Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[flightsimmer]

The women's right to chose is before she gets pregnant. If she gets raped against her will then she should file charges if she can, but she should make it known to authorities that it was not her choice to do it. After that it's too late, her only choice is adoption or raising the child. Making tax payers pay for this is a crime in itself. Goodnight.

Yes.

I have an excellent Italian copy of the second generation 1873 Colt SAA, the only thing missing is the rampant Colt stamp. I have found it excellent in execution and function and it shoots dead center with a 6:00 hold on a NRA 25 yard target 3 inch bullseye 8,9 and 10 ring and dead center at 50 yards with a center hold. Who could ask for anything more?
If it were an authentic Colt I would be hesitant to shoot it. I wear it in a John Wayne copy holster and gun belt. And when I can I carry a slicked up and tuned Rossi model 92 in 45 Colt along with it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It isn't a Democracy, either. So what is the argument against states rights to determine the question for themselves? That you can't get your way everywhere all the time?

It isn't that most women won't be able to get an abortion, it just won't be as convenient as dropping off the dry cleaning - and perhaps ending a human life should be a bit more difficult

This right here. I'm not a hard core anti. I understand there are legit reasons. But being lazy and/or irresponsible or poor isnt one of them. And it makes me sad when it has to be done for legit reasons.


And dont get me started on the vandalism happening to sites that simply offer alternatives to the procedure. Its truly evil.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Tombs]

So what's the non-religious argument against abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy? Or something like Plan B emergency contraception? Because last time I checked, the United States of America is not a Christian theocracy, despite the stringent desire of some to make it so.

Ever been so "pro-life" that you'll kill to prove it?

Another Texas GOP lawmaker is attempting to make abortion punishable by the death penalty

Similar bills filed in the Texas Legislature in previous years have failed.

www.texastribune.org

In the first week? Well, intent would be a starting factor. It'd be awfully hard to know if someone is actually pregnant or not at that point, so the intent behind using a medication to end a pregnancy then would be under the guise of "preventing" a potential pregnancy.

Now if someone knew 100% for certain they were pregnant, show how, and still did, then the intent is obviously quite different.

The main thing to understand about a rational non-religious based argument against abortion is the framing. You need some exceptionally well defined circumstances to end another human's life, because if you aren't outlining the acceptable circumstances well, atrocities will follow, it's just a matter of time.

And trying to define a human life is also a very dangerous proposition.

 

[BigRed]

Did they crush her skull, vacuum her brain out and pull her limbs off?

 

[jamil]

So what's the non-religious argument against abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy? Or something like Plan B emergency contraception? Because last time I checked, the United States of America is not a Christian theocracy, despite the stringent desire of some to make it so.

Ever been so "pro-life" that you'll kill to prove it?

Another Texas GOP lawmaker is attempting to make abortion punishable by the death penalty

Similar bills filed in the Texas Legislature in previous years have failed.

www.texastribune.org

Probably the best non-religious argument is that an aborted pregnancy even before sentience is indeed choosing to end a *potential* sentient life. But why does that matter? Does a law have to be based on secular reasoning before it can be a law?

It doesn't matter that you don't have religious beliefs that drive your thinking on abortion. People have a right to what they believe and they have a right to vote according to their beliefs. Maybe they're full of ****, or maybe you are.

 

[printcraft]

#2

 

[jamil]

In the first week? Well, intent would be a starting factor. It'd be awfully hard to know if someone is actually pregnant or not at that point, so the intent behind using a medication to end a pregnancy then would be under the guise of "preventing" a potential pregnancy.

Now if someone knew 100% for certain they were pregnant, show how, and still did, then the intent is obviously quite different.

The main thing to understand about a rational non-religious based argument against abortion is the framing. You need some exceptionally well defined circumstances to end another human's life, because if you aren't outlining the acceptable circumstances well, atrocities will follow, it's just a matter of time.

And trying to define a human life is also a very dangerous proposition.

That's kind of the crux of the argument, at least among the people who think there should be any restrictions on Abortions. For the people who think that Abortion on demand at any time should be allowed I don't see any evidence that they really give a flying **** whether it's a living person or not. R45 didn't really specify.

 

[Route 45]

Probably the best non-religious argument is that an aborted pregnancy even before sentience is indeed choosing to end a *potential* sentient life. But why does that matter? Does a law have to be based on secular reasoning before it can be a law?

Secular reasoning should be the default, because we are not a nation of one belief or religion. For that, one is free to change his domicile to one of the bastions of liberty in the middle east, where religion rules supreme.

It doesn't matter that you don't have religious beliefs that drive your thinking on abortion. People have a right to what they believe and they have a right to vote according to their beliefs. Maybe they're full of ****, or maybe you are.

Somebody once tried to convince me that we are all doomed to a place of eternal torment, and can only be saved by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Jewish zombie who is not only his own father, born from a teenage virgin, but the source of the condemnation...and that this is all because a rib-woman was tricked into eating an apple from a magic tree by a talking snake.

Yeah, I'll take my chance on who is full of ****.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Secular reasoning should be the default, because we are not a nation of one belief or religion.

Huh. Perhaps not, but why do you suppose this image is on the Supreme Court?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

For that, one is free to change his domicile to one of the bastions of liberty in the middle east, where religion rules supreme.

Why don't you go to one of those bastions of liberty and try your criticisms over there and let us know how that works out for ya. Pretty easy to get away with it over here isn't it? Go on... give it a try.

 

[DadSmith]

Secular reasoning should be the default, because we are not a nation of one belief or religion. For that, one is free to change his domicile to one of the bastions of liberty in the middle east, where religion rules supreme.


Somebody once tried to convince me that we are all doomed to a place of eternal torment, and can only be saved by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Jewish zombie who is not only his own father, born from a teenage virgin, but the source of the condemnation...and that this is all because a rib-woman was tricked into eating an apple from a magic tree by a talking snake.

Yeah, I'll take my chance on who is full of ****.

Wrong we are founded on Judeo-Christian ideals. If you've ever read our history, and been to Washington DC you would see it about everywhere you go.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

For the record, I don't consider myself to be overly religious, but I really don't like seeing peoples' beliefs ridiculed by those that have no beliefs. That is an attempt to shut peoples' views down just as surely as they believe that a (non-existent) "theocracy" would. So who is really more restrictive? The folks that are believers with a "live and let live" attitude, or those that want to silence those that have a religious belief? Sounds like the same tactic as the "tolerant left" to me.

 

[tude]

The tolerant left. If you aren't as loving as they are, they will kill you.

 

[tude]

Secular reasoning should be the default, because we are not a nation of one belief or religion. For that, one is free to change his domicile to one of the bastions of liberty in the middle east, where religion rules supreme.


Somebody once tried to convince me that we are all doomed to a place of eternal torment, and can only be saved by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Jewish zombie who is not only his own father, born from a teenage virgin, but the source of the condemnation...and that this is all because a rib-woman was tricked into eating an apple from a magic tree by a talking snake.

Yeah, I'll take my chance on who is full of ****.

I think I need a shower after reading that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think I need a shower after reading that.

It read like someone that has taken a high school physics class and wants to tell Einstein that all his theories are wrong.

 

[BugI02]

Secular reasoning should be the default, because we are not a nation of one belief or religion. For that, one is free to change his domicile to one of the bastions of liberty in the middle east, where religion rules supreme.


Somebody once tried to convince me that we are all doomed to a place of eternal torment, and can only be saved by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Jewish zombie who is not only his own father, born from a teenage virgin, but the source of the condemnation...and that this is all because a rib-woman was tricked into eating an apple from a magic tree by a talking snake.

Yeah, I'll take my chance on who is full of ****.

It has been my experience that the militantly anti-Christian turn out to be ghey more often than not. Apparently our failure to celebrate their lifestyle choice prompts them to internalize the propaganda that Christians want to kill them or something

YMMV

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It has been my experience that the militantly anti-Christian turn out to be ghey more often than not. Apparently our failure to celebrate their lifestyle choice prompts them to internalize the propaganda that Christians want to kill them or something

YMMV

I don't know about that. It seems that the really vocal ones are just pseudo-intellectuals that take pleasure in ridiculing others, thinking it somehow proves they are superior.

They are also quick to point out that the seeming discrepancy between different belief systems is just a "My God is bigger than your God!" thing. They don't seem to realize that they're engaging in the same behavior. "My non-god is bigger than your God!"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know about that. It seems that the really vocal ones are just pseudo-intellectuals that take pleasure in ridiculing others, thinking it somehow proves they are superior.

They are also quick to point out that the seeming discrepancy between different belief systems is just a "My God is bigger than your God!" thing. They don't seem to realize that they're engaging in the same behavior. "My non-god is bigger than your God!"

Unfortunately, too many believers are too uneducated to be able to give a reasonable defense of their beliefs or have been told they need to be nice, shut up, and not live their faith in all spheres of life.

 

[BugI02]

You can parse the two groups. The body of work of the pseudo-intellectuals spreads the smugness and self-righteousness pretty much uniformly over their subject matter. Think Mr Freeman

I don't know if you were around for the PaulF meltdown, but he was a perfect example of the other group, who nurse a serious woody for Christians regardless of how condescending they are in other areas

Edit: Reply to #439