SCOTUS fails to stop TX abortion law.

[Rasputin_Vol]

Noone is disputing if medical issues as a legit reason, or rape, or incest
.which make up only 5% of abortions
...but abortion is used now as forM of birth control for many..thats the issue

They know this, but they have to hide behind the rare situations where a woman's life is in danger or she's raped or her fundamentalist Christian husband won't give her birth control.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

One must not underestimate the amount of control some fundamentalists place on their wives because of the doctrine of complementarianism.

Something I just thought about. If the husband is so controlling that he manages to prevent her from getting birth control pills, then how the hell is the woman going to get away long enough to go to the abortion clinic?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Our culture high fives men's sexual conquests, and shames women for the same. It is a mindset that must change.

Still waiting on you to answer this. How should the mindset change?

Also waiting for an answer to the question of why do the babies have to be killed if they are able to be medically saved?

 

[utvolpj]

They know this, but they have to hide behind the rare situations where a woman's life is in danger or she's raped or her fundamentalist Christian husband won't give her birth control.

Or they state what they know to be real situations faced by real people.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Why is that an issue when those doing it have no relation to you? Why remove the rights of all to just punish since you disagree with? Why allow unconnected parties to sue and collect money if the procedure is done?

Well there are a lot of people murdered on a daily basis that I don't know, I still think murder should be illegal.

 

[85SugarVol]

So it becomes a class issue.

Isn’t everything

 

[whodeycin85]

One must not underestimate the amount of control some fundamentalists place on their wives because of the doctrine of complementarianism.

If thats the case why would they be together in the 1st place...abortion is not a mistake eraser..

 

[Impossible Girl]

If you can't afford to pay for an abortion, you damn sure can't afford to raise a child, at which time abortion becomes birth control.

Let’s just kill all poor kids and relieve the burden to those poor parents.

 

[OHvol40]

Fair enough. You've answered my question, so I'll answer yours.

If we're trying to determine whether or not a fetus is a living human being on the basis of his or her eligibility to be covered by an insurance product (and why anyone would regard an insurance company as a legitimate arbiter of this question one way or the other is completely beyond me), then the provision of prenatal care aimed at the unborn child's benefit should be quite relevant. Still, I'll play along on your terms.

First, I would imagine there's vanishingly little demand for such a product (although it does seem to be offered in parts of Asia). The reasons you've given above for why people purchase life insurance policies on their children seem to me, to be perfectly frank, to be concerns only those who have been solicited by an insurance advertisement or salesman would have (and only that subset of these people who are sufficiently naive as to be moved by such concerns). When parents learn they're expecting a child, they begin attending to a number of now very urgent tasks. It's hard for me to imagine that many expectant parents would regard the purchase of a superfluous insurance product as among these urgent tasks, nor will the insurance companies have yet had an opportunity to identify them as expectant parents and to prey upon their fears (though this may be changing with the web browsing data that's being sold to marketers -- we've recently received in the mail some solicitations from Similac and Gerber Life Insurance). Tell us -- how many times in your career did an expectant parent approach you to have a life insurance policy issued on his unborn child?

Second, the risk of miscarriage before twelve weeks -- and particularly before six weeks -- is quite high. There's yet further risk of death at and around the time of delivery. The premiums, then, would necessarily be quite high and would deter many even of those who could be talked into believing they needed such a product in the first place.

Third (and closely related to the above), the fragility of the fetus, especially in the early weeks, introduces tremendous moral hazard into any such policy and, due to the nature of pregnancy, it would in many cases be all but impossible to adjudicate whether a miscarriage were due to natural causes or to some nefarious intervention. There would doubtless be those who would seek to profit from this fact, and an insurance company is not going to make itself vulnerable to such persons.

If an insurance company could make good money from doing so, a parent could purchase a policy on the life of his unborn child (just as a pet owner can purchase a policy on the life of his pet). A reasonable person would not draw from the insurance company's issuance of a policy any conclusion as to when human life begins, nor should he now from the company's refusal to issue such a policy.

As it stands, the same insurance company that won't underwrite a policy at six weeks gestation won't underwrite one a minute before birth either. Are we to conclude from this that the fetus "is not a life" one minute before birth and magically becomes "a life" at the moment of delivery?

What about the fact that Gerber will not underwrite a policy until 14 days after birth? Is the neonate "not a life" until he is two weeks old?

What about those who are not eligible for life insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Are they too "not a life"?

To be perfectly frank, eligibility for life insurance seems to me an utterly stupid criterion by which to answer the question of when human life begins, and you've so far given me no reason to think otherwise.

No, you’re right, it is a stupid way to determine if a life is indeed a life. No public policy should be made based off that criteria. Likewise, no public policy should be made based on religious beliefs, which this Texas law clearly is.

 

[AshG]

If that's the case why would they be together in the 1st place...abortion is not a mistake eraser..

You don't have a deep understanding of AFE culture, then.

 

[AshG]

Still waiting on you to answer this. How should the mindset change?

Sorry, son's birthday weekend. Been burning my arm hair off on the grill.

