Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Everyone has different ideologies of when life begins. It's why some ultra conservatives thinks masturbation is a punishable sin because off those sperm are wasted and cannot create a life. The thing is, none of those ideologies are wrong, as ideologies cannot be wrong; however, they also shouldn't be forced upon another.
If nature were to take its course naturally, that embryo would grow into a child. People are allowed to believe that, to preach that, to teach it. But as its been pointed out, if people actually believe all life is precious and should be respected, they should also help nurture it and help it grow once it leaves the womb. That doesn't happen. I'll be pro-life once all of society actually supports and helps raise children as a whole.
My wet-dream would be an abortion in that case. I guess I'm going to Hell...
Edit: not only that, by using the same logic, every time a woman menstruates without potential fertilization, that should be considered an abortion too...
A man can control his temptation to spill the seed. A woman cannot control her natural cycle, so they are not the same. But lets steer far away from this subject.
No, I'm sorry. I'm not married anymore and if I don't take things in my own 'hands' I have wet dreams. Sorry to burst your bubble but I can't consciously control my body in that regard. I tore myself up religiously about that for most of my life before I realized that's total bullshit.
I want to point out what should be obvious to everyone, even those who are pro-life who have daughters who will one day likely be pregnant. IF a law like the ones in Georgia and Alabama ever becomes law, I can guarantee you that right-wing law enforcement officials will turn a suspicious eye toward legitimate miscarriages and try to criminalize them. And I'll also guarantee that the women disproportionately targeted and questioned about their miscarriages will be either a.) poor or b.) minorities.
I want to point out what should be obvious to everyone, even those who are pro-life who have daughters who will one day likely be pregnant. IF a law like the ones in Georgia and Alabama ever becomes law, I can guarantee you that right-wing law enforcement officials will turn a suspicious eye toward legitimate miscarriages and try to criminalize them. And I'll also guarantee that the women disproportionately targeted and questioned about their miscarriages will be either a.) poor or b.) minorities.
I'll add to that. Women who think at least somewhat like I do are likely to marry very early and are very unlikely to ever divorce. I found this out when I finally got over my hangups at the late age of 40. I'm hoping that I might find an unattached widow who actually lives in the real world when I'm 60 but I'm not holding my breath...
And one last thing tonight on this abortion topic. No matter where you stand on it, Trump has been REPEATEDLY telling a vicious, irresponsible lie about the topic at his recent rallies. He is going around the country saying that women are carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth to it, the doctors and nurses are wrapping it in blankets and such, and then they all go into a room together and decide to kill the child. This is not an exaggeration. This is EXACTLY what Trump has been telling his rally crowds. This DOES NOT happen. Ever. And frankly, I don't know how much misunderstanding and contempt you have to have for women to think they are just going to carry a human being inside of them for 9 months, go through the pain of child birth and then decide afterwards "oh, changed my mind Doc, let's kill it", but it has to be PALPABLE. And the same goes for their opinions of doctors and nurses in hospitals if they think they are engaging in this. Trump has taken what are legitimate cases of babies being born with things like non-functioning organs being allowed to pass away and is implying (more than implying, he is SAYING) that woman and doctors all over the country are murdering newborns left and right. This is a flat-out, 1000% lie, and it's likely going to lead to another clinic bombing (as if they needed more excuses).
And one last thing tonight on this abortion topic. No matter where you stand on it, Trump has been REPEATEDLY telling a vicious, irresponsible lie about the topic at his recent rallies. He is going around the country saying that women are carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth to it, the doctors and nurses are wrapping it in blankets and such, and then they all go into a room together and decide to kill the child. This is not an exaggeration. This is EXACTLY what Trump has been telling his rally crowds. This DOES NOT happen. Ever. And frankly, I don't know how much misunderstanding and contempt you have to have for women to think they are just going to carry a human being inside of them for 9 months, go through the pain of child birth and then decide afterwards "oh, changed my mind Doc, let's kill it", but it has to be PALPABLE. And the same goes for their opinions of doctors and nurses in hospitals if they think they are engaging in this. Trump has taken what are legitimate cases of babies being born with things like non-functioning organs being allowed to pass away and is implying (more than implying, he is SAYING) that woman and doctors all over the country are murdering newborns left and right. This is a flat-out, 1000% lie, and it's likely going to lead to another clinic bombing (as if they needed more excuses).
