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

[chipbennett]

The gays have been doing that, but prolife Christians don't like them either.

Pardon my language, but I call ******** on this one. Claiming that prolife Christians don't like gays is just specious, inflammatory nonsense.

 

[chipbennett]

Now, are you expecting people to change? or Coitus permits?

I'm expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions. How they accomplish that is up to them, and the actions they choose to take.

 

[JEBland]

The cases of non-elective abortion constitute fewer than 2% of the whole. I am primarily interested in the other 98%.

When making the legislation/policy, those border cases should be considered. In fact, that's where most of the interesting stuff is.

To that end, I do not accept the argument that the developing fetus is violating the bodily autonomy rights of the mother by its mere existence in the uterus. The coequal rights of two living, human beings extend at least as far as the developing fetus having the right not to have its life taken from it intentionally.

Right, but when is that fetus a human being? We can't kick the can on that.

Do those coequal rights compel the mother beyond that? Some current state laws would say, yes - that the mother is not free to act intentionally in ways that endanger the life of the developing fetus (e.g. drug use).

Again, that's a specific action that is reasonably and predictably to result in harm to the fetus. Supposing that the mother doesn't know that the fetus is there, the mother wouldn't be criminally responsible for damage to the fetus that she doesn't know exists.



Edit: This isn't to say I have all of the answers on that, but we should be narrowing the window where the line is.

 

[ljk]

Pardon my language, but I call ******** on this one. Claiming that prolife Christians don't like gays is just specious, inflammatory nonsense.

Doesn't the Bible say practice homosexuality is a detestable sin?

 

[chipbennett]

When making the legislation/policy, those border cases should be considered. In fact, that's where most of the interesting stuff is.

And I'm on record stating that I'm willing to accept a law that allows for rape/incest exceptions (though I don't support them), if doing so eliminates the 98%+ of abortions that are purely elective.

Unfortunately, in this discussion/debate, the exceptions are all too often argued as a straw man for the 98%.

Right, but when is that fetus a human being? We can't kick the can on that.

Much digital ink has been spent on that very question, in this very thread. Ultimately, that question is non-controversial science: it is a human being from the moment of conception, at which point it is genetically 100% a distinct, human entity. It is fully human, genetically, and cannot be anything other than human, genetically.

What gets argued, instead, is when that human being is "living" or constitutes a "person."

Again, that's a specific action that is reasonably and predictably to result in harm to the fetus. Supposing that the mother doesn't know that the fetus is there, the mother wouldn't be criminally responsible for damage to the fetus that she doesn't know exists.

If the mother is unaware of the fetus, how can the mother be held responsible for acts that would be specifically harmful to a fetus?

 

[ljk]

I'm expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions.

I don't think it ever happened during the history of mankind, it only takes few bad apples to spoil the whole pot.

That's a wishful thinking, not a solution.

 

[jamil]

I have no delusions of grandeur about my ability to make the world into anything at all, really. But my inability to make people take responsibility for their actions does not foist upon me the responsibility that others choose not to take.

Right. And like I said, your responsibility isn't logically necessitated by your support for overturning RvW. But, it doesn't alleviate human responsibility to help those in need. I think this encompasses the disconnect in the argument on both sides.

On one side people see the pro-life side cheering for victory, all the while calling people who get abortions "ho's" (astonishingly without having pejoratives lined up for the dudes who participated). And that seems discordant with the idea that life is sacred.

The disconnect on the other side is the logical leap that cheering the overturning of RvW infers some responsibility for the unwanted babies that will be born now. But, the sentiment tends to be confirmed when people glibly state, well, at least they're alive. I think this part of the argument could rest if both sides admit some things are true.

1. Responsibility for an unwanted child is on the people who have unprotected sex.
2. Responsibility for unwanted children isn't logically conferred to the people who are pleased with the result of Dobbs.
3. People who believe in the sanctity of life must still believe life is no less sacred after the child is born, and therefore, and care about those lives with as much vigor as caring about the unborn as opponents of RvW.
4. As caring humans, we want to help relieve human suffering, and it is this that confers a personal responsibility to help those in need. Even if that neediness was caused through irresponsible actions of other people. We shouldn't need a Matthew 25 codified in scripture for compassionate humans to see this need.

 

[chipbennett]

Isn't the Bible says practice homosexuality is a detestable sin?

The Bible says a lot of things, including "love your neighbor as yourself". So, again: I reject the assertion that Christians "don't like" gays.

 

[BugI02]

The gays have been doing that, but prolife Christians don't like them either.

I believe you will find that has far more to do with their desire to have us not merely tolerate what we consider an aberrant life choice but to force us to celebrate it, force a redefinition of marriage, and remove any ability to criticize it; than any disapproval of it as an inherently barren relationship

 

[JEBland]

Much digital ink has been spent on that very question, in this very thread. Ultimately, that question is non-controversial science: it is a human being from the moment of conception, at which point it is genetically 100% a distinct, human entity. It is fully human, genetically, and cannot be anything other than human, genetically.

