I don't think anyone is saying their opinions have no place in the public square. If you don't believe in abortion, forbid premarital sex, whatever it is, that's totally fine. The issue is when someone forces their beliefs on to others.

And religion plays a tiny role here anyway. Most people who are pro-life don't care about actual abortions and are not doing it for religious reasons (they ignore plenty of other sins). It's about control over women.

The idea that a codified abortion law wouldn't have also been overturned by this very same Supreme Court is ludicrous. But of course, Dems will just attack each other instead of the GOP, further eroding any chance they have in the midterms.

Someone is always forcing their beliefs on others. That's an inevitable part of what government is.


Being pro-life doesn't mean being pro-theocracy. It's not 'all sins should be made illegal, therefore abortion should be'. A very small amount of people want a theocracy. That is not where most pro-lifers are.

I'd say a pretty large amount of people want a theocracy.

Also, most pro-life folks don't care about reducing abortions, they care about having control over what women can and can't do.

What do you think the entire point of democracy is?

We've seen even more blatant suppression of the majority voice in favor of the whiny minority just because they feel so righteous in their crusade.
Gun control. Abortion. Freedom for "my" Religion. You name it. Is it about expanding rights, expanding opportunities, making sure that every voice is heard and counted? Because that's not what one side is preaching. What they are preaching is decidedly anti-democratic, repressive, stripping of rights except for a privileged class (whether that class is race, sex, religion, or financial) and what we're hearing from that group now is very much that the minority needs to do whatever is necessary to stay in power in order to save the country because the rest of the majority doesn't know any better and only seeks to ruin their life. They have made a convenient argument of rationalization that flies in the face of what democracy actually is, and is quite, quite undemocratic and harmful, and puts us on a quick path to an oppressive dictatorship.

Isn't the history of the pro-life movement linked more to segregation than religion? Up until the late 70s life was considered to start at first breath.

I fully agree with you that modern American conservatism has become dangerously anti-democratic. I posted basically to that effect about 10 hours ago in this thread, and have said so many times previously on this forum.

In terms of being repressive vs expanding rights & opportunities? Lots to blame to share around there. I don't view either party as covering themselves in glory on that front.

The 'entire point of democracy', as you put it, is exactly why I've said what I said. It's why I oppose the anti-religious language that has been prominent in the last couple pages of this thread.

Religious theology has zero place in public policy. Z.E.R.O.

If you want something in public policy based around a religious idea, like don't kill people, then sell it as such, that's ok. But don't say, don't kill people because that's what religion says. That is wholly improper. Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start. Like, why would you ever run an adoption agency, where you used sexual orientation as a means of determining who could raise kids in a good environment and who couldn't? There's no logic there. That argument basically it's ok if this kids life worse in foster care, than with this particular family because they violate our moral standard. That sort of opinion should have no place in policy.

Is there a point when the groups who do not behave that way express those differences against those that do behave that way? Or are they cool with whatever happens because well at least the group that does want to keep people "stupid and obedient and filling their coffers share their many of their values. If it is the latter then it makes sense that they are all grouped under the same umbrella, no? I don't think anyone is denying that there are distinctions between religious groups. I just wish those groups made it more clear what those distinctions are.


I think this is where the frustrations lies. Are we grouping all religious people under one umbrella or not? I do not believe anyone is relegating anyone who is religious to second class status. I do not believe that their opinions have no place in the public square. I think people do not want to made to be second class citizens to a certain group's religious beliefs.

So the Mississippi law that goes into effect the second Roe is overturned outlaws abortion except for in the case of rape and the life of the mother. For some strange and creepy reason they didn't include incest.

Is it possible incest falls under the umbrella of rape?

The very earliest days were about removing bodily autonomy and eliminating midwives (who were mostly black). It's when the AMA was created to limit who could decide what regarding pregnancies. In the past, it had been up to the woman as to what she wanted to do with her body.

Then came the 20th Century where white protestants were upset that their own people were getting abortions while others were not. They hated the fact that Catholics were opposed to abortion and contraceptives. Catholics were not deemed white (primarily from the countries they came from). Other minorities didn't have access to the type of health care that could provide it.

