Reece101

 I have had medical issues lately, breast cancer and have had a lot of time at home during recovery. Thought sharing and debating online would be fun since I have the time. I have not been posting that long and am still confused about how the site works.  

I think you would be surprised at the low level of knowledge a lot of woman have about their own reproductive system, also fetal development. I worked at my states Right to Life office and when we went out to do educational events, Womans Expos, conventions etc…I was shocked.

Getting pregnant is damage if an abortion happens. Most pro-choicers think their position is pro-life even if they say they are opposed to abortion, but still want it legal. I have talked to hundreds upon hundreds of women like myself who have gotten abortions. Rarely do I meet anyone that is happy they did it. Younger women are more defensive and take the “in your face” attitude. I have only been in two confrontations with a woman one at an abortion clinic, and one at a booth at our state fair.

I don’t ignore any arguments. Bring anything up, I will try to give an answer. I will say this. When I am out in the field doing something concerning abortion, I argue from a scientific view…not religious. Why? Because I respect peoples right to believe religiously what they want. If they are Christian, then I can show the scripture side of the issue. Other wise I have a lot of valid medical information to give out. If can send it your way if you would like to read it.   

So she should be able (because she is the mother)….kill her unborn up until the natural gestational age of the unborn? If you tell a woman she has a time limit…then aren’t you taking her rights, her ownership away? So you make a scale as to what unborn deserves life and who doesn’t based on their health. Do you feel that way about kids who are mentally, physically handicapped after they are born? 

Heres the thing, correct me if I am wrong. You say that abortions should be rarer…further along. Why? Is abortion wrong on some level? And if it’s wrong, why do you condone it? You said…”It’s up to the mother.” Then why should anyone have a say…? Kill unborn children at any time and for any reason. You tell her no…and you are imposing your morality on her. Right?

I would like women to take responsibility for their own actions and what damage they cause, and quit blaming others for the careless decisions they make. Unless it is rape no one can be blamed for pregnancy other than the woman. She is the one who says yes to sex and all that entails. And unless she is a complete idiot everyone knows birth control methods can fail. The chance is HERS to take. She invites the man/sperm to enter her body. Birth control should be her responsibility because todays society says she owns her body and she has the ultimate decision to do whatever she wants with it.

As for abortion…I believe as a Christian that we are made in the image of God and that He knew us before we were in the womb.

I believe that science states clearly that a new human life starts when fertilization takes place. At that time it is a unique human being that is not a part of its mother but lives in her womb as she supports and protects it.

I believe every life in the womb deserves personhood and should have rights under our laws that protect them from being murdered.

In the very rare instance when a mother is dying than every attempt should be taken to save the child by taking it early.  

Guttmacher Institute a pro-choice think tank says less than 1% of ALL abortions are done because of rape, incest and the health of the mother. 99% of all abortions are done for social reasons. 

Why because a woman is raped does her child deserves less because his/her mothers was violated? Do two wrongs make  right? If you walked into a nursery full of kids and you were given the task of picking out the one whose mother was raped….do you think you could do it? Tell me why that child would have deserved death?

Why can't you without any humor...state your position on abortion?

Musk invented more things  than Nasa with less money and in a faster time frame. 

NASA is an embarrassment of government incompetency.

So you condone all abortions? Even on full term unborn babies or as you call them zygotes? 

State your full position.

So its your honest and willful belief that a conservative state would employ slavery as one of its tenants?  You got some pretty sad fucked up indoctrinated ideas about conservatism.

If you mean oligarchs exist in any system, then I would agree.

If I follow your logic if country A and B are developed nations and A is more socialist and has a better and cheaper healthcare system, then the more capitalist B country should adopt a similar system.

However, the power and the extent of oligarchs in countries can be very different. If the healthcare system in a mostly capitalist country has become mostly crony, then a socialist healthcare system could be better than its current healthcare. However, this doesn't mean that a better capitalist healthcare system with fewer monopolistic legal barriers and more legal patient protection could not exist if we spent time changing laws to encourage free enterprise. 

would you call yourself "pro-oligarchy" or just "oligarchy-tolerant" ?

A thought is a thought, relative to an individual.

"Half baked" is a thought relative to you. 

It's a tad arrogant, if we expect everyone to think as we do.

Thoughts are derived from past experiences and will therefore vary relative to conditioning.

Tolerance has to evolve..........Tolerance cannot be forced upon people, otherwise outcomes are more likely to be negative.

Though I'm reasonably confident that more and more people do think things through.

I'm a moderate and do not pander to media, I make my own observations and come to my own conclusions.

And Jaimaica seeking $10 billion in so called reparations is a race baiting political show.   And let's be frank, where would most of that money end up if they got it.

Nope...The perpetuation of the old colonial race game is very good for business.

