Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.what "limitations" are you referring to ?
Laws against murder would necessarily restrict the free exercise of human sacrifice. Every right has some sort of limitations so that everyone may enjoy the protection of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your point seemed to be that rights can't be restricted. Is that not what you meant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
Free speech is a right not a privilege, but there are limitations on it necessarily. Absolute rights run contrary to the purpose of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This is why I find the atheist position so well cowardly. It is permitted to attack my views - which incidentally I am ok with - since it will help me understand my own views better. Yet, it never provides an alternative - except - there is no god. And that is it.
It seems to me you don't understand atheism. It is not a moral philosophy, an epistemological foundation, a worldview, an alternative to a theistic worldview...it is not even the view that 'there is no god'. Atheism at its core is non-belief in deities. That's it. This is what all atheists have in common.
Also, fwiw, an alternative isnt required to challenge a worldview. If someone truly believed the great teapot in the sky (GTS) guided their every move and was involved in every facet of their life, it would be a non-sequitor for them to claim only someone with an alternative could legitimately challenge their views. Someone sans GTS can have sufficient perspective to point out flaws.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
If you're going to go that far then why not include as a subsidy 'paying no federal income tax' and restrict lobbying too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't find atheists so much into exploring ideas as they are in destroying ideas. And ridiculing people along the way. If they had something better to offer it might assist.
From what I can see, it doesn't look like you're interested in exploring the views and ideas of atheists. It looks like you find their criticism true in some way and want to retaliate (by destroying their views) while you are quite literally ridiculing (atheists are cowards).
If you sincerely want to know someone's views - you would just ask rather than pretend you are a victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If other people's views have no bearing on the truth of your beliefs, why must they be part of an open discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If atheists had an alternative and you could legitimately criticize it, would that make your beliefs true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Baptist Press - the newspaper of the Southern Baptist Convention. There *may* be a bias from this source.
While we have some ideas which policies work and which do not (parental involvement law reduces abortion, increased contraception use mostly does not), for most types of abortion restrictions it remains unclear what influence the laws are having.[...]Does this mean that we in the pro-life movement are wasting our time in seeking more state-level restrictions? Not at all. Even if it could be demonstrated that such laws are not currently affecting the rate of abortion (the likelihood of which we find highly doubtful), they continue to serve an important moral purpose – both now and in the future.
Ultimately, the only thing they are certain of is the power legislation has to push their religious moral views.
Federalist, Author - Lyman Stone, missionary, Research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS). IFS has ties to the Bradley Foundation which is known to have a highly politicized agenda. There *may* be a bias.
People living in states that restricted abortion would experience enormous declines in abortions.
Statements like this are misleading. Yes, legislation restricting/banning abortion reduce *legal* abortions. Another problem I had with this source is that it did not account for abortion rates in neighboring states/nations. A reduction of abortions in a restrictive place can be easily explained by increased rates in a less restrictive neighbor, and this does happen. When Texas' bounty law recently went into effect, neighboring states reported increased patients.
I will give him credit for endorsing "giving financial support to parents would indeed reduce abortions". This is not a point usually mentioned anywhere in an anti-abortion article.
New York Times - a fairly well balanced presentation of the facts.
In September, after Texas enacted the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation, the number of legal abortions performed there dropped 50 percent from the same month in 2020[...]Rough estimates based on previous research on abortion restrictions in Texas suggest that about half of the women who are unable to get abortions at clinics there end up getting one another way, usually by traveling to another state[...]The burden of these restrictions don’t fall equally on all women,” Professor Fischer said. “Economically disadvantaged women are going to have less means to travel. While some women will find a way, it won’t be the case that they all find a way.”
The sad part is that those who cannot afford to make a trip to New Mexico are left with undesirable choices: do it illegally or let an unwanted pregnancy become an unwanted child. This is not an acceptable alternative to legal, safe abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
What I meant is that while rights are moral concepts, in a free society it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. In other words we cannot regulate or criminalize everything we find to be immoral. Some examples of things I find immoral that should not be illegal includes, but is not limited to, being filthy rich and not philanthropic; disowning someone for being LGBT; disregarding the physical and emotional needs of elderly family members; showing favoritism to one child over another; being a disrespectful little bitch; etc.