So early anti-abortion efforts were based around "replacement theory". If we let our pure aryan people have abortions, these other groups who are against it or don't have access to it will replace us. Hint of that in what Barrett writes.

The 80's and 90's saw a huge shift toward white supremacist groups. The anti-abortion movement had stalled and they wanted to turn it more violent. It also gave them a chance to blame the Jews. A lot of anti-abortion rhetoric targets Jewish doctors as being greedy killers of white babies.

It doesn't.

The exceptions really don't matter. It's incredibly hard to get one. You can't just say "I was raped". You need police reports and other documentation.

I just remembered at some point reading about the GOP taking up the fight and pushing it more as a dem/gop issue as a response to Carter withholding federal money from schools that refused to desegregate. Up until that point it had solid support from both parties.

Aren’t people under a certain age incapable of giving consent basically.

And now we have Marsha Blackburn wanting to only allow married couples to have access to birth control.

The GOP definitely has Griswold in their sights now.

My questions is if you want to clearly define life at conception how do you rationalize not starting child support payments, tax credits, ect at conception? Or how do you find any pregnant woman guilty of a crime?

Regardless of the case, no it doesn't make sense to group under the same umbrella. Stereotyping is not the way to go. But to answer the question, some do and some don't. Some are independent and don't see it as being their job to judge what other churches/religions are doing. That's a distraction from the main thing, which is their responsibility to their members and others in their immediate community. What makes this particularly amusing to me is that this sort of criticism comes from the same direction as those who say churches need to be apolitical or lose their tax-exempt status. I.e. you can't say that they need to stay out of politics and not be judgemental, and at the same time say they should be judging other churches that they have no authority over and who have different views or approaches to religious life.


People absolutely are relegating the religious to second-class status. PilotMan explicitly did so in the post above yours, and previously. Others have implied it as well, including your post though this may not be intentional.

Regarding grouping religious people under one umbrella, what I'm saying is we should treat them like other groups and not single them out for special criticism which is exactly what is happening here. For example, take fans of differnt sports, or different political 'factions', i.e. liberal/independent/conservative, or whatever groups of people you may wish to define for purposes of identification and description.

** It's unfair to color all members of a group with the actions of a subset of that group. There are a decidedly not-small number of liberal religious people for example. There are rabid fans of certain sports that behave in appalling, shameful ways. There are people who can't get through most of the year without being depressed because there's no fantasy football. And there are others who are fine in the interim as they watch other sports or don't and just continue on with their life. Stereotyping disenfranchises the individual, it involves guilt by association, and it's fundamentally unfair.

** Equal treatment under the law, equal access to all facets of democracy, etc. must be the same for all members of a group. This is where the second-class citizen part comes in. Somebody's beliefs get imposed no matter what, as noted. When it's claimed, as overtly stated by PilotMan, that "Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start." you are explicitly saying that the securalist person's opinions are to take priority over the religious person's. That a religious person cannot have their most cherised and deeply held beliefs represented in government, but a non-religious person can. That's simply definitionally anti-democratic, and creates a classification of acceptable and unacceptable participation in the public square.

It is a contradiction of one person, one vote, or as stated further up, "making sure that every voice is heard and counted?". What it means is, making sure every voice that agrees with our suppositions is heard and counted. A person is not more oppressed - or in the case of a good law, less benefited - if a law comes from a religious basis than if it does not. It's the same logic, simply applied differently, that drove some conservatives to wrongly say for example that no Muslim mosque should be built near Ground Zero, or that Muslims should have to renounce Sharia Law before becoming citizens, or things of that nature. If we're going to stand on our soapbox and say we are pro-democracy, we need to actually be pro-democracy, including the expression of and enaction into law concepts we don't agree with if the majority elects representatives that pass laws to that effect. There are all manner of idiotic and illogical laws that get passed which have nothing to do with religion but with people just flat-out being wrong due to other biases. Singling out the religious for special cricitism is nothing other than an inherent anti-religion stance, and is antithetical to democracy.

