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

[jamil]

Yep....but centralizers and commie scum sucking **** suckers have been shredding it.

There's always secession!

I mean. I hadda give that a like, especially that in true form, secession was advocated. It's just not BigRed without that.

 

[jamil]

Of course it's only about protecting babies. Just like gun control is only about bumpstocks.

Batshit crazy does not only reside on the left.

Worst President in several decades, and Republitards are bound and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November.

View attachment 199568

Okay, this time I think you have a point. Conservatives should be content on this issue with the "states rights" win.

 

[BigRed]

Conservatives should be content on this issue with the "states rights" win.

Indeed...and open the door to more of the same.

Alas, Liberty is very unpopular.

 

[jamil]

McConnell and Blackburn are hardly nobodies in the GOP. That's 2 out of 3, which isn't bad according to Meatloaf.

The one Arizona GOP state lawmaker may be a nobody, but he can grab headlines for the GOP the same as the main players.

Honestly I think it's about fundraising. If the preliminary RvW decision holds, what will they fund-raise on? It's the same **** they pull with gun rights. "Oh, we lost this one, gosh darn it. Those bad Democrats. We need your financial support to win it next time. "

 

[Route 45]

Damn dude, save some strawmans for the other rabid atheists.

You either cherish innocent life, or you don't. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

 

[jamil]

Indeed...and open the door to more of the same.

Alas, Liberty is very unpopular.

Of course a federal approach means that some states can choose tyranny. Government in a free society exists to protect the freedom of individuals. I kinda think the central government has an important role to constrain the states to that in a high-level way. And then the details are up to the states.

 

[jamil]

Some consider human life equal to or less than an animals. To them abortion is not a big deal. To those who view human life as precious its a big deal.

This is true, but even now that is a fringe opinion.

 

[DadSmith]

This is true, but even now that is a fringe opinion.

Not when I was in college some even thought bugs had more right to live than humans.
Maybe it's changed now, but I doubt it. Probably worse.

 

[jamil]

I wonder what the correlation is on INGO between those who are "pro-life" and those who have posted that we should "glass" the Middle East. I suppose some human life is more equal than others.

Of course it might seem inconsistent to call life special or sacred and then call for glassing the middle east. But at least view that at the appropriate level. To the people who say they're pro-life, and then advocate "glassing" people, it's not inconsistent. You can always tell when you're gonna hear that. Like after a news report of middle east terrorists beheading people for the purposes of terrorizing them. Or after flying airplanes into buildings, for no good reason. It's just that they have the not uncommon human tendency to lop everyone into the same group. So it's all "middle east".

Or was that point not obvious?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You either cherish innocent life, or you don't. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Yes, because abortion and war are totally the same thing

 

[jamil]

You either cherish innocent life, or you don't. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

The straw is not all on their side. When have you heard them ever say that the people who should be glassed are innocent? I'm pretty sure they view those people as having done things that deserve it, whether or not they actually do. I'd say my only complaint about that is not discriminating between the people who actually do horrible things to other people, thereby deserving of such, and those not.

 

[jamil]

Not when I was in college some even thought bugs had more right to live than humans.
Maybe it's changed now, but I doubt it. Probably worse.

If you're around mostly people from the far left, yeah, you'll get that. But center, and center-right, no. You don't get that at all. It's surprising though be cause all the media (TV, news, movies, etcetera) pushes the idea that humans are less important than any other life.

 

[DadSmith]

If you're around mostly people from the far left, yeah, you'll get that. But center, and center-right, no. You don't get that at all. It's surprising though be cause all the media (TV, news, movies, etcetera) pushes the idea that humans are less important than any other life.

Some of the people that believed that are now educators. I hope growing up has changed their opinions.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

For the purposes of discussion I use the term "sentience" as a placeholder for that point at which there is a consensus on when it is immoral to end a pregnancy. The "pro-life" side says that at no point after conception is it moral to abort. So then it becomes consensus at the point where most people agree that it's immoral. I think most states average around 24-28 months. I think I've made that point in several other discussions about the a-word.

Hopefully I'm not being annoying with my continued questioning, but your viewpoint intrigues me, and I'm trying very hard to understand it.

When you talk about a "consensus" of when "life" ("life", as you clarified earlier, not meaning just a living organism as defined scientifically, but rather a life deserving of rights and protection) begins it makes me think perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement; are you saying that you think there is NO sound secular argument that "life" begins at conception, or just that there is NO secular argument that would be broadly accepted?

The "vegetative state" brings us right up to the point where things become truly murky. But I think you're overstating it. Is there a point where a person born in a vegatative state is as simple as a two-celled zygote? We are talking about applying the same rights to such, as the mother, or to a baby on the other side of birth. My contention is that there is a point such that there exists only a religious argument, such as the the concept of a soul, for why equal rights should be conferred at conception. It's not a scientific argument. In fact, as I've said, none of this is based on science, really. It is all about moral justification for each position. I'm not even advocating that "sentience" is that point. It's a word just to define a point we can be sure exists, but are not sure where.