Well spoken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe." - SkepticalOneEven if you disagree with Pro Life, I don't understand your statement,Logically if it's against the law to carelessly abort, then there are going to be less abortions,
It has been shown abortions occur at roughly the same rate whether they are legal or illegal:
Abortions occur as frequently in the two most-restrictive categories of countries (banned outright or allowed only to save the woman’s life) as in the least-restrictive category (allowed without restriction as to reason)—37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You support murder of fetuses old enough to be premature born babies being dubbed slaughter on a technicality, I support it coming under the murder law it should apply to.
If an adult takes possession of an unwilling person we recognize it as a violation, but a fetus has no such restrictions? I mean, there's really only two choices: self ownership (and people using their bodies in way we might not approve of personally) or no reasonable expectation of rights. Pick your poison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you don't want a law based on morality, our positions are more different than I could begin to reconcile.
My morality or yours? You speak as if morality is absolute and universal. I don't find that to be the case.
I would much rather laws be based on what demonstrably does the most good. The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe. Is that moral? Abortions are going to happen regardless. If people are concerned about the overall health and well-being of our society they should concern themselves with legal regulated abortions done by licensed individuals, comprehensive sex education, free/low cost birth control, etc., etc. Abortion restrictions is a misguided attempt to address a perceived problem in the most useless and performative way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If my dad were still alive, I'd expect he would donate a kidney if I needed it, but I certainly wouldn't want to force his (potentially life-threatening) donation. What I want and what is required by government should not necessarily be the same thing.
Hard to argue with such an eloquent and well thought out rebuttal. ;-)Your position is bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, actually I won't tell if I have or haven't actively done it but I totally support opt-in default for using my dead body for research, even transplants if I am totally doomed, some countries only let you opt in to one of the two
I'll just point out you're consenting to having your body used without your consent. (That would be consent).
Do you think children have a right to use their parents organs without consent?During the time all others do it, yeah.
Did you force your dad to give a kidney when you were a toddler? What an odd answer! ;-)
Do you think it is wrong consent is required to interact with other people?Yes. [...] I have no clue what your question even is.
I think you are confusing your personal role and the role of a governing body. You personally don't have a right to imprison someone for a crime, suicide watch, mandate taxes, etc. Your answer should be negative unless you're breaking the law on the regular.
You mean during sex? No
This is reasonable.
The emotions matter, they are how morals are formed.
I think you understand legal and moral are not synonyms. 'Restrictions on abortion' has legal implications. The law should not be based on emotionality, but reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The double speak is incredible.
Clearly, you don't understand my position, and I don't understand what you think my position is.
No seat has been “stolen.” The one being hyperbolic is you
At least 1 of those seats (if not 2) should have been chosen by Democratic presidents if Republicans weren't bending the rules purely for political gain. There's nothing hyperbolic about that. That is a different discussion though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) it is considered "unfair" for a woman to be FORCED to support (gestate) a child she does not want (THEN) it is equally "unfair" for a man to be FORCED to support a child he does not want
Agree. I'd rather no one be forced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The right to oneself is fundamental, and basis to every other right. That is the reason my commitment to the principle is unwavering. Undermining the right to self, undermines every other right.How you "feel" about it, or anyone else for that matter, does not disqualify her right.
When I grow up I want to be as eloquent as Athias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
We’ve been going back and forth for several pages now about abortions after the point of viability, and several others have supported your position
I have stated, in principle, self ownership justifies abortion up to birth. That is not the same as 'refusing to accept even the tiniest of restrictions'. That's hyperbolic. Restrictions are literally the law of the land. Again, it is not pro-choice folks trying to abolish Roe.
Also nobody “stacked” the courts. As far as I know nobody added seats
You're right, no one has added seats, but seats have been stolen. This has the same effect even if it is not technically 'stacking the court'. Same difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
based on what principle ?
If a woman has no choice but to bear the burden of pregnancy, then it is fair fathers should provide support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
is it perhaps a violation of self-ownership to force a man to provide a physical dna sample based on an accusation ?
I'm not advocating for that. I assumed the question was about known fathers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
but in the US there really is a core group of advocates who won’t accept even the tiniest restriction.