Your argument makes a supposition on position that I clearly stipulated. Your argument is simply wrong. Religion is not a basis for a classification of citizenry unless that religion is inherently a part of the governing process, meaning that any other religion becomes a secondary class within that government. We have separation of church and state for a reason. You want freedom of religion but the current arguments are for that there should only be freedom for Christianity, and that Christians are the ones calling for that. That is the imposition of prohibiting Muslim laws or keeping Mosques from being near ground zero, not a secular definition. Put the argument for your case where it belongs. The religious right is essentially calling for a "Christian Nation" they would gladly take a set up like Iran here in Christian format. As for my statement, it takes no rights, beliefs or representation away from any individual based on their individual beliefs. They are free to practice the religion they choose, however they are not allowed to define policy based on religious theology. For example, I want to get rid of expensive doctors and promote healing crystals as the new framework of public health. Your argument states that unless that can be acceptable and worked into the system, or at the very least, heard, and that anything short of that is anti-democratic and suppressing a voice is honestly bullshit. The repression of the crystal healing group of people creates unequal treatment. Bullshit. About 20 years ago Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis started refusing to pick up passengers at the airport and bars because alcohol was involved and they were breaking the laws of their religion if they carried them. It's a bullshit argument because religion has no place in public policy. The ability to work was defined by the job description, if you cannot do the job because of your beliefs, that is not the problem of your employer, the same as it is not the problem of your government. You should probably find a new line of work. But the city caved and carved out an agreement. I don't remember what it was exactly, but that sort of push from religion into policy is untenable. If someone wants to have their position on crystals as part of public policy, and perhaps at this moment in scientific history, we don't know enough about it, maybe we don't, maybe it should be studied more, maybe it's bullshit, but we have science and data for a reason. We don't need to go around trying not to hurt people's feelings and telling them they are a part of a repressed 2nd class of citizenry because their beliefs are simple bullshit. As is your argument. People who support a secular point of view honestly don't give a shit what you believe as far as religion goes. If you want to pray in public, go for it. If you want to build temples, go for it. Stay in your lane. Do your thing, live your life. If you want to put the beliefs of your religion into public practice and now state that some portion of it must now be part of public policy, like bowing to the east 5 times a day, you don't get to do that.

Sweet Jesus (pun intended), use paragraphs. :)

What supposition, stipulated where?


I'm against that as much as I am against the secularist view. I'm not making an argument in favor of what any specific group of people is currently proposing in America. I'm making an argument in favor of the idea that an inherently anti-religious approach is unfair and anti-democratic.


It has nothing to do with hurting people's feelings. In a democracy, you don't get to decide in advance that somebody's beliefs are bullshit. The deciding factor is not some exterior assessment of their validity, but whether or not a majority can be convinced to support them. That's it, and that's all. If there's a litmus test outside of that, then the only question is where you draw the line, and the power will reside somewhere else besides the people. There must be some body or force outside of them to decide what will be considered bullshit and what won't, and there's certainly no good reason to say it applies to religious views and not non-religious views, as there's quite a bit of bullshit to be found in the latter.


This is the key part. It is a contradiction. If you say someone cannot define policy based on whatever their beliefs are, religious based or otherwhise, then you absolutely are taking rights and representation away from them. You are saying they have to keep their religion to themselves, but that restriction is only applied to the religious. The secularist is not bound to keep their worldview to themselves and not have it impact on public policy.

The abortion issue should be personal. If you or your religion do not approve of abortion, then don't get one. I wouldn't dare state that my beliefs or requirements should override someone else's.

I also don't know why when it comes to abortion, life is so sacred for right wingers, but they also believe that every American should carry a gun on them. If you use their gun logic, every woman in America should have a "day after" pill in their pocket JUST IN CASE they get raped.

Yeah that doesn't make any sense at all when viewing it from a pro-life perspective.

The right believes people should carry guns to defend themselves against people who would do them harm, including rapists.

In case of rape pro-lifers believe the baby is an innocent party and thus the mother has no right to take their life.

And unless you are an anarchist, you probably have some belief/requirements that should be imposed upon others.

Your argument only makes sense if you start from your moral perspective though. If you really can’t understand the pro-life argument try this, substitute birth for conception. Should a woman have the right to end her child’s life up to nine months after it was born? How about three months? Infanticide was regularly practiced until relatively recently, it’s not that huge a stretch but it seems utterly barbaric to us now. And if we decide that a civil society can’t allow that to happen, shouldn’t the government be the enforcement mechanism to prevent it?