And "sociological thing" for sure....That was my point......Don't expect to click your fingers and change humanity in an instant.....How many millions of years has it taken to get to this point?

Perhaps you indulge in race baiting political shows more than I do.

Data processing and analysis relative to acquired conditioning is simply what we do, so not irrational.

But for sure we can also modify our responses relative to ongoing data acquisition and processing.

That is to say, learn to be more tolerant of others.

Though as my specific example suggests, discrimination is far from a black and white issue relative to historical European colonialism

We've moved on a few hundred years and several generations since then, to a point where the boot of the black and white issue in terms of racism  is now very much on the the other foot too....If not more so.

The black and white thing is now politically inspired big business for some, so there would certainly be a lot to lose if everyone shook hands and agreed to move on.

Though let's be fair, most moderate people of all skin tones, moved on a long time ago.....Species evolution in progress as it were.

Nonetheless my brief  analysis is perhaps more applicable to current U.K. society.......Maybe in the U.S there is a greater possibility of a more insular and therefore polarized demographic relative to geographic scale.

the ability to enforce ?

Everyone thinks and everyone discriminates, so if you include "thoughts" within your analysis, then by definition everyone is racist.

I would suggest that racism is best defined as a negative outward expression of thoughts, relative to a perceivable difference.

Old fashioned Joke:

And Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman are sitting in a bar.

None of them is any the wiser until they open their mouths.

Morality is the foundation of law, so the morality of an action is relevant on what the law should be. 

I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?

This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.

What is a breathing expert?

I found out Stalin was an atheist, that’s why I believe in a god now. 

There are good and bad religious and atheist people.

Stalin was a bad atheist.  Hitler was a bad Christain.  Bill Gates is a decent atheist.  MLK was a decent Christian.

Your religion has little correlation on whether or not your a good person.

No--not even remotely.

And how is one to calculate these risks?

Here, let me try an argument using your rationale: I go outside without a Kevlar vest despite the chances I may randomly be stricken by a stray bullet. So when I play basketball at my local park, should I be met with an unfortunate wound from a stray bullet--possibly fatal--it was in part my fault because I either neglected my Kevlar vest, or went outside in the first place. The culpability of the gun's wielder is by default mitigated in part due to my culpability as described before. 

Statistics aren't psychic readings.

It is incumbent upon any interaction that the parties involved are willful participants, however consent manifests. Manner of dress and venue are irrelevant.

Praise be to the braindead one, for showing us that the entire existence of women is to have consequence free sex! Shall we extend this logic into viewing women as nothing but sex objects? Of course not, because we must embrace braindeath! Through braindeath we learn that fallacies are amazing and logic is sin! Praise be to the braindead one, may praises forever be sung!

If you really believe this and you want the GOP to lose in 2022, wouldn't you support repealing Roe V Wade to help the dems.

Rape is non-consensual sex, and thus the outcome of such an act cannot create a duty of care (I don't see a logical way of arguing from a non-consenting act to gaining responsibility for another), thus abortion becomes permissible in the case of rape. It would still be tragic, as it is the ending of an innocent life, but without a rational way of justifying the duty of care extending to the mother there is no way of justifying the violation of bodily autonomy. In consenting acts this is justifiable (as bodily autonomy can already be limited based on certain circumstances, neglect laws, and newborns), but not in cases of rape.

If the life of the mother is at risk then it becomes trickier. Usually in an accident when a paramedic needs to make a rapid decision to save a child or an adult the child is prioritized, which gives some weight to the idea that if only the mother's life is at risk that the child should still be saved, but I am not firm in that view. I tentatively take the view that abortion is permissible (because I do think that the nature of the unborn child is somewhat different than the born child), though an absolute tragedy, in those situations (though I am open to having my mind changed as it is a tentative position). I do want to note, however, that these types of situations are actually very rare.

Lastly, the idea that a fetus with certain development problems is somehow less worthy of life than a healthy one seems, to me, to use the same exact line of reasoning that one would use to argue that children with, for example, Down's Syndrome are lesser.

The distinctions are abstract and have no bearing on any specific subject or assertion.

Rationally is a synonym for logically in this context. Philosophically does not translate to something specific. Science is simply rational epistemology applied to hypothetical explanation of phenomenon, especially with the aid of math or experimentation.

It all boils down to a good argument... and by good I mean sound/strong.

When you have a vocabulary of an 8-year-old 

https://youtu.be/VyhSiKdSj3o?t=33

“Misinformation” is merely “fake news” rebranded for people who hate Trump.

seems like it.

What's to explain, its gender dysphoria.

I feel like I was born in the wrong body with a strong desire to be a woman.

When I imagine my ideal self it is always female.

Etc.

I have stated I do non-affirming therapy, why would I crossdress?