The next U.S. abortion battle is over pills, and it's already begun

[Atlantis]

15 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

The sad part is that the religious people who are against abortion (kill a human being) have no problem buying guns and using them while one of their 10 commandments says, thou shall not kill.

And what about all the people who are neither religious nor feel blasé about gun murders?

You do realize many people are very much pro gun-control and 'pro-life'?? These people span the entire range of very religious to atheist.
And I'm pretty sure its not hard to find someone who supports the Second Amendment and also extensive abortion rights.
 

[placeholder]

47 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

 

 

So, in a world where woman are pressured to carry to term via mandates, the correct hypothetical analogy would be

- "There are no mandatory vaccinations"
- "No pregnant woman is forced to carry to term."
- "They are have a choice"
- "No one made you birth to your child without permission."
- "Most employers had this as part of their 'mandate'"
- "The choice is hers, if you don't, you won't go to jail, you won't be fined"
- "Any consequences of terminating the pregnancy is of her own choosing."
- "The pregnant woman is exempt for a whole host of reasons, including various exemptions."

That still isn't a good look is it?

No one goes to jail for not getting vaccinated or helping people not get vaccinated (unless they forge vaccination certificates). But according to laws passed now in Texas, and I believe in Oklahoma, Missouri, and elsewhere,  getting an abortion or assisting a woman to get an abortion is a crime. And by "assistance" I don't mean doctors and nurses, but anyone who offers any material assistance.  In other words, mandatory punishment. And pregnant women are being forced to carry to term or face the legal wrath of the state. 

And of course, Texas previously authorized private citizens to sue women getting abortions and even those who in any way assist women to get an abortion. Is there anything comparable to that as regards vaccination?

Edited May 28, 2022 by placeholder

[Atlantis]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No one goes to jail for not getting vaccinated or helping people not get vaccinated. But according to laws passed now in Texas, and I believe in Oklahoma, Missouri, and elsewhere,  geting an abortion or assisting a woman to get an abortion is a crime. And by "assistance" I don't mean doctors and nurses, but anyone who offers any material assistance.  In other words, mandatory punishment. And pregnant women are being forced to carry to term or face the legal wrath of the state. 

And of course, Texas previously authorized private citizens to sue women getting abortions and even those who in any way assist women to get an abortion. Is there anything comparable to that as regards vaccination?

I'm sorry but that is not the correct analogy in the context that everyone is talking about. This isn't 1990s China where 9-month pregnant mothers had their children murdered to meet some guy's quotas. This is the US where "my body, my choice" is universally understood to mean a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

I responded to a post that characterized the mandates pressurizing employees to lose their jobs as less severe as another poster had characterized. I merely wrote out explicitly what that would sound like if 'my body, my choice' (in the context of the US, not China) was violated.
 

[placeholder]

40 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

"Dear employer, I am not going to carry to term"

If you do that I am afraid we will no longer employ you.

"But, I will lose my livelihood..."

But you still have a choice and it's your choice.

Really? Not getting vaccinated potentially affects the welfare of other employees. How does getting an abortion affect their welfare? Does the phrase "work-related" mean anything to you?

[Atlantis]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? Not getting vaccinated potentially affects the welfare of other employees. How does getting an abortion affect their welfare? Does the phrase "work-related" mean anything to you?

You are correct. Why would I say such a thing? Perhaps because my focus on "others" doesn't preclude the life of viable infants. I'm all for employee welfare. I am happy to declare that.

In terms of basic morals, how {increasing your odds of getting infected, not realizing when you are, and then passing to others who might develop serious conditions} compares to 100% ending the life of viable infants...is sadly still up for debate for some.

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

I think everyone understands pregnancy is not contagious.

However, when it comes to second and even third trimester abortions, the human being you are killing is, in my humble opinion, at least as important that the 'community' at large.

Besides, your response is to a post debunking the flimsy 'my body my choice' slogan, when it is the body of another human being decimated that is at the heart of the opposition to abortion. But you knew that already.

First off you ignore the first trimester entirely. In fact Oklahoma is now making abortions illegal as soon as the egg is fertilized.