Let us not forget capitol punishment either. I mean if someone really wants to die on this hill, pun untended, then for a hard core pro-lifer capitol punishment still equates to a life being taken.....

I know it is apples and oranges, but you can take this argument as far into ridiculous as you want to, such as, how do we know that forcing a woman to have a child in a drug addled, abusive, criminal environment, will not result in that child being nurtured into a killer, who will one day have to be put to death by the prison system...

They don't care about the unborn baby or abortion. It's about control.

How many pro-lifers have you asked about their reasoning behind being pro-life?

And they told you that they just want control?

Absolutely that is what it is about. If it is about the baby and sanctity of life why isn't the party pro gun control, free childcare, longer maternity leave, paid family leave, more social programs for low income families, etc....?

You can go to their websites and read through what they want. It is not a big secret. Reducing abortions is not their goal.

This.

Except that the majority rule, or they are supposed to, and the majority are of the opinion that women should have the right to do certain things with their own bodies and to make decisions that have lifelong consequences. To deny them that option sentences them to a life of bondage, for which they may have personal reasons to avoid, or lack the complete ability to handle the responsibility or the financial means to do so. Or even darker, remove all conditions for which the parent might need to decide the fate of a wanted child, who will only be born to a life of pain, suffering, and ultimately death. Or even darker, remove any and all conditions for which the wanted pregnancy might need to be terminated in order to prevent severe injury or even death to the parent.

But yeah...just you know, it's all just infanticide, and that's bad. So that's all that should be contemplated.

And if it was about life, why try and remove the supports that these women are going to need to raise their kids? Because that's not sanctifying life then is it? It's just wishing them good luck in their new life! Hope you won't need any help, and are ready to work for a life and be a productive member of society on the terms of our choosing.

If you wanted a bunch of young men with no prospects for a future, no support, no hope, in an ever expanding poor underclass, to rise up, inspired by extremist rhetoric, this is how you get that.

This is 100% on point and I can speak on this from experience, coaching, mentoring and trying to guide these young men, that we are in a constant tug o war with the streets to hold on to.

There should never be an issue with a victim of rape/incest, severe fetal anomaly, or health risk to the mother getting an abortion anywhere in this country.

And while not a fan of abortion as a method of birth control, it is still a right Women should have, because even legal, it is still a choice for the woman to make, based on her beliefs and it should be considered settled law. So if you are 100% opposed to it, just don't do it, and don't force your beliefs on everyone else.

But if you are going to take that right away, you better damn sure make it a point to help these kids that are going to be born into drug addled homes, abusive environments and poverty, with many more obstacles than most kids will have to face.

I see these kids season after season, struggling to stay on task, working full, time jobs to help feed their siblings, trying to keep their academics in order and trying to play Football so they are not left to the streets. These elites in their glass towers could give two shits about any of what happens after in many cases, outside of the fact that they will have more fodder for their prison system at some point down the road, not to mention the increased gun violence wrought by people with no hope for a future.

No.

Do you think rights should only be granted when the majority agrees with them?

I mean, I agree that this decision is trash and I agree that the majority has almost no power due to gerrymandering, unbalanced Senate, electoral college, and corporate financing of campaigns, but the simple idea that the majority are supposed to rule is just too simplistic to be correct.

I'll put it another way. This decision would be trash even if it was accepted by the majority.

You acknowledged the existence of both groups. You said that there are differences between the groups. I asked the difference between the two groups specifically since from the outside looking in they seem to have put themselves or allowed that other group to put them under the same umbrella on this issue. The umbrella being people who based on their religious beliefs believe that women (regardless of the woman's religious beliefs) should not have the right to choose. Again from the outside looking in, it seems like some of those under that umbrella have chosen to make their voices heard in the public square and some have not. Those that choose not to are at the very least apathetic to what umbrella they are placed under, no?


I don't know if you have heard how we treat other groups especially when they attempt to force something through that only 19% of the country agrees with. Here is a the mission statement of a religious group who may or may not would be welcomed under the religion umbrella you speak of.


I would not group this religious org with a religious org that want to ban abortion. I don't think either of them would want to be grouped together either. It has nothing to do with the religion for me.


