Missouri bill outlawing out-of-state abortion

@averagejoe1 said
Who said only procreation? I am the one who coined the term for this forum, recreational sex. Remember that?, ...when no lib could ever convince us that we should pay for the comdoms, etc for these people? So, you are incorrect that we lard asses, who are actually working while you eat popcorn on your sofa, do not think sex is only for procreation . Suzy would call you a liar!! 😢 😏 🤔

Yes, it was you who used the term recreational sex.
And you missed the whole point of why I am calling you out on that.
Why do you need to create another phrase ? Sex is Sex.
Unless you need to separate some kinds of sex from your definition of what sex should be for.

That was my point.
What do you really think of recreational sex ? You take credit for creating the term after all.

And your argument that this is about who is paying for the contraception doesn't wash.
The religious groups out there want to ban abortion.
And they want to ban contraception. Which, btw, will reduce the need for abortion.

@suzianne said
When you get one, then you tell me. Before that, don't bother.

That's not the way a free country works, little lady 🙂

@sleepyguy said
I don't believe sex is only for procreation.

What's a uterus for though?

Shouldn't that be up to the person who has one and not you?

@sleepyguy said
Somehow I missed this post yesterday.

The problem with your argument is that you ARBITRARILY withdraw natural rights from the fetus so that you can rush to protect the natural rights of the mother. SO WHAT if Nature "decided" a non-viable fetus needs the mother to survive? Did not Nature also decide the baby needs her help after it is born? Human babies are hardly more v ...[text shortened]... arents. Your wish to erase that obligation at some magic point before birth is completely arbitrary.

I think you need to look up what the word "arbitrary" means. I'll give you this link and call your attention to b:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Whatever you may think about the argument I have presented, it is surely based on the "intrinsic nature" of the fetus wholly contained in the woman's body and, pre-viability (another word you have chosen to adopt a non-standard meaning in this context), incapable of independent physical existence outside it.

But I prefer not to play the anti-abortionist game of making this discussion about a fetus; what it is really is about is an attempt to nullify the basic Natural Right of bodily sovereignty of women largely because on peculiar religious beliefs matched with some level of disapproval of sexual and reproductive freedom ("she should have kept her legs closed" seems to be a fairly common refrain from this group including on this board). But popular levels of religious belief coupled with misogyny should not be the decisive factors in recognizing our most basic, Natural Rights.

@no1marauder said
Shouldn't that be up to the person who has one and not you?

What a novel idea....
Do you mean...gasp...
in charge of her own body?

@jimm619 said
What a novel idea....
Do you mean...gasp...
in charge of her own body?

That's been the fantasy ever since January of 1973.

According to Justice Alito, this decision was in "error".

I'm sure he thinks he's just giving millions of hysterical women a hard slap to the face to bring them back to reality.

@no1marauder said
Shouldn't that be up to the person who has one and not you?

It's not up to either of us, is it? If a woman were to express an opinion on the role of spermatozoa in the world it would be illogical to say she wasn't allowed to speak on it.

Let's clarify the question. What is the Natural purpose of a uterus?

@no1marauder said
I think you need to look up what the word "arbitrary" means. I'll give you this link and call your attention to b:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Whatever you may think about the argument I have presented, it is surely based on the "intrinsic nature" of the fetus ...[text shortened]... pled with misogyny should not be the decisive factors in recognizing our most basic, Natural Rights.

I would place the emphasis this way:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Because you are cherry picking one attribute of the fetus (being wholly contained) and conveniently ignoring all the attributes that affirm its individuality, such as the development of its own heart, brain, nervous system, etc.

You are beginning with the premise that a woman's right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy must be maintained at all costs, and thus proceed hastily to: therefore the life of the fetus can not be allowed value of any kind. It's a convenient sidestep of the moral question of what is owed to that human life.

As to your last paragraph, I am not religious, and I do not seek to nullify the Natural Right of bodily sovereignty of women. Nature has assigned a far tougher role to women when it comes to reproduction which effects their whole lives in countless ways. That's just the way of things. We can acknowledge the hardship it places on women, give them our respect and support, and even shake our fists at an unfair universe all without ducking the moral question of what is owed to the innocent human life within a pregnant woman. A society that faces that question head on rather than ducking it is a more moral one.

