More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[gowlerk 1,904]

54 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You do realize that most of the world influences social/political policy based on their religious beliefs. And, given that about 85% of the world has some form of faith; I can't help but wonder if they are concerned about people with a lack of faith influencing social/political policy.  

Huh? Are you kidding, or do you really thing religion is governing policy? Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies. Tribalism is the only influence religion is having. The Taliban. or the Cristian fundamentalist it is all the same. They completely ignore the "word of god" that they claim to believe in and only care about power for their group. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

58 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Huh? Are you kidding, or do you really thing religion is governing policy? Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies. Tribalism is the only influence religion is having. The Taliban. or the Cristian fundamentalist it is all the same. They completely ignore the "word of god" that they claim to believe in and only care about power for their group. 

Hi Ken,

Since I cannot do a 'like' today; let give you a:  

Jerry Baumchen

 

[BIGUN 1,051]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You do realize that most of the world influences social/political policy based on their religious beliefs. And, given that about 85% of the world has some form of faith; I can't help but wonder if they are concerned about people with a lack of faith influencing social/political policy.  

Huh? Are you kidding, or do you really thing religion is governing policy? Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies. Tribalism is the only influence religion is having. The Taliban. or the Cristian fundamentalist it is all the same. They completely ignore the "word of god" that they claim to believe in and only care about power for their group. 

You do realize that your entire rant brought you back full circle to supporting the point I was making. And, you could have googled,, "do you really thing religion is governing policy"

[gowlerk 1,904]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You do realize that your entire rant brought you back full circle to supporting the point I was making. And, you could have googled,,

Only if the point you are making is that we need as many people as possible to fight back hard against religions making public policy. 

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies.

Ok, let's start with abortion.  How is the abortion issue strictly a christian issue?

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Ok, let's start with abortion.  How is the abortion issue strictly a christian issue?

Hi Coreece,

For the most part, it wasn't until the GOP saw it as a means to get more votes; nothing more.

I have no knowledge of Jimmy Carter being pro-life:

While I consider Carter a terrible POTUS, I do consider him an honorable person.

 A perfect example of what a Christian should mean. This is the Wipikida  List of honors and awards received by Jimmy Carter

 How is the abortion issue strictly a christian issue?

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,904]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ok, let's start with abortion.  How is the abortion issue strictly a christian issue?

 

It isn't. It is a political issue that had politicians form an alliance with various US Christian churches. The R party very skillfully used the issue. However if you ask the Holy Roman Church they will gladly inform you that it is a religious issue. Don't be setting traps for me to tell you how it is a religious issue. Ask someone who is religious and they will tell you. 

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Don't be setting traps for me to tell you how it is a religious issue. Ask someone who is religious and they will tell you.

It's a political issue that religious people engage, just like any other political issue.  If you ask a religious pro lifer about abortion, their answers won't be very different from that of secular prolife:

https://secularprolife.org/abortion/

 

Abortion isn't just a "christian issue," it's a humanity issue and there will always be politicians trying to use this stuff to their advantage.  Practically every conservative here has explained in one way or another how they feel compelled (perhaps morally?) to be pro-choice regardless of how anti-abortion they are.  Their body, their choice.  There - changes nothing.

[gowlerk 1,904]

10 minutes ago, Coreece said:

There - changes nothing.

Stacking the SCOTUS with Justices chosen for their commitment to removing a right from women changes everything about the previously settled law in your nation. I'm not sure how this ended up in the 2nd amendment thread. You are very obsessed with the fight to remove those rights it seems.

[Coreece 190]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm not sure how this ended up in the 2nd amendment thread.

Your Words:

"Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies."

That's how.

I thought it was obvious how the 2nd amendment is a political issue rather than a religious one.

 

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You are very obsessed with the fight to remove those rights it seems.

There you go again "seems like this, seems like that. . ."

I mean damn dude, you selectively remove the words "their body, their choice" and then say it seems like I'm obsessed with removing that right?

This is the crap I'm talking about.  What's wrong with you?

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Coreece

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Your Words:

"Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies."

That's how.

I thought it was obvious how the 2nd amendment is a political issue rather than a religious one.

 

There you go again "seems like this, seems like that. . ."