As for what  motives behind abortion opponents. I think a very good case could be made that it's about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage.  After all, there's a strong correlation between those who oppose abortion and those who also oppose programs like WICS, the Women and Infant nutrition program. And several states have gone after Planned Parenthood but offer no effective replacement for its contraception services.

 

[Atlantis]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And of course, Texas previously authorized private citizens to sue women getting abortions and even those who in any way assist women to get an abortion. Is there anything comparable to that as regards vaccination?

Despite your incorrect application of the analogy, I will say this to avoid misunderstanding: some of what Texas is doing is extreme and wrong.
 

Just now, placeholder said:

First off you ignore the first trimester entirely. In fact Oklahoma is now making abortions illegal as soon as the egg is fertilized.

Not really, read my other posts. And Oklahoma is stupid. We are probably a millennia away (if ever) technologically from having that conversation.

[Atlantis]

Like I implied in my early posts above: not everyone who is against abortion does so on the basis of religious scripture. It's really sad how so many people think that the act itself is not innately problematic and becomes increasingly abhorrent along gestation.

And I am very much pro sex-before-marriage. It should be encouraged world-wide for various sensible reasons and I sincerely mean that. Feel free to show me the study you're mentioning when you get time.

With regards to Planned Parenthood, are you surprised that some people are not okay with tax payer money paying for something they regard as killing the unborn?

Edited May 28, 2022 by Atlantis
+not

[placeholder]

 

9 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

You are correct. Why would I say such a thing? Perhaps because my focus on "others" doesn't preclude the life of viable infants. I'm all for employee welfare. I am happy to declare that.

What does that have to do with fact the terminating employees for not getting vaccinated is justifiably work-related, whereas firing an employee for getting an abortion is not?

[Atlantis]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

What does that have to do with fact the terminating employees for not getting vaccinated is justifiably work-related, whereas firing an employee for getting an abortion is not?

1. I do not agree with your premise: it is not justified. It is way OTT to fire them, with very few exceptions (hospital settings).

I wrote this:
"how {increasing your odds of getting infected, not realizing when you are, and then passing to others who might develop serious conditions} compares to 100% ending the life of viable infants...is sadly still up for debate for some."

2. You don't get to police the terms of the debate. I actively pointed out the moral omission of the the aborted child because I think it is significantly more relevant to the well-being of "others" than potentially giving others covid-19.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Atlantis
Font formatting for clarity. "Others" = the dead kid

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Many businesses, USA & TH made vaccination mandatory, to be employed there.  Along with healthcare & military.  Gov't instituted mandates, in the USA (military for one), as the appeals make their way through the court system, and the mandates are voided, but didn't help those that lost their jobs, or now discharged from the military for refusing vaccinations.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/02/us-army-covid-vaccine-discharge-soldiers

My daughter needed to be vaccinated here/TH to work where she's working.

Certainly not just in USA:

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/vaccine/Pages/healthcare-workers-mandatory-vaccination.aspx#:~:text=Yes.,the Private Health Facilities Act).

I do have some sympathy with this argument. I know a nice guy who has a sort of sense of innocence, or naivety,  and for some reason he jumped on the anti vax bandwagon. He couldn't keep his job taking care of kids with disabilities, and became a bit cornered, and ended up leaving behind his nice home, and possessions he'd only just bought,  and went to the states.

Sure, if no one got vaccinated the hospitals might have overfilled...

At the time he lost his job Australia was 70 per cent vaccinated so, though he should have woken up and got vaccinated in my opinion,  it just seemed a bit harsh. 

 

On the abortion thing I get annoyed at this debate because it is not that clear cut, no one likes the idea of abortions as such, and Republicans are good at using it as a wedge issue to paint Democrats as amoral baby killers. Letting the woman decide seems the least bad solution to a difficult issue. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced and unsubstantiated claim removed

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

1. I do not agree with your premise: it is not justified. It is way OTT to fire them, with very few exceptions (hospital settings).

I wrote this:
"how {increasing your odds of getting infected, not realizing when you are, and then passing to others who might develop serious conditions} compares to 100% ending the life of viable infants...is sadly still up for debate for some."

2. You don't get to police the terms of the debate. I actively pointed out the moral omission of the the aborted child because I think it is significantly more relevant to the well-being of "others" than potentially giving others covid-19.

