Why should religious exemptions to laws be limited to conservatives?

vibise

Well-known member
No, vaccines don't leave scars. I've had all the childhood vaccines and the Pfizer covid vaccine (both in almost the exact same spot) and I have NO scars from any vaccinations whatsoever.

Your article is behind a pay wall.
I have a scar on my left arm from a childhood vaccination.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Yes, and I explained that I had to delete the content of the quote box in order to post my reply, and I inserted the word snip and then put the explanation in the box instead of putting it outside the box. Why is this such a big deal to you? It is not like I was putting words in your mouth suggesting you were pro-choice.
When I said "Okay" I was excepting your explanation. For the record I would prefer you not do it that way, not because I can't figure it out, but for the benefit of the reader who may be confused.
Neither you nor I have no agency when it comes to the human reproductive cycle, but all of us have agency when it comes to how we deal with unwanted pregnancies
An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted person. I'm sorry to break in, in the middle of the sentence, but you've embedded a predicate here that needs to be addressed as it appears in what you've written. A pregnancy and the person who would be born are inextricably linked, so whether you identify the person to be born, or not, when you say pregnancy that person is ushered into the conversation. The difficulty is that only one person has a voice to make an argument for what they perceive to be in their best interest. The interests of the two parties are necessarily at odds. And the weaker party needs to have an advocate.
or pregnancies resulting from rape
Children don't pick their parents. The sins of the father are not the sins of the child. Why are we starting from a predicate that it's a foregone conclusion that we're going to kill all the children who were sired in the crime of rape. I think it's generally acknowledge that there's only one criminal in the crime of rape in practically every case.
or pregnancies that are nonviable.
This example strikes me that it doesn't even belong in the sentence. It is not at all like rape, and it's not all like, simply an unwanted pregnancy. Again I'm sorry as I can be to break up your sentence the way I've done here, but you introduced four or five issues that independently need to be addressed, and this is the way to address them. If you had just one issue in a sentence I wouldn't find myself breaking it up.
We decide on laws to handle those things.
Excuse me but the effect of Roe v. Wade was to invalidate laws. So I believe you stated the issue exactly on its head. But for Roe v. Wade this issue would be settled in state legislatures one by one. Roe v. Wade may be the most divisive supreme court decision sense Dred Scott.
So you have never and will never be in a position of having a crisis pregnancy, but are perfectly happy to dictate to women what they should do.
I will never be in a position to be poached by an elephant hunter either, but that doesn't mean I am prohibited from speaking up for the elephant.
There is a high degree of confidence in what abnormalities will not make it to term, and it should not be hard to add a sentence to that effect to a piece of legislature.
This gets into dictating how doctors exercise their judgment, experience and advice. That is the job of doctors and not legislators.
I am not willing to wait for some hypothetical last day for justice.
Neither you nor anybody else can deliver justice in the sense of absolute relief of the consequences of someone else's crime. There are things that we try to do like corporal punishment or monetary relief, but these really don't undo the actual consequences of crimes. But adding another wrong certainly does not undo the consequence of the crime.
I think we should aim to dispense justice here and now. If you want to wait until that last day, OK, but out from the here and now.
If you didn't get the memo, or haven't figured it out already, on the last day we're gonna find out there's only one innocent party. The rest of us will become painfully aware that in spite of having been wronged, we've all wronged a lot of people too.
You are insisting that the govt intrude into pregnancies,
No I'm not. The rapist intruded not the government. The pregnancy is the proof positive of the intrusion. But as I said above the pregnancy is not an abstract process it's a person.
by denying the pregnant woman any say whatsoever.
The word "say" hardly communicates that what we're talking about here is ending a person, by causing their death. I find your use of language highly problematic.
I am sure you would be very sad if your wife had an abortion, but you will never be in the actual position of having to make that decision regarding your own body.
You're proposing a hypothetical contrary to fact the last thing in the world that my wife would've done is considered an abortion. But the suggestion that I don't, or shouldn't, have a "say" in the preservation of the children that I have sired is patently absurd, and it's counterfactual.
I am an American woman and I love my children and am about to have a third grandchild, and because I love them, I would never agree to having the govt force any one of them to go through pregnancy and childbirth if they were unwilling.
So it's just a preferential choice like picking out wallpaper for the breakfast room? This is not about processes like pregnancy, it's about persons like the ones that fall prey to the knife of an abortion doctor. And those victims are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for the rest of this response of yours, I give up.
If you wouldn't make these complex arguments that are peppered with a half dozen falls predicates in a single sentence this would be a lot easier.
I am finding it impossible to respond when you cut up my sentences into two or three pieces for individual responses, generating a chopped up response that is way longer than my post. Many of the individual responses have no context and are not understandable as stand alone comments in the quote box. My post had 11 short paragraphs or complete sentences, and your response had ~25 separate responses, many of which are not even sentences.
I've explained the source of the problem. If you had three paragraphs that focused on one issue, and no predicates that were contrary to fact, I would take this in three paragraph chunks.
I would be fine with a discussion involving clear but brief back and forth comments. Are you up for that?
It very much depends on what I'm responding to.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
It tends to be more convincing to link to official sites to provide technical information in response to people who are not inclined to accept science. If I had typed this out myself you would have dismissed it completely.

