Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling (nypost.com)

I blame the condom, it basically created the lairess-faire sexual view which could really only survive as long as Roe/Casey survived, but the SCOTUS destroyed both. But an entire generation of adults was basically of age through this period of time so I do believe we will have a moderate compromise of the two sides, but that will be hashed out through the legislative process and that was the true meaning of the SCOTUS ruling.

 

I blame nature.

Your theory doesn't explain why sex outside marriage and abortions exist in places where both are not only illegal, but sometimes carry the death penalty.

 

Abstinence certainly solves the abortion problem. It doesn't address the legal issues. What can protest do vis-a-vis a Supreme Court ruling? Go support candidates who will make laws addressing the issue. Anything else is a best a waste of time and at worst insurrection.

 

My 'theory' doesn't have to be applicable to the world, just to America. And yes, it's quite possible for people to have sex out of wedlock or abortions in unfavorable lawful situations. However, i do not view it as necessarily inherent in human nature to carnally desire the other. Such forms of love only came about again in the last 100 years.

In the Puritan era leading up to the Renaissance period, these things were in obscurity at best. You had better luck finding secret gay lovers than the hangers in reality.

 

I completely agree to that unnecessary cruelty. However, it does make for interesting conversation with those who want to outlaw abortion except in cases of mother's health and rape. I don't understand how, if they believe in an innocent fetus' rights, they can make an exception for rape. Is a rape victim's fetus not also innocent and worth saving?

 

Allow me if I may to tackle this question. Generally, let's start off with the proposition that Abortion as an infinitely moral gray area life will always make it so that no position on it can be purely ideological. The proof is that even pro-choice advocates have agreed to things such as the Hyde Amendment(which if Liberals get a majority, I suspect them to repeal the Amendment as one of the ways to maintain their version of pro-choice). If one is an advocate for pro-choice views, why is there a limit at all? Because it's a grey area.

It stems to what you're comfortable with, and conservatives decided that if the line is drawn at rape, incest and threat to the mother's life, that's a line they're willing to live with. Now of course, because it's a grey area, you'll have those on the pro-life side that can be as extreme as the pro-choice. The problem is that a court decision is not, and cannot be 'settled law', we the people did not settle it.

Dobbs, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc. Over the last 10 years, liberals and conservatives have used the SCOTUS to wage the cultural wars and despite Alito's comments, it is no longer feasible to see the Court as anything but a supreme overuler on the US.

 

I disagree. The existence of carnal desires is well documented throughout history, even in times when such desires were considered anathema. Restrictive laws, interdiction, and severe punishments for fornication and adultery bear witness that such practices were indeed taking place even in the most puritan of Puritan eras.

 

And it comes full circle: Restrictive laws=impunged on desire for carnality's sake. Result= far less of a carnal mindset then the last 100 years. If we were to argue that these things were prevalent at the time, then the baby boomers shouldn't have been a thing:


https://www.prb.org/resources/just-how-many-baby-boomers-are-there/

Economic recession as well as new punitive sex laws(more geared towards men, but that's a different topic) have caused a world wide sex recline. And especially in the west.

 

Good! It's about time people were responsible with the act of creating a person.

 

This is a good thing, I don’t care about irrational leftist opinions on their ability to kill babies. They are murderers.

the less morons getting pregnant the better.

 

This is about control. We are giving power over what somebody can do to their body to the government. The government is slowly eroding our rights. They are chipping away at 2nd amendment rights as quickly as they can in an effort to defang the population, they are trying to dictate what they can inject into our bodies with the whole covid issue. That is how they are able to support the erosions of rights with the left.

Now, the powers that be realized that they had to get similar gains in support for the erosion of rights from the right. The same issues wouldn’t work for them. So they found a different issue that allowed them to dictate what could and could not be done with someone’s body, and they are being cheered for doing it.

It’s crazy to me how blind people are to how these precedents are just piling up. Soon the government will be able to dictate anything, and their won’t be a damned thing we can do about it, because we have handed away all of our rights on a silver platter, and gave up our grasp on hard power through firearms.

I suppose I should be cheering this, from one perspective. I believe that overpopulation is the biggest threat that our planet is facing. It is draining our critical resources, hastening climate change, destroying global biodiversity, etc. And this will also likely kill capitalism as we know it, as without exponential population growth capitalism falls apart. That could be a good thing as well.

