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

[Route 45]

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.

Why would I do that? My entire argument is against the move towards law determined by religion. You almost seem like you envy their ability in the middle east to shut people up when they don't agree with them.

 

[Route 45]

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

Funny you should mention Einstein. Pretty smart, that guy...

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Albert Einstein

 

[churchmouse]

Fellas I will have to shut this down again. Lines are being approached and emotions are running high.

Can you people have a civil discussion on this topic...?????

It's beginning to seem like "NO"

Just ease off the throttle or stop posting this evening.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Too much bother. Then I'd have to click stuff.

Actually, I cant tell a difference as a site supporter. (I wouldnt recommend it as a freeloader)

 

[jamil]

Why would I do that? My entire argument is against the move towards law determined by religion. You almost seem like you envy their ability in the middle east to shut people up when they don't agree with them.

As apposed to the move towards law determined by bat **** crazy people?

I don't see a great moral argument apart from religious belief for banning abortions before a point of consensus where sentience begins. There is one. It's just not a strong one. There's zero moral arguments apart from bat **** crazy ideology for allowing abortions past the point of sentient. Like the "violinist" argument. That one is morally absurd. I think PaulF tried to make that one and he pretty much got pummeled for it. Because it's ****ing crazy.

We often make laws based on moral beliefs. It's a requirement for a functioning society, but only if it's a consensus moral standard. Murder, for example is a consensus, if we exclude the crazy ideas on all the fringes. But it still takes us out of the realm of objective. And that's why a federated system is prefered so that the laws of a region reflect the morals of the region, but within certain boundaries determined by the state to eliminate the fringe.

So then the decision our collection of states has to determine, is this a fringe issue where the state has the right to put that off limits of regions to decide? I think this is the perfect case for a federated set of laws.

If you live in a state where a large majority thinks abortions should be banned, even though that seems like a fringe position to you, you're outvoted by your fellow citizens of that state. Maybe you should consider moving to a state that doesn't twist your panties, instead of bombing Catholic churches because they're literal Nazis.

Likewise, if you live in a state where, for ideological reasons, not secularly reasoned objective reasons, but purely ideological reasons, that abortions should be legal and plentiful up to the point of cutting the cord, if you don't agree with that, you're outvoted by the nutty people of that state. Probably should move instead of bombing abortion clinics.

EDIT: TL;DR - It's not a lot different if laws are determined from purely ideological, or religious reasoning. I don't draw much distinction between the two. Both are functionally the same. So then...

• Banning abortions before "sentience" pretty much has a uniquely religious reasoning. I don't really see much room around that.
• Allowing abortions after "sentience" pretty much has an ideological reasoning. I don't really see much room around that.

So if your panties are twisted over either side's reasoning, you need to calm the **** down, because either being derived by something other than facts, and sound/cogent arguments, you're as likely to be full of **** as the other.

 

[jamil]

Actually, I cant tell a difference as a site supporter. (I wouldnt recommend it as a freeloader)

yeah, I don't really notice other than I couldn't see the amazon link.

 

[jamil]

Fellas I will have to shut this down again. Lines are being approached and emotions are running high.

Can you people have a civil discussion on this topic...?????

It's beginning to seem like "NO"

Just ease off the throttle or stop posting this evening.

We can have a civil discussion on this, but only if we have non-emotional people posting. The overt contempt for religious views, especially Christians, IS emotional. I think the topic would be civil sans that.

 

[churchmouse]

We can have a civil discussion on this, but only if we have non-emotional people posting. The overt contempt for religious views, especially Christians, IS emotional. I think the topic would be civil sans that.

I agree and you mix abortion into the mix and it becomes an emotional roller coaster for some.
The info/opinions being shared is good save for the you are wrong go kids a donkeys butt responses ( ) is fair.

 

[cbhausen]

The strength of the Second Amendment is its affirmation of the pre-existing right of self-defense, whether a God-given or natural right. Atheists and the most devout among us can find common ground here.

A person justifiably terminated in self-defense has made the conscious choice to take the chance the victim may fight back, up to and including being killed for their aggression. The unborn have not made such a choice. It is not for us to terminate such a life, whether on religious grounds or not.

We are human, we are better than that whether or not one believes we are created in the image of God.