It fires up his base, which is all he cares about...
I don't think that verse is pro-abortion. That's describing a priest who curses an adulterous woman by calling on God to terminate her pregnancy against her will, every time she gets pregnant. I think the only lesson in that story is to not cheat on your husband.
Actually to me that reads more like a physician giving a woman a drug to cause a miscarriage.
Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Can you prove this claim? Because when you have the gentic material from two people combine and create a life. Seems like that life would be human to me. Also, I wasn't aware that "murder is bad" was only a religious standard. Color me surprised.
@smeagolheart When did I say that the 11 year old should be forced to carry the baby to term? Have you read any of my posts? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling the movement "pro-choice" when you force the will of an adult on the body of an unborn child.
@subtledoctor Biologically speaking, why would the sperm be considered a child? Genetic material from both parent is required for a child to be grown. Would you also condemn a woman for having a period?
@smeagolheart When did I say that the 11 year old should be forced to carry the baby to term? Have you read any of my posts? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling the movement "pro-choice" when you force the will of an adult on the body of an unborn child.
The way you worded it before was different.
""Pro-Choice" apparently means forcing another person's will on the body of a child" and I replied because that fits even better in a way which you are seemingly ok with - male Republican politicians telling a 11 year old child that was raped what to do with her body.
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
An 11 year old child is a child, an unborn group of cells is not. At best it's a potential child. Maybe until it can survive on its own, it's part of momma, not a baby.
What we know for certain is that a fetus CANNOT grow unless it goes through a gestation period inside the body of a woman. The absolute earliest a child can survive outside the womb of a mother is 24 weeks, or 6 months. Basically 1% of all abortions take place after this time period, which is to say that 99% of them do not. If you are going to make the choice to not have a baby, again, the idea of sitting with it and putting up with all the complications and discomfort of pregnancy for half a year is just not something that really takes place. Are there probably SOME women who change their mind halfway through and get abortions?? I suppose there is, but my guess is MOST abortions taking place after 6 months (and again, I use this milestone because it is the earliest the baby can possibly survive without the mother) are being done for legitimate medical reasons. 64 percent of abortions take place within the first 8 weeks, at least half or 3/4 of that time the woman may not even know if she is pregnant. Point being, most people who decide to get abortions are getting them when yes, a POTENTIAL life is starting to grow inside of them, but is nowhere near being at a place where it could be considered a viable human being that could survive outside the womb.
So while I understand the sincere beliefs of people like @ThacoBell, I simply cannot, as a man, sit here and tell a woman to grow another human being inside of her for almost an entire year, when it is something I will never have to face or comprehend. And we KNOW women will bear the brunt of raising the child if the relationship with the father falls apart (if there is any relationship to begin with). Of course, the argument will come up that if these women did not want to get pregnant, they should have taken steps to avoid it. In response to that a.) so should have the man and b.) it gets back to what is lurking behind alot of this (though I will concede not all of it) and that is a desire among some that pregnancy is an 18-year punishment for women having sex that certain segments of the population deem "inappropriate" or "immoral". And many of the most hardcore anti-abortion activists are also vehemently against certain types of contraception and they give steadfast support to a political party that advocates for making birth control not be covered by health insurance and abstinence-only sex-ed classes in schools. And that is where the entire thing falls apart.
@ThacoBell is an example of the reasonable pro-life movement, and he has demonstrated time and again he is absolutely in favor of policies that would help the baby and the mother after the birth, to the point where I'd say he is more to the "left" in that sense than even the most liberal Democrats I have ever seen. He believes that if woman are going to be forced to give birth, then society is OBLIGATED to help them in every way possible. Sadly, this is not the position (even remotely) of the Republican Party, and the face of the anti-abortion movement is not our esteemed friend here, but the protesters harassing women who I see every Wednesday on the way to work outside the woman's health clinic.
