Why should religious exemptions to laws be limited to conservatives?

Simpletruther

Well-known member
I have posted this before:



The attribution of innocence or guilt to a nonsentient being is meaningless, but is commonly used by anti-abortionists to create sympathy for the fertilized egg/fetus/embryo

If the founders thought that religion should have been given primacy in law making they would have said so in the Constitution. Instead, there is no mention of a creator, or Jesus or the Bible or any specific religion. And in fact the Bill of Rights says the govt should not establish any religion.

Democracy works by giving the majority the right to run things as long as they are voted into that position.

As for evolution, there are no scientists running productive research programs based on creationism. If you think otherwise, name them.

There is no baby until birth, and the woman should not be obligated to use her body to produce a baby for the man who violently attacked her. Have you no recognition of how traumatic this would be? And it is especially evil that there is no exemption in these RW laws for victims who are as young as 11 or 12 and whose bodies are not ready for pregnancy.
You realize creation accepts micro evolution which encompasses any possible appllied biology?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The attribution of innocence or guilt to a nonsentient being is meaningless
Humans are sentient beings. Guilt is the loss of innocence and it requires knowledge of a moral code which is being violated. So if you're human and you're not yet aware of a moral code you're innocent.
 

vibise

Well-known member
snip - I could not respond without cutting out your comments.
Your moral principles are not shared by everyone, and enduring a pregnancy resulting from a violent attack is indeed a punishment. In other cases, childbearing was not the planned outcome, or the fetus is so abnormal that termination is the humane thing to do. If child-bearing is the consequence of sex that should be accepted, then both parties should bear responsibility, and yet the man is rarely held responsible and even if legally required to pay child support, can often just not do that for years if not decades. Where is the RW outrage about that?

If there is something incompatible with life in the fetus, the woman should not have to continue the pregnancy. Miscarriages can occur at inopportune times when medical assistance is not available, or the woman might have to go through another 5-6 months of pregnancy only to have to go through childbirth and have the baby die almost immediately. Why would anyone force a woman to put herself at risk and go through this?

Romans five is irrelevant in a secular state as is the concept of sin.

A fetus is not a baby, and is not recognized as a person under the law. Therefore there is no equivalence to capital punishment or deaths in war.

"Thou shalt not kill" refers to born people.

Not surprised that Kavanaugh does not recognize any tests that would counter his religious bias in making judgements.

Of course I know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are. Why would I have commented otherwise? Dawkins has spent most of his life working as an evolutionary biologist and attempting to explain these concepts to the general public. I do not see him as an atheist first and foremost, but I can imagine that most creationists do see him that way.

Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are as different from each other as the three evangelists, but the point is that all 3 evangelists have made their names through their religious enterprises, whereas the 3 I mentioned have had careers independent of atheism.

I gather you are a man. Do you interact with any women on a regular basis? Have you ever talked with women you might know about abortion or unplanned and unwanted pregnancies? Do you know any women who have had abortions?
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Your moral principles are not shared by everyone, and enduring a pregnancy resulting from a violent attack is indeed a punishment. In other cases, childbearing was not the planned outcome, or the fetus is so abnormal that termination is the humane thing to do. If child-bearing is the consequence of sex that should be accepted, then both parties should bear responsibility, and yet the man is rarely held responsible and even if legally required to pay child support, can often just not do that for years if not decades. Where is the RW outrage about that?

If there is something incompatible with life in the fetus, the woman should not have to continue the pregnancy. Miscarriages can occur at inopportune times when medical assistance is not available, or the woman might have to go through another 5-6 months of pregnancy only to have to go through childbirth and have the baby die almost immediately. Why would anyone force a woman to put herself at risk and go through this?

Romans five is irrelevant in a secular state as is the concept of sin.

A fetus is not a baby, and is not recognized as a person under the law. Therefore there is no equivalence to capital punishment or deaths in war.

"Thou shalt not kill" refers to born people.

Not surprised that Kavanaugh does not recognize any tests that would counter his religious bias in making judgements.