An employer has every right to protect his employees from potential harm.

What does your argument about damage to 'others' who are not employees have to do with the right of employers to protect their employees from harm. 

[cncltd1973]

11 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Is pregnancy prevention not a better choice?

of course it is

[bendejo]

18 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Is pregnancy prevention not a better choice?

That, fella, is a matter of perspective.

Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As 'Abortion-Inducing Drugs' At Confirmation Hearing

 

It's been four years, did no one see this coming?  What's the sense of televised hearings other than senators getting to preen for the cameras?  Perhaps the guy who still likes beer does not understand the difference between birth control and miscarriage-inducing meds.

I thought this was pretty ominous when he said it.  A lot of Americans are not smart enough to see the folly of the statement, hence it can be given gravity by anyone who repeats it, like clerics and other judges/politicians.

 

 

[RocketDog]

On 5/27/2022 at 5:50 PM, placnx said:

Before Trump the US had rule OF law. Now it may be rule BY Law of the Bible!

Indeed. Iran-style theocracy is the goal. America teeters on that very brink.

[RocketDog]

22 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Probably because we're expected to pay for the children.

The stork dropping babies down a chimney is a myth.

It takes two to make a baby.

A baby born through deceit such as a purposely damaged condom or birth control pills  signals a relationship doomed to failure in many ways.

 

Otherwise it just amounts to poor life choices which always exact a price.

 

[placeholder]

23 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Like I implied in my early posts above: not everyone who is against abortion does so on the basis of religious scripture. It's really sad how so many people think that the act itself is not innately problematic and becomes increasingly abhorrent along gestation.

And I am very much pro sex-before-marriage. It should be encouraged world-wide for various sensible reasons and I sincerely mean that. Feel free to show me the study you're mentioning when you get time.

With regards to Planned Parenthood, are you surprised that some people are not okay with tax payer money paying for something they regard as killing the unborn?

To start with last things first: the money that Texas allocates for family planning specifically disallows its use for funding abortion services. So Planned Parenthood would be prohibited from using that funding for abortion services.

Obviously the best way to stop abortions from happening is to see to it that pregnancies' don't happen in the first place. Texas has actually slashed funding for family planning services for low income women.

http://sites.utexas.edu/txpep/files/2021/03/TxPEP-research-brief-reproductive-health-care.pdf

 

Clearly, the opposition to abortion is fueled not by a desire to actually eliminate them, but rather to punish women. Particularlyh low income women who may not have the means to travel out of state.  The most fervent supporters of anti-abortion laws are right wing Catholics and many evangelicals who also oppose contraception. It's these hardliners that Republicans are clearly catering to.  Otherwise, why actually slash funding for contraceptive services?

[vinci]

for all things that are important to a country and they chose to mess around with a woman vagina and these perverted religious men are the one that speak the loudest 

[Atlantis]

23 hours ago, placeholder said:

An employer has every right to protect his employees from potential harm.

What does your argument about damage to 'others' who are not employees have to do with the right of employers to protect their employees from harm. 

I know you post a lot almost everyday. That said, do you look at the context of my replies to other comments? Let me recap, from all the way back on page 1:

1. One poster quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice
2. Another poster suggested the mandates didn't really force anyone - save for the prospect of losing their jobs.
3. The first poster said...that sounds hardly like a reasonable 'choice'
4. I then posted a hypothetical conversation to drive home the point of what a violation of 'my body, my choice' would sound like

Also,

5. You, placeholder, earlier said " an abortion is not going to have an potential effect on the community at large?"

My post was to address the above, namely
- it is not okay to coerce people into doing sth against their view (in the context of bodily autonomy)
- the community at large includes the unborn child (with emphasis on viable and near-viable infants, not 1st trimester)

So, what do you go and do?..... try and dictate the terms of the debate by ignoring all of the above context and specifying everything must be related to "protecting the employee from harm". By the way, I did already address this point -
 

23 hours ago, Atlantis said:

"how {increasing your odds of getting infected, not realizing when you are, and then passing to others who might develop serious conditions} compares to 100% ending the life of viable infants...is sadly still up for debate for some."