Trust me, you don't need to tell me how unfair it is to color all members of a group with the actions of a subset of that group. So why are we putting laws on the books that place that restrictions on everyone's ability to choose in order to satisfy the beliefs of a few. Not everyone who wants the ability to choose will choose to have an abortion.


I...I mean... given all of our history and our present with voting laws and voter suppression... I don't even know where to start with this one. Let's start at the beginning. I agree with your first sentence 100%. Of course we still have not reached that goal and we trying our damnedest to make sure we move further away from it. but I agree with the goal nonetheless. I don't agree that a secularist's opinion is to take priority over a religious person's opinion. But I also don't agree with one religious person's opinion taking priority over a secular person's differing opinion, a religious person of the same faith's differing opinion or a religious person of a different faith's differing opinion. I think we can all acknowledge that one particular set of religious beliefs have been given more priority than all others in the past. It seems like that is the case once again. I am not sure how democratic it is for that to continue. I mean that mosque still has not been built near Ground Zero.

Thanks for what you do, and well said.

A good portion of it is probably also "well if I have to adhere to these shitty rules, then everybody else should too!"

Or, "how come SHE gets to get away with stuff and I can't?" specifically from the women's perspective.

(For the men yeah, absolutely control.)

I'll quote and add that the above are the exact conditions that are found in young terrorists when they research ISIS, Al Qaeda, and it does translate to the US in the form of gangs and white supremacy, etc. It fills a need that isn't currently being met in their lives and gives them a reason to exist.

Susan Collins is a parody version of Susan Collins.

Susan Collins calls the cops to investigate “defacement of public property” after someone wrote a message in chalk on the sidewalk near her home asking her to codify Roe

Democrats are so stupid. Schumer's out there saying they want to put every Senator's vote on record on abortion for the people to see and that he thinks they will suffer electorally because of it. But that's not the way elections work. Yes, the majority of Americans don't want to see Roe overturned, but the system is set up for GOP to make gains despite that fact. Tying this vote to Democrat election success, when it is going to fail, just makes the GOP messaging on abortion that much easier. "The court overturned Roe, we voted no for legislation, and the American people voted for a red wave 6 months later."

I have a mom who is a one-issue pro-life voter. I've heard many a conversation between her and her friends. Eliminating abortions is indeed their goal.

I'll give you they want to "control" women by preventing them from killing their babies.

New Economist/YouGov poll shows fewer women than men and fewer liberals than conservatives will definitely vote in 2022 midterms. Nothing says outrage like ... complacency.

You lost me with the first part of this paragraph a bit, I may be losing the thread of what you were trying to say to a degree. On this though, to my mind the issue isn't whether or not these groups are apathetic. It's not on them to combat unjustified supposition. It's on people from the outside to not make such suppositions. To use an extreme example, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that any church or religious group that hasn't specifically condemned the rhetoric of Westboro Baptist Church agrees with what they say. Each organization should be given the basic respect of being evaluated on their own merits. Religious groups in America are very diverse and defy easy categorization, there are trends and clumps one can evaluate and so on, but it's far from homogenous. Much like how I have no reasonable place to assume a specific poster on this board disagrees or agrees with something they haven't chosen to comment on.



With these statements we are moving from process to results. It appears we are in agreement on the matter of religion vis a vis representation, and I will celebrate that common ground without qualification. I also want to note that as regards voter suppression - nobody here is arguing in favor of that. Certainly I'm not. I'm not ignoring that part of the issue, but afaik we're all on the same side there. It's wrong, it's not democratic, I want it to stop, the board as a whole does, etc.

The first thing I would say is that democracy is about the process, not the results. I.e. who has a voice, and to what degree, not what was the outcome of those voices. In terms of laws being passed, our representative democracy is less democratic than a direct democracy would be, which leads on some occasions to laws being passed that only a minority favors. We're voting one for our legislators on a wide range of issues batched together in one election, instead of voting for them each individually ourselves. We surrender some democracy in the process but gain practicality. As Rainmaker is fond of pointing out, and often accurately, there are many issues that a majority of Americans favor, but they're not willing to change who they vote for to make it happen. In other words, they don't care enough about them to sacrifice issues they consider as higher priorities.