Of course I know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are. Why would I have commented otherwise? Dawkins has spent most of his life working as an evolutionary biologist and attempting to explain these concepts to the general public. I do not see him as an atheist first and foremost, but I can imagine that most creationists do see him that way.

Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are as different from each other as the three evangelists, but the point is that all 3 evangelists have made their names through their religious enterprises, whereas the 3 I mentioned have had careers independent of atheism.

I gather you are a man. Do you interact with any women on a regular basis? Have you ever talked with women you might know about abortion or unplanned and unwanted pregnancies? Do you know any women who have had abortions?
A fetus is most definitely a baby as even some of your leftist rags admit.

You are scientist you say?

It is very interesting how often scientists get basic facts definitions wrong.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You attributed the following words to me:

"Thistle said:
snip - I could not respond without cutting out your comments."

I didn't say that.
Your moral principles are not shared by everyone,
Which is not the issue. The issue is whether or not my moral principles are correct.
and enduring a pregnancy resulting from a violent attack is indeed a punishment.
Without weighing in on whether or not you are omniscient and know the motivation of a rapist, pregnancy may be an ordeal, but it's not a punishment.
In other cases, childbearing was not the planned outcome, or the fetus is so abnormal that termination is the humane thing to do.
So if we identify the gay gene, and the mother wants to abort the fetus because he possesses the gay gene, it is your position that, that is an acceptable abortion? You see, not everyone agrees about the definition of normal and abnormal.
If child-bearing is the consequence of sex that should be accepted, then both parties should bear responsibility, and yet the man is rarely held responsible and even if legally required to pay child support, can often just not do that for years if not decades. Where is the RW outrage about that?
I'm pretty outraged about that. But the fact is that most of the services that are provided to unwed mothers adoption services and foster care are provided by faith based organizations supported by people that you call "right wing."
If there is something incompatible with life in the fetus, the woman should not have to continue the pregnancy. Miscarriages can occur at inopportune times when medical assistance is not available, or the woman might have to go through another 5-6 months of pregnancy only to have to go through childbirth and have the baby die almost immediately. Why would anyone force a woman to put herself at risk and go through this?
The kind of thing that you're talking about is highly fact specific. As is common with the left-wing agenda a highly sympathetic case is given as the example in behind it stands a line of ghoulish horrors. In one of the Scandinavian countries there hasn't been a child born with autism for years. They have effectively exterminated all of the autistic children in the country.
Romans five is irrelevant in a secular state as is the concept of sin.
You suggest, by your comments above, that whether or not a child is innocent is relevant. The meaning of Romans five is therefore relevant your ambivalence notwithstanding.
A fetus is not a baby,
That's a remarkable statement for a scientist.
and is not recognized as a person under the law.
I hope you're not referring to Roe v. Wade. That decision turned on science which we know today is not true.
Therefore there is no equivalence to capital punishment or deaths in war.
We're talking about human beings bringing about the death of other human beings. This is irreducible. Generally that is unacceptable, and abortion doesn't really fall into the exceptions that we normally grant.
"Thou shalt not kill" refers to born people.
So your interpretation of Deuteronomy is relevant, but my interpretation of Romans five is not? Got it, thanks for the tip!
Not surprised that Kavanaugh does not recognize any tests that would counter his religious bias in making judgements.
I think you need to brace yourself for some abortion cases that are coming down the pike pretty quickly. And to the point in the center of our here, the application of the anti-establishment provisions are probably going to get some new treatment as well.
Of course I know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are. Why would I have commented otherwise? Dawkins has spent most of his life working as an evolutionary biologist and attempting to explain these concepts to the general public. I do not see him as an atheist first and foremost, but I can imagine that most creationists do see him that way.
Do you believe that his name, and cultural relevance, would be the same if he did not make picking fights with Bishops a priority? If you had not written a book called "The God Delusion?"
Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are as different from each other as the three evangelists, but the point is that all 3 evangelists have made their names through their religious enterprises, whereas the 3 I mentioned have had careers independent of atheism.
Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens have all made their names through advancing a secular humanist philosophical view of life.
I gather you are a man.
Pleased to know that you could tell.
Do you interact with any women on a regular basis?
Yes.
Have you ever talked with women you might know about abortion or unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?
Why would I want to contemplate annihilating my family? No, I didn't bring that subject up, and as a result I have a lovely daughter and a handsome son, both of which are very accomplished.
Do you know any women who have had abortions?
I'm sure I do. It's not the kind of thing people advertise.
 
Last edited:

vibise

Well-known member
A fetus is most definitely a baby as even some of your leftist rags admit.

You are scientist you say?

It is very interesting how often scientists get basic facts definitions wrong.
No. There are major physiological differences between a fetus and an actual baby. Look it up.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
No. There are major physiological differences between a fetus and an actual baby. Look it up.
There's an enormous physiological difference between a newborn and his great grandfather. I hope we recognize they're both human.
 

vibise

Well-known member
You attributed the following words to me:

"Thistle said:
snip - I could not respond without cutting out your comments."

I didn't say that.

Which is not the issue. The issue is whether or not my moral principles are correct.

Without weighing in on whether or not you are omniscient and know the motivation of a rapist, pregnancy may be an ordeal, but it's not a punishment.

So if we identify the gay gene, and the mother wants to abort the fetus because he possesses the gay gene, it is your position and that is an acceptable abortion? You see, not everyone agrees about the definition of normal and abnormal.

I'm pretty outraged about that. But the fact is that most of the services that are provided to unwed mothers adoption services and foster care are provided by faith based organizations supported by people that you call "right wing."

The kind of thing that you're talking about is highly fact specific. As is common with the left-wing agenda a highly sympathetic case is given as the example in behind it stands a line of ghoulish horrors. In one of the Scandinavian countries there hasn't been a child born with autism for years. They have effectively exterminated all of the autistic children in the country.

You suggest, by your comments above, that whether or not a child is innocent is relevant. The meaning of Romans five is therefore relevant your ambivalence notwithstanding.

That's a remarkable statement for a scientist.

I hope you're not referring to Roe v. Wade. That decision turned on science which we know today is not true.

We're talking about human beings bringing about the death of other human beings. This is irreducible. Generally that is unacceptable, and abortion doesn't really fall into the exceptions that we normally grant.

So your interpretation of Deuteronomy is relevant, but my interpretation of Romans five is not? Got it, thanks for the tip!

I think you need to brace yourself for some abortion cases that are coming down the pike pretty quickly. And to the point in the center of our here, the application of the anti-establishment provisions are probably going to get some new treatment as well.

Do you believe that his name, and cultural relevance, would be the same if he did not make picking fights with Bishops a priority? If you had not written a book called "The God Delusion?"

Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens have all made their names through advancing a secular humanist philosophical view of life.
I did not say that that is what you said. I was unable to post my responses unless I deleted the content of the post I was responding to, and the comment I added was an explanation of what I had to do. I did not mean to attribute those words to you.

You claim that pregnancy can be an ordeal, all the while insisting that any and all women and young girls should be forced to undergo this ordeal against their will, as though this is no big deal and could not possibly have lifelong repercussions. How many times have you been pregnant and how many times have you gone through childbirth? For me - twice. No one should have to do that unless by choice.

It is not acceptable to abort a fetus that might turn out to be gay or the "wrong" gender, but in order to prevent that, the govt would have to intrude into all pregnancies. Are you OK with that, or do you just figure that if you ban all of them, then the dangerous or nonviable pregnancies that should be aborted will just be collateral damage? And that is OK with you, as you will never be personally affected!

I am not happy that religious groups have become active in dealing with unwed mothers and adoption services. Religious groups seem ready to assign guilt to any sexual activity they do not approve of, and refuse to accept gay couples for adoption.

Yes, these abnormal pregnancies are highly fact-specific, but they are relatively common. And your side refuses to acknowledge that they exist and are traumatizing for the parents and your side refuses to make exceptions when these fact-based problems arise in pregnancy in which the fetus is unlikely to make it to birth or past birth for more than a few painful, horrific hours. Why would anyone with an ounce of empathy not allow for termination of such a pregnancy? Why would legislators refuse to make such exceptions in the laws they write?

Scientists are very specific in their usage of terminology. "Theory" has a different meaning in science than in popular usage. And baby has a specific meaning that is different from the definition of fetus - there are clear physiological differences that cannot be ignored.

What is not true about the science underpinning RvW? The 24 week limit was based on viability, which is the point at which 50% can survive. While there have certainly been examples that survived at 21-22 weeks, this limit has really not changed much.

Well, fetuses and fertilized eggs and embryos are not recognized as human persons under the laws we have, so abortion is not illegal, and is actually accepted by a majority of Americans.

Yes, I expect that we will see many anti-abortion court cases coming up very soon, and I expect the the RW SCOTUS justices will be A-OK with all of them, further eroding their credibility, but likely energizing the women of America and the men who love us.

The antiabortion laws in Ireland were quickly rescinded when a woman dentist with a septic pregnancy was not given a needed abortion, resulting in her death. I wonder how many deaths it will take in the USA before these anti-abortion laws are ended.

I think Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist independently of any philosophical baggage, and Hitchens was a writer who dealt with many subjects. Harris is a nutcase IMO.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
No. There are major physiological differences between a fetus and an actual baby. Look it up.
Sorry but here is one f many links you can find where even liberals admit it's a baby.


Millions of people call their unborn babies baby even millions of abortion loving liberals.. That is what determines word usage.