 

[KG1]

We can have a civil discussion on this, but only if we have non-emotional people posting. The overt contempt for religious views, especially Christians, IS emotional. I think the topic would be civil sans that.

It's the open hostility in the presentation itself that causes the problem. It no longer becomes a civil dialog worthy of continuation and causes the discussion to get shut down by the mods who have no other choice but to do so.

 

[KG1]

For that money it should have an iron clad provenance to somebody famous, or maybe an extra zero was added by mistake. Either way I hope the gardener doesn't see that.

Yep. Let's put it this way. You won't see me posting about buying it in the "What gun stuff did you buy today?" thread. That's because I won't be buying it and not because I did buy it and I'm trying to hide it.

 

[jake blue]

In my view, the abortion issue, while deeply rooted in religious context, is not exclusively a religious issue and therefore I'd encourage us all to avoid attacking each other's religious beliefs or lack thereof in order to keep this thread on topic. I personally don't have strong religious views although my anti-abortion stance is no doubt rooted in my religious upbringing. The beauty of this is that I can think for myself and decide if I believe abortion is sacrificing an unborn life while not attacking those who disagree with me or the reason some may agree with me isn't shared.


In order to illustrate my point, I'll share this image. You have now-President Biden when he was VP, House Speaker Boehner, and the Pope. The irony that both Biden and Boehner are devout Roman Catholics yet are about as different as can be in their political ideologies illustrates that religion is a matter of context and interpretation. If we believe that America is a land of religious freedom, we cannot begin exercising one religion's dogma over another. If we hold social or political views, rooted in religious context or not, we must still respect that the religious beliefs of others may hold different values and interpretation.

 

[jamil]

The strength of the Second Amendment is its affirmation of the pre-existing right of self-defense, whether a God-given or natural right. Atheists and the most devout among us can find common ground here.

So far so good.

A person justifiably terminated in self-defense has made the conscious choice to take the chance the victim may fight back, up to and including being killed for their aggression. The unborn have not made such a choice. It is not for us to terminate such a life, whether on religious grounds or not.

This is murky because non-religious people don't really have the concept of soul in the same way Christians think of it. So for them I think it would mostly hinge on when life begins.

To religious people "life" begins at conception, which I think can only be defended on religious grounds. In other words, that there is something more sacred about an embryo than just the fact that its a potential human, and that it follows that an embryo at it's earliest point even, has the full rights of any other human being in society.

It's true enough that even some atheists are anti-abortion. But, for those atheists, they need more than "sacred" to justify an embryo having equal rights. Sentience seems to be the best consensus, but that's not acceptable to people opposed to abortion on religious grounds, and it's not acceptable to people who are pro-abortion on ideological grounds.

We are human, we are better than that whether or not one believes we are created in the image of God.

"better" is subjective. What I think we should be better than, which it appears not all of us are, is to get our panties twisted because someone has a religious point of view which informs their policy preferences.

 

[jamil]

It's the open hostility in the presentation itself that causes the problem. It no longer becomes a civil dialog worthy of continuation and causes the discussion to get shut down by the mods who have no other choice but to do so.

Just speculation but that might actually be the goal. I think contempt almost always clouds judgement. It's hard to overcome it. It's best not to have it.

 

[spencer rifle]

The Catholic Church IS a religious organization, with a certain set of beliefs and set dogma. The fact that two believers can have such radically different views on a central church teaching is a failure on the part of said Pope to enforce important principles and beliefs. It's a religion, so it's their job. They used to burn heretics. That's using force instead of reason. Now they could excommunicate them, and might even have a responsibility to do so.

Our gov is not a religion. Purging the heretics is bad government. If one side of the argument is trying to use force instead of reason, that cannot end well.

Having been involved in a FB "discussion" on this topic recently, the people I am interacting with are not amenable to persuasion. They are quite clear about that up front. I can only hope to reach the bystanders, or make them think, and only those who have not completely closed their minds. Like many people, they project their thought process onto others. Since this topic is so very important to them (a substitute for something noble like the Civil Rights movement they missed), and since they can only have their position changed by force, they may think that I intend to force them, or that they must force me. Such as what is happening to the SCOTUS judges.

