5 5
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I already answered it.

Really?

Typical controlling busybody attitude - you know what is best for people you've never met.

You and your ilk should keep your unwanted busybody noses out of womens' reproductive organs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 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.

I guess that's the disconnect, you're just here to score points through deflection.

 

1. Ken deliberately REMOVED the words "Their Body, Their Choice" in his selective quoting of my post.

Then he says seems that I want to REMOVE this right of women.

...and Now Kallend says something about reporductive organs.

 

2. You said that science doesn't support the religious view.

I showed you how it's a secular view and their attempt to make a scientific argument.

You respond about my points ratio.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Bigun's answer. I think that the education that's needed is of the seriousness of abortion, just like we're educating men now that rape isn't actually a funny fraternity prank. Unfortunately, just as you don't control what your nephew does with the money you give him for Christmas (yet again, he pissed it away on skydiving :ohmygod:), you can't control someone else's feelings or motivations.

For legal personhood, and everything that goes along with it, there has to be a line -- it's the law. One hopes the line can stay somewhat fuzzy for fuzzy cases, but there needs to be something. And it needs to be reviewed periodically -- science does move things like viability, and it also moves things like hopeless. Conditions that used to be hopeless aren't necessarily, but there are still hopeless conditions (anencephaly), and forcing a mother to continue to carry a baby when she's quite sure she can't really handle it is also needlessly cruel.

To say that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the carrier is to accord one entity primacy over another. To say that "well she should have thought of that before she opened her legs" robs raped women, women who did, in fact, take significant birth control measures, and women who really, really, wanted a baby that's not going to happen in any meaningful way, of the responsibility that they were, in fact, exercising.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I liked Bigun's answer. I think that the education that's needed is of the seriousness of abortion, just like we're educating men now that rape isn't actually a funny fraternity prank. Unfortunately, just as you don't control what your nephew does with the money you give him for Christmas (yet again, he pissed it away on skydiving :ohmygod:), you can't control someone else's feelings or motivations.

For legal personhood, and everything that goes along with it, there has to be a line -- it's the law. One hopes the line can stay somewhat fuzzy for fuzzy cases, but there needs to be something. And it needs to be reviewed periodically -- science does move things like viability, and it also moves things like hopeless. Conditions that used to be hopeless aren't necessarily, but there are still hopeless conditions (anencephaly), and forcing a mother to continue to carry a baby when she's quite sure she can't really handle it is also needlessly cruel.

To say that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the carrier is to accord one entity primacy over another. To say that "well she should have thought of that before she opened her legs" robs raped women, women who did, in fact, take significant birth control measures, and women who really, really, wanted a baby that's not going to happen in any meaningful way, of the responsibility that they were, in fact, exercising.

Wendy P.

The idea that I'm floating idyllically on thousands and thousands of pissed away Christmas presents is making me a tad weepy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The idea that I'm floating idyllically on thousands and thousands of pissed away Christmas presents is making me a tad weepy.

I've heard it said that only Satan could get rich off of skydiving...

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

The secular view IS the 'religious view':

Well, no.  The religious argument always devolves to God as the basis of their objection.  (This shouldn't be surprising, because that's the foundation of all religions.)  Every anti-abortion argument I've seen from the religious side involves an eventual call-out to a higher power:

People should oppose abortion due to their  "very nature as a rational being made in the image of God."

"abortion is seen as attacking a being with a human destiny, being prepared by God to receive an immortal soul (cf. Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you"). "

"We cannot assume that the earliest aborted children will be excluded from enjoying eternal life with God."

So God is pretty central to their arguments.

You may find many secular arguments similar - but since they are not based on the central concept of God they are fundamentally different.  Again, this isn't a big deal; the two groups are different and have different starting points for their arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, no.  The religious argument always devolves to God as the basis of their objection.

The first thing usually said is something along the lines that "it's wrong to kill babies."  If pressed further, they look at you like "duh, murdering is wrong asshole."

If pressed further, they say "murdering is illegal and says so in the bible," (and btw, murder is a secular issue as well.)

If pressed further, they may go online and find the quotes you posted.

 

At the end of the day, it's the secular argument that will be pivotal to any litigation process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
58 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I've heard it said that only Satan could get rich off of skydiving...

Wendy P.

You heard right, I've been informed. Might be we need a National Aunts and Uncles Day, just out of respect.

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

The first thing usually said is something along the lines that "it's wrong to kill babies."  If pressed further, they look at you like "duh, murdering is wrong asshole."

If pressed further, they say "murdering is illegal and says so in the bible," (and btw, murder is a secular issue as well.)

If pressed further, they may go online and find the quotes you posted.

 

At the end of the day, it's the secular argument that will be pivotal to any litigation process.

And until Republicans start supporting "baby bonuses" for pregnant women, it is all bullshit. "Funny enough" when money is involved Republicans have a very different understanding of when life starts.

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Coreece said:

At the end of the day, it's the secular argument that will be pivotal to any litigation process.

That's definitely true, since we (by edict) can't make laws that support specific religious principles.

Quote

If pressed further, they may go online and find the quotes you posted.

Of course.  We were talking about what those arguments are based on.  Superficially what the two groups say (secular and religious types) will be almost identical due to media influences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

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. 

Hi Keith,

And, I am pro-abortion.

Re:  but who are we to judge what others have to, want to, or need to do. 

I could not agree more.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

And until Republicans start supporting "baby bonuses" for pregnant women, it is all bullshit. "Funny enough" when money is involved Republicans have a very different understanding of when life starts.

Hi Sky,

Re:  "Funny enough" when money is involved Republicans have a very different understanding of when life starts.

It was Joycelyn Elders who said:  The Republicans love the fetus and hate the child.

IMO she could not have been more correct.

Joycelyn Elders 'served as Surgeon General of the United States from 1993 to 1994.'

Joycelyn Elders - Wikipedia

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, gowlerk said:

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

 

Here, I will tie it together for you, with a quote from Shannon Watts:

"So, in summary, if a child decides to take an AR-15 to an abortion clinic to protect women from protesters in a state that has open carry and Stand Your Ground laws, they are allowed to open fire on anyone who has a skateboard. Am I doing this right?"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 27 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

And, I am pro-abortion.

When I called it 'pro-abortion,' pro-choicers got offended and said they do not advocate for abortion, but a women's right to privacy.

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Re:  but who are we to judge what others have to, want to, or need to do. 

I could not agree more.

Right, but you can still voice your public opinion on political issues, just like you think republicans hate children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

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....

 

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

Re:  "Funny enough" when money is involved Republicans have a very different understanding of when life starts.

It was Joycelyn Elders who said:  The Republicans love the fetus and hate the child.

IMO she could not have been more correct.

Joycelyn Elders 'served as Surgeon General of the United States from 1993 to 1994.'

Joycelyn Elders - Wikipedia

Jerry Baumchen

Funny that all those 'pro life' people are against government run health care (both for the mother and child), against government supported child care, against financial support for the parent & child (welfare), against EVERYTHING except making the woman carry the pregnancy to term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

When I called it 'pro-abortion,' pro-choicers got offended and said they do not advocate for abortion, but a women's right to privacy.

Right, but you can still voice your public opinion on political issues, just like you think republicans hate children.

Hi Coreece,

I have NEVER said that.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

When I called it 'pro-abortion,' pro-choicers got offended and said they do not advocate for abortion, but a women's right to privacy.

Right, but you can still voice your public opinion on political issues, just like you think republicans hate children.

Hi Coreece,

I have NEVER said that.

Jerry Baumchen

Ok than what's your point about posting the quote that The Republicans love the fetus and hate the child.?

Suddenly you don't agree with that now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

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. 

This post has had me cogitating. We haven't met in person but I am convinced you are a great guy who truly believes in treating people decently and living morally; the kind of guy I'd want to have a beer with even if you were scoping out my date. My discombobulation here is that you're a fetal heart beat guy when it comes to the start of life/humanness or whatever the definition is, if I have it right. How can you reconcile the views then? From a strictly moral/ethical perspective killing is killing and we're told that applies to unviable fetuses at any stage. If you believe that why would you then not strongly oppose Roe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

This post has had me cogitating. We haven't met in person but I am convinced you are a great guy who truly believes in treating people decently and living morally; the kind of guy I'd want to have a beer with even if you were scoping out my date. My discombobulation here is that you're a fetal heart beat guy when it comes to the start of life/humanness or whatever the definition is, if I have it right. How can you reconcile the views then? From a strictly moral/ethical perspective killing is killing and we're told that applies to unviable fetuses at any stage. If you believe that why would you then not strongly oppose Roe?

My position avoids any moral ambiguities.

What goes on inside a woman's body is no-one's business but hers, and that of any person she chooses to share it with.

It only becomes society's concern when she delivers it to society, typically in a delivery room, and society accepts it by giving it a SSN and a tax break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

This post has had me cogitating. We haven't met in person but I am convinced you are a great guy who truly believes in treating people decently and living morally; the kind of guy I'd want to have a beer with even if you were scoping out my date. My discombobulation here is that you're a fetal heart beat guy when it comes to the start of life/humanness or whatever the definition is, if I have it right. How can you reconcile the views then? From a strictly moral/ethical perspective killing is killing and we're told that applies to unviable fetuses at any stage. If you believe that why would you then not strongly oppose Roe?

I thought we met at a WFFC. When Bill posted the Thailand Big Way, I recognized you. I was probably scoping out your date :)

You're referring to a conversation we had a couple/three years ago. It revolved around my better half bringing up the definition of death as the heart stops. Therefore, can it be said that life starts when the heart starts beating. If memory serves, there was no real medical definition of the heart starting and when, so we left it at that. Or, maybe I left it at that. It got quite heated.

This road is a bit fucked up for me - so I leave it at - I've had varying views on it over the years, from full opposition (as a form of birth control) to now; none of my business.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
37 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ok than what's your point about posting the quote that The Republicans love the fetus and hate the child.?

Suddenly you don't agree with that now?

Hi Coreece,

I am fairly sure that you know how to read.  That you can comprehend; not so much.

Jerry Baumchenyour

What part of Republicans, hate, child don't you comprehend?

 

What I don't comprehend is how your pro-abortion stance differs from the anti-abortion/pro-choice crowd. . .

 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What I don't comprehend is how your pro-abortion stance differs from the anti-abortion/pro-choice crowd. . .

I don’t know about Jerry’s, but mine is that when you have a direct conflict between the well being of two beings (or people), how do you choose? It sounds like you automatically choose against the woman, robbing her of the ability to determine her future. Yes, the fetus’s future is dependent on her, but who gets to choose?

I realize that as the only woman in this discussion (albeit no longer bearing childre) I have nothing important to say, but I still feel compelled to say it  

Wendy P. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

What I don't comprehend is how your pro-abortion stance differs from the anti-abortion/pro-choice crowd. . .

I don’t know about Jerry’s, but mine is that when you have a direct conflict between the well being of two beings (or people), how do you choose?

I just never heard anyone identify as "pro-abortion" before like Jerry did.  People that I've talked with here identified as pro-choice, but anti-abortion - meaning abortion is an option but priority is given to prevention, education and a healthier environment for women in general.

The main reason for bringing this issue up tho, was to show Ken that pro-life anti-abortion isn't just a christian value and any argument that republicans make in a legal setting against abortion will be a secular one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5