There is of course a lot more in our system that isn't democratic. If we wanted a government was a representative democracy and *only* that, we would abolish the Constitution in it's entirety, eliminate the Supreme Court, greatly limit the power of the executive so that the President is little more than a figurehead, and eliminate the Senate. We'd probably also want to reform the House of Representatives while we are it, making either sweeping changes to districting or just flat-out eliminating it entirely and going with random lottery selection system in terms of which citizens vote for which position in the House. This would leave a lot less protection for minorities of course than we presently have, but it would be a more democratic way of doing things.

In terms of restricting choice, I think aside from the question of how many people care about that compared to how much they care about other issues - the next couple of elections will as other posters have noted tell us a lot about where they are on that - there is the fact that the % of people in favor or against varies with time and also varies based on what state you're talking about. All of those things will settle out and we'll see where people really are.

It's also not at all the way that some people view the abortion question. I'm personally on the side that cannot express within the bounds of my English vocabulary the utter disgust that hearing the issue framed in those terms produces in my mind. In general I don't debate it because I don't think there is much point, but I'll quote someone on this board on the other, majority side of the issue:


If you believe as I do that life does begin at conception, and that personhood theory is simply a toothless rationalization, there's only one place you can come down. The too often-ignored party in this issue is not given a choice. I know a majority of Americans don't see it that way, which means all other things being equal the democratic outcome would be legal abortion. And if the people of the Republic care enough about it, that's what will happen.

FWIW, I'm witholding judgement till the final opinion comes out but based on what I know of the Alito draft I would term it a bad ruling, for similar reasons to why Roe v. Wade was bad initially. But it is also one that can be overcome. Congress can, and if enough people care they will, pass a law authorizing abortion rights throughout the land.

Why do all those groups want to ban certain contraceptives? Why do they oppose giving out contraceptives to teenagers? Why do they oppose equal access to health care? Why do they reject funding for prenatal care? Why do they want to eliminate sex education in school?

Ask her if she supports those causes. They all decrease the number of abortions in this country. Can't really say you oppose abortion while supporting policies that increase them.

They don’t increase them

They want them to have the baby and put it in an orphanage wherein they graduate out eventually to become cheap labor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Growing up in an orphanage is generally preferred if murder is the alternative.

I know for a fact she doesn't want to eliminate sex education in school. Keep in mind that pro-lifers are not a hive-mind as you're brushing them as.

Neither is preferred, which is why sex education, health care, and contraceptives are so important. They reduce unwanted pregnancies.

How many pro-life groups do you know of that advocate for access to free contraceptives? How many are pushing for sex education in schools or free health care?

Well scientifically it’s not murder before a certain time period so I think we should stop debating because it’ll be a waste of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is the time period?

Also, is sperm alive? They swim.

Evey sperm is sacred...
Every sperm is good...

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I leave that up to science consensus to determine and not theologians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guessing pro-life groups will be all over Abbott in regards to this statement, right? I mean it's about the babies.

INBOX: ⁦@GovAbbott⁩ slams ⁦@JoeBiden⁩ ⁦@POTUS⁩ for providing baby formula to undocumented immigrants during a national shortage #txlege #tx2022 pic.twitter.com/OGhLYVl1Q5

— Evan Smith (@evanasmith) May 12, 2022

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Yeah that would be insane to provide potentially life saving baby formula to baby’s.

Another turn in the pretzel coming from some people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How Christian of him.

dola- I unplugged about 3 weeks ago. I actually got kicked off twitter for the horrible offense of telling someone they are an idiot. since then I haven't started a burner account or anything. I have also stopped listening to POTUS on Sirius XM and no cable news. I read an occasional article and see what people here post.

I realize ignorance is bliss but I have been so much happier since. I was wasting way to much time doom scrolling through comments. Instead I started the gunslinger on audio books.

Actually this is about the Federal government giving something to illegal immigrants that Americans are having trouble finding on their store shelves.

In the same vein of uncaring that R's typify.....why should I care when they can just make their own? That's how God made them isn't it? If they can't provide for their baby they shouldn't have them? Maybe it's all part of God's plan to have babies suffer (because he it super into that)? Modern advances in food and medicine shouldn't play a part in what they can do with their bodies.



and yes, I'm being sarcastic, but in that totally obvious way that R's don't do, because they actually mean it when they say stupid shit like that.