This is disingenuous. We have accepted reasonable restrictions set by Roe for 50 years. ...It is not abortion advocates that have stacked the court for the purpose of dismantling cases for the sake of abortion restrictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It is not a black and white issue to me. If abortion is banned, men should pay child support from conception (or as early as known). If abortion is not severely restricted (unlike its current status), I think there is an argument for 'abortion' of fatherhood. I am not convinced that it is a good argument, or that I will be alive at a time where it can seriously be considered.
Right now, father's should pay child support. I would like to see father's helping with pregnancy if they aren't already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're not wrong, but I am hopeful killing Roe to satisfy religious sensibilities will bring a stronger advocacy to the separation of state and religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Out of curiosity how do you feel about mandating child support from fathers who want nothing to do with their child
I think that is a much more complex question than it seems. At first blush, it would seem fair that if women can choose abortion without any input from the father, then the father should be able to 'abort' their fatherhood without any input from the mother. That being said, the father and mother bear very different burdens financially, physically, emotionally, etc regarding bringing a child into the world. Would it really be fair to call those roles equal and scenarios each might face equal? There is an entire debate on that alone.
Before we can have that debate, we would need to settle the abortion debate and remove hurdles, hoops, and obstacles for women being able to control their future. It seems we are regressing, so it would certainly not be appropriate to have men skip while women have no choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
well, except for the fact that nearly all elected officials in the united states claim to be "christian"
The Bible has no *legitimate* place in a secular government. Better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you think a person has a right to use your body without consent? Do you think children have a right to use their parents organs without consent? Do you think it is wrong consent is required to interact with other people? Do you think it is wrong consent can be withdrawn? Unless you answered affirmatively, you rationally understand self-ownership even if you have difficulty coming to terms with it emotionally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The Bible has no place in a secular government so it doesn't really matter what it says. If it did the legality of abortion would be up to the ruling party's interpretation because it could just as easily support abortion as anti-abortion advocates. (But that's another debate!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Moral questions are balancing acts, in the case of someone no longer wanting to have sex the other party doesn’t have a moral claim to sex.
No individual has a moral claim to the body of another.
Breaking a lease randomly and kicking a tenant out with zero notice is a harm to them, which is why something like that is regulated.
You keep equating pregancy to a lease agreement, but I will continue to reject that analogy until you can establish X months of pregancy somehow equates to agreement between the parties involved.
So the question becomes when has the right to choose been exercised?
When consent to one's body is no longer necessary: birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think that having five solid months to abort and choosing not to is more than enough to give consent.
If a squatter occupies a unit for 5 months, has the landlord implicitly given consent? No, of course not - her ownership of the property still holds.
I haven’t seen any argument from you for why choosing not to abort a fetus for five, six, or seven months doesn’t qualify as consent to being pregnant
I would say that is attempting to shift the burden. If you think 5,6,7 months of pregancy equates to consent, you'll need to substantiate that position. I don't see how you can do it without diminishing self-ownership and creating special rights.
If a woman consents to sex with a partner for 5,6,7 months, does that mean she has given consent for month 8? No, of course not. It doesn't work like that.
Plus, you are discounting the fact that consent can be withdrawn. A woman can consent to sex and change her mind during the act and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Consent is conditional, provisional, subject to change.
I’m not seeing a clear standard here
I think you mean you're not seeing your standard. I have explained how my standard is consistent for landlords and squatters or women and unwanted pregancies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
we have a precedent for forcing people to keep their word after consent
The 'consent' between landlord and tenant is a multi-page lease contract. This agreement is explicit, undeniable, and legally binding. The consent for an unwanted pregancy doesn't exist.
Also, we have a deterrent against breaking the agreement. You certainly can't force landlord or tenant to do anything. You can make them sorry they didn't honor their word. But, again, there is no agreement or promise for an unwanted pregnancy.
Supporting absolute ownership rights at any time for any reason for abortion only is special pleading.
Not at all. You are comparing apples and oranges.
A landlord has no agreement with a squatter. Eviction of a squatter at any time for any reason is acceptable. A woman has no promise with an unwanted pregancy, and she, like the landlord, should, in principle, be able to end occupancy at any time for any reason.