You are a scientist you claim, yet don't know this?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I did not say that that is what you said.
It literally said "Thistle said:" in a quote box, followed by words that you wrote.
I was unable to post my responses unless I deleted the content of the post I was responding to, and the comment I added was an explanation of what I had to do. I did not mean to attribute those words to you.
Okay. . .
You claim that pregnancy can be an ordeal, all the while insisting that any and all women and young girls should be forced to undergo this ordeal against their will,
Your attributing to me some kind of agency in the design of the human reproductive cycle. God didn't ask me. But for the record I take it for granted that God did what he "should have" done.
as though this is no big deal and could not possibly have lifelong repercussions.
None of that is a proper inference from anything that I said.
How many times have you been pregnant
You're the scientist who belongs to the "party of science," you tell me…
and how many times have you gone through childbirth? For me - twice.
Well, I've been in the delivery room twice, but I wasn't giving birth.
No one should have to do that unless by choice.
Unfairness and injustice will be rectified on the last day. In the meantime we have no choice but to tolerate unfairness and injustice.
It is not acceptable to abort a fetus that might turn out to be gay or the "wrong" gender, but in order to prevent that, the govt would have to intrude into all pregnancies.
Unless the Biden Administration has inaugurated a Department of Conception that I haven't heard about, the government doesn't intrude into pregnancies. I know some people who would definitely put in an application right quick.
Are you OK with that,
It doesn't happen so it's kind of a hypothetical contrary to fact.
or do you just figure that if you ban all of them, then the dangerous or nonviable pregnancies that should be aborted will just be collateral damage?
That would be a false choice. Are we seeing how many logical fallacies we can spin out in a row?
And that is OK with you, as you will never be personally affected!
If my wife and I had an abortion my life would I have been profoundly affected.
I am not happy that religious groups have become active in dealing with unwed mothers and adoption services.
Well it may be a small comfort then for you to hear that they were doing this for hundreds of years, so it's definitely not your fault.
Religious groups seem ready to assign guilt to any sexual activity they do not approve of, and refuse to accept gay couples for adoption.
God in his wisdom give children a mother and a father under normal circumstances. Is it surprising to you that religious organizations take their cue from God?
Yes, these abnormal pregnancies are highly fact-specific, but they are relatively common. And your side refuses to acknowledge that they exist
That's not true. I've never denied that exists.
and are traumatizing for the parents
That's not true either. In fact my sister was so concerned about this, that she decided (she and her husband) that they were going to adopt a deaf autistic boy, because these kinds of children have a hard time being placed in homes. They did, and the experience of raising him to adulthood was an invaluable experience for both of them. They also temporarily had a number of foster children in their home when they were much younger.
and your side refuses to make exceptions when these fact-based problems arise in pregnancy in which the fetus is unlikely to make it to birth or past birth for more than a few painful, horrific hours.
The devil of this statement is in the details. If a doctor can say with a very high degree of confidence that this child will not make it to term, I think most people who share my view recognize that that could be a legitimate reason to terminate the pregnancy. How you get to this high degree of confidence and other related fact specific details is what a well fashion piece of legislation ought to do.
Why would anyone with an ounce of empathy not allow for termination of such a pregnancy?
Again, I address that immediately above.
Scientists are very specific in their usage of terminology. "Theory" has a different meaning in science than in popular usage. And baby has a specific meaning that is different from the definition of fetus - there are clear physiological differences that cannot be ignored.
Well, living human and dead human is a fact pattern that I think everyone can get their head around, all colloquialisms aside.
What is not true about the science underpinning RvW? The 24 week limit was based on viability, which is the point at which 50% can survive. While there have certainly been examples that survived at 21-22 weeks, this limit has really not changed much.
I'd say changing by nearly a month is pretty significant.
Well, fetuses and fertilized eggs and embryos are not recognized as human persons under the laws we have, so abortion is not illegal, and is actually accepted by a majority of Americans.
That's based on legal precedent "Stare Decisis" it's not a law. When a decision is decided wrongly it needs to be revisited. That's why the Dred Scott decision is no longer good law.
Yes, I expect that we will see many anti-abortion court cases coming up very soon, and I expect the the RW SCOTUS justices will be A-OK with all of them, further eroding their credibility,
No sense of irony.
but likely energizing the women of America and the men who love us.
The fact is, the women of America are already energized and they love their children. That's why you can expect to see things change.
The antiabortion laws in Ireland were quickly rescinded when a woman dentist with a septic pregnancy was not given a needed abortion, resulting in her death.
Oh I fully expect that to whatever extent abortions become more rare as a matter of law in America, that every woman who dies in pregnancy will be waived around like a bloody shirt as a pretext to repeal any abortion law. So you can be forewarned that the people on my side of this discussion are fully prepared for that tactic. But I've addressed exceptions that are legitimate above so it's not like that this is something we have not discussed.
I wonder how many deaths it will take in the USA before these anti-abortion laws are ended.
How remarkably disconnected this comment is from reality.
I think Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist independently of any philosophical baggage, and Hitchens was a writer who dealt with many subjects. Harris is a nutcase IMO.
Google "new atheists" and you will discover, if you don't already know, that this is a movement, a cause celeb if you will and the three of them have all played a vital role in the movement.
 
Last edited:

Mike McK

Well-known member
Your moral principles are not shared by everyone
That's true. For instance, we believe life is sacred and that all people are made in the image of God. Nazis share your belief in eugenics and abortion. We believe we should help the poor. You believe you should outsource your responsibilities to the government. We believe in science. You believe in dogma. And the list goes on.
, and enduring a pregnancy resulting from a violent attack is indeed a punishment.
So, a pregnancy resulting from a rape is punishment, but a murder resulting from a pregnancy resulting from a rape is not?
In other cases, childbearing was not the planned outcome, or the fetus is so abnormal that termination is the humane thing to do.
Ah, yes. That fantastical "headless baby" you keep telling us about, but refuse to provide evidence for.
If child-bearing is the consequence of sex that should be accepted, then both parties should bear responsibility, and yet the man is rarely held responsible and even if legally required to pay child support, can often just not do that for years if not decades. Where is the RW outrage about that?
Conservatives often express outrage about that, when it's the topic. But it isn't the topic in this case. It's a red herring.
Miscarriages can occur at inopportune times when medical assistance is not available
Irrelevant. We're talking about abortion, not about miscarriages.
or the woman might have to go through another 5-6 months of pregnancy only to have to go through childbirth and have the baby die almost immediately. Why would anyone force a woman to put herself at risk and go through this?
Because she loves her child.
Romans five is irrelevant in a secular state as is the concept of sin.
Our Founders thought it was very relevant.
A fetus is not a baby
Actually, that's exactly what a fetus is: A baby in the womb.
, and is not recognized as a person under the law.
Actually, thirteen states do recognize the unborn child as a person and you can be charged for harming an unborn child in those states.
"Thou shalt not kill" refers to born people.
Actually, Exodous prescribes the death penalty for killing an unborn child in the womb, so you're wrong.
Of course I know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are. Why would I have commented otherwise?
To be fair, you comment about lots of things you don't know.
I gather you are a man. Do you interact with any women on a regular basis? Have you ever talked with women you might know about abortion or unplanned and unwanted pregnancies? Do you know any women who have had abortions?
Appeal to emotion, appeal to anecdote.
No. There are major physiological differences between a fetus and an actual baby. Look it up.
OK. So, what are those major physiological difference between a child one month from birth and one month after birth?
You claim that pregnancy can be an ordeal, all the while insisting that any and all women and young girls should be forced to undergo this ordeal against their will
Nobody has said this. You're being dishonest again.
how many times have you gone through childbirth? For me - twice. No one should have to do that unless by choice.
So, you claim. And yet, you don't know anything about the biology of pregnancy.
It is not acceptable to abort a fetus that might turn out to be gay or the "wrong" gender
Why not? Who are you to tell a women she can't kill her unborn child if she wants to?
do you just figure that if you ban all of them, then the dangerous or nonviable pregnancies that should be aborted will just be collateral damage?
You mean like the mythical "headless baby" you keep telling us about?
I am not happy that religious groups have become active in dealing with unwed mothers and adoption services.
That's because we see them as people to be helped, while you see them as political props to be exploited.
Yes, these abnormal pregnancies are highly fact-specific, but they are relatively common.
Really? If "headless babies" are so common, then why can't you cite those statistics, as you've been asked to numerous times now?
And your side refuses to acknowledge that they exist
Of course we acknowledge they exist. You sound very foolish when you say such dishonest things.
and are traumatizing for the parents and your side refuses to make exceptions when these fact-based problems arise in pregnancy in which the fetus is unlikely to make it to birth or past birth for more than a few painful, horrific hours.
Yes, it can be traumatic. But that doesn't justify killing a child.
Why would anyone with an ounce of empathy not allow for termination of such a pregnancy?
Because, while we have empathy for the mother, we also have empathy for the child.
Why would legislators refuse to make such exceptions in the laws they write?
Because those things don't justify killing a child.
And baby has a specific meaning that is different from the definition of fetus - there are clear physiological differences that cannot be ignored.
OK. Show us those "clear physiological difference that cannot be ignored" between a baby one month before birth and the same baby one month after birth.
Well, fetuses and fertilized eggs and embryos are not recognized as human persons under the laws we have
Actually, fetuses are considered persons in 13 states and you can be charged for harming a fetuses in those states.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Sorry but here is one f many links you can find where even liberals admit it's a baby.


Millions of people call their unborn babies baby even millions of abortion loving liberals.. That is what determines word usage.

You are a scientist you claim, yet don't know this?
Of course wanted pregnancies are referred to as a baby.

I said there are physiological differences, not semantic preferences.
 

vibise

Well-known member
It literally said "Thistle said:" in a quote box, followed by words that you wrote.

Okay. . .

Your attributing to me some kind of agency in the design of the human reproductive cycle. God didn't ask me. But for the record I take it for granted that God did what he "should have" done.

None of that is a proper inference from anything that I said.

You're the scientist who belongs to the "party of science," you tell me…

Well, I've been in the delivery room twice, but I wasn't giving birth.

Unfairness and injustice will be rectified on the last day. In the meantime we have no choice but to tolerate unfairness and injustice.

Unless the Biden Administration has inaugurated a Department of Conception that I haven't heard about, the government doesn't intrude into pregnancies. I know some people who would definitely put in an application right quick.