Is there a skin pigment clause in the pro-life movement? Why would they care which baby is saved? I mean it is about preserving life, right?

The argument falls apart when you argue regulation of womens bodies due to the sanctity of life....

but the baby's know that they're here illegally so yeah, F em and let them die!!! Cuz we're not really about ALL baby's lives...just ours.

I don't get this argument.

I did this on FB last September and it is great. But I'm still on Twitter. Rather than totally unplug I might just cull my timeline. It's so much easier on Twitter because it's chronological so I can unfollow as I go as opposed to trying to unfriend people FB makes me see or objecting to the ads which run every third post. But I'm close to getting off Twitter too. Problem is I use it for instant news and entertainment. Not sure I have a good alternative.

What isn't to get? We must protect life at all costs unless it is brown babies from south of the border, then fuck em they can starve....

That's a hell of a strawman you built there.

I think this can be quite healthy, good for you. Obsessing over realities that we can't change is often not helpful. As long as we're doing what we can (voting etc) the average citizen isn't going to gain much from a constant drumbeat of politics.

How is it a straw man?

Overturning Roe is about saving babies lives… how is this different?

It isn’t except…. Oh yeah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because I believe abortion is immoral doesn't mean I feel the US is responsible for feeding everyone in the world.

I followed all of my area's subreddits on Reddit, and it was 100% political bickering. I feel a lot better for unfollowing and getting out of these echo chambers. Nobody is listening anyways, it's just people trying to talk over each other. And as much arguing as you get in some of these groups on FOFC, it's still a million times better here.

I don't have issues with Twitter because I don't follow anything really negative. I read about comic books, music, wrestling and video games. The most controversial thing is that I follow Dave Meltzer in wrestling. If you know wrestling you understand that one.

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

That is just incredible.

It’s not immoral to starve babies to death though?

🤦‍♂️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Immoral to abort a fetus, moral to starve a baby.

It's almost like this has nothing to do with babies and all about controlling women.

Getting 'off' Twitter seems practically impossible these days when the best & worst of it will get force fed to you from just about any other site. I don't really 'use' Twitter, but I still seems to be reading it all the time.

I'm responsible for starving babies now?

It's not so much following negative people as much as unplugging from ANY of the political talk/news and stuff like that. It's mostly doomscrolling the same topics from a variety of people who generally cover or talk about those topics. It just so happens there's a ton of negative stuff out there.

I still like Twitter for the comedy/entertainment/sports and for true breaking news-type stuff. But I think I need to start culling all the political stuff. I want to be in the know, but the more I know, the more overwhelmed I get by all the negative crap.

You’re not responsible for abortions either but it doesn’t mean you’re not involved in the debate AND exhibiting a very weird moral split to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, my position is women should have right to choose up to a certain point in time. I don't really know the cutoff point, right now viability is at 24 weeks or so (read with advancements it could be 22 weeks) and that is as good as any but I can also see argument limiting abortions at 15 weeks. However, I do not believe a 1 month fetus is truly "alive".

There is a point in time when an unborn fetus is "alive" and late term abortion should be illegal unless mother's life is at risk. Late term abortion is not well defined but wiki says maybe after week 21-24 and is between 1-1.5% of all abortions.

Reasons for late term abortion are below. I did not find any more detail breakdowns but to me, late term abortions for "raising children alone ... conflict with male partner ... or were young etc." is not moral.

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

So to summarize, yes a woman should be able to choose, but also yes, definitely have a cut-off point unless mother's life is in danger.

For those pointing out inconsistencies on the anti-abortion stance (some fair, some a stretch), my question to you is:

Do you believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus up to birth? Do you have a cut-off point where you believe a woman should not be able to undergo the procedure?

I'm so sick of seeing this question. It is honestly below your intellect and the collective intellect of this board and serves no purpose except to generate outrage because there is no correct answer and far to much gray area.

Answer yes and the right paints it as people aborting perfectly viable pregnancies days before birth willt-nilly. Answer no and it validates their beliefs that all pregnancies regardless of health of the mother or baby should be completed regardless of the consequences.