As I see it the real debate is when does a woman give consent to a pregnancy
Ok, then I'll throw this out there: consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No, an unfertilized egg is different from a fetus.
Obviously. However, both can exist within a uterus. The statement you questioned was fairly broad. Besides that, I don't think a woman has an obligation to a pregnancy unless it is what she wants. What anyone else wants is irrelevant.
Having two full trimesters to abort and choosing to keep it is the consent. What you’re arguing for is the right to change your mind for any reason and at any time. Which is my question…is there truly no point where the “right to choose” has been exercised? Why not?
I take it you recognize the problem with your landlord analogies.
I have already answered a derivation of this question and my answer remains the same: Abortion during pregancy is justifiable because of self-ownership.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why not?
The monthly cycle would be a tragic and mournful event if women did have an obligation to the contents of their wombs, don't you think? Instead of a first period being a sign a feminine maturity, it would the first in a long line of failures to uphold this imagined obligation. It might be better to ask why you think reality should be different.
I’m glad you brought that up. If a landlord breaks a lease on a good tenant because he changed his mind there’s a penalty. Do you agree that this is morally justified? If you do you agree that there are restrictions on the right to “evict”
What lease exists between a woman and the contents of her womb? Is a squatter a 'good tenant'? Your scenario has no relevance.
Created:
Posted in:
If someone takes issue with abortion because of the sanctity of life, a right to life, or "its murder!", how can any exception be allowed? Is abortion in the case of incest not murder? Does sanctity or a right to life get suspended when a fetus is the product of rape?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Moreover a woman has an obligation to her *child in a way we don’t for strangers.
*born. There is no inherent obligation between a woman and the contents of her womb.
I can understand how someone could support abortion up to the point of viability even though I don’t really but after that it’s completely monstrous. It boggles my mind that you think that a viable fetus is a living human being that carries moral weight but the woman’s right to choose is more important.
Personal sovereignty is more important than creating special rights to use the body of others against their will.
But since you aren’t an ancap you obviously have other values so I’m curious why bodily autonomy is so paramount in this case and no other. Five months into a pregnancy that right to choose has been exercised, and she chose to keep it. What you’re arguing for is the right to change your mind until literally the last moment
Bodily autonomy is the only right actually at play here. If someone (even a born person) lives in or off of my body, I have the right to evict. Not one of us has a right to use any body other than our own without consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You brought your written sneer to me, and now you're trying to pretend you were asking about 'new social and physiological phenomena'? My responses have been driven by your questions about my messaging and sincerity. I have yet to see a genuine non-mocking question from you in this thread regarding transgenderism. I know it can seem very unfair when people properly respond to the vibe you're putting out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ahh, because someone somewhere has virtue signaled, every person concerned with the fate of a particular group of people is insincere?
That's pretty weak.
For what it is worth, I have trans family. I am only concerned with his ability to have a normal life and keeping people who don't understand from meddling in that. Unlike many, my interest isn't political. I may be an imperfect advocate for LGBTQ+, but I am sincere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I said what I meant to say. Clearly transgenderism has a way to go before it isn't considered extreme or taboo. It (and trans folks) is a common target of angst, bigotry, and violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't see the issue.
Normalize: to allow or encourage (something considered extreme or taboo) to become viewed as normal.
Perhaps more explanation will make plain my alleged mistake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
I don't think that Jenner is particularly media shy.If one doesn't want people to know and consequently express opinions....Then one should keep one's gob shut.
I would typically agree with @3RU7AL, but she has put herself out there in an effort to normalize transgenderism. This will necessarily involve other people's opinions.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
@imdancin
i thought "morality" is supposed to be objective and never changes
Exactly. There is a huge disconnect between "true, fixed, unchanging point of reference" and the false, unfixed, and changing reference point provided by the Bible. The fact that slavery was codified in the OT (and never explicitly renounced) while modern Christians accept slavery as immoral speaks volumes of their 'objective/absolute morality'.