What we know for certain is that a fetus CANNOT grow unless it goes through a gestation period inside the body of a woman. The absolute earliest a child can survive outside the womb of a mother is 24 weeks, or 6 months. Basically 1% of all abortions take place after this time period, which is to say that 99% of them do not. If you are going to make the choice to not have a baby, again, the idea of sitting with it and putting up with all the complications and discomfort of pregnancy for half a year is just not something that really takes place. Are there probably SOME women who change their mind halfway through and get abortions?? I suppose there is, but my guess is MOST abortions taking place after 6 months (and again, I use this milestone because it is the earliest the baby can possibly survive without the mother) are being done for legitimate medical reasons. 64 percent of abortions take place within the first 8 weeks, at least half or 3/4 of that time the woman may not even know if she is pregnant. Point being, most people who decide to get abortions are getting them when yes, a POTENTIAL life is starting to grow inside of them, but is nowhere near being at a place where it could be considered a viable human being that could survive outside the womb.
So while I understand the sincere beliefs of people like @ThacoBell, I simply cannot, as a man, sit here and tell a woman to grow another human being inside of her for almost an entire year, when it is something I will never have to face or comprehend. And we KNOW women will bear the brunt of raising the child if the relationship with the father falls apart (if there is any relationship to begin with). Of course, the argument will come up that if these women did not want to get pregnant, they should have taken steps to avoid it. In response to that a.) so should have the man and b.) it gets back to what is lurking behind alot of this (though I will concede not all of it) and that is a desire among some that pregnancy is an 18-year punishment for women having sex that certain segments of the population deem "inappropriate" or "immoral". And many of the most hardcore anti-abortion activists are also vehemently against certain types of contraception and they give steadfast support to a political party that advocates for making birth control not be covered by health insurance and abstinence-only sex-ed classes in schools. And that is where the entire thing falls apart.
@ThacoBell is an example of the reasonable pro-life movement, and he has demonstrated time and again he is absolutely in favor of policies that would help the baby and the mother after the birth, to the point where I'd say he is more to the "left" in that sense than even the most liberal Democrats I have ever seen. He believes that if woman are going to be forced to give birth, then society is OBLIGATED to help them in every way possible. Sadly, this is not the position (even remotely) of the Republican Party, and the face of the anti-abortion movement is not our esteemed friend here, but the protesters harassing women who I see every Wednesday on the way to work outside the woman's health clinic.
I wholeheartedly agree with @jjstraka34 in this regard. Please, don't anybody die of a heart-attack! I also somewhat agree with @Thacobell. My definition of a human life is when the brain is fully formed and there are some indications of individuality. I have no idea when that is. I think it happens sometime before delivery but it's hard, if not impossible, to determine when exactly that is. I would, therefore, have to consider myself against partial-birth abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger...
I've got a new role on the forums as one of the moderators, so have been doing a bit of extra reading over the last day or so to understand what my responsibilities are. This particular thread is probably my favorite one on the forum and I would therefore be following it closely anyway. However, the fact that it covers many topics which can raise passions means it may from time to time be helpful to have another moderator who follows the thread regularly.
I hope of course that there is in fact minimal need for moderation and it's nice to be able to make this post following some great discussion on a topic as controversial as abortion. Accepting that others hold legitimate views, but explaining why you don't necessarily agree with them provides an opportunity to present information and insights to help each other learn - and that seems to me to fit with the ethos of the forums as a whole and not just this particular thread.
Incidentally, I noticed a double-post by @Balrog99 and used my new ability to delete the duplicate. I think that was done correctly, but if I do make errors with these new godlike powers then please be gentle with someone who's perhaps getting a bit old to learn new tricks .
I've got a new role on the forums as one of the moderators, so have been doing a bit of extra reading over the last day or so to understand what my responsibilities are. This particular thread is probably my favorite one on the forum and I would therefore be following it closely anyway. However, the fact that it covers many topics which can raise passions means it may from time to time be helpful to have another moderator who follows the thread regularly.
I hope of course that there is in fact minimal need for moderation and it's nice to be able to make this post following some great discussion on a topic as controversial as abortion. Accepting that others hold legitimate views, but explaining why you don't necessarily agree with them provides an opportunity to present information and insights to help each other learn - and that seems to me to fit with the ethos of the forums as a whole and not just this particular thread.
Incidentally, I noticed a double-post by @Balrog99 and used my new ability to delete the duplicate. I think that was done correctly, but if I do make errors with these new godlike powers then please be gentle with someone who's perhaps getting a bit old to learn new tricks .