I mean damn dude, you selectively remove the words "their body, their choice" and then say it seems like I'm obsessed with removing that right?

This is the crap I'm talking about.  What's wrong with you?

 

 

 

Hi Coreece,

Re:  There you go again "seems like this, seems like that. . ."

Well, how about this mea culpa; your words:  Not really sure why I kept thinking that.  There may have been something I read about places of residence like convents or rectories, but like I said I'm not really sure.  That's not really the part I'm interested in anyway, so I'll just concede that point.

Jerry Baumchen

[Coreece 190]

What about it Jerry?

[gowlerk 1,904]

28 minutes ago, Coreece said:

This is the crap I'm talking about.  What's wrong with you?

How much time do you have?

[Coreece 190]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

37 minutes ago, Coreece said:

This is the crap I'm talking about.  What's wrong with you?

How much time do you have?

Ok, so you were messing with me, right?

Good one.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's a political issue that religious people engage, just like any other political issue.  If you ask a religious pro lifer about abortion, their answers won't be very different from that of secular prolife:

https://secularprolife.org/abortion/

 

Abortion isn't just a "christian issue," it's a humanity issue and there will always be politicians trying to use this stuff to their advantage.  Practically every conservative here has explained in one way or another how they feel compelled (perhaps morally?) to be pro-choice regardless of how anti-abortion they are.  Their body, their choice.  There - changes nothing.

Negative. It is a health and equal rights issue dressed up as a humanity issue and politicized by some religious people. The science does not support the religious view. That requires intuition, gut feelings, and a lot of like feeling people to lean on. 

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

The science does not support the religious view.

The secular view IS the 'religious view':

https://secularprolife.org/abortion/

A Secular Case Against Abortion

 

Summary:

1. The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms; they are early developmental stages of a human’s life cycle.
2. All human organisms are morally relevant.
3. It’s generally immoral to kill humans.
4. Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion.

Part 1: The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms.

“Life begins at fertilization” is a shorthand way to say that the zygote is the first developmental stage of a human being’s life cycle. This is not a religious premise; it is a biological fact, attested to in countless biology and embryology texts and affirmed by the majority of biologists worldwide. Read more:

• Human beings begin as zygotes: refutations to 8 common pro-choice arguments
• Even very pro-choice biologists acknowledge a human life begins at fertilization
• The zygote is the beginning of the human life cycle: everyday examples
• Click here to see images from biology textbooks

Corner cases and unusual biological phenomenon do not change the fact that the zygote is the first stage of a human’s life cycle. Here are some common objections we have addressed:

• On miscarriage: Nearly half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant
• Monozygotic twinning: Weasley brothers, flatworms, and cow clones
• Hydatidiform moles and molar pregnancies

 

Part 2: All human organisms are morally relevant.

Many pro-choice people acknowledge that, biologically, life begins at conception but deny zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are “people,” i.e. morally relevant humans deserving of human rights. They offer a variety of ideas about what additional criteria are necessary. Common suggestions include that the child must have a heartbeat, have brain waves, be viable, or be “conscious”/self-aware.

We find these criteria for “personhood” arbitrary. Many of the proposed criteria would, if applied consistently, deny personhood to already born groups of humans we universally recognize as morally relevant and worthy of protection, such as newborns, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. We believe consistency demands that we protect all humans as morally relevant and members of our species. Read more:

• Personhood based on human cognitive abilities
• Why viability is the least plausible definition of personhood (Equal Rights Institute)
• The most undervalued argument in the prolife movement (Equal Rights Institute)
• Arguments against fetal personhood

 

Part 3: It’s generally immoral to kill humans.

In our experience, people may have different ideas about why it’s generally immoral to kill humans, but few if any people sincerely debate whether it’s generally immoral to kill humans. As a matter of policy, we at Secular Pro-Life do not take a stance on the metaphysical questions regarding where morality comes from or why we should care about one another. We simply ask that all people who believe, as a baseline premise, that it’s wrong to kill each other apply that stance consistently and recognize preborn children as part of the human family. For more details, read The Imago Dei, or “Why should secularists care about human life?”

 

Part 4: Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion.