But I believe individual freedom is more important than all of these issues. Nobody, regardless of their moral, religions, ethnic, or other views, should be allowed to dictate what somebody else does to their body. That is the ultimately tyranny, except maybe mind/thought control, I’m sure people are hard at work with that as well.

It’s so strange seeing the left and right cheering as our liberty is thrown out the window, one issue at a time. The elites of this world are playing us masterfully.

 

That’s easy. The same way that if some 90lbs woman was being assaulted by a 270lbs man and she pulls her gun out and empties her clip and she kills the guy and also kills an innocent bystander, she won’t go to prison for murder. It’s self defense against the consequences of the actions that were FORCED upon you and you had no choice in the matter.

Is it unfortunate? Of course. But the woman did not make a choice to engage in an act that would result in that life being created. Therefore she doesn’t have a responsibility to keep it.

 

There is one method that is 100% safe. It is called keeping it in your pants.

 

When a woman and man have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant, ....an individual human life is created and the woman is then a mother and the man is then a father---each with parental responsibilities. Parents aren't injured. And babies aren't tumors no matter what stage of development they are at. They are developing human beings.

 

Pro choice has far less gray area. We don't see a clump of cells as a baby - but we do recognize a fetus that could survive outside the womb as a baby. So late term abortions become far less supportable with a very few exceptions.

 

But see, there's no inherent logic to support that position. That 'clump of cells' scientifically speaking is a fertilized egg in the process of becoming the very fetus that would one day survive out of the womb. For me, the pro-choice argument always has the fundamental problem that save for human intervention, the fetus will become a human child. The cells will become a fetus. The evolutionary chain hasn't been disrupted or altered yet.

As long as the evolutionary chain is for humans and by humans, then it is inevitably human. No matter what stage of the evolutionary cycle it is in.

And no, human intervention doesn't invalidate the existence of the fetus, anymore than a vulture swooping down a bird's nest invalidates the baby chicks.

 

Lol ???

 

You should really look up the damages that pregnancy causes, even a ’typical’ pregnancy does and abnormal ones can be quite severe.

I simply believe the rights of a developed human far exceed the rights of a developing zygote or fetus — you believe developing life should have more rights than the mother. We disagree

 

So you prefer to allow those who don't take responsibility for their own sexual behavior to seek medical treatment every time they get pregnant?
Maybe its time they grow up and become a responsible adult instead of using medical treatments as their default anti pregnancy tool.

 

The rape excuse is the normal go to for the left when its less than 1/2% of all abortions.
You will need to find another excuse.

 

I love when conservatives say X is irrelevant because it is such a tiny minority while being a minority themselves.

My post started with failed contraceptive. That you quickly dodged.

 

I prefer to “allow” people to have bodily autonomy.

 

Palin tells and shows us how unrealistic Abstinence is

 

I see your thinking - we just disagree. I prioritize the rights of a woman over a clump of cells. I fully appreciate that, given time, that clump will develop into a self sufficient fetus. But until it does, I will not put their rights ahead of a woman.

 

Crucially, the question must be asked where women(actually, more principally mankind) had earned or recognized the rights of aborting the fetus(murder is such a charged term, so we'll go with termination.). As Ginsberg lamented, the pro-choice society has never been able to grapple with let alone attempt to answer that question. Simply, it is not logically possible to assume bodily autonomy over the autonomy of another person.

As that fetus is growing in the mother's womb, regardless of it not being recognized on our lands, it is still yet fundamentally human life. The closest attempt to answering the question is the 'clump of cells', but as I proved that's scientifically inaccurate and therefore even less accurate as a matter of law.

Let's turn the logic on its head, a female claims that it's a clump of cells(or if it gets to the fetal stage, it is a fetus) therefore she should be recognized as socially superior. But no matter how dependent a fetus may be in the womb, it is literally its own personhood by the nature of the x/y chromosomes. Though the mother shares some DNA components with her child, she doesn't share all of the components(same with the father). Its individuality was predetermined genetically.

So we have established through science that A: It is, and always will be human regardless of the evolutionary chain and that B: It owns its own derivative properties, therefore it is NOT the property claims of a woman's body. It's not a clone. It's not a cancer cell. It was created through procreation. The genetic properties of sperm and the fertilized egg.

So since science utterly repudiates the idea that selectively choosing a stage of human evolution invalidates the humanity of a fetus, the pro choice movement must come up with a new, modernized argument as to why the norms of the past 50 years should continue.