He is literally saying we shouldn't give formula to babies. How is it a strawman? Are we responsible for every hungry baby in the world, of course not. Are we responsible for those seeking asylum on our border? Absolutely. Lets also maybe have some humanity? The right loves to project themselves as good Christians. I'm sure Jesus would totally be on board with the whole "fuck the brown babies" train.

My personal stance doesn't matter. Viability is the correct legal standard.

This is not a trick question. This is just to understand where you stand.

I'm truly surprised you do not believe this is a fair question. Regardless of how the right or left paints you, answer how you believe and don't worry about how other people think about you.

Equivocate or caveat as much as you want to provide context to your answer (I did).

It’s not a fair question because there are a myriad of variables. It’s like saying the giants have it 4th and one. Should they go for it?

Thanks for your answer (vs Lathum's non-answer for whatever reason).

Many of the discussion topics we have here have a myriad of variables (e.g. racism, what does BLM stand for, police brutalities etc.).

Giants have it 4th and one, I would add context/assumptions - how much time is left, what is the score, who is injured, how successful have they been during the game etc. and then answer the question.

And that’s my point. There is an endless number of variables so it should be between and woman and her health care provider. Not some government mandated line in the sand that doesn’t allow for any gray area or context.

I believe there can be fair restrictions on abortion. The exact line is a debate that I wish we (I mean as a country, not a message board) could have. Unfortunately there is little reasoning with either side of the extremes on this issue, and they are the ones that control the debate.
Personally, something like "viability +". Abortions restricted at viability, but with life of the mother or other reasonable exemptions. In the end, you are talking about the a very small number of abortions, most of which are done because of medical complications.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I wrote the following 12 years ago:


Going back through old threads on the topic, I also found two things of note:

1. It's the same arguments we're having now, and have been having throughout. Some different faces, though.

2. A number of folks on both the left & right felt confident enough to say that Roe would not be overturned in their lifetime. It may have taken over a decade, but it turns out my concerns weren't the shrill fearmongering some suggested they were.

Good thing Biden's move to give baby formula to people the United States has incarcerated does no such thing.


Quite.

From what I've read, it's not even a decision - it's law. Apparently Trump was pissed he had to comply with the law but did. This is just some cynical GOPers who know the truth but see a cheap political score and have completely flipped the script on the narrative. To the point where people on this board are arguing over points that don't matter, because by law we have to provide for these people.

I don't know what the true genesis of the shortage is, but you can fault Biden for not anticipating it and trying to do something about it. But stocking food for immigrant children in our custody is legally required.

So letting babies starve isn't immoral?

That wasn't the question. Is it immoral to let babies starve?

Biden isn't at fault here. Nor really any politician directly. It's the free market. And companies have found it is better to use their money to buy back stock than to institute safety measures or stockpile for emergencies. People have screamed about the free market being able to solve every problem and then scream about how a politician is at fault when it doesn't.

As for the cause, Abbott chose to not replace failing drying machines because they thought it would be too expensive (they did find money for nearly $6 billion in stock buybacks). Those failed machines led to rare bacteria growing in their formula which has made countless infants sick and killed some. They had to do a massive recall and shut down the factories. Since they control an incredibly large percent of the market, there is a massive shortage.

Also if the pro-life crowd would like to go after Abbott, who through willful negligence, has killed babies, that would be cool too.

I just don't see why women who can't produce breast milk should ever be allowed to have children. It's just not God's way. You can either take care of your child or you're an unfit mother. There is no other argument.

My reading of Genesis clearly indicates that life begins when one is able to draw breath (or, more specifically, God breathes life into the body), so clearly life begins at birth.

I think their stance would line up with forcing women to produce breast milk to feed the babies.

I've never had a Twitter account. The only time I see a tweet is when someone embeds it in other content.

To me, abortion and 2A arguments are flip sides of the same coin. Most people seem to want to preserve their right to kill someone else when they deem it appropriate while depriving others of the right to do the same.

Where they differ is in what constitutes a reasonably intolerable threshold of threat/inconvenience/ego that makes the action justifiable.

double post

As others have said though, it is both immoral and illegal to not feed people we are detaining. Not giving away formula to other countries when we don't have enough? Sure. But if we're going to detain them, we have to feed them.