RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:14 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650
Via Raw Story:

Science fiction author Patrick S. Tomlinson this week explained how opponents of abortion rights can be shut down with one simple question about whether 1,000 embryos are more important than the life of a single child.

In a series of tweets on Monday, Tomlinson revealed the scenario that he says has repeatedly stumped so-called pro-life activists.


The tweets:

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now of the "Life begins at Conception" crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

It's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/

Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.

In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is "A." A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/

This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.

No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/

They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency.

No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

Don't let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don't, slap that big ol' Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 11353
People who hold inflexible beliefs on abortion will have a hard time answering this question honestly. First, they'll try to talk around it by saying they wouldn't be in a fertility clinic but the premise of the question is they are in a fertility clinic. Second, they'll claim it's an unrealistic "what if" scenario ignoring the fact they insist on others answering their "what if" questions. Third, they'll say they'd save both even though the premise says they can only save the child or the container. IOW, they'll try to pull a Kobayashi Maru maneuver. Fourth, they'll simply refuse to answer.

For the vast majority of people, the correct answer is to save the child since the child is alive. For those who believe life begins at conception I have no doubt they'd actually save the child for the same reason. What this test demonstrates is how hard it would be for the anti-abortion crowd act on their beliefs in a real world situation.

_________________
IMPEACH NOW, REPLACE LATER!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:46 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650
I always wondered if the anti-abortion folks every have a prayer breakfast or anything like that...

"We believe life begins at conception!"

"How do you want your eggs cooked?"

"Scrambled!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
What if you changed the premise slightly. Assume the same question but maybe instead of embryos you had a 85 year old person in a hospital bed. Tough choice but I would probably still pick the child. Doesn't mean that the 85 year old isn't alive.

GoU and I had this discussion several years back. He might not remember but I think we both figured out that neither one of us really knew when life actually begins. It's way above my pay grade. I don't know that it's at conception but I think it's somewhere prior to the actual birth. Best guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 8316
Location: Sunny South Florida
These human life amendments, so-called, which would have states declare life begins at conception, would mandate the shutdown of every fertility clinic in the state.

That's a little discussed, but rather salient, fact, as all of those fertility clinics do dispose of unused zygotes, which these laws would declare to be human beings.

They also would set back research with embryonic stem cell tissue, as well. (Despite what some claim, still the best source of pluripotent stem cells, but not obtained from abortions, per se.)

As to when life begins, it is obviously at age 40. I kid, I kid. Or do I?

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:34 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:03 pm
Posts: 273
Via Raw Story:

Science fiction author Patrick S. Tomlinson this week explained how opponents of abortion rights can be shut down with one simple question about whether 1,000 embryos are more important than the life of a single child.

In a series of tweets on Monday, Tomlinson revealed the scenario that he says has repeatedly stumped so-called pro-life activists.


The tweets:

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now of the "Life begins at Conception" crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

It's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/

Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.

In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is "A." A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/

This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.

No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/

They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency.

No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

Don't let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don't, slap that big ol' Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9



The difference between the burning 1000 embryos and an abortion is that the embryo in a mother's womb is alive and growing. The others are frozen and not in a womb, not able to grow until they are placed in a womb. So the frozen ones weren't alive to begin with.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
These human life amendments, so-called, which would have states declare life begins at conception, would mandate the shutdown of every fertility clinic in the state.

That's a little discussed, but rather salient, fact, as all of those fertility clinics do dispose of unused zygotes, which these laws would declare to be human beings.

They also would set back research with embryonic stem cell tissue, as well. (Despite what some claim, still the best source of pluripotent stem cells, but not obtained from abortions, per se.)

As to when life begins, it is obviously at age 40. I kid, I kid. Or do I?

I must say I like your math. That means I'm about to turn 18 all over again.

I think as far as the government is concerned, certainly unemplanted embroys or zygotes aren't "people" due partly to issues you just pointed out. That's just my opinion. I think the line gets grayer and grayer the more the fetus/baby develops. I mean we have folks in prison for killing unborn children. Scott Peterson comes to mind. Where is the line? I don't know. Highly emotional subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 8316
Location: Sunny South Florida
Roe vs. Wade put its target at viability outside the womb.

Which, despite recent technological advances in rescuing fetuses outside the womb, is still somewhere in the 2nd trimester, though the threshold may have moved from 1973.