@mghrn55 said
Yes, it was you who used the term recreational sex.
And you missed the whole point of why I am calling you out on that.
Why do you need to create another phrase ? Sex is Sex.
Unless you need to separate some kinds of sex from your definition of what sex should be for.

That was my point.
What do you really think of recreational sex ? You take credit for creating the t ...[text shortened]... o ban abortion.
And they want to ban contraception. Which, btw, will reduce the need for abortion.

The mind boggles at thought of what non recreational sex might look like. Perhaps it’s when you do it for free.

@suzianne said
Once they're born, even prematurely, they're called babies. Not before.

Suzianne clarifies the thread. Let's wrap it up. Would have been nice to see some sources, though.

@suzianne said
Rape is neither.

You and your Republican cronies don't care about that, though, do you?

We stipulate, for purposes of abortion discussions, that rape and incest are excepted. I expect you might respond..."AvJoe, dont be telling me to stipulate!!", so just go on along and right such empty posts. Jimm is expert at that.

@mghrn55 said
Yes, it was you who used the term recreational sex.
And you missed the whole point of why I am calling you out on that.
Why do you need to create another phrase ? Sex is Sex.
Unless you need to separate some kinds of sex from your definition of what sex should be for.

That was my point.
What do you really think of recreational sex ? You take credit for creating the t ...[text shortened]... o ban abortion.
And they want to ban contraception. Which, btw, will reduce the need for abortion.

So here is MG, off the wall. A previous post, maybe you, said that people like me think sex is just for procreation. That very statement is saying (implying) that sex is for more than one purpose.
So, consider me 'called out' on that, shooting you down in Main Street, Dodge City. Being not "just' for procreation means you think it is also for something else. Jesus. Is that you, Jimmmmm?

@sleepyguy said
I would place the emphasis this way:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Because you are cherry picking one attribute of the fetus (being wholly contained) and conveniently ignoring all the attributes that affirm its individuality, such as the development of its own hear ...[text shortened]... egnant woman. A society that faces that question head on rather than ducking it is a more moral one.

Very nice post, what stands out to me is the emphasis libs put on 'every thing should be fair and equal, life should be fair, women and men have all the same everything, good and bad, nothing short of that is acceptable". I want to say that's life, get used to it, but I would get labeled by libs as sooo meeeeean.

@averagejoe1 said
Very nice post, what stands out to me is the emphasis libs put on 'every thing should be fair and equal, life should be fair, women and men have all the same everything, good and bad, nothing short of that is acceptable". I want to say that's life, get used to it, but I would get labeled by libs as sooo meeeeean.

I would say the same to misogynists about a woman’s right to choose
‘That’s life, get used to it’.

@sleepyguy said
I would place the emphasis this way:

": based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Because you are cherry picking one attribute of the fetus (being wholly contained) and conveniently ignoring all the attributes that affirm its individuality, such as the development of its own hear ...[text shortened]... egnant woman. A society that faces that question head on rather than ducking it is a more moral one.

I agree with you that the unborn, regardless of what stage of development, shouldn't be regarded as some mere parasitic inconvenience.

The "viability" argument is moot, since the stage of viability gets earlier and earlier as technology advances.

"Fetal homicide" laws exist in many states which explicitly give the unborn the same protections as those who have been born, regardless of stage of development. So there is an argument to be made that legally, the unborn are more than just a clump of cells.

That said: the issue of viability or when the unborn is considered "human" is irrelevant. The fact is that a woman should have the ultimate decision regarding what to do with her own body. Life isn't always black and white and removing a woman's right to choose will lead to terrible moral and social consequences. Having to deliver the baby of a rapist, failed contraception, the life of the mother being at stake, cases of incest; these are harsh realities of life.

Also, the social impact of children who grow up in poor or broken homes, or children who group with parents who didn't want them or children forced to grow up in foster homes, or forced to live with relatives has that responsibility thrust on them; this will inevitably lead to a society even more infested with crime, poverty and drug use.

The life of the unborn is precious; ask any woman who has been trying to have a child when she first finds out she's expecting. However, the life of the mother herself is also precious. Her wishes, needs and situation must be respected.

The need for abortion to be available is simply a hard truth of life. Choosing the mother's life over the unborn if her safety is at risk is something we all agree on, right? That means we understand hard choices must be made because life has many grey areas. Abortion is one of those grey areas that a woman must be allowed to choose.