ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Kentucky issues , Kentucky laws , Kentucky politics

Reply
Old 10th January 2017, 05:56 AM   #121
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 24,631
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Seems like Judeo-Christian principles don't include freedom of choice. Or at least, not when it's inconvenient to the moral guardians.
Tacking on the "Judeo" part when it comes to abortion smacks of ignorance. Jewish law does not agree with the "abortion is murder" notion.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:57 AM   #122
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,809
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
"In God We Trust" does say something about the US though.
Yeah: too many religious nuts.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:11 AM   #123
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,200
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/ken...ass/index.html

Basically no abortion (unless life in danger) past 20 weeks, and forcing an examination to make the woman hear the heartbeat and see the embryo (although the law note the woman can "advert her eye" and ask the heartbeat sound to be muted).

Deplorable emotional manipulation on the side of lawmaker. They start in high gear. This is the type of law which is 100% about enforcing their own religious view onto other people and has zero other practical purpose.
That's still like 8 more weeks than in France, isn't it?

The part about making women listen to the heartbeat is nonsense of course.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:27 AM   #124
MaverickPLM
Scholar
 
MaverickPLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Interesting how you would happen to have a pre 1957 $5 bill handy from the cash drawer. A bill prior to the mandate requiring all US bills be printed with the motto "In God We Trust". Of course most US coins already had the motto "In God We Trust" prior to 1957 though.............Since 1832? or so?

I suppose you are trying to suggest our National motto is not "In God We Trust"........That is our National motto though. Feel free to check.
Chris B.
I freely confirm that in a matter of minutes I was able to verify that in 1956, H. J. Resolution 396 officially replaced the previously de facto unofficial "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust".

It, however, remains a Bigfoot of a mystery how this in any possible way supports the establishment of a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles by the Founding Fathers around the year 1776.
MaverickPLM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:52 AM   #125
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Even the US Supreme Court has decided that the US recognizes that our "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being"...
Not doubting you, but can you point me to the case for future reference?

As an aside, that would seem to paint atheists as second class citizens, forced to guess at the nature of that Supreme Being and how institutions might use that presupposition in determining policy.
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:57 AM   #126
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
OK, so in summary, there are no Christian principles embodied in the Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

(Seriously, the "the year of our Lord" thing is silly. I use "AD" all the time, and I'm freaking Jewish.)
Seriously silly. "The dating convention at the end of the Constitution shows Christian principles in it." Birth certificates, diplomas, any number of other legal documents having the same dating convention must therefore also have those Christian principles, I guess.

It's a childish attempt at a "gotcha!" by folks who really don't have anything else, like the "[s]ecularism would have had no mention of religion whatsoever" thing. I suppose it could only have been truly secular if it had said something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of you-know-what" or "...no you-know-what test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It's like an atheist saying "I don't believe in god," and a fundie crowing triumphantly "but you said 'god!' You can't name what you don't believe in! Ha ha!" To repeat- just childish reasoning.

And "secular" doesn't even mean "atheist"- it's really, in this context, more akin to "neutral." I can't imagine how you could have a document recognizing the right to freedom of religion for all beliefs (including none) without not taking a position on any one in particular; having "Christian principles" in the document establishing government's neutrality between them would be a contradiction of its own terms.

And the rest of Chris's copy-paste- desperate flailing by people who can't, after all, find any actual Christian principles established in the Constitution, so they have to resort to mind-reading the writers, instead of, you know- reading what they wrote. "Strict constructionists," indeed.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:57 AM   #127
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by MaverickPLM View Post
I freely confirm that in a matter of minutes I was able to verify that in 1956, H. J. Resolution 396 officially replaced the previously de facto unofficial "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust".

It, however, remains a Bigfoot of a mystery how this in any possible way supports the establishment of a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles by the Founding Fathers around the year 1776.
When do you think we switched over?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:13 AM   #128
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Not doubting you, but can you point me to the case for future reference?

As an aside, that would seem to paint atheists as second class citizens, forced to guess at the nature of that Supreme Being and how institutions might use that presupposition in determining policy.
Zorach v. Clauson, 1952. Essentially a case about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. From the syllabus:
Quote:
Under § 3210 of the New York Education Law and the regulations thereunder, New York City permits its public schools to release students during school hours, on written requests of their parents, so that they may leave the school buildings and grounds and go to religious centers for religious instruction or devotional exercises. The same section makes school attendance compulsory; students not released stay in the classrooms, and the churches report to the schools the names of children released from public schools who fail to report for religious instruction. The program involves neither religious instruction in public schools nor the expenditure of public funds.
Chris's quote is from William Douglas's opinion:
Quote:
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma.
You'll note that the actual thrust of the quote (and the rest of the opinion) is that government as established in the Constitution is neutral toward religion, but that that neutrality doesn't mean it must be its enemy. There's no implication in the opinion that specifically "Christian principles" are favored in our institutions or embodied in the Constitution; in fact, quite the opposite.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:45 AM   #129
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Zorach v. Clauson, 1952. Essentially a case about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. From the syllabus:

Thank you.

A day when I learn something new is a good day!
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:57 AM   #130
Spock Jenkins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 344
As a relatively conservative Catholic, it frustrates me to no end when people get really basic stuff in arguments wrong. Referring back to the "under God" discussion from earlier in the thread. Everyone should know when that was added to the pledge and currency. It just erodes the credibility of anything else people say when we get that stuff wrong.

The basic core of this whole debate is still, and will always remain the "right to life". When is a person a person and when do they have a right to have their life respected and defended? Some argue that this right should begin at conception. Others argue that it should begin somewhere between conception and birth. Some after birth. And still others argue that it doesn't start until they no longer lead a parasitic existence (I think healthcare laws in the U.S. put that at age 26 or so?).

From an early Saturday Night Live bit. I believe it was called Jeopardy 2000 and possibly aired during Steve Martin's first hosting gig in the 1970's.:

Q: "Legalized in 1983, it eased overpopulation"
A: "What is baby killing?"
Spock Jenkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 08:23 AM   #131
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,809
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
The basic core of this whole debate is still, and will always remain the "right to life".
As I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose", and up to which point you still have that right.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 08:24 AM   #132
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,809
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
You'll note that the actual thrust of the quote (and the rest of the opinion) is that government as established in the Constitution is neutral toward religion, but that that neutrality doesn't mean it must be its enemy.
Well, yeah, since by definition "neutral" means you're not its enemy.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 10:22 AM   #133
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, yeah, since by definition "neutral" means you're not its enemy.
Whoops, yeah, that got a little tautological, I think. Replace "neutral" with "secular" for what I was driving at- a secular government isn't, by definition, one that's hostile to religion. I think too many people mistake "secular" as a synonym for "atheist," and proceed to build strawmen to flail at from that misapprehension.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 10:40 AM   #134
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 13,969
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
That's still like 8 more weeks than in France, isn't it?

The part about making women listen to the heartbeat is nonsense of course.
I never said the abortion law are better in France. But at least in France you have the doctor and gynecologue which are relatively cheap with part reimbursed by security social, and same for many women's contraceptive, and sex ed is in for everybody. Even for teenage pregnancy we have 1/4 of the rate of the US (10 versus 40 per 1000 women 15–19). Not even counting that we got condom distributor vending machine in the street and at in high schools door.

I hate these "compared to" because this is not about what country is better than other, but making it worst comparing from to after in the same country.

Are you arguying that because some country have a lower number of weeks such laws are fine ?

Last edited by Aepervius; 10th January 2017 at 10:42 AM.
Aepervius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 10:43 AM   #135
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
As I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose", and up to which point you still have that right.
Actually, as I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose to have an abortion", and up to which point you still have that right."

At least for a those unafraid to verbalize what choice they're talking about.
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:16 AM   #136
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,809
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Whoops, yeah, that got a little tautological, I think. Replace "neutral" with "secular" for what I was driving at- a secular government isn't, by definition, one that's hostile to religion. I think too many people mistake "secular" as a synonym for "atheist," and proceed to build strawmen to flail at from that misapprehension.
Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Actually, as I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose to have an abortion", and up to which point you still have that right."
I thought that was obvious. I wasn't talking about buying a Toyota.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:58 AM   #137
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 6,685
Originally Posted by surrogate View Post
Sounds great, and blue states can stop the distribution of CPUs/GPUs as well as smartphones to red states.
China is a blue state?
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 02:36 PM   #138
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,012
Originally Posted by MaverickPLM View Post
I freely confirm that in a matter of minutes I was able to verify that in 1956, H. J. Resolution 396 officially replaced the previously de facto unofficial "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust".

It, however, remains a Bigfoot of a mystery how this in any possible way supports the establishment of a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles by the Founding Fathers around the year 1776.
Some people just cannot recognize how that worked/works.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 02:40 PM   #139
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,012
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
As a relatively conservative Catholic, it frustrates me to no end when people get really basic stuff in arguments wrong. Referring back to the "under God" discussion from earlier in the thread. Everyone should know when that was added to the pledge and currency. It just erodes the credibility of anything else people say when we get that stuff wrong.

The basic core of this whole debate is still, and will always remain the "right to life". When is a person a person and when do they have a right to have their life respected and defended? Some argue that this right should begin at conception. Others argue that it should begin somewhere between conception and birth. Some after birth. And still others argue that it doesn't start until they no longer lead a parasitic existence (I think healthcare laws in the U.S. put that at age 26 or so?).

From an early Saturday Night Live bit. I believe it was called Jeopardy 2000 and possibly aired during Steve Martin's first hosting gig in the 1970's.:

Q: "Legalized in 1983, it eased overpopulation"
A: "What is baby killing?"
If it helps I think every one should be free to have an abortion if they want one but no one should be forced to have one if they do not choose it.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:27 PM   #140
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
If it helps I think every one should be free to have an abortion if they want one but no one should be forced to have one if they do not choose it.
I would like to have an abortion but I cannot get one. Heck, I can't even get pregnant. Where's the justice there?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:40 PM   #141
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,730
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The worst of the new Pokémon.
Totally lazy design too. It just looks like a coat-hanger.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:18 PM   #142
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post

I thought that was obvious. I wasn't talking about buying a Toyota.
I just object to what I call "branding".

Rather than saying one supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, it gets conveniently truncated to just a woman's right to choose. This allows one to paint the opposition as being anti-choice in general, by not stating the object of that choice.

Similarly, calling oneself "Pro-Life" tries to paint the opposition as anti-life. Equally disingenuous.

Anyway, I don't think it's by accident that abortion rights advocates avoid the use of the word abortion when they define their positions as "Pro-Choice".
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 10th January 2017 at 05:19 PM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:20 PM   #143
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,012
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I just object to what I call "branding".

Rather than saying one supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, it gets conveniently truncated to just a woman's right to choose. This allows one to paint the opposition as being anti-choice in general, by not stating the object of that choice.

Similarly, calling oneself "Pro-Life" tries to paint the opposition as anti-life. Equally disingenuous.

Anyway, I don't think it's by accident that abortion rights advocates avoid the use of the word abortion when they define their positions as "Pro-Choice".
I don't!!! But, then I have supported the right to abortion since 5th or 6th grade when I first learned about same (not in school!!! Read well above my age.).
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:25 AM   #144
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Zorach v. Clauson, 1952. Essentially a case about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. From the syllabus:


Chris's quote is from William Douglas's opinion:


You'll note that the actual thrust of the quote (and the rest of the opinion) is that government as established in the Constitution is neutral toward religion, but that that neutrality doesn't mean it must be its enemy. There's no implication in the opinion that specifically "Christian principles" are favored in our institutions or embodied in the Constitution; in fact, quite the opposite.
Thank you for providing Fast Eddie B with the case and opinion in my absence.

I think the opinion boiled down to "We the people, believe in a Supreme Being and our institutions likewise presuppose this, but we don't force others to. And, we're not gonna stop believing in a Supreme Being simply because you don't."

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:34 AM   #145
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
He also seems to not understand what secular means.
Maybe you'll find it within your heart filled with good intention to explain it to me. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:49 AM   #146
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
As I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose", and up to which point you still have that right.
Or how about:

"The right to choose to kill another human without going to jail for it"

A little more truth and a little less deception is what's required. Snowflake terms applied to a murderous act just don't do it justice. Let's call it what it is.

Everyone has the "right to choose" whether to take a life or not. It's the ease by which taking a life is viewed and the get out of jail free part that are upsetting so many Bible thumpers.

Abortion is currently legal though. I wonder if we can put a new law on the books that allows a mother to kill her child up until it's one year old instead?

Better you think? The morality of the one is no different than the other.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:13 AM   #147
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Better you think? The morality of the one is no different than the other.

Chris B.
That's the way to go. If you let people know it's immoral they'll quit doing it. It doesn't matter if it's legal then. We don't need any laws making it illegal if no one does it anyhow.

I'm actually a bit surprised no one has hit on this solution already.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:34 AM   #148
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,138
So who's ponying up to pay for the children of parents who are in no way financially capable of supporting them?

Those who want to be in the "not me" camp, please kindly accept that your opinion on what other people do in such circumstances has lost all validity.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:43 AM   #149
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
So who's ponying up to pay for the children of parents who are in no way financially capable of supporting them?
Whomever and whatever they do now.

Quote:
Those who want to be in the "not me" camp, please kindly accept that your opinion on what other people do in such circumstances has lost all validity.
That doesn't make sense. Unless you think moral judgements are dependent on the willingness to pay for the consequences? Is there a name for that moral theory?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:48 AM   #150
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
So who's ponying up to pay for the children of parents who are in no way financially capable of supporting them?

Those who want to be in the "not me" camp, please kindly accept that your opinion on what other people do in such circumstances has lost all validity.
http://www.adoptuskids.org/

Adoption is a very viable solution. I have a good friend that he and his wife had to travel to China to adopt. He certainly would have been tickled pink to be at the top of the list of waiting parents here in the US.

It's not often US children have to wait to be adopted, there are many families waiting when the opportunity arises. Any stay in foster care is usually quite brief while the adoptive parents are approved.

Literally, the days of Orphanages has been over for quite some time now in the US. My friend and his wife were so moved by the children in that Chinese orphanage, they ended up adopting 3 instead of 1.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 03:23 AM   #151
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,809
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Or how about:

"The right to choose to kill another human without going to jail for it"

A little more truth and a little less deception is what's required. Snowflake terms applied to a murderous act just don't do it justice. Let's call it what it is.
That only works if you assume that everyone agrees with your premise. An unviable foetus isn't a person.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 04:01 AM   #152
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,356
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That only works if you assume that everyone agrees with your premise. An unviable foetus isn't a person.
Yes, This debate isn't about if it's moral to kill babies. It's about when does that life begin. And as long as there's disagreement, I'll need to let the people involved decide what's best for them and keep out of it.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 04:33 AM   #153
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,146
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Really? OK, well let me try that. I'll pull some money out of the cash drawer here at the store...



huh...nothing much there..maybe the back?



Nope. Nothing about being founded on Christian principles there!
I hope you know the red seal is special and therefore, that bill is special.


================

ALSO...

Going back to the point of this thread:


https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/...ucky_after_gop


I wonder what the "emergency" was.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 05:26 AM   #154
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,455
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That's the way to go. If you let people know it's immoral they'll quit doing it. It doesn't matter if it's legal then. We don't need any laws making it illegal if no one does it anyhow.

I'm actually a bit surprised no one has hit on this solution already.
That's a very good point. What do other cultures much older than the US believe. Maybe that's a good place to look. Anyone know?
__________________
[url=http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Noc[/URL]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 06:14 AM   #155
surrogate
Critical Thinker
 
surrogate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere within the Orion Arm
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
China is a blue state?
Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Google, & Apple are all headquartered in California. Microsoft is in Washington. They own the designs and patents. It is irrelevant where the products are fabricated.
surrogate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 07:53 AM   #156
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
http://www.adoptuskids.org/

Adoption is a very viable solution. I have a good friend that he and his wife had to travel to China to adopt. He certainly would have been tickled pink to be at the top of the list of waiting parents here in the US.

It's not often US children have to wait to be adopted, there are many families waiting when the opportunity arises. Any stay in foster care is usually quite brief while the adoptive parents are approved.

Literally, the days of Orphanages has been over for quite some time now in the US. My friend and his wife were so moved by the children in that Chinese orphanage, they ended up adopting 3 instead of 1.

Chris B.
Supply and demand. If you disallow abortion we'll be right back to the bad old days when you couldn't trade a newborn for a cup of coffee. Hardly a week would go by without some squalling tyke left on the steps of a library somewhere.

It's gonna be hard to argue that a problem remedied by abortion means we can abandon abortion as the solution without reintroducing the same problem.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:04 AM   #157
Spock Jenkins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 344
At this point, I just hope everyone can agree that societies goal should be to make sure this happens as seldom as possible.

Meaning people have access to education, information, and healthcare that prevents them from being in a position to feel like that is their only alternative. Whether it be they are financially secure enough to raise an unexpected child, or that they make choices that prevent being in that position in the first place.
Spock Jenkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:07 AM   #158
uke2se
Philosopher
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
At this point, I just hope everyone can agree that societies goal should be to make sure this happens as seldom as possible.

Meaning people have access to education, information, and healthcare that prevents them from being in a position to feel like that is their only alternative. Whether it be they are financially secure enough to raise an unexpected child, or that they make choices that prevent being in that position in the first place.
I agree with this. It should happen rarely, and shouldn't be a willy-nilly decision. However, it should still be a decision made by the woman, in consultation with her doctor.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:11 AM   #159
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
At this point, I just hope everyone can agree that societies goal should be to make sure this happens as seldom as possible.
Why? If there's no moral taint abortion just becomes something someone wants to do. Like gardening or owning a dog. A kind of elective surgery.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:14 AM   #160
Spock Jenkins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 344
I also believe hurdles to adoption should be minimal.

They'll let anyone have a kid. We just deal with the fallout later. So let's let anyone adopt a kid, and deal with the fallout later. What's with all the background checks, etc.? I'd say most people who want a kid on purpose have at least some redeeming qualities, as minimal as they might be. And it gives the child at least a fighting chance.

Okay - so convicted felons (for certain crimes) are out.

And, if I'm adopting a child per arrangement with a birth mother - I should be able to cover her prenatal healthcare under my insurance policy. If my own wife were expecting, she'd be covered.
Spock Jenkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.