ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

There is probably some small subset of people who would want parts of what you're saying, but generally there is no conspiracy against religion and guns.

Translation: there probably is a conspiracy against religion and guns, but because a majority of those on the Left are not a part of said conspiracy, I'm going to ignore it.

"

1453R wrote:

No secular reasoning for restrictions on abortion exist.

I disagree. The way I see it, at the instant of conception the just-fertilized egg is clearly NOT a human life -- yet the instant a baby is naturally born, it clearly IS ahuman life. This switch, then, occurs at some point in the womb between conception and birth. Precisely when is subject to much debate, but third-trimester abortions are obviously much more likely objectionable than first-trimester abortions.

For the record, I'm
1. FOR at-will first-trimester abortions, and
2. AGAINST second- and third-trimester abortions in all but the narrowest circumstances; specifically, unless
a. a certified doctor deems such an abortion to be life-saving to the mother, based on evidence unknown during the first trimester,
AND
b. The abortion is performed within 72 hours of such an initial determination,
AND
c. the mother was screened by a certified doctor during the first trimester for potential pregnancy complications. (This screening would be fully subsidized and provided to the pregnant at no cost to them.)

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

[The Catholic Church] are. . .passing laws

Are they, now?

yes

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

JSYK, the Catholic Church does not pass laws. It is not a legislative body. It is not part of the government at all, as proscribed by our constitution. Either things work differently in Canada, or you’re talking about something else....

What it seems you’re taking issue with is democratically elected representatives making decisions informed by an ideology that is different from yours. Just more disingenuous, mideval tribalism, imo. Kinda ironic, really.


In re abortion specifically, it is precisely the function of the government to monopolize murder. At the point at which we legally define life, it is within the rights of the government to proscribe the taking of that life. Personally, I am against abortion, I find it appalling. I also do not see a circumstance where the government can participate in abortion without inflicting greater social harm. I am therefore politically pro freedom. The government should neither participate itself, nor compell others to participate in an abortion decision or its funding. Implied, that means the government’s only role is to supply a court to ensure universal consent between both parents, and otherwise to certify that a clinic meets professional standards.

"

1453R wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

I don't see the Catholic Church passing any laws there.

There is no legal, scientific, or moral basis for any abortion law save "the woman does whatever she deems best for her particular circumstance, advised but not controlled by medical professionals or those close to her" outside of religious opinion. No secular reasoning for restrictions on abortion exist. The push to ban abortion and force women to carry every single pregnancy to term - whether that pregnancy was, say...the result of a rape, or whether it severely threatens the woman's own life due to medical complications, or whether the woman is in a situation where she can manage to care for a baby - is purely and entirely coming from religious types.

Why religious types believe the potential life of an unborn individual somehow trumps the life of an existing person, I do not know. A woman who dies because of a baby she CAN'T carry to term and is not allowed to abort is a woman who will never have any other children. A child raised by a mother who hates that child because it's the child of a rapist is not going to be a Good Little Christian Boi. A child raised by a crackhead in a squat is not likely to make it to adulthood, and whatever life they live is not really going to be one for the history books.

I know why Catholics did it in the Dark Ages - demanding that Catholic housewives pump out twenty children and destroy their own bodies doing it was a means of combating severe infant/child mortality and attrition in an era where the best medical technique available was "pray really hard and hope for the best." But that's no longer the case, women don't need to destroy their bodies with blatantly unreasonable numbers of pregnancies anymore, and an existing person takes precedence over a theoretical person. Especially when the existing person is capable of producing more theoretical people later, when their situation improves, IF they're allowed to do what's best for them at a time when their situation has not yet improved.

Translation: when someone is utterly and completely dependent on you to survive, it is ok to kill them.

Gee, only a crazy Catholic would oppose this.
We believe all life is sacred, sorry if this outrages you.

REVELATION 13:1...

"Then I saw a beast rising up out of the sea. It had seven heads and ten horns, with ten crowns on its horns. And written on each head were names that blasphemed God."

That IS the VATICAN...!

Dilbert is a product of racism and sexism:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OTkB7m49Alc&t=18m54s
(watch until 23:09, about 5 minutes)

Happy 4th of July from USA, a country made great again by all those who supported Trump.

†

"

1453R wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

I don't see the Catholic Church passing any laws there.

There is no legal, scientific, or moral basis for any abortion law save "the woman does whatever she deems best for her particular circumstance, advised but not controlled by medical professionals or those close to her" outside of religious opinion. No secular reasoning for restrictions on abortion exist. The push to ban abortion and force women to carry every single pregnancy to term - whether that pregnancy was, say...the result of a rape, or whether it severely threatens the woman's own life due to medical complications, or whether the woman is in a situation where she can manage to care for a baby - is purely and entirely coming from religious types.

Why religious types believe the potential life of an unborn individual somehow trumps the life of an existing person, I do not know. A woman who dies because of a baby she CAN'T carry to term and is not allowed to abort is a woman who will never have any other children. A child raised by a mother who hates that child because it's the child of a rapist is not going to be a Good Little Christian Boi. A child raised by a crackhead in a squat is not likely to make it to adulthood, and whatever life they live is not really going to be one for the history books.

I know why Catholics did it in the Dark Ages - demanding that Catholic housewives pump out twenty children and destroy their own bodies doing it was a means of combating severe infant/child mortality and attrition in an era where the best medical technique available was "pray really hard and hope for the best." But that's no longer the case, women don't need to destroy their bodies with blatantly unreasonable numbers of pregnancies anymore, and an existing person takes precedence over a theoretical person. Especially when the existing person is capable of producing more theoretical people later, when their situation improves, IF they're allowed to do what's best for them at a time when their situation has not yet improved.

I think abortion is murder and I'm not very religious. It's about morality. There are some cases where abortion, despite being murder, is a valid choice. These cases make up maybe 1% of all abortions. Most baby murdering happens out of (in)convenience. And no, not allowing a woman to kill a baby is not putting the baby's life over hers, what kind of argument is that? If she really doesn't want the baby, she can give it up for adoption.

"

Xavderion wrote:

I think abortion is murder and I'm not very religious. It's about morality. There are some cases where abortion, despite being murder, is a valid choice. These cases make up maybe 1% of all abortions. Most baby murdering happens out of (in)convenience. And no, not allowing a woman to kill a baby is not putting the baby's life over hers, what kind of argument is that? If she really doesn't want the baby, she can give it up for adoption.

The deliberate extermination of a viable member of the human species, who will, without interference, become a distinct, independent individual, runs counter to any set of ethics which holds that murder is wrong. To say that it's nothing more than "removing a blob of cells" is like saying that it's okay to pull the plug on someone in a coma, even though you know they will recover in a few months.

Now suggest to a "Woman's right (to eschew responsibility for her child)" proponent that you want to kill a puppy because raising it is too much bother, and watch their head explode. =9[.]9=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Now suggest to a "Woman's right (to eschew responsibility for her child)" proponent that you want to kill a puppy because raising it is too much bother, and watch their head explode. =9[.]9=

The fantasy of "watching heads explode" is rarely the reality. When confronted with even severe cognitive dissonance, skeptics are surprisingly resilient, often unphased by attacks that would seem overwhelming to believers; that's because the human mind is built to use facts as a defense for one's positions, not as an attack upon them. Fear is a far more persuasive tool when it comes to people who disagree with you, and the visual of a dog being killed (shot?) is a massive persuasion error in your argument. You should acknowledge that the lack of a good visual for an unborn baby is a key defense in using a fear offense against it.

I'm basically just paraphrasing Scott Adams' Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter here.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I disagree. The way I see it, at the instant of conception the just-fertilized egg is clearly NOT a human life -- yet the instant a baby is naturally born, it clearly IS ahuman life. This switch, then, occurs at some point in the womb between conception and birth. Precisely when is subject to much debate, but third-trimester abortions are obviously much more likely objectionable than first-trimester abortions.

For the record, I'm
1. FOR at-will first-trimester abortions, and
2. AGAINST second- and third-trimester abortions in all but the narrowest circumstances; specifically, unless
a. a certified doctor deems such an abortion to be life-saving to the mother, based on evidence unknown during the first trimester,
AND
b. The abortion is performed within 72 hours of such an initial determination,
AND
c. the mother was screened by a certified doctor during the first trimester for potential pregnancy complications. (This screening would be fully subsidized and provided to the pregnant at no cost to them.)

I agree that first-trimester abortions are completely different than third-trimester abortions. What I don't agree with is the strict division in neat, easy-to-handle thirds. However, there may be medical reasons for that which I am not aware of. Since you wrote the the "precisely when" - sentence, I assume you are open for argument there, too. So this is not what really annoys me.

Part of what annoys me is your point 2.b.:

Aborting a child is a very grave decision. You have to live with it for the rest of your life. Depending on your point of view, you might even have to cope with the thought of having killed a person. I believe that for many people it is simply not possible to come to a well-reasoned-out decision that they can live with in a mere three days.

Don't forget that we are not exclusively talking about grown up persons in the prime of their life, informed, financially well of, able to take their time and reason out which risks they are willing to take so save their own life. A lot of people probably have neither the means nor the knowledge to organize an abortion within three days.

And I am not even talking rural Alabama here. Try getting good information in germany! We have a law here that prevents exactly that. Yes, the law provides that organizations have to exist that inform women on abortions, but those organizations, being run by churches, often don't care about that very much, instead trying their best to prevent abortions here.

All the while I havent even touched the problem of women and kids who don't even know that they are pregnant. Again, I am not talking singular cases here. That happens more often than one would think. I haven't touched the problem of women who live in fear of their man, or children / youth's who live in fear of their parents here. I haven't touched the problem of women who became the victim of a crime and tried to push the thought away to be able to live, because, well, people are different and cope with things differently. I haven't touched a lot of problems here.

Strict rules, even grounded on medical reasons, will inevitably lead to unacceptable decisions.

Now I, too, can't easily bear the thought of babies that are aborted in their' mothers wombs at a time they might even survive outside without intensive medical care. But there is no easy way out of this problem. The rules you laid out basically only proof that people can come up with rules that may look as if they might be sufficient at men's short glance, but are utterly insufficient when compared to reality.