But doesn't this whole conversation revolve around the fact that (from a purely secular standpoint) there IS a murky zone; in other words, without the concept of a soul, we can't objectively define when "life" begins, or ends, or stops, except we can be 100% (or as close as reasonably possible to 100%) certain that it doesn't begin before conception, and doesn't end before death. Doesn't the fact that any other criteria we could possibly use to define "life" are subjective, squishy, and easily applicable to people whom a good, sane, moral person wouldn't consider it to be okay to kill; doesn't that alone constitute a pretty sound reason for saying we're better off as a society if we just consider all human life from conception to be worthy of the right to live?

Do you want a logical critique or a philosophical critique? I mean, if I have time I'll do either.

I guess a philosophical critique, lol. I was in a hurry and didn't really write it out in a precise enough manner to hold up to the scrutiny of any formal logical system.

Speaking of which, what do you call the line of argument/debate/reasoning that a secular person should use to determine their morals? I usually call it philosophy, but based on a few of your comments before, I wonder what your views on it are. Above you said something that came across to me as sounding like "the argument that 'life' begins at conception isn't a scientific one, therefore it must be a religious one." Maybe I understood you wrong, but do you not believe that there is a system of reason/philosophy that is not necessarily scientific, but is normally used by non-religious people to discuss morals?

 

[Cameramonkey]

And remember, the defacto argument of WHEN for many is viability; its cool to suck it out as long as it cant survive on its own. I guess prior to that time they consider it part of the woman's body still because its technically a 100% parasite? Thats the only way it would fit into "my body my choice."

 

[KG1]

I would like to interject some words into this thread, but I have a headache right now. Maybe later. Carry on.

 

[jamil]

Hopefully I'm not being annoying with my continued questioning, but your viewpoint intrigues me, and I'm trying very hard to understand it.

Well, the thought that the questions were not in good faith did come to mind, but I'm assuming they're sincere.

When you talk about a "consensus" of when "life" ("life", as you clarified earlier, not meaning just a living organism as defined scientifically, but rather a life deserving of rights and protection) begins it makes me think perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement; are you saying that you think there is NO sound secular argument that "life" begins at conception, or just that there is NO secular argument that would be broadly accepted?

No. I'll say the same thing a different way. I don't think there's a *good* argument why a fertilized egg
is the point at which rights should be conferred that does not require a religious (or ideological for that matter) belief. So I could ask the same as a question. What makes conception the morally objective point where abortion should be abolished? Do not give any religious moral reasoning for your answer.

But doesn't this whole conversation revolve around the fact that (from a purely secular standpoint) there IS a murky zone; in other words, without the concept of a soul, we can't objectively define when "life" begins, or ends, or stops, except we can be 100% (or as close as reasonably possible to 100%) certain that it doesn't begin before conception, and doesn't end before death.

Well. Hold on there. Some Christians believe in preexistence theory, in which the soul comes before conception. From a purely secular standpoint, the question of when "life" begins is murky. It would totally depend on how you define life. As it pertains to the morality of Abortion, that definition has to involve an answer to the question, when should rights confer to the unborn that override the mother's. When life ends is less subjective. I think the reality of that answer is, when did you think your last thought, ever? Without the concept of a soul, there is nothing that follows after that point.

Doesn't the fact that any other criteria we could possibly use to define "life" are subjective, squishy, and easily applicable to people whom a good, sane, moral person wouldn't consider it to be okay to kill; doesn't that alone constitute a pretty sound reason for saying we're better off as a society if we just consider all human life from conception to be worthy of the right to live?

I don't know if "because we don't know any better, might as well call it at conception." Well then that doesn't take into consideration the rights of the mother. And this is a problem with both sides of the argument. The Right doesn't seem to regard the rights of the mother at all, because, you know, she agreed to do the deed, so she already made her "choice". That's a very reductive argument. It's not as simple as that. On the other side, the left doesn't seem to regard the rights of the unborn. Would be good if both sides would regard both party's rights at least a little. But they can't, and that also has a lot to do with both coming from either religious or ideological worldviews.

I guess a philosophical critique, lol. I was in a hurry and didn't really write it out in a precise enough manner to hold up to the scrutiny of any formal logical system.

Speaking of which, what do you call the line of argument/debate/reasoning that a secular person should use to determine their morals? I usually call it philosophy, but based on a few of your comments before, I wonder what your views on it are. Above you said something that came across to me as sounding like "the argument that 'life' begins at conception isn't a scientific one, therefore it must be a religious one." Maybe I understood you wrong, but do you not believe that there is a system of reason/philosophy that is not necessarily scientific, but is normally used by non-religious people to discuss morals?

I'll get to this separately. Have to do some chores.

 

[jamil]

I would like to interject some words into this thread, but I have a headache right now. Maybe later. Carry on.

Dude, I've probably used up all the words. There are some more offshore waiting to offload at the docks, but it's all plugged up. It's all Biden's fault.

 

[KG1]

Dude, I've probably used up all the words. There are some more offshore waiting to offload at the docks, but it's all plugged up. It's all Biden's fault.

Word hog.

 

[BigRed]

Dude, I've probably used up all the words. There are some more offshore waiting to offload at the docks, but it's all plugged up. It's all Biden's fault.

"Why say in 20 words what you can say in 500?"
-jamil