The changes described are indeed physiological. What other term would you use to describe them? The switch from dependence on the mother's body is a major physiological change, and organ systems have to undergo functional changes to adapt to life without an umbilical cord.



The fetus is not a person under the law. Personhood is not actually defined by science, it is a legal, sociological, religious, political, ethical construct that is informed by science.

The argument that a fetus is not the biological equivalent of a newborn is science-based.

I am not making distinctions between a newborn and a 2-month old and a senior citizen. I have never advocated murdering people with mental retardation or any other abnormalities.

The only relevant distinction in the abortion issue is between a fetus and a newborn.
A n infant isn't the biological equivalent of a teenager either. Which is of course irrelevant to the question of should we be allowed to hack them into pieces for or convenience.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
It tends to be more convincing to link to official sites
Except that "convincing" wasn't necessary. I just asked you for examples, not evidence.
to provide technical information in response to people who are not inclined to accept science. If I had typed this out myself you would have dismissed it completely.
No, I wouldn't have. Go and read my responses to you. I don't dismiss what you say. I just refute it with facts.
The changes described are indeed physiological. What other term would you use to describe them?
Developmental would have been the correct term. What the article you had to rely on described were developmental issues.
The switch from dependence on the mother's body is a major physiological change, and organ systems have to undergo functional changes to adapt to life without an umbilical cord.
OK. What, spefically, changes?
The fetus is not a person under the law.
...except in thirteen states.
The argument that a fetus is not the biological equivalent of a newborn is science-based.
So, tell us what the difference is.
I am not making distinctions between a newborn and a 2-month old and a senior citizen.
I understand. I'd run away from that question, too, if I were in your diapers.
I have never advocated murdering people with mental retardation or any other abnormalities.
Why not? You consistently refer to level of brain development and activity as defense for your bloodlust.
The only relevant distinction in the abortion issue is between a fetus and a newborn.
You don't consider it relevant because you want to ignore it because it's a question you know you can't honestly answer without being shown to be a hypocrite, and your defense of abortion illogical.
No, vaccines don't leave scars.
Well, I guess we'll just add that to the long list of things you're ignorant about, then. Here's a photo of a smallpox scar:

1633208822497.png
Your article is behind a pay wall.
It's not my fault your parents are poor.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
Except that "convincing" wasn't necessary. I just asked you for examples, not evidence.

No, I wouldn't have. Go and read my responses to you. I don't dismiss what you say. I just refute it with facts.

Developmental would have been the correct term. What the article you had to rely on described were developmental issues.

OK. What, spefically, changes?

...except in thirteen states.

So, tell us what the difference is.

I understand. I'd run away from that question, too, if I were in your diapers.

Why not? You consistently refer to level of brain development and activity as defense for your bloodlust.

You don't consider it relevant because you want to ignore it because it's a question you know you can't honestly answer without being shown to be a hypocrite, and your defense of abortion illogical.

Well, I guess we'll just add that to the long list of things you're ignorant about, then. Here's a photo of a smallpox scar:

View attachment 1970

It's not my fault your parents are poor.
A smallpox scar and a "VACCINE SCAR" are two vastly different things. YOU claimed VACCINES leave scars. They do not. We can chalk this up to yet another thing you are wrong on😂.

You should source articles not hidden behind pay walls.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I don't get your question. Women are the ones with wombs who go through pregnancy. We do not yet have artificial wombs.
Ah ok great. So women are the female adults of the species which produce ova and after conception gestate the human offspring in the womb until birth.
Ok with that?
 
Top