with an unwanted child, will we suddenly find out her hookup raped her? Or that her boyfriend date raped her?

What sort of legal protections can be used if there’s an exception for rape? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

If we carve out an exception for rape won’t that invite collateral damage? If a woman is pregnant with an unwanted child, will we suddenly find out her hookup raped her? Or that her boyfriend date raped her?

What sort of legal protections can be used if there’s an exception for rape? 

Legal protections against the accused rapist, you mean?

[Note—that’s not an attempt at a rhetorical point; I just want to be sure I understand you.]

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Yes. And as a bonus, how would you protect the infants involved in these fraudulent (?) cases?

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  :) 

Barring abortion for rape cases, of course, creates collateral damage too.  In that vein one might ask in return how you would protect a bona fide rape victim from being forced to re-live her experience dozens (hundreds?) of times per day, every day for nine months, by having to keep a tangible and growing and increasingly-physically-painful reminder of that rape, inside her body?

Naturally, there are no perfect solutions here either way.  The best balance I can think of is requiring a police report, including a statement signed under penalty of perjury.  Frankly, regardless of abortion restrictions, in today’s society men already know that any sexual interaction with a woman subjects them to a possible false allegation of rape.  At a certain point the risk of a false accusation, like the risk of pregnancy itself, is just a cost of doing business; and if people don’t like the cost—they shouldn’t do the business.  I would also note that most of those young men want these babies aborted just as much as the mothers do; so I don’t think we need to get excessively worked up over the possibility that noble sons of Zion will be having their good names besmirched by worthless young strumpets here.

But if you feel a nine-month phase-in for a statutory regimen like this is necessary to protect the reputations and legal rights of rakish young cads, I suppose I could get on board with that. ;)

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have a theory on how to deal with all abortion cases. It goes something like this:

Thou shalt not kill.

Was that Moroni’s and Helaman’s theory for how to deal with Lamanites who were abducting and trafficking Nephite women and children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

*Shrug* For people who subscribed absolutely to the mantra of “thou shalt not kill”, they sure left a lot of bodies . . .

I'm surprised at this fallacy coming from you. You know full well that the command "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not murder". I'm not sure why we'd want to go down that not-particularly-useful semantic debate, but since you took us there... clearly there are justified killings. There are no justified murders. Yes...what constitutes murder has to be subject to God's view of it rather than man's. But...well...there it is.

The point, I was trying to make, with which I'd hope you'd agree, is that we shouldn't justify murder for anything. It's wrong. Period. We do justify killing sometimes. And we should. But not murder. So the question, when it comes to abortion, is pretty clear. Is it a murder? If it is, there is no justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm surprised at this fallacy coming from you. You know full well that the command "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not murder". I'm not sure why we'd want to go down that not-particularly-useful semantic debate, but since you took us there... clearly there are justified killings. There are no justified murders. Yes...what constitutes murder has to be subject to God's view of it rather than man's. But...well...there it is.

The point, I was trying to make, with which I'd hope you'd agree, is that we shouldn't justify murder for anything. It's wrong. Period. We do justify killing sometimes. And we should. But not murder. So the question, when it comes to abortion, is pretty clear. Is it a murder? If it is, there is no justification.

I largely agree with you here; but what bewildered me was your apparent suggestion that all abortions—even (given the context of our discussion) those requested by and for rape victims—are tantamount to murder.  What definitions are we using?  Are we using a fixed standard, or are we just post hoc labeling as “murders” the subset of killings that we find subjectively distasteful?  Isn’t “murder”, in the colloquial sense, really just shorthand for “unjustified killing”; and if so, isn’t it kind of unhelpful to insist on labeling abortion as “murder” before we undertake an analysis of whether it might ever be justified?

Ammaron accused Moroni and Teancum of having undertaken the murder of Amalickiah.  Did they?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

bewildered me was your apparent suggestion that all abortions—even (given the context of our discussion) those requested by and for rape victims—are tantamount to murder.

Well that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Keep in mind -- suggesting. You know -- for consideration. Not demandingly yelling, "there's no other legitimate thought on the matter". I've said this before but I'll say it again. If you take the baby out of the womb and consider it an actual child and then have someone demanding to slit that child's throat for any reason is a hard pill to swallow as an argument.

It's not really that complicated to my mind. There are terrible, horrible things people have to go through. So much so that I can hardly even comprehend having to deal with them. But to me those things don't seem to justify killing an innocent baby. And that's what they are to me. Babies. I find it terribly sad that we, as a society, have been so callously blinded to the reality of that fact because it's all behind closed doors, so to speak.

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What definitions are we using?

Interesting.

Well...I'd say as a general rule, taking the life of someone when not engaged in the defense of those things God has commanded us to defend unto bloodshed, unless explicitly directed otherwise by God.

Reasonable?

I can see an argument being made for, accordingly, a legal standard of rape/incest exceptions because that does seem to be (as discussed) the church's policy, and we can assume, therefore, God's.

Another part of me, however, recalls no command from God that we defend emotional trauma unto bloodshed, by killing an associated innocent. Yes...I know...very callous. But...trust me...my empathy is there, particularly in the case of rape (incest is a bit of a different matter, actually...if it's consensual). My empathy is just stronger on behalf of the baby.

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ammaron accused Moroni and Teancum of having undertaken the murder of Amalickiah.  Did they?

Didn't we have a similar discussion regarding Laban and Nephi? I seem to recall you justified that under Jewish law of the time or something. But I'm not sure that even matters one whit. God's will matters. God told Nephi to do it.

If God commands killing a baby then.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share