That point is also when we begin to notice the first movements of the fetus, something they used to call "quickening," and active (not just passive) brain activity.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14383
Then why is it when a pregnant women's unborn child is killed in an attack the attacker is often charged with murder or manslaughter.

_________________
If you could combine Bill C's skill with Obama's morals you would have the perfect President. One just like Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 6703
Location: miles from nowhere
Waiting for the first D.A. to prosecute God for terminating pregnancies.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:03 pm
Posts: 273
Waiting for the first D.A. to prosecute God for terminating pregnancies.


They would have to charge God for earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and so on, as well.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:07 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650
Then why is it when a pregnant women's unborn child is killed in an attack the attacker is often charged with murder or manslaughter.

Because of anti-abortion lawmakers who want to make the laws say life begins at conception. They want an embryo to be a legal human being.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Because of anti-abortion lawmakers who want to make the laws say life begins at conception. They want an embryo to be a legal human being.

I believe those charges are filed when the mother is well along in her pregnancy. I can't recall a case where charges are brought for murder when the mother is early in her pregnancy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:13 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650
I believe those charges are filed when the mother is well along in her pregnancy. I can't recall a case where charges are brought for murder when the mother is early in her pregnancy.

But that's why such charges are filed. To back-door having unborn babies considered to be people with full human rights. If you can call it a double murder when mother is killed, then you can call abortion murder. Convenient.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
But that's why such charges are filed. To back-door having unborn babies considered to be people with full human rights. If you can call it a double murder when mother is killed, then you can call abortion murder. Convenient.

I don't think charges are filed just to stick a finger in the eye of prochoice supporters. The Scott Peterson case is an example. That was a California case and the baby was almost fully developed. There may be other similar cases. You are right in that it creates conflicts in the law. There aren't any easy answers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:25 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650
I don't think charges are filed just to stick a finger in the eye of prochoice supporters. The Scott Peterson case is an example. That was a California case and the baby was almost fully developed. There may be other similar cases. You are right in that it creates conflicts in the law. There aren't any easy answers.

Actually, there are. The anti-abortionists aren't interested in human life, it's about sexual control of women.

Let's just remember that after they outlaw abortion, they also want to outlaw condoms. So it's about sex, not life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Actually, there are. The anti-abortionists aren't interested in human life, it's about sexual control of women.

Let's just remember that after they outlaw abortion, they also want to outlaw condoms. So it's about sex, not life.


GoU,

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church. That's about as socially conservative as they get. I can honestly say that their prolife stance is all about life and not about control of women. I never ever heard that argument before. Besides there are lots of women that are prolife. It's a religious/moral issue more than anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:46 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU,

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church. That's about as socially conservative as they get. I can honestly say that their prolife stance is all about life and not about control of women. I never ever heard that argument before. Besides there are lots of women that are prolife. It's a religious/moral issue more than anything.

Nope. If you haven't heard this argument, you don't get out. It's pretty simple. It's about sexual control of women. And the women that are anti-abortion are demanding that same control.

I was around when Operation Rescue was in my home town. I was out on the battle lines. When the TV cameras were around, the antis were screaming "save your baby". When they weren't, they were screaming "slut!" and "whore!" at the women.

It's not about life, as they don't care what happens to a child once it's born. The also want to ban all forms of contraception.

And the only folks I know more hung up on sex that southern baptists are the Catholics. And Muslims. It's pretty close.

Just ask yourself the question - if it's about life and not sex, why outlaw condoms?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 6703
Location: miles from nowhere

They would have to charge God for earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and so on, as well.

So, something done by nature is “oh, well. shit happens.” But something done by man, who is part of nature, is unacceptable. The bottom line here is that scripture, the foundational basis of anti-choice, treats abortion as a commercial transaction. Yet at the same time many of those same people treat the things needed for life such as food, water, shelter and healthcare as commercial transaction as well. Right-to-life until born. Then go away we neither want to see or know you. I will commend the Roman church for at least having a position which I believe was called “whole cloth” meaning they are not simply anti-abortion but also support programs to help after a child is born. Although perhaps I am misinformed.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Nope. If you haven't heard this argument, you don't get out. It's pretty simple. It's about sexual control of women. And the women that are anti-abortion are demanding that same control.

I was around when Operation Rescue was in my home town. I was out on the battle lines. When the TV cameras were around, the antis were screaming "save your baby". When they weren't, they were screaming "slut!" and "whore!" at the women.

It's not about life, as they don't care what happens to a child once it's born. The also want to ban all forms of contraception.