The thing in { } highlights the marginal (and uncertain) benefits of one of many mitigating measures vs. an infectious disease that's generally not deadly if its contracted. The thing after the { } highlights the ridiculousness of 'my body, my choice' while ignoring the destruction of body of another who presumably would like live if he/she had the choice.

The bit after the { } isn't work related, because I reject your demand that anything unrelated to work is not morally relevant, though it does actually address your 'community at large' quip.
 

[Atlantis]

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

To start with last things first: the money that Texas allocates for family planning specifically disallows its use for funding abortion services. So Planned Parenthood would be prohibited from using that funding for abortion services.

Obviously the best way to stop abortions from happening is to see to it that pregnancies' don't happen in the first place. Texas has actually slashed funding for family planning services for low income women.

http://sites.utexas.edu/txpep/files/2021/03/TxPEP-research-brief-reproductive-health-care.pdf

 

Clearly, the opposition to abortion is fueled not by a desire to actually eliminate them, but rather to punish women. Particularlyh low income women who may not have the means to travel out of state.  The most fervent supporters of anti-abortion laws are right wing Catholics and many evangelicals who also oppose contraception. It's these hardliners that Republicans are clearly catering to.  Otherwise, why actually slash funding for contraceptive services?

I just read the PDF. Shockingly, it really doesn't support the second part of your comment, from "Clearly, the opposition to abortion is fueled not by a desire to actually eliminate them, but rather to punish women."....onward.

Do you know what your assertions sound like? An incorrect multiple choice answer on the GMAT Verbal Section - Critical Reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Management_Admission_Test#Verbal_section

You don't get to write "clearly" when it's clear as mud.
 

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

I know you post a lot almost everyday. That said, do you look at the context of my replies to other comments? Let me recap, from all the way back on page 1:

1. One poster quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice
2. Another poster suggested the mandates didn't really force anyone - save for the prospect of losing their jobs.
3. The first poster said...that sounds hardly like a reasonable 'choice'
4. I then posted a hypothetical conversation to drive home the point of what a violation of 'my body, my choice' would sound like

Also,

5. You, placeholder, earlier said " an abortion is not going to have an potential effect on the community at large?"

My post was to address the above, namely
- it is not okay to coerce people into doing sth against their view (in the context of bodily autonomy)
- the community at large includes the unborn child (with emphasis on viable and near-viable infants, not 1st trimester)

So, what do you go and do?..... try and dictate the terms of the debate by ignoring all of the above context and specifying everything must be related to "protecting the employee from harm". By the way, I did already address this point -
 

The thing in { } highlights the marginal (and uncertain) benefits of one of many mitigating measures vs. an infectious disease that's generally not deadly if its contracted. The thing after the { } highlights the ridiculousness of 'my body, my choice' while ignoring the destruction of body of another who presumably would like live if he/she had the choice.

The bit after the { } isn't work related, because I reject your demand that anything unrelated to work is not morally relevant, though it does actually address your 'community at large' quip.
 

First off, this person's objection was specifically about people losing their jobs because they refuse to get vaccinated.  So, I don't understand why you claim that this is somehow besides the point. That poster compared that practice to objections against laws restricting abortion. You supported the claim of another poster who according to you "quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice"

 

As I pointed out, this poster did not rightly point out the selective application of my body my choice. It's flawed. Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease? An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business  is bad for society at large and take action accordingly.

 

Against the overwhelming evidence, some people oppose getting vaccinated against covid.  So while it may not seem to some that losing a job is a reasonable price to pay, that assumption is based on a scientifically  unreasonable refusal to get vaccinated. Not so long ago, such objections to being vaccinated would be considered the province of cranks. But now that it's taken on a political dimension, not so much. Let me repeat: it is not reasonable behavior to refuse to be vaccinated. So if someone wants to be unreasonable, there are consequences.

[Atlantis]

20 minutes ago, vinci said:

for all things that are important to a country and they chose to mess around with a woman vagina and these perverted religious men are the one that speak the loudest 

I often think to myself "how do so many people become so dishonest when it comes to abortion?" Or maybe they are not dishonest but that they are so cocooned in their own echo-chambers that blindingly obvious counter-arguments by 'the other side' have never passed through their ears.