Our society has been subjected for years to the idea that if a young woman sleeps with four or five guys in high school or college, then they are promiscuous and worthy of shame from the broader community. At the same time, young men who sleep with four or five women are considered sexual conquistadors and are largely praised by their peer groups and in entertainment media.

Normalizing sex as a natural part of life that is nothing to be ashamed of has been proven to reduce the number of partners, transmission of STDs, and unwanted pregnancies significantly in countries where it is discussed as something that just is. It also results in an older age of first sexual activity compared to the US.

Destigmatizing and demystifying sex and teaching the physical, psychological, and spiritual components as part of a comprehensive health curriculum will lower abortions by lowering incidents of pregnancy.

And to your comment that everyone older than twelve knows that sex is how you get babies, you haven't met some of the ultra sheltered people my wife and I have come in contact with as part of our jobs and ministries.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Or they state what they know to be real situations faced by real people.

Which represent the minority of cases. I didn't say that these situations didn't necessarily exist.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You don't have a deep understanding of AFE culture, then.

Again, how many are we talking about?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Sorry, son's birthday weekend. Been burning my arm hair off on the grill.

Our society has been subjected for years to the idea that if a young woman sleeps with four or five guys in high school or college, then they are promiscuous and worthy of shame from the broader community. At the same time, young men who sleep with four or five women are considered sexual conquistadors and are largely praised by their peer groups and in entertainment media.

Normalizing sex as a natural part of life that is nothing to be ashamed of has been proven to reduce the number of partners, transmission of STDs, and unwanted pregnancies significantly in countries where it is discussed as something that just is. It also results in an older age of first sexual activity compared to the US.

Destigmatizing and demystifying sex and teaching the physical, psychological, and spiritual components as part of a comprehensive health curriculum will lower abortions by lowering incidents of pregnancy.

So to be clear (because I do not want to put words in your mouth), in order for us to correct this double standard, we need to allow women to be as promiscuous as men but without the shame?

And to your comment that everyone older than twelve knows that sex is how you get babies, you haven't met some of the ultra sheltered people my wife and I have come in contact with as part of our jobs and ministries.

Again, I'm not going to say that those type of people don't exist, but will say that they represent a far smaller section of the population than the majority situations.

 

[AshG]

So to be clear (because I do not want to put words in your mouth), in order for us to correct this double standard, we need to allow women to be as promiscuous as men but without the shame?

Actually, no. Approaching sex as something less taboo and less shameful will actually decrease promiscuity.

It would also help if Hollywood stopped promoting hookup culture on TV and in movies.

 

[DuckInAPen]

No, your right, it is a stupid way to determine if a life is indeed a life. No public policy should be made based off that criteria. Likewise, no public policy should be made based on religious beliefs, which this Texas law clearly is.

I'd like to revisit "no public policy should be made based on religious beliefs" at a later date, if I can find the time (I've spent entirely too much time on VolNation this weekend), but I wanted for now just to say that I respect and appreciate your concession. Most folks just double down on their initial assertions or continually move the goalposts, making discussion impossible. You've proved yourself to be open-minded and intellectually honest, and I respect that.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Actually, no. Approaching sex as something less taboo and less shameful will actually decrease promiscuity.

It would also help if Hollywood stopped promoting hookup culture on TV and in movies.

How does that go along with "Normalizing sex as a natural part of life that is nothing to be ashamed of"?

How do you normalize sex and promote it as a natural part of life and expect it to decrease sexual activity?

 

[OHvol40]

I'd like to revisit "no public policy should be made based on religious beliefs" at a later date, if I can find the time (I've spent entirely too much time on VolNation this weekend), but I wanted for now just to say that I respect and appreciate your concession. Most folks just double down on their initial assertions or continually move the goalposts, making discussion impossible. You've proved yourself to be open-minded and intellectually honest, and I respect that.

Good chat sir

 

[whodeycin85]

You don't have a deep understanding of AFE culture, then.

Never heard of it

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Destigmatizing and demystifying sex and teaching the physical, psychological, and spiritual components as part of a comprehensive health curriculum will lower abortions by lowering incidents of pregnancy.

How does stigmatizing sex lead to increased abortions? Or, how does destigmatizing sex lead to less abortions?

I'm wondering what one has to do with the other?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Never heard of it

Me either. I assumed it mean American Fundamentalist Evangelical. Google didn't help.

 

[whodeycin85]

Me either. I assumed it mean American Fundamentalist Evangelical. Google didn't help.

Wouldn't that lifestyle/ culture something you choose to be in, therefore knowing beforehand what to expect?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Wouldn't that lifestyle/ culture something you choose to be in, therefore knowing beforehand what to expect?

I don't know. Apparently @AshG is trying to convince us that there is widespread Christian fundamentalists in America that are keeping a significant number of women barefoot and pregnant against their will in 2021.

 

[whodeycin85]

I don't know. Apparently @AshG is trying to convince us that there is widespread Christian fundamentalists in America that are keeping a significant number of women barefoot and pregnant against their will in 2021.

I see that...i also wonder who is this large group that suddenly cares who promiscuous and who isn't...many that I know don't care and don't wanna hear about or see it...we are supposed to be a civilized culture but apparently some still want it be in tribe where people are having sex in the streets...

 

[lawgator1]