 

[KG1]

I think a big part of the problem comes when both sides are forced to accept the side that they disagree with. That will always present conflict and thus uncivil confrontation.

 

[chipbennett]

That's for your Statehouse reps to decide.

So, now for the flipside, let's send the believers into church tomorrow with a question to ponder:

How do you answer the Rape Question? Because although others in this thread have talked about women "screwing around," that's not what the debates are going to be about. It's going to be about women getting raped, and the belief that it's one of these mysterious ways God works his magic in the world, and we as humans are not equipped to understand it.

Now that RvW seems headed to the ash-heap, it's not just prick reporters picking on Richard Mourdock who are going to ask this question. It's basically every single debate moderator facing a Republican candidate...because now it's become a very relevant question. It's not just muck-raking anymore.

Every Republican candidate, from US Senator down to your local-yokel statehouse guy is going to get asked the Rape Question.

Indiana has 6 or 7 Million people and 100 statehouse districts. That works out to about 65,000 constituents per district, which isn't even 10% the population of Indianapolis. So now, you're going to have candidates who only represent an area the size of 2 or 3 large Indianapolis neighborhoods, being asked the Rape Question.

How do you answer the Rape Question? Keeping in mind, that your Christian beliefs on the subject are a horrifying "Handmaid's Tale" anachronism to many.

Offered to provoke thought. I don't think many Republicans really realize what they've just been thrown into. Every Republican candidate just became Richard Mourdock. When that moderator asked him the Rape Question...it was like his campaign was a hot-air balloon that got strafed with a 50 cal. He was in the trees before he knew what hit him.

Can Christians strategically "hold their nose" and make peace with a Rape Exception, in order to move the football to a better place than where it is now? Because it's precisely this kind of political-compromise gray area that the "Ultimate Divine Truth" crowd seems to have no aptitude for.

Personally, I think Republicans and their constituents are going to step all over their peckers on this. Because it's what they've always done.

The Rape Question is merely application of Alinsky tactics. Over 98% of abortions are purely elective. Fewer than 2% of abortions are due to threat to the life of the mother, rape, or incest.

Should rape be an exception? No. The act of rape is despicable, but it is not the fault of the human life created through that despicable act, and that human life should not be forced to have its life taken due to a despicable act committed by its father.

Can I "hold my nose" and make peace with a rape exception? Yes. Without hesitation. Protecting the lives of more than 98% of the human beings currently being taken through abortion is unquestionably a net positive outcome.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So far so good.

This is murky because non-religious people don't really have the concept of soul in the same way Christians think of it. So for them I think it would mostly hinge on when life begins.

To religious people "life" begins at conception, which I think can only be defended on religious grounds. In other words, that there is something more sacred about an embryo than just the fact that its a potential human, and that it follows that an embryo at it's earliest point even, has the full rights of any other human being in society.

It's true enough that even some atheists are anti-abortion. But, for those atheists, they need more than "sacred" to justify an embryo having equal rights. Sentience seems to be the best consensus, but that's not acceptable to people opposed to abortion on religious grounds, and it's not acceptable to people who are pro-abortion on ideological grounds.



"better" is subjective. What I think we should be better than, which it appears not all of us are, is to get our panties twisted because someone has a religious point of view which informs their policy preferences.

I've got a few problems with this. First scientifically speaking life begins at conception, that single cell is life by scientific definition. Another is "potential human", it is human. It can be nothing else, it's not going to turn into a puppy or a kitten. It is human.

Regarding sentience, there have been multiple studies that show sentience doesn't develop until several months after birth. Now the possibility of sentience does develop much earlier in the womb, but actual sentience no. It also doesn't cover those with severe mental defects who will never become sentient, so where do you draw the line? Okay to kill after birth but before they develop actual sentience, severe mental defects anytime after birth?

 

[chipbennett]

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Numbers 5: 11-22

Do you live under the entirety of Abrahamic Law, or only use it as an attempted gotcha for people who don't - and have never claimed to - live under Abrahamic Law?

Regardless, in this text, it is God who causes the miscarriage. Do you deign to play God?

 

[chipbennett]

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

So far, you're the only one to bring religion to the party.

I make an entirely non-religious argument: biologically, physiologically, and genetically, conception results in a distinct, living human being, from the moment of initial cell mitosis.