In case you are not deliberately trolling, please have a look at the attached image of some basic human biology. The narrow tube-like thing in red is the 'woman vagina'; it's often like that when there isn't a penis inside. The roundish cavity directly above that is the uterus. Inside the uterus is a human. I know it looks like a little alien, but rest assured, it is not.

I'm pretty sure that much of this controversy surrounding abortion is not really due to the woman vagina, but rather the right of the human inside the uterus to live viz a viz the rights of its human host (aka the 'mother') to terminate its life at whatever stage of pregnancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

I just read the PDF. Shockingly, it really doesn't support the second part of your comment, from "Clearly, the opposition to abortion is fueled not by a desire to actually eliminate them, but rather to punish women."....onward.

Do you know what your assertions sound like? An incorrect multiple choice answer on the GMAT Verbal Section - Critical Reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Management_Admission_Test#Verbal_section

You don't get to write "clearly" when it's clear as mud.
 

And clearly, I didn't say that the article addressed that question. Which is why my comment is below the link. But the evidence, not the conclusions or thesis, provided by the article does support my contention. What reasonable counter explanation is there for the fact that legislators who claim to oppose abortion do not do everything in their power to keep them from occurring in the first place by making sure that women who don't want to get pregnant have the means not to?

[Atlantis]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, this person's objection was specifically about people losing their jobs because they refuse to get vaccinated.  So, I don't understand why you claim that this is somehow besides the point. That poster compared that practice to objections against laws restricting abortion. You supported the claim of another poster who according to you "quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice"

 

As I pointed out, this poster did not rightly point out the selective application of my body my choice. It's flawed. Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease? An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business  is bad for society at large and take action accordingly.

 

Against the overwhelming evidence, some people oppose getting vaccinated against covid.  So while it may not seem to some that losing a job is a reasonable price to pay, that assumption is based on a scientifically  unreasonable refusal to get vaccinated. Not so long ago, such objections to being vaccinated would be considered the province of cranks. But now that it's taken on a political dimension, not so much. Let me repeat: it is not reasonable behavior to refuse to be vaccinated. So if someone wants to be unreasonable, there are consequences.

You're making it really easy for me. Response to paragraph 2 below, response to paragraph 3 coming up:

"Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease?"

It is not hard for me accept at all, as I said I support employee welfare. But you are so myopically focused on vaccine mandates that you forget all the other ways available to an employer can protect their work force. But apparently to you, if anyone supports many measures to protect their employees:

- enforced mask wearing, option to work from home, investing in new air ventilation systems, changing the layout of the work space, even incentives for vaccination

 

....but is against {vaccinate or lose your job}, they automatically are against 'employer's rights to protect their workforce. Objectively false.


"An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business  is bad for society at large and take action accordingly."

No cigar here either. While it is not my personal values, many others believe that abortion, especially past the first trimester, is an egregious act. Sometimes the 'medical procedure' may even have consequences on the employee that affect their performance. Maybe I should add the words 'potentially debilitating'.

And companies fire people all the time for what they perceive to be 'unethical' or 'immoral' employee actions (outside the work place) that may damage their brands either to their customer base or advertisers, even if such actions are not strictly criminal.

[ozimoron]

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/

[Atlantis]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, this person's objection was specifically about people losing their jobs because they refuse to get vaccinated.  So, I don't understand why you claim that this is somehow besides the point. That poster compared that practice to objections against laws restricting abortion. You supported the claim of another poster who according to you "quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice"

 

As I pointed out, this poster did not rightly point out the selective application of my body my choice. It's flawed. Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease? An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business  is bad for society at large and take action accordingly.

 

Against the overwhelming evidence, some people oppose getting vaccinated against covid.  So while it may not seem to some that losing a job is a reasonable price to pay, that assumption is based on a scientifically  unreasonable refusal to get vaccinated. Not so long ago, such objections to being vaccinated would be considered the province of cranks. But now that it's taken on a political dimension, not so much. Let me repeat: it is not reasonable behavior to refuse to be vaccinated. So if someone wants to be unreasonable, there are consequences.