I got a weird error message when I posted that one so hit the 'post' button again. That might be why it double-posted. It's happened to me a few times and I have no idea why...
Edit: Don't let being a moderator prevent you from contributing to this thread. You have a pretty unique viewpoint and I'd hate for you to feel like you have to hold back because of your title. @semiticgod is very good at letting us know his viewpoints without being heavy-handed with those who may not agree with him. I'd like to see the same from you!
Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Can you prove this claim? Because when you have the gentic material from two people combine and create a life. Seems like that life would be human to me. Also, I wasn't aware that "murder is bad" was only a religious standard. Color me surprised.
It's not a claim. It's a statement of the definitions of three words. And I'll see your disingenuousness and raise you an absurdity: If aborting an embryo or fetus is murder, then my grandfather should have been charged with negligent homicide when he sliced off his finger with a band-saw.
But really, I don't care if it's human or not. Under no other circumstances do we use the coercive power of the state to force one human to risk life and health to save the life of another. No one is ever going to show up on your doorstep with a court order telling you to report to the hospital because some dude in Cleveland needs your kidney. Every time a woman carries a fetus to term, she risks her life, she risks serious health complications. During her pregnancies, my wife went through some serious stuff that affected her health for the rest of her life. I love our kids, and I'm in awe of my wife for having endured all she went through, but it was her choice to do so. The thought of our government forcing that on someone, by threats of violence*, against their will, turns my stomach.
(*IMO, a ten year prison sentence for getting an abortion is a threat of violence.)
Concerning abortion the line has moved somewhat over what was socially permissible in many societies. For much of human history rates for infanticide & neonaticide were quite high, 25% would probably not be too high to posit. Rarely this might be caused by social factors (e.g. stigma against the disabled) or personal disinclination to raise children, but the overwhelming reason would be the inability of parents to support children, which has only relatively recently begun to be alleviated by limited support from the rest of society. While the recent tendency is to emphasise that women have control over their bodies, their choice is freer if they believe that all potential choices will receive support from those around them. This means that if you're a guy receiving *that phonecall* it's not really enough to just say "well, it's your choice babe", you have to be ready to say you'll sacrifice whatever you have to for the next 20-odd years... In societies with less of a shame imperative a lot of consultation should be taking place at this time so an informed decision can be made.
But really, I don't care if it's human or not. Under no other circumstances do we use the coercive power of the state to force one human to risk life and health to save the life of another. No one is ever going to show up on your doorstep with a court order telling you to report to the hospital because some dude in Cleveland needs your kidney. Every time a woman carries a fetus to term, she risks her life, she risks serious health complications. During her pregnancies, my wife went through some serious stuff that affected her health for the rest of her life. I love our kids, and I'm in awe of my wife for having endured all she went through, but it was her choice to do so. The thought of our government forcing that on someone, by threats of violence*, against their will, turns my stomach.
(*IMO, a ten year prison sentence for getting an abortion is a threat of violence.)
This is true. Even first responders are not legally required to risk their life to save another. Firefighters, EMTs, lifeguards, none are. Police additionally have the capacity to shoot someone if they judge that their life is in imminient risk.
Abolishing abortions is nothing but a fool's errant. Period. And this comes from someone who lives in a country in which abortions were always illegal to begin with, yet still are practiced on a regular basis behind closed doors.
If anything, mankind as a whole needs more birth control - not less of it. This isn't even a question of which unborn "deserves" to die or not. But an logical consequense of world overpopulation: an already existing problem which only gets worse as time goes on. If, for example, each household would legally be entitled to have up two children, it may very well already make a noticeable difference in just a decade's time. "Oh, what's this? A third one is underway? Please pay the fine then. Have a nice day."
I'd even go so far that parents would require a license before even getting a child. Said license could for instance require a psychological screening/examination of both parents. Maybe then we would have less "problematic" parents in the world, too. Well, one can hope...
A reminder about Rule 1 from the start of the thread:
Everyone has an equal right to express their viewpoint, and while viewpoints may disagree, no one is entitled to attack another person's character, intelligence, morality, or enlightenment.
This thread is here for people of differing viewpoints to discuss political issues in a polite, civil, and courteous way, to listen to each other from a position of empathy, and to agree or disagree without dismissing or belittling others. Ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite is against the rules.
This discussions starts and continues with the assumption that everyone here is working together in an honest pursuit of the truth. Suggesting that another user is being disingenuous, or not participating in good faith, is not acceptable here.
If you genuinely do suspect another user is posting in bad faith, Rule 7 states that the only acceptable response is to use the "Flag" function at the bottom of the post; public accusations are not allowed.
We've seen a remarkable level of respectful discussion of contentious issues over the course of this thread, and we expect the participants in this thread to continue on that path.
@BillyYank Well, one grows into a full human being. One is part of a human being. Should be pretty simple. Again, if its not human life, what kind of life is it?
A parasite. I love my kid more than anything and abortion isn’t something my wife or I would consider unless there’s a catastrophe but I can’t make that choice for anyone else. Thus, I’m pro-choice.
The country still violent as hell, but there are no way to fix all problems in 6 months. Of course, the mainstream midia don't list the changes that Bolsonaro made in the list. Brazil still the most violent country on this world. But -25% is a lot considering how common homicides become under the left government.
Brazil is far more violent than neightbors countries like Uruguay and Argentina. Both with much less strict gun control laws(still stricter than US)
@BillyYank Well, one grows into a full human being. One is part of a human being. Should be pretty simple. Again, if its not human life, what kind of life is it?
Why is that significant? Why is that worth bringing down the iron boot of state control in the service of a religion?
EDIT: By your own phrasing, it seems you're admitting it's not a "full human being".
EDIT: To go back to my previous point: Why do you hold pregnant women to this standard, and nobody else? Only pregnant women must be forced by the state to risk their lives to help a not-yet-human, but no one else is forced to do this to help an actual breathing, thinking human being? Does that seem fair to you?
The media continues to insist Trump said Nazis or white nationalists are very good people, obviously untrue and not what he meant, and at the same time will write piece after piece trying to clarify Rep. Tlaib's comments. Funny how much context matters depending on the political party! It's all a coincidence once again, i'm sure. Just an endless string of coincidences stretching infinitely into the abyss.
I just read a Gallup poll showing that Democrats trust in the media is the highest it's been in 20 years, yet less than half of independents and Republicans express trust in the media, and less than half of all young people. I guess if you just reinforce people's current belief system for a living, you can put them in a comfortable echo chamber, they have no incentive to question it, or be open minded, or engage in any self examination...
But regardless it's good to know this obvious charade of a free press that we have isn't convincing the average person and especially not the new generation.
I absolutely love WaPO's "The Anatomy of a Smear", they break down in precise detail their own tactics for spreading misinformation and lies through the press. And "transparently phony outrage", man that got me too. The lack of self awareness is astounding.
@BillyYank "To go back to my previous point: Why do you hold pregnant women to this standard, and nobody else? Only pregnant women must be forced by the state to risk their lives to help a not-yet-human, but no one else is forced to do this to help an actual breathing, thinking human being? Does that seem fair to you?"
You Haven't read any of my posts over th last two pages have you? Go an actually read what I've posted and what my stance is. Then I'll be happy to continue this conversation.
The media continues to insist Trump said Nazis or white nationalists are very good people, obviously untrue and not what he meant,(...).
Where? I never saw ANY big media corporation praising white nationalists, in fact, the media is very biased AGAINST whites. They praises things "only for black" and criticize when an white do the same.
And no, Trump is not white nationalist, if he is, i an sure that he will try remove the white minority countries from the H1B visa eligible countries
@WarChiefZeke I thought you were smarter than that. The whole rally was billed as a white supremacy.
The back drop of the statue removal and renaming of Lee park was always an excuse for the unite the right rally to happen. It was something for the ralliers to hide behind if anything went amiss. Without the removal of the statue option the city would not give them a permit to protest. After the first night torch march, the local politicians declared the rally as unlawful as the messaging changed.
You’d think, if this was actually about the protest of a removal of a statue, one would be able to find one picture or video of a protester who was there holding up a sign saying “protect our heritage” although, that excuse in itself was a lie since Robert E Lee had no ties what so ever to Charlottesville. The very fine people trump was referencing wasn’t at the rally. He just did it anyways to give his base something to hide behind. He also, before he said both sides had very nice people said:
" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent."