And the only folks I know more hung up on sex that southern baptists are the Catholics. And Muslims. It's pretty close.

Just ask yourself the question - if it's about life and not sex, why outlaw condoms?

GoU,

I get out quite a bit. Enough to know that you can't conveniently put everybody into a box. Lots and lots of Southern Baptist and other prolifers use all kinds of birth control. Not to say that there aren't certain extremely religious folks who don't believe in using contraception. There are. But they aren't the majority not even among Catholics. I have a cousin who goes to one of those Fundamental Baptist churches in Texas. They personally don't use contraception but they are also not out trying to outlaw it for everybody else. There is no serious support among conservatives for banning condoms or birth control. Too many people use these things on a regular basis.

I would agree with you that there is more support for outlawing abortion within the religious and evangelical community. But it is a religious/moral question despite what some extremist may yell at a demonstration. Do you think that everything yelled at a demonstration by a liberal activist automatically applies to all liberals? As you are fond of saying that is "weak sauce". Very weak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 8258
Via Raw Story:

Science fiction author Patrick S. Tomlinson this week explained how opponents of abortion rights can be shut down with one simple question about whether 1,000 embryos are more important than the life of a single child.

In a series of tweets on Monday, Tomlinson revealed the scenario that he says has repeatedly stumped so-called pro-life activists.


The tweets:

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now of the "Life begins at Conception" crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

It's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/

Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.

In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is "A." A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/

This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.

No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/

They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency.

No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

Don't let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don't, slap that big ol' Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9


I can see some limited appeal to this argument, and that is as Number 6 points out it can be used as a "what if" counter example to be used when a similar argument is brought by a person aligned with the other side.

Turning your back and stalking off also works just as well.



This argument is propositional fallacy that concerns compound propositions. The flaw in the argument is that a person being forced to choose one over the other doesn't negate the choice which was not chosen under duress. The fallacy is known as affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B



Apparently this sci-fi writer chooses to baffle abortion foes. It appears he's gone past the point of trying to empathize with them, and then use that understanding of their feelings to create good will and understanding between them. A logical approach to gently move them over to accept his point of view on this issue.

Instead it seems he has become frustrated and has decided to piss them off, apparently that is the goal of his illogical exercise. To drive the wedge in further, tighter.



I've become frustrated about this issue too. I'd rather lift heavy weights and sweat in the hot sun than fight with someone from the other side. I will accomplish just as much toward resolving this particular issue with those on the other side by lifting weights, and at the same time I'll become more trim and fit. I'll feel better. Feeling better I'll be more able to affect the overall outcome at the ballot box.



I'm pretty old. I have yet to see anyone from either side persuade another from the other side through the means of an argument. In all those years I've only seen about two people change their point of view about this issue in any case, and they decided to do that all on their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439

I can see some limited appeal to this argument, and that is as Number 6 points out it can be used as a "what if" counter example to be used when a similar argument is brought by a person aligned with the other side.

Turning your back and stalking off also works just as well.



This argument is propositional fallacy that concerns compound propositions. The flaw in the argument is that a person being forced to choose one over the other doesn't negate the choice which was not chosen under duress. The fallacy is known as affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B



Apparently this sci-fi writer chooses to baffle abortion foes. It appears he's gone past the point of trying to empathize with them, and then use that understanding of their feelings to create good will and understanding between them. A logical approach to gently move them over to accept his point of view on this issue.

Instead it seems he has become frustrated and has decided to piss them off, apparently that is the goal of his illogical exercise. To drive the wedge in further, tighter.



I've become frustrated about this issue too. I'd rather lift heavy weights and sweat in the hot sun than fight with someone from the other side. I will accomplish just as much toward resolving this particular issue with those on the other side by lifting weights, and at the same time I'll become more trim and fit. I'll feel better. Feeling better I'll be more able to affect the overall outcome at the ballot box.



I'm pretty old. I have yet to see anyone from either side persuade another from the other side through the means of an argument. In all those years I've only seen about two people change their point of view about this issue in any case, and they decided to do that all on their own.