What gets argued, instead, is when that human being is "living" or constitutes a "person."

I don't know if I'd agree that at the moment of conception but not attachment that it's a being. A scrape of skin is a distinct genetic human sample, but it's not a person. So just DNA/genetic content is not the end-all be-all. That said, I'm not trying to get entrenched into the INGO debate on this in favor of doing other things.

If the mother is unaware of the fetus, how can the mother be held responsible for acts that would be specifically harmful to a fetus?

That's exactly my point.

 

[ljk]

The Bible says a lot of things, including "love your neighbor as yourself". So, again: I reject the assertion that Christians "don't like" gays.

I wish you could see the christian group text I received during Pride Month.

 

[chipbennett]

I wish you could see the christian group text I received during Pride Month.

Is it your claim that your text group represents all Christians as a whole?

 

[ljk]

Is it your claim that your text group represents all Christians as a whole?

To my exposure, they all preach to follow the teachings of the Bible. If the Bibles says it's a sin, it's a sin.

I quote:
"I hope they come to faith in Christ and repent"
"Homosexuality is a sin and people need to repent, turn and follow Christ".

 

[chipbennett]

I don't know if I'd agree that at the moment of conception but not attachment that it's a being. A scrape of skin is a distinct genetic human sample, but it's not a person. So just DNA/genetic content is not the end-all be-all. That said, I'm not trying to get entrenched into the INGO debate on this in favor of doing other things.

A scrape of skin contains human DNA, but does not constitute a human being. A Zygote, however, does. Biologically, this is not in dispute - which is why the argument shifts to "living" (again, not really controversial, biologically), or, more likely "personhood".

But if we're talking about such an early stage of development, then we've already excluded the vast majority of elective abortions, which happen well after.

There are objective standards that could be discussed/agreed upon, but they require breaking the fundamental-difference impasse. That's not going to happen any time soon, so the matter will be a function of the expressed will of the people of each State. That's likely the best we can do.

 

[chipbennett]

To my exposure, they all preach to follow the teachings of the Bible. If the Bibles says it's a sin, it's a sin.

I quote:
"I hope they come to faith in Christ and repent"
"Homosexuality is a sin and people need to repent, turn and follow Christ".

So, people who express a desire for others to come to salvation is somehow an example of not liking them?

I think it is best that we leave the religious discussion to other threads. I don't see this one going anywhere productive.

 

[ljk]

Still, we know the problem of overwhelming amount of the unwanted babies, we don't have a realistic solution but we want more.

 

[jamil]

IMO they don't want fewer unwanted babies, they want to be able to retroactively solve the problem without care or consequence. I just don't see how a bit of caution during sexual activity where a pregnancy would be undesired is too much to ask - especially from people who are quite likely to literally want us to change our entire economy and way of life because the world has warmed 1.5 degrees since the industrial revolution took hold

If all I had to do is put on a rubber to halt global warming, I'm pretty sure I could see my way clear to do so

I think that, again, it's a difference of worldviews. I have no doubt they want fewer unwanted babies. I don't think they think abortion is killing, and this it is to them a better alternative than raising unwanted kids. That sounds terrible from your perspective. I don't think it sounds terrible from theirs. But I do think there is some truth to the part about it being without consequence.

Even back in the time before abortion was legal, people still made irresponsible decisions. "Advancements" in society helps remove consequences of irresponsibility. Abortion is one way to avoid consequences, to an extent. Except for the far left lunatics, it still impacts the emotions of many women who feel it's the only choice for them. So it's not completely without consequences.

But responsibility is worse now. I don't even think responsibility enters a majority of family discussions in Millennials and Zoomers. I don't think this society is well-equipped to cope with life without RvW being the safety net. It'll probably be pretty rough going. I expect another summer of love. Of course Portland erupted in violence. But anyway, the point is, irresponsibility has followed across time. Consequences for it have diminished across time. It's the world we live in now.

 

[ljk]

So, people who express a desire for others to come to salvation is somehow an example of not liking them?

I think it is best that we leave the religious discussion to other threads. I don't see this one going anywhere productive.

I don't believe anything we discuss here will be productive, at all.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

To my exposure, they all preach to follow the teachings of the Bible. If the Bibles says it's a sin, it's a sin.

I quote:
"I hope they come to faith in Christ and repent"
"Homosexuality is a sin and people need to repent, turn and follow Christ".

How does that imply dislike of them?


If anything, it shows they care about their soul, appearanty moreso than yourself.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Still, we know the problem of overwhelming amount of the unwanted babies, we don't have a realistic solution but we want more.

A realistic solution would be... wait for it...





DONT GET ****ING PREGNANT IF YOU DONT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A CHILD!!!


I know, too easy right?