So he is blaming only one side on the violence, the one side that doesn’t have a permit.
Comments
No, I'm sorry. I'm not married anymore and if I don't take things in my own 'hands' I have wet dreams. Sorry to burst your bubble but I can't consciously control my body in that regard. I tore myself up religiously about that for most of my life before I realized that's total bullshit.
I'll add to that. Women who think at least somewhat like I do are likely to marry very early and are very unlikely to ever divorce. I found this out when I finally got over my hangups at the late age of 40. I'm hoping that I might find an unattached widow who actually lives in the real world when I'm 60 but I'm not holding my breath...
It fires up his base, which is all he cares about...
So an abortion drug.
Can you prove this claim? Because when you have the gentic material from two people combine and create a life. Seems like that life would be human to me. Also, I wasn't aware that "murder is bad" was only a religious standard. Color me surprised.
@smeagolheart When did I say that the 11 year old should be forced to carry the baby to term? Have you read any of my posts? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling the movement "pro-choice" when you force the will of an adult on the body of an unborn child.
@subtledoctor Biologically speaking, why would the sperm be considered a child? Genetic material from both parent is required for a child to be grown. Would you also condemn a woman for having a period?
""Pro-Choice" apparently means forcing another person's will on the body of a child" and I replied because that fits even better in a way which you are seemingly ok with - male Republican politicians telling a 11 year old child that was raped what to do with her body.
An 11 year old child is a child, an unborn group of cells is not. At best it's a potential child. Maybe until it can survive on its own, it's part of momma, not a baby.
So while I understand the sincere beliefs of people like @ThacoBell, I simply cannot, as a man, sit here and tell a woman to grow another human being inside of her for almost an entire year, when it is something I will never have to face or comprehend. And we KNOW women will bear the brunt of raising the child if the relationship with the father falls apart (if there is any relationship to begin with). Of course, the argument will come up that if these women did not want to get pregnant, they should have taken steps to avoid it. In response to that a.) so should have the man and b.) it gets back to what is lurking behind alot of this (though I will concede not all of it) and that is a desire among some that pregnancy is an 18-year punishment for women having sex that certain segments of the population deem "inappropriate" or "immoral". And many of the most hardcore anti-abortion activists are also vehemently against certain types of contraception and they give steadfast support to a political party that advocates for making birth control not be covered by health insurance and abstinence-only sex-ed classes in schools. And that is where the entire thing falls apart.
@ThacoBell is an example of the reasonable pro-life movement, and he has demonstrated time and again he is absolutely in favor of policies that would help the baby and the mother after the birth, to the point where I'd say he is more to the "left" in that sense than even the most liberal Democrats I have ever seen. He believes that if woman are going to be forced to give birth, then society is OBLIGATED to help them in every way possible. Sadly, this is not the position (even remotely) of the Republican Party, and the face of the anti-abortion movement is not our esteemed friend here, but the protesters harassing women who I see every Wednesday on the way to work outside the woman's health clinic.
I wholeheartedly agree with @jjstraka34 in this regard. Please, don't anybody die of a heart-attack! I also somewhat agree with @Thacobell. My definition of a human life is when the brain is fully formed and there are some indications of individuality. I have no idea when that is. I think it happens sometime before delivery but it's hard, if not impossible, to determine when exactly that is. I would, therefore, have to consider myself against partial-birth abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger...
I hope of course that there is in fact minimal need for moderation and it's nice to be able to make this post following some great discussion on a topic as controversial as abortion. Accepting that others hold legitimate views, but explaining why you don't necessarily agree with them provides an opportunity to present information and insights to help each other learn - and that seems to me to fit with the ethos of the forums as a whole and not just this particular thread.
Incidentally, I noticed a double-post by @Balrog99 and used my new ability to delete the duplicate. I think that was done correctly, but if I do make errors with these new godlike powers then please be gentle with someone who's perhaps getting a bit old to learn new tricks
I got a weird error message when I posted that one so hit the 'post' button again. That might be why it double-posted. It's happened to me a few times and I have no idea why...