Peter, I'm ready to move forward with that debate if you're available anytime in the near future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
No, but it is much easier to argue in stark black and white moral terms. Nuance is hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why not? A woman at six months of pregnancy has had at least five months to get an abortion and chose not to. Now the fetus is so developed it could live outside of her. How is killing it acceptable in that circumstance? And besides, unless you’re an ancap we restrict what people are allowed to do with their bodies all the time. What makes this case any different
I have an issue with one person being forced to provide their organs, tissue, blood for the benefit of another. If I somehow cause another person to need a kidney (and mine is compatible) no one would dare suggest I be forced to hand mine over (not even after 6 months), but this is exactly what some expect pregnant women to do. We should be consistent. Either bodily autonomy applies equally to everyone or it doesn't exist. I refuse to accept the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Okay that’s what I was trying to get at. You do support *some* restriction on abortion even if it would only prevent a tiny percentage of abortion. At what point do you think the cut off should be for elective abortion?
I have answered this. "I do hold that people are the unquestioned sovereign of their own body (I like that phrase), and ultimately that is justification enough for an abortion anytime during pregancy."
The law is meant to protect people. While personhood is defined by birth, the law has nothing other than pregnant people to consider.
Also is the safety of the mother the only thing that matters to you? Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, not assign any moral weight whatsoever to a fully viable fetus?
Personally, I assign moral significance at the capacity for consciousness (6 months of pregnancy or so). However, this is not sufficient weight to override a woman's ownership of her body. Imo, no person (born or not) has sufficient moral weight to override another person's ownership of their body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It is the question because it's the question I asked.
If that is the question you intended to ask in the OP, it wasnt communicated very well.
If you have no moral issue with someone choosing to kill rather than deliver alive a fetus of 39 weeks because the mother is the unquestioned sovereign of her own body you shouldn't have a problem saying that.
In my opinion, abortions later in the pregancy are morally acceptable in the case of maternal endangerment, fetal death/incompatibility with life, or in cases where unreasonable restrictions/dishonest actors (pregnancy centers hiding the fact they don't provide abortions) prevent abortion earlier in the pregnancy. I do hold that people are the unquestioned sovereign of their own body (I like that phrase), and ultimately that is justification enough for an abortion anytime during pregancy.
Is a late abortion wise? No. That is one of the reasons why they are rare because the later the abortion the higher the risk. Discontinuing a pregancy is something that should be (and typically is) done very early. Late abortions are generally done as a matter of necessity.
I don't even understand how an "abortion" at an absurdly late stage like 39 weeks would differ from another form of induced deliver, other than deliberately killing the fetus.
Ok. I'm not a doctor. I trust your google-fu works just as well as mine. ;-)
For example, in a partial birth abortion [...]
Partial birth abortions are banned - as they should be. Abortions should occur before birth (even a partial one).
You good with that for a 39 year old healthy fetus, for elective reasons?
I'm not good with that for a healthy mother. If the mother is healthy, I (in my non-expert opinion) think the safest route is to go through with the birth. I am open to changing my opinion on this if and when better information comes along though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But if someone did do it just as a whim, you’re good with that?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether abortions late in the pregancy should be allowed. Given that people can die or suffer if abortion isn't allowed late in the pregnancy it should be legal.
I am very resistent to the framing of abortions late in the pregnancy being for frivolous people not really committed to pregnancy or a child. That is simply not the case. The question of whimsical 'up to the moment of birth abortions' is dismissive of real people with real grief. It pretends there is a problem while threatening to create a problem for people who already have too many.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Most people don’t want to ban abortion entirely but also don’t think it should be legal up to the moment of birth. What do you think the limit should be and why?
Roe provides a good standard. As for abortion 'up to the moment of birth' - it should be legal. Abortions late in the pregnancy are rare and done, not for convenience or whim, because of extraordinary circumstances.
Created:
-->
@Novice
Unequal treatment. Self ownership should mean the same for all people.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Either way, it’s unethical to take the life of someone who has done nothing to harm you.
Again, your point is low on context:
1) it is not unethical to prevent someone from using your body
2) pregnancy can certainly be harmful.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
More like a selective opinion. Your position is abortion till the second the baby comes out of the mom’s stomach. All because of the inconvenience it brings to a woman. It logically does not make sense to kill a human being because they are inconvenient.
Yep, that's the simplistic framing of an often tragic scenario I was referring to. Termination of pregnancy so close to term isn't done on a whim or inconvenience. You lack information or integrity.
Created: