International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Upchurch 5th July 2022 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848687)
No, the constitution doesn't say "no no".

It's the First Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848687)
People have moral intuitions. Those intuitions are necessarily informed by the cultural traditions they are raised in. You have an intuition that these are "not-yet-beings", other people's intuitions say different.

I was raised in a cultural setting that would likely go with "God puts the soul in the little-bitty babies the moment the sperm touches the egg". I was capable of questioning my indoctrination with skepticism and critical thought. Technically, everyone is capable of it, though few seem to make the effort.

Historically, the concept comes from the Catholic religion and was adopted quite quickly, ironically enough, by evangelical sects of Christianity. The concept that the early zygote or embryo is anything equivalent personhood was based solely on the idea that it has a soul. Otherwise, there is nothing being-like about it. Prior to that, a good number of religions and traditions held that the fetus was a person once the quickening had happened, and not before.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848694)
The meaning was clearly implied, as it always is around here. Perhaps you should rephrase your allegation if you are not pinning it on Christians, or contending that it is just a matter of religious belief.

I was pinning the origins of the idea on particular Christian sects, in the US anyway, not all Christian sects. In fact, there were some Christian sects specifically opposed to it. Arguably, it isn't far fetched to call unrelated sects different religions. I'm sure the Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants would agree.

cosmicaug 5th July 2022 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13848703)
:blush:
And a tiger is a cat, but you'd still be a fool to fear the family puss will eat you.

I don't know. I see how they look at me!

shuttlt 5th July 2022 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848712)
It's the First Amendment.

No it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848712)
I was raised in a cultural setting that would likely go with "God puts the soul in the little-bitty babies the moment the sperm touches the egg". I was capable of questioning my indoctrination with skepticism and critical thought. Technically, everyone is capable of it, though few seem to make the effort.

Your moral intuitions are not derived from reason. You sit on top of a great mound of moral intuitions that have come out of thousands of years of religious tradition. That tradition has been in dialogue with reason and experience the whole time. You may have rejected one collection of beliefs derived from that tradition for a somewhat different set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848712)
Historically, the concept comes from the Catholic religion and was adopted quite quickly, ironically enough, by evangelical sects of Christianity. The concept that the early zygote or embryo is anything equivalent personhood was based solely on the idea that it has a soul. Otherwise, there is nothing being-like about it. Prior to that, a good number of religions and traditions held that the fetus was a person once the quickening had happened, and not before.

Sure, there are variable viewpoints on this. Since, as with any other moral injunction, there is no purely rationalistic foundation to it... the question is not rationally resolvable. But then again, that is true of all moral questions.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848727)
No it isn't.

Do you genuinely have no familiarity with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Or are you being contrarian because it does not literally use the phrase "no-no", even though I was paraphrasing and never stated it as a direct quote?

Or, perhaps, are you being credulous of the oft-repeated claim that there is no separation between church and state?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848727)
Your moral intuitions are not derived from reason. You sit on top of a great mound of moral intuitions that have come out of thousands of years of religious tradition. That tradition has been in dialogue with reason and experience the whole time. You may have rejected one collection of beliefs derived from that tradition for a somewhat different set.

Speak for yourself. I may have not analyzed every minor moral stance through the lens of critical thinking, in which case, I may fall back on cultural tradition, but don't for a minute believe that moral stances cannot be derived from reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848727)
Sure, there are variable viewpoints on this. Since, as with any other moral injunction, there is no purely rationalistic foundation to it... the question is not rationally resolvable. But then again, that is true of all moral questions.

I reject your premise entirely. Moral foundations absolutely can be rational.

Segnosaur 5th July 2022 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848691)
The meaning was clearly implied, as it always is around here. Perhaps you should rephrase your allegation if you are not pinning it on Christians, or contending that it is just a matter of religious belief.

It is certainly possible that a person came to believe that preteen girls should be forced to give birth to their rapist's baby for reasons other than christian beliefs. (Yes, there are some members of other religions, or even atheists, who are anti-choice.)

But, christians (in particular evangelical christians) appear to make up the biggest demographic in the anti-abortion movement, and it is unlikely that the republicans would have bothered suppressing women the way they did without the influence of christians. As such, I have no problem linking christian with anti-abortionists.

Trebuchet 5th July 2022 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848744)
Do you genuinely have no familiarity with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Or are you being contrarian because it does not literally use the phrase "no-no", even though I was paraphrasing and never stated it as a direct quote?

Or because there's only one amendment that matters to the Religious Right in today's America.

bruto 5th July 2022 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13848746)
It is certainly possible that a person came to believe that preteen girls should be forced to give birth to their rapist's baby for reasons other than christian beliefs. (Yes, there are some members of other religions, or even atheists, who are anti-choice.)

But, christians (in particular evangelical christians) appear to make up the biggest demographic in the anti-abortion movement, and it is unlikely that the republicans would have bothered suppressing women the way they did without the influence of christians. As such, I have no problem linking christian with anti-abortionists.

Even if Christians did not invent the idea they are linked if they take it on. And I think very many Christians would be happy to take the credit, as they are very happy to consider their position in the context of their faith. It would seem a disservice to many Christians to suggest that their argument should be seen as secular.

Skeptic Ginger 5th July 2022 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13848448)
Could be that pro choice candidates are also seen as having more general socialist agendas which are even more unpalatable to a majority of voters. I do wonder what result would be obtained if a pure referendum on the subject of abortion was held. As to a broken political system, maybe - as to incapable of flexibility, most definitely.

I highlighted the propaganda talking points spouted incessantly by the right wingers.

Police, fire, Medicare, Social Security all "socialist" programs. Are those OK with the majority of voters?

Instead of repeating and therefore amplifying the nonsense that those of us on the left, including Progressives are evil socialists try actually being specific. Oh, no one liked the ACA... until the GOP tried to take it away. Such evil.

Do you even know what socialism is? I doubt it.

Sorry this is off-topic and I'll leave it at this instead of going further. I'm in a blood-boiling mood and sick of hearing this socialism NONSENSE.

Ziggurat 5th July 2022 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13848746)
It is certainly possible that a person came to believe that preteen girls should be forced to give birth to their rapist's baby for reasons other than christian beliefs. (Yes, there are some members of other religions, or even atheists, who are anti-choice.)

But, christians (in particular evangelical christians) appear to make up the biggest demographic in the anti-abortion movement, and it is unlikely that the republicans would have bothered suppressing women the way they did without the influence of christians. As such, I have no problem linking christian with anti-abortionists.

Link them all you like, but it's not a legally relevant argument. Separation of church and state isn't actually implicated just because of the correlation.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13848793)
Separation of church and state isn't actually implicated just because of the correlation.

Of course, neither is an individual right to keep and bear arms. That's only about 14 years old and could just as easily be overturned by the right court as bodily autonomy.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848744)
Do you genuinely have no familiarity with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Or are you being contrarian because it does not literally use the phrase "no-no", even though I was paraphrasing and never stated it as a direct quote?

Or, perhaps, are you being credulous of the oft-repeated claim that there is no separation between church and state?

No, not at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848744)
Speak for yourself. I may have not analyzed every minor moral stance through the lens of critical thinking, in which case, I may fall back on cultural tradition, but don't for a minute believe that moral stances cannot be derived from reason.

You are incorrect. It's like trying to build mathematics without any assumed truths. Some basic moral axioms have to be assumed, rather than derived from reason. The sorts of assumptions you are likely to choose will vary significantly to those that would have been chosen in other times and in other places. Maybe one could argue some kind of perennialist position, but those are still not moral axioms derived by reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848744)
I reject your premise entirely. Moral foundations absolutely can be rational.

I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

Bob001 5th July 2022 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848710)
The basic issue is that if you ask people these questions in isolation, you get nonsense. You find people want high public spending, low taxations, a reduction in the debt and low inflation. The public are incoherent about what they want.

If you asked more specific questions, like "In exchange for guaranteed health coverage, would you pay higher taxes that are lower than your current health insurance premiums?," or "Would you pay higher taxes to ensure that every child had affordable access to higher education?," I think you would still find the majority in support.

Skeptic Ginger 5th July 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13848580)
And that'd be right. I've mentioned this enough times in the past couple of weeks to feel like I'm harping, but the Democratic party as a whole has not been in favor of abortion rights until very recently. In hindsight it's obvious that they should have been, but the people who have argued that they should invest some political capital into redundantly preserving the legality of abortion have been the more generally socialist side who don't understand that incrementalism, bipartisanship and compromise are the real key to lasting change.

This is just crap! And Moscow Mitch hasn't compromised on one single thing. He makes sure he blocks everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13848580)
And that'd be wrong. Taken as a whole and divorced from political context, voters support socialist goals like universal health care and codified abortion rights. That's why those issues get ignored by moderate Democrats; anyone who cares are already safe blue votes. What they're unpalatable with are the "swing" voters that moderate dems fall over themselves to court, the people who see one party of hateful face-eating leopards and the other trying to make things better for everyone and genuinely can't decide.


That's a lot of unpacking for "ooga booga."

More crap.

Bob001 5th July 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
.....
I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

We can make moral judgments based on practical assessments of what's best for the community as a whole and the individuals within it. We can agree that we are all better off if we don't murder each other or assault each other or steal each other's stuff. We can agree that if somebody else needs help, the rest of us should provide it, secure in the knowledge that we will get help when we need it. Etc., etc. We don't need stone tablets to know what's right. And the premise of our democracy is that we decide as a community who can hold power and how they can exercise it.

ETA: Keep in mind that from WWII to the beginning of the Reagan administration, we did pay higher taxes in exchange for affordable college and broader social services. In the '70s there was actually bipartisan support for universal health care, for example, but the Repubs and the Dems couldn't agree about single-payer vs. closely regulated private insurance. The right-wing anti-tax movement is a part of what is fundamentally a long-term anti-government worldview. Where we are is not only not where we have to be, it's not even where we have been in recent history.

Roger Ramjets 5th July 2022 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

Self-evidence
Quote:

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof, and/or by ordinary human reason...

The following proposition is often said to be self-evident:
A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts


shuttlt 5th July 2022 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848808)
If you asked more specific questions, like "In exchange for guaranteed health coverage, would you pay higher taxes that are lower than your current health insurance premiums?," or "Would you pay higher taxes to ensure that every child had affordable access to higher education?," I think you would still find the majority in support.

Maybe, but you are still talking about each little thing in isolation. People are just bad at answering these kinds of questions. If you ran things based on what people say they want, you'd crash the economy. In as much as it has any meaningful existence, the "will of the people" is wildly incoherent in what it wants, has a memory of about 5 minutes, can maybe hold 2 things in it's head at once and has never read a book.

Also, your framing of the questions is fundamentally progressive.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 13848816)

Yeah! That's the wrong kind of self-evident. All men being created equal isn't true in any logical sense. It is just asserted.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
No, not at all.

With all the same depth and consideration: yeah-huh!


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
It's like trying to build mathematics without any assumed truths. Some basic moral axioms have to be assumed, rather than derived from reason.

Perhaps, but like with mathematics, these do not have to be taken unquestioningly on faith. They can be merely granted for the sake of argument but do not limit them from further investigation, if a reason arises.


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
The sorts of assumptions you are likely to choose will vary significantly to those that would have been chosen in other times and in other places. Maybe one could argue some kind of perennialist position, but those are still not moral axioms derived by reason.

Again, speak for yourself. Do not presume to be speaking for me.


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done.

Argument from incredulity: Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it doesn't work.


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848805)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

A quote you are taking grossly out of context. That is a linguistic flourish in a document whose primary purpose was to tell the King of England to go :rule10 off. The actual philosophy behind those self-evident truths were argued and debated and took quite a while to be understood before actually being adopted. If anything, those "truths" are a great example of reason and rational thought, especially the parts deconstructing the sovereignty of royal birthright.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848814)
We can make moral judgments based on practical assessments of what's best for the community as a whole and the individuals within it.

Absolutely, if the community has a common culture and a common set of moral assumptions, you can absolutely do this. That isn't the issue, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848814)
We can agree that we are all better off if we don't murder each other or assault each other or steal each other's stuff.

On purely rationalistic grounds? No you can't. You may end up with some kind of utilitarian contract where everybody agrees not to murder everybody else, but that isn't morality. You might just as equally come up with a contract that said nobody could murder anybody, except for some group nobody liked. Morality has to be more than just reaching an agreement on a set of laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848814)
We can agree that if somebody else needs help, the rest of us should provide it, secure in the knowledge that we will get help when we need it.

We could equally well agree to enslave the weaker members of our group and steal their women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13848814)
Etc., etc. We don't need stone tablets to know what's right. And the premise of our democracy is that we decide as a community who can hold power and how they can exercise it.

None of this is deriving morality from reason.

Bob001 5th July 2022 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848818)
Maybe, but you are still talking about each little thing in isolation. People are just bad at answering these kinds of questions. If you ran things based on what people say they want, you'd crash the economy. In as much as it has any meaningful existence, the "will of the people" is wildly incoherent in what it wants, has a memory of about 5 minutes, can maybe hold 2 things in it's head at once and has never read a book.

Also, your framing of the questions is fundamentally progressive.

You're making some pretty broad judgments about the entire population. If you think "the will of the people" is "wildly incoherent," maybe you think there shouldn't be elections at all. Maybe the Kochs should just appoint a ruling council. Would you be okay with that?

And I don't use "progressive" as a sneer. "Would you pay higher taxes for better services?" is a straightforward proposition. And that's way before you get to the fact that our current tax codes and enforcement favor the wealthy in ways we haven't seen since the Golden Age.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848829)
None of this is deriving morality from reason.

shuttit, are you claiming that your position on abortion is, at its heart, irrational and void of reason?

Lplus 5th July 2022 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13848792)
I highlighted the propaganda talking points spouted incessantly by the right wingers.

Police, fire, Medicare, Social Security all "socialist" programs. Are those OK with the majority of voters?

Instead of repeating and therefore amplifying the nonsense that those of us on the left, including Progressives are evil socialists try actually being specific. Oh, no one liked the ACA... until the GOP tried to take it away. Such evil.

Do you even know what socialism is? I doubt it.

Sorry this is off-topic and I'll leave it at this instead of going further. I'm in a blood-boiling mood and sick of hearing this socialism NONSENSE.

Police and fire are government emergency systems, medicare and social security are SOCIAL programmes. They are not Socialism. I wonder if you yourself know the difference.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848827)
With all the same depth and consideration: yeah-huh!

You suggested I think there is no separation between church and state, I said that isn't what I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848827)
Perhaps, but like with mathematics, these do not have to be taken unquestioningly on faith. They can be merely granted for the sake of argument but do not limit them from further investigation, if a reason arises.

People in this thread seem to be very certain in their position on abortion given that it is all based on assumptions that have merely been taken for the sake of argument. Other people have other moral assumptions and they disagree. What is the rational process for determining whose assumptions are correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848827)
Argument from incredulity: Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Sure, but if you do understand how it works, maybe you could explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848827)
A quote you are taking grossly out of context. That is a linguistic flourish in a document whose primary purpose was to tell the King of England to go :rule10 off. The actual philosophy behind those self-evident truths were argued and debated and took quite a while to be understood before actually being adopted. If anything, those "truths" are a great example of reason and rational thought, especially the parts deconstructing the sovereignty of royal birthright.

Name a self evident truth that your morality is founded on then. Religious people have revealed truths, atheists have "self evident truths".

There is a quote from David Starkey about growing up amongst Quakers, and sitting there as the heavenly spirit spoke through them. He describes remembering thinking how amazing it was that God clearly read the Manchester Guardian. It is similarly a remarkable curiosity how closely the self evident truths that the the Founding Fathers discovered resemble religious beliefs that came out of the English Civil War.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848832)
shuttit, are you claiming that your position on abortion is, at its heart, irrational and void of reason?

It's based on my feelings about the world that I can't rationally justify. It takes a few steps from my core beliefs to get to abortion, but those are the foundations. If we demand that everything must justify it's purpose, meaning and worth in terms of cold rationalism.... then we end up with nihilism.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848840)
You suggested I think there is no separation between church and state, I said that isn't what I thought.

I gave several of different possibilities, only one of which was that you didn't think there is a separation of church and state.


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848840)
Sure, but if you do understand how it works, maybe you could explain.

Given your recent selective reading comprehension, I'm not sure I could.


For example:
Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848840)
Name a self evident truth that your morality is founded on then. Religious people have revealed truths, atheists have "self evident truths".

[snip]

It is similarly a remarkable curiosity how closely the self evident truths that the the Founding Fathers discovered resemble religious beliefs that came out of the English Civil War.

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you? About the "self-evident truths"?

shuttlt 5th July 2022 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848856)
You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you? About the "self-evident truths"?

I did read what you said. You said the "self evident truths" in that document were a literary flourish. None the less, you claimed you can derive your moral stances from reason. OK. Is it reason all the way down, or is there a turtle somewhere towards the bottom that all this is built on? If so, what is it? The turtles that liberalism came from, mostly came from the beliefs of religions sects around the English Civil War.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848842)
It's based on my feelings about the world that I can't rationally justify. It takes a few steps from my core beliefs to get to abortion, but those are the foundations. If we demand that everything must justify it's purpose, meaning and worth in terms of cold rationalism.... then we end up with nihilism.

No amount of reason will dissuade someone from a position that they reached through irrationality.

Upchurch 5th July 2022 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13848860)
I did read what you said. You said the "self evident truths" in that document were a literary flourish.

...go on. What else did I write?

If you had actually read what I said, you would not have been referencing self-evident truths like it was an actual thing, or that the founders found to be an actual thing.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848861)
No amount of reason will dissuade someone from a position that they reached through irrationality.

Well, no indeed.

shuttlt 5th July 2022 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848862)
...go on. What else did I write?

If you had actually read what I said, you would not have been referencing self-evident truths like it was an actual thing, or that the founders found to be an actual thing.

Enlighten me. Is it reason all the way down, or are there turtles somewhere down there?

Skeptic Ginger 5th July 2022 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13848836)
Police and fire are government emergency systems, medicare and social security are SOCIAL programmes. They are not Socialism. I wonder if you yourself know the difference.

:rolleyes:

Here's the definition. You need to read it. It's off-topic in this thread.

Beelzebuddy 5th July 2022 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13848812)
This is just crap!
More crap.

Crap all you want, it wasn't a Republican who was the final nay in the 51-49 tally against the Women's Health Protection Act, it was Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. The bill had previously been introduced in 2021, 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2013. It wasn't Mitch McConnell who was campaigning for anti-choice Rep Cuellar (D) just after the scotus announcement, it was Nancy Pelosi. As much as abortion rights have formed a pillar of their campaign rhetoric, that sure as **** hasn't been translating into action.

Right now, of course, everyone on my primary ballot down to the city dog catcher has "will fight for womens' right to have abortions" on their soap boxes. And maybe they will. Good on them if so. It really shouldn't have had to come to that. If moderate Dems want to help turn this around going forward, they're going to need to learn from their mistakes, not gaslight themselves into believing they've never made any and it was always someone else holding them back.

Quote:

And Moscow Mitch hasn't compromised on one single thing. He makes sure he blocks everything.
Yeah, that's how it works. Democrats compromise, McConnell takes their concessions and demands more while giving nothing back. The progressives and the extremists and the purity testers you treat with such contempt have been telling you that for years.

Minoosh 5th July 2022 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848168)
... If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. ...

I don't think I scoffed at it. I asked, what would that look like?

Personal responsibility is a good thing. We'll take that as a given. Now: A woman is six weeks pregnant and she wants to end the pregnancy. Should she have that right? Should she only have that right if she used birth control?

To me, at that point, it seems like making her bear the kid to teach her a lesson just isn't good policy.

What would an abortion policy that emphasized personal responsibility look like? Just saying you'd like to see it emphasized doesn't tell me anything.

Warp12 5th July 2022 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13849048)
I don't think I scoffed at it. I asked, what would that look like?

Personal responsibility is a good thing. We'll take that as a given. Now: A woman is six weeks pregnant and she wants to end the pregnancy. Should she have that right? Should she only have that right if she used birth control?

To me, at that point, it seems like making her bear the kid to teach her a lesson just isn't good policy.

What would an abortion policy that emphasized personal responsibility look like? Just saying you'd like to see it emphasized doesn't tell me anything.


I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

lionking 5th July 2022 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

You donít support Trump, but you repeat his points almost word for word. Seriously, you expect others to believe that?

Skeptic Ginger 5th July 2022 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

What a cop-out. You can't answer Minoosh so you hide behind, "I don't care." :rolleyes:

And now you blame liberals?

I see a pattern here. The pregnant woman is to blame. The liberals are to blame because the system is set up to allow tyranny by the minority. And in this case that minority is an extreme right-wing white Christian minority that has worked very hard using a lot of propaganda and fear mongering to impose their Christian Taliban on the rest of us.

Stacyhs 5th July 2022 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

How very Christian of you. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I picking on Christians now?

" ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law"

Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? They've fought against ever-increasing restrictive abortion laws like the one TX enacted. Get a grip on reality.

Leumas 6th July 2022 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

The Taliban say similar things about their mothers and sisters and aunts and daughters too in defense of their THEOCRACY.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either.

And now we can see how a Theocracy works.

Warp12 6th July 2022 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13849100)
How very Christian of you. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I picking on Christians now?


I think yes, your comment is intended as being derogatory towards Christians.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.