It doesn't happen so it's kind of a hypothetical contrary to fact.

That would be a false choice. Are we seeing how many logical fallacies we can spin out in a row?

If my wife and I had an abortion my life would I have been profoundly affected.

Well it may be a small comfort then for you to hear that they were doing this for hundreds of years, so it's definitely not your fault.

God in his wisdom give children a mother and a father under normal circumstances. Is it surprising to you that religious organizations take their cue from God?

That's not true. I've never denied that exists.

That's not true either. In fact my sister was so concerned about this, that she decided (she and her husband) that they were going to adopt a deaf autistic boy, because these kinds of children have a hard time being placed in homes. They did, and the experience of raising him to adulthood was an invaluable experience for both of them. They also temporarily had a number of foster children in their home when they were much younger.

The devil of this statement is in the details. If a doctor can say with a very high degree of confidence that this child will not make it to term, I think most people who share my view recognize that that could be a legitimate reason to terminate the pregnancy. How you get to this high degree of confidence and other related fact specific details is what a well fashion piece of legislation ought to do.

Again, I address that immediately above.

Well, living human and dead human is a fact pattern that I think everyone can get their head around, all colloquialisms aside.

I'd say changing by nearly a month is pretty significant.

That's based on legal precedent "Stare Decisis" it's not a law. When a decision is decided wrongly it needs to be revisited. That's why the Dred Scott decision is no longer good law.

No sense of irony.

The fact is, the women of America are already energized and they love their children. That's why you can expect to see things change.

Oh I fully expect that to whatever extent abortions become more rare as a matter of law in America, that every woman who dies in pregnancy will be waived around like a bloody shirt as a pretext to repeal any abortion law. So you can be forewarned that the people on my side of this discussion are fully prepared for that tactic. But I've addressed exceptions that are legitimate above so it's not like that this is something we have not discussed.

How remarkably disconnected this comment is from reality.

Google "new atheists" and you will discover, if you don't already know, that this is a movement, a cause celeb if you will and the three of them have all played a vital role in the movement.
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.

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 or pregnancies resulting from rape or pregnancies that are nonviable. We decide on laws to handle those things.

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.

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.

I am not willing to wait for some hypothetical last day for justice. 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.

You are insisting that the govt intrude into pregnancies, by denying the pregnant woman any say whatsoever.

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.

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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for the rest of this response of yours, I give up.

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 should not have to search back to previous posts to understand what individual response statements are in reference to.

I would be fine with a discussion involving clear but brief back and forth comments. Are you up for that?
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Of course wanted pregnancies are referred to as a baby.

I said there are physiological differences, not semantic preferences.
Sorry but unborn babies exist, most everyone seems to know that our resident scientist.

How can there be a difference between the same thing?

You are a scientist you say?

Unborn babies and fetuses are the same thing.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose vaccinations, to the point that many older JWs have scars on their upper arm where somebody poured a few drops of acid to simulate a vax scar. Christians don't consider them Christians, but you do. So, by your standard, that's a major religion right there.

There's no law mandating that you discriminate against homosexuals.

Second, not that you will, but could you please cite these "religion-based laws" for us?

If the point isn't that they're "religious based laws", then why did you specify them as "religious based laws"?

This seems to be a common tactic with you: Say something stupid and then, when somebody calls you out for saying something stupid, you just move the goalposts. It's dishonest and makes you look silly.

The Constitution applies to liberals, too. That's why we always shake our heads when liberals try to tear it down. You have the same rights as everybody else. That you choose not to exercise them is also your right.
Prove your claim about JW and acid scars. The vaccine doesn't leave a scar.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
Well first of all Americans have a constitutional right to practice their religion without infringement from the govt but we all know you leftists raped that idea long long ago.

Next that right is an actual explicit right unlike the rights that leftists love which have to be "found" in the text of the constitution like baby killing.

Lastly are you suggesting leftism is merely a system of beliefs thereby making it a religion?
Your religious rights aren't a blank check that gives you permission to disregard any law you choose. Religious rights don't give you a free pass to do anything you want.
 
Top