My answer to the writer would be that if I entered a burning building and there was a three year old child and the writer and I could only save one. I would probably choose the child. That doesn't mean the writer isn't alive nor does it mean that his life has no value. It just means it is natural to try to save a living breathing child first. It's a value decision. You could substitute any number of people for person A or person B. Choose between your child and your wife, a child and a convicted murderer, etc,etc,etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 8258

My answer to the writer would be that if I entered a burning building and there was a three year old child and the writer and I could only save one. I would probably choose the child. That doesn't mean the writer isn't alive nor does it mean that his life has no value. It just means it is natural to try to save a living breathing child first. It's a value decision. You could substitute any number of people for person A or person B. Choose between your child and your wife, a child and a convicted murderer, etc,etc,etc.


Exactly, you understand why it's a fallacious argument: "That doesn't mean the writer isn't alive nor does it mean that his life has no value. It just means it is natural to try to save a living breathing child first. It's a value decision."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550


The difference between the burning 1000 embryos and an abortion is that the embryo in a mother's womb is alive and growing. The others are frozen and not in a womb, not able to grow until they are placed in a womb. So the frozen ones weren't alive to begin with.


all lives matter

:roll: :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:27 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650
GoU,

I get out quite a bit. Enough to know that you can't conveniently put everybody into a box. Lots and lots of Southern Baptist and other prolifers use all kinds of birth control. Not to say that there aren't certain extremely religious folks who don't believe in using contraception. There are. But they aren't the majority not even among Catholics. I have a cousin who goes to one of those Fundamental Baptist churches in Texas. They personally don't use contraception but they are also not out trying to outlaw it for everybody else. There is no serious support among conservatives for banning condoms or birth control. Too many people use these things on a regular basis.

I would agree with you that there is more support for outlawing abortion within the religious and evangelical community. But it is a religious/moral question despite what some extremist may yell at a demonstration. Do you think that everything yelled at a demonstration by a liberal activist automatically applies to all liberals? As you are fond of saying that is "weak sauce". Very weak.

No, it's not. First, the "moral" people want to control OTHER people's lives, not their own. Pennsylvania Congressman Tim Murphy was a strong anti-abortion advocate, wanting all these "life" amendments. He was married with kids and was sooooo "pro-family". Yet he was forced to resign when his mistress revealed he had tried to get her to have an abortion.

Hypocrisy is rife within the movement, I totally agree. Now, if you're a Catholic, you have to believe that the teachings of the church come directly from God. If the Pope tells you something, he's got it straight from God. Yet you are correct, Catholics go ahead and use contraception themselves.

Yet the Catholic church bans all contraception themselves, and would ban it for every nation in the world if they could. Tell me what that has to do with a baby's life.

Doesn't mean that they don't vote against the very things they ignore themselves. Do you think, if we outlawed abortion, that Tim Murphy wouldn't try to talk his mistress into getting an abortion? He's got the money to take her to Canada or Mexico to get it done, so he's not going to follow those teachings himself. But he DOES want to use the law to force OTHER people how to live their own lives.

That's why they are trying to get these Constitutional Amendments passes proclaiming life begins at conception. If they were to pass, that would mean that a woman getting an abortion or anyone helping her would be murderers. Just think about the implications of charging someone who kills a pregnant woman with two counts of murder.

The right is very good at masking their true intentions with bullshit. They are now talking about this tax cut bill being a tax cut for the middle class, but it's obvious this is all about a tax cut for the very rich.

It's been said, rightly so, that if men had babies, there would be an abortion mill on every corner. Look back to the time before the sixties. There was strict societal control over women. A woman who had sex before marriage was a slut and a whore. If she got pregnant, that was her punishment, and she had to birth and raise that bastard (I am one myself from that era, and I found out later that's what I was called in parts of the family). Contraception was usually illegal, even for married couples. It took the Supreme Court to end that:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution, through the Bill of Rights, implies a fundamental right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."

Yes, it's about sexual control of women. Of course, men were never sexually controlled, and most men had illicit sex their entire life, but they weren't looked down upon for it. Only the women. Hell, nearly the entire evangelical community supports Trump but condemned Clinton for a blowjob. Do you think the right would be bothered at all if it was revealed Trump was having sex with secretaries or models or prostitutes in the Oval Office every day, that they would mind?

Hell no.

You are welcome to be anti-abortion. Hell, I am. I have a moral quandary with late-term abortions (when the fetus is a clump of cells, I don't buy your side's bullshit), and I would never encourage a woman to get an abortion. But I've had a friend who was brutally raped and impregnated (the assertion from your side that you can't get pregnant from rape is false), and I took her to get that abortion. I stand for a woman's right to control her own body, and for the government to stay the hell out.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ike Bana and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group