Edit: Don't let being a moderator prevent you from contributing to this thread. You have a pretty unique viewpoint and I'd hate for you to feel like you have to hold back because of your title. @semiticgod is very good at letting us know his viewpoints without being heavy-handed with those who may not agree with him. I'd like to see the same from you!
It's not a claim. It's a statement of the definitions of three words. And I'll see your disingenuousness and raise you an absurdity: If aborting an embryo or fetus is murder, then my grandfather should have been charged with negligent homicide when he sliced off his finger with a band-saw.
But really, I don't care if it's human or not. Under no other circumstances do we use the coercive power of the state to force one human to risk life and health to save the life of another. No one is ever going to show up on your doorstep with a court order telling you to report to the hospital because some dude in Cleveland needs your kidney. Every time a woman carries a fetus to term, she risks her life, she risks serious health complications. During her pregnancies, my wife went through some serious stuff that affected her health for the rest of her life. I love our kids, and I'm in awe of my wife for having endured all she went through, but it was her choice to do so. The thought of our government forcing that on someone, by threats of violence*, against their will, turns my stomach.
(*IMO, a ten year prison sentence for getting an abortion is a threat of violence.)
This is true. Even first responders are not legally required to risk their life to save another. Firefighters, EMTs, lifeguards, none are. Police additionally have the capacity to shoot someone if they judge that their life is in imminient risk.
If anything, mankind as a whole needs more birth control - not less of it. This isn't even a question of which unborn "deserves" to die or not. But an logical consequense of world overpopulation: an already existing problem which only gets worse as time goes on. If, for example, each household would legally be entitled to have up two children, it may very well already make a noticeable difference in just a decade's time. "Oh, what's this? A third one is underway? Please pay the fine then. Have a nice day."
I'd even go so far that parents would require a license before even getting a child. Said license could for instance require a psychological screening/examination of both parents. Maybe then we would have less "problematic" parents in the world, too. Well, one can hope...
Just my two cents on the matter.
@BillyYank If you are making a finger and an embryo equivalent, then I doubt your definitions would be very accurate.
Finger - Made up of human cells. Just like you said. Approximately 100 g.
Fetus - Made up of human cells. Reaches approximately 100 g at 16 weeks.
Brain waves start at 25-26 weeks.
So, without resorting to the supernatural, what's the difference here?
Nice tapdance, by the way.
If you genuinely do suspect another user is posting in bad faith, Rule 7 states that the only acceptable response is to use the "Flag" function at the bottom of the post; public accusations are not allowed.
We've seen a remarkable level of respectful discussion of contentious issues over the course of this thread, and we expect the participants in this thread to continue on that path.
Oh, how this doesn’t surprise me. I am so glad that the president’s international policy can be bought with appealing to his vanity.
source > https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://g1.globo.com/monitor-da-violencia/noticia/2019/05/13/assassinatos-caem-24percent-no-1o-trimestre-do-ano-no-brasil.ghtml
The country still violent as hell, but there are no way to fix all problems in 6 months. Of course, the mainstream midia don't list the changes that Bolsonaro made in the list. Brazil still the most violent country on this world. But -25% is a lot considering how common homicides become under the left government.
Brazil is far more violent than neightbors countries like Uruguay and Argentina. Both with much less strict gun control laws(still stricter than US)
Why is that significant? Why is that worth bringing down the iron boot of state control in the service of a religion?
EDIT: By your own phrasing, it seems you're admitting it's not a "full human being".
EDIT: To go back to my previous point: Why do you hold pregnant women to this standard, and nobody else? Only pregnant women must be forced by the state to risk their lives to help a not-yet-human, but no one else is forced to do this to help an actual breathing, thinking human being? Does that seem fair to you?
I just read a Gallup poll showing that Democrats trust in the media is the highest it's been in 20 years, yet less than half of independents and Republicans express trust in the media, and less than half of all young people. I guess if you just reinforce people's current belief system for a living, you can put them in a comfortable echo chamber, they have no incentive to question it, or be open minded, or engage in any self examination...
But regardless it's good to know this obvious charade of a free press that we have isn't convincing the average person and especially not the new generation.
https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/trump-doubles-down-on-very-fine-people-comment-after-charlottesville-1508595779550
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-colin-kaepernick_n_59c6846be4b0