The Never-Ending and Quite Exasperating Debate We All Know of

[Leonardo17]

First things first: The Koran describes the Pharaoh (in the story of the Prophet Moses) as someone “who had a hand on the uterus of women”. So from an Islamic perspective, I see it as a negative sign when policy makers get involved in the human reproductive system in a controlling and imposing manner. (I’m talking about the US State of Arizona regressing to the 1864 law on Abortion of course).
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-top-c...27591.html
 
The second thing I want to do is to mention an important Yogi (Yaggadish Vassudev / Sadhguru). In one of his video he says that “Between 8 and 10 weeks; Life is currently experimenting with this new life form” Meaning that if you have an understandable reason, you may decide to end that life form like you may end the life of a frozen egg of the life of sperms for instance.
So that’s the spiritual approach here. The only thing Sadhguru is warning us about is, for instance “When you are 5 month pregnant, your fiancé decides to leave you, so suddenly you want to stop being pregnant”. One could argue that this is rather irresponsible for both parents. Also in the ethical approach in general (just like in the issue of euthanasia for instance) there are (and has to be) some limits. You can’t (for instance) issue death pills and let adolescents have them if they decide to. That’s not how these things are supposed to work
 
The third idea here is the debate on population. Birth rates in countries like Portugal, Italy, Greece are in free fall for decades now:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/losing-battle...04285.html
 
But who says that’s a bad thing? Again I am going to mention Sadhguru (or Yaggadish Vasudev): He once said that the ideal population for this planet id 4 billion. The current 8 / 10 Billion is excessive. It’s excessive even if we were to manage resources in a better way. If we were just 4 billion, we could keep burning fossil fuels, use plastic packaging as much as we want to, take long showers etc. and nature would be able to find a way before we get to getting at least 2/3rd of us killed because of severe environmental collapse in some form.
Actually, I think we will get to a point in which we may be forced to afford some sort of “single child policy” if we want to keep inhabiting the earth.
 
The fourth point might be the issue of chastity. This is a huge issue in Eastern religions that has reached gigantic proportions in the last few decades. The simple truth on this is actually very simple: In ancient agricultural communities, when you had two young bodies working in proximity with one another and producing all forms of pheromones etc. things could happen between these bodies whether they wanted of not. So one solution was marriage at a young age. This was useful especially when young men were recruited into armies. It allowed you to maintain the genes even when you lost the individuals. The other was (of course) religion.
 
This is out of context but here is the typical headscarf for middle class women in my country in the 60’s or 70’s. The Iranian “hijab” is actually a political perversion. The Arabic-Yemeni Hijab is not a perversion because they are desert people who need to be all covered-up both male and female.





(Above 1) city woman of the 60's / 70's 
2) Peasant women of the same era in Turkey = normal way of wearing the Hijap mostly in this whole region.

Below: Arabian peninsula dress (completelly coevered up dress that protects them from the elements in a very harsh climate:



(bellow= 21st century nonsense that is a result of a distorted interpretation of religious teachings:




 
So this perverted Hijab is there to protect a semi-mystical concept called “Namos” (Chastity). In north Africa they go as far as female genital mutilation. These are (in its basis) primitive inventions to keep the young and healthy bodies who are producing effort and sweating under the sun while doing agricultural work from joining one another. That’s all it is.
 
Less educated people tend to be more impulsive and more physical in their way of living in comparison to us. More civilized / self-controlling people. So part of the solution was (I’m talking about millennia old beliefs) to tell them that this was a “tabu” never to be thought of / never to be even considered (for fear of being rejected by the community + for fear of committing a huge “sin” against God or whatever they see as their deity).
 
So again: Reason must be our guide here. Some people seem to be treating politics like some sort of ball game in which each one is supporting two opposing teams in a very hooligan manner. Can there be no bipartisan compromise to this whole issue that takes into account the logical aspects of each opposing party and then ends up with a legal solution that works as a tool to promote human life and wellbeing?
 
Personally: I don’t believe in purely dogmatic / fanatical approaches in any kind. I think these two are not compatible with any form of genuine spirituality.

[Brian37]

That was a giant wall of code go back and fix it or delete the thread.

[Foxaèr]

Covid tried decreasing the population, but it didn't do a good enough job.

[Leonardo17]

Covid tried decreasing the population, but it didn't do a good enough job.

As I said in my previous posts: I believe in an inner phenomenon within us humans that has the potential of being much / much more successful in doing that than Covid.
 
(I hope you can see the images more clearly now)

[The Grand Nudger]

Can there be no bipartisan compromise to this whole issue that takes into account the logical aspects of each opposing party and then ends up with a legal solution that works as a tool to promote human life and wellbeing?

Not really, no - because the two sides here are those who would force a woman to have a child and those who would not.  There's no negotiation between those two things that promotes human life or wellbeing.  

Just look at the example you chose to frame the question with.  Five months pregnant and wants an abortion because her boyfriend left?  Firstly....nonsense.  Secondly, what are you prepared to do to stop her if so?

Pairing it up with comments on clothing is the height of irony, as you suggest that maybe we ought to be less controlling with respect to dress and more controlling with respect to a uterus.  Hands off the one, hands all up in the other...as a negotiation.

More broadly, there should be no negotiation between government and your/our private religious beliefs in a secular nation. That's between you and your silly gods...spiritually speaking. You want to sit at home and think about how irresponsible these imaginary women are? How poorly their decisions reflect based upon your own moral code? Good for you - you don't need government approval for that. It's not as if there can actually be any negotiation between a maximalist stance with maximalist objectives and it's antithesis, practically speaking - only capitulation. Which is how we got ourselves into this mess with the panty sniffers in the first place - and which will clearly never be enough for them no matter what anyone else agrees to.

In sum, the whole thing is a bad faith argument for a bad faith goal. Maybe you ought to find something else to be "bipartisan" about, some thing where some girls womb isn't the bargaining chip for civic comity?

[Foxaèr]

Put all straight men in one hemisphere, all women and gay men in the other. Eventually, the straight men hemisphere will die off; good riddance. The women who choose to bear children use artificial insemination from gay man sperm to keep the population thriving. They'll raise boys into men worthy of society. Problem solved.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wish granted, but all of the gay men are catholic preists.

[brewer]

Wish granted, but all of the gay men are catholic preists.

With a flagellation fetish.