In response to the 3rd paragraph:

You're unwittingly opening up yourself to the charge of being unscientific. These government mandates (take the vaccination or be fired), did they give a blanket exemption to those who have already had a bought of Covid? This may only be a subset of employees, but they have very valid scientific and moral reasons to refuse a vaccination if they have already had the disease at least once. Or did you miss all of the controversy when Fauci admitted he wasn't sure how best to deal with the natural immunity issue?

As for the rest of the cranks, I'm glad you used the word "unreasonable", the very definition of subjective judgement. Does it matter if I'm closer to you rather than them on the reasonableness of the vaccination knowing the risk-reward trade-off getting the vaccinated. Not really. It matters a whole lot more that they think even if its on the grounds of 'religious belief'.

Just like your subjective opining, I think it is unreasonable to fire someone because they don't tick all the boxes of doing the best at reducing their risk of minimizing covid-risk.


I'll try my best to steer the conversation squarely back to abortion.

The bodily violation of viable living humans in the womb is massively more egregious than even coercing unwilling employees to get vaccinated.

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed

[placeholder]

20 hours ago, Atlantis said:

You're making it really easy for me. Response to paragraph 2 below, response to paragraph 3 coming up:

"Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease?"

It is not hard for me accept at all, as I said I support employee welfare. But you are so myopically focused on vaccine mandates that you forget all the other ways available to an employer can protect their work force. But apparently to you, if anyone supports many measures to protect their employees:

- enforced mask wearing, option to work from home, investing in new air ventilation systems, changing the layout of the work space, even incentives for vaccination

 

....but is against {vaccinate or lose your job}, they automatically are against 'employer's rights to protect their workforce. Objectively false.


"An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business  is bad for society at large and take action accordingly."

No cigar here either. While it is not my personal values, many others believe that abortion, especially past the first trimester, is an egregious act. Sometimes the 'medical procedure' may even have consequences on the employee that affect their performance. Maybe I should add the words 'potentially debilitating'.

And companies fire people all the time for what they perceive to be 'unethical' or 'immoral' employee actions (outside the work place) that may damage their brands either to their customer base or advertisers, even if such actions are not strictly criminal.

It is not reasonable to refuse to be vaccinated unless for very good medical reasons. It is also not reasonable to expect employers to go to  expense and bother when a free and highly effective measure is available. There was a time, not long ago, when right wingers made mocked so-called left wing earth mothers who refused to get their kids vaccinated. Vaccines as something controversial used to be considered the doctrine of cranks. And rightly so.

 

As for your comment about it being legitimate for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee who gets an abortion...an employer's rights aren't absolute. And what choices an employee makes in the privacy of a medical institution, would not be upheld in court as work related. Public conduct is one thing. Private conduct quite another.

[placnx]

On 5/28/2022 at 11:34 AM, Atlantis said:

And what about all the people who are neither religious nor feel blasé about gun murders?

You do realize many people are very much pro gun-control and 'pro-life'?? These people span the entire range of very religious to atheist.
And I'm pretty sure its not hard to find someone who supports the Second Amendment and also extensive abortion rights.
 

The problem is people who support extreme views. This would be banning all abortions or abolishing pretty well any limits on guns. Rowe vs Wade was quite a sensible decision, using viability as the criterion.

 

Now we have anti-abortion laws in American states that are Bible-based, anti-science. This goes fundamentally against the principle of separation of church and state, in that we have these religious views intruding on the rights of persons who may not subscribe to these beliefs and dogma. That is rule BY (religious) law overriding the rule OF law. This Alito opinion would be another notorious decision in the mold of those that affirmed slavery, for example.

[placnx]

On 5/28/2022 at 12:07 PM, placeholder said:

First off you ignore the first trimester entirely. In fact Oklahoma is now making abortions illegal as soon as the egg is fertilized.

As for what  motives behind abortion opponents. I think a very good case could be made that it's about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage.  After all, there's a strong correlation between those who oppose abortion and those who also oppose programs like WICS, the Women and Infant nutrition program. And several states have gone after Planned Parenthood but offer no effective replacement for its contraception services.

 

The political motivation may relate to suppressing the poor, Blacks in particular. Tulsa, Oklahoma, is the place where a hundred years ago the most prosperous Black community in the country was wiped out, hundreds murdered, with no accountability of course.