Some pro-choice people argue that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is morally valuable “person,” because no person can use another’s body against her will. We believe this bodily rights argument is one of the strongest pro-choice arguments, and we encourage all people interested in the abortion debate to lean into this conversation. Still, we find that the bodily rights argument is not enough to justify elective abortion. Examples involving organ donation, car crashes, and other illustrations of bodily rights are disanalogous to pregnancy and abortion in one or more major ways. Read more:

• McFall v. Shimp and Thomson’s violinist don’t justify the vast majority of abortions.
• “Fewer rights than a corpse” rebutted
• Autumn in the Sovereign Zone: Why “it’s my body, I can do what I want” won’t do (Equal Rights Institute)
• De facto guardian and abortion: a response to the strongest violinist (Justice For All)
• Other bodily rights articles (Equal Rights Institute)

 

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

lot of like feeling people to lean on. 

 

Do doubt about that:

Mission and Vision

Our Mission

Our mission in three parts:

1. Advance secular arguments against abortion;
2. Create space for atheists, agnostics, and other secularists interested in anti-abortion work; and
3. Build interfaith coalitions of people interested in advancing secular arguments.

Please note that our mission does not include advancing arguments for an atheistic worldview. Religious debates undermine our goal of building interfaith coalitions and distract from our focus on fighting abortion. Therefore, as a matter of organizational policy, Secular Pro-Life does not engage in religious debates.

Our Vision

We envision a world in which (1) people of all faith traditions, political philosophies, socioeconomic statuses, sexualities, races, and age groups oppose abortion; (2) men and women have and embrace control over whether they conceive children; and (3) society fully supports expectant parents, growing families, and children born and unborn.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Coreece

[kallend 1,623]

So how about the 13 year old rape victim?  What about her rights?  Why is her body to be held hostage and her life deranged even further on account of the actions of a criminal and the views of people like Coreece??

Edited January 7, 2022 by kallend

[Coreece 190]

20 minutes ago, kallend said:

So how about the 13 year old rape victim?  What about her rights?  Why is her body to be held hostage and her life deranged even further on account of the actions of a criminal and the views of people like Coreece??

That is the view of Secular Prolife, aka 'not a religious thing'

Go get all indignant on them.

[wmw999 2,120]

You were the one who posted the secular view, and you’re probably the person who has studied the pro-life view in the most detail. Kallend’s question is valid. It could be that your answer is along the lines of “to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs,” but whatever the answer is, it is a valid question. 
Wendy P. 

[Coreece 190]

I already answered it.

[Coreece 190]

Numerous Times.

[Coreece 190]

EVEN IN THIS VERY THREAD

[JoeWeber 2,297]

4 minutes ago, Coreece said:

EVEN IN THIS VERY THREAD

You only hurt your likes to posts ratio, which is already quite dismal, by doing that. I think Ken offers counseling.

[BIGUN 1,051]

48 minutes ago, kallend said:

So how about the 13 year old rape victim?  What about her rights?  Why is her body to be held hostage and her life deranged even further on account of the actions of a criminal and the views of people like Coreece??

Cari & I had lunch yesterday and the subject of this abortion thread came up. She is very religious and goes to church a couple of times a week. We are both of the mindset that we are personally opposed to abortion, but who are we to judge what others have to, want to, or need to do. 

Your question is the perfect example and we discussed that exact scenario (except it was any woman who had been raped). To make some law that she could not have an abortion would make her have to face that incident in a very different way than most rape victims. A law like that would be criminal in itself. 

We are both opposed to rescinding or modifying RvW in any way. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by BIGUN

[gowlerk 1,904]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

We envision a world in which (1) people of all faith traditions, political philosophies, socioeconomic statuses, sexualities, races, and age groups oppose abortion; (2) men and women have and embrace control over whether they conceive children; and (3) society fully supports expectant parents, growing families, and children born and unborn.

But in the meantime their position is that if a woman gets pregnant the law should force her to do everything possible to deliver a newborn to them, or die trying. My position is that it is none of the law's business. Which is also the position of the SCOTUS until June 2022 when they will turn your nation into a battle ground over the issue. A battle that will be fought on a state to state basis until women regain their rights. No where else in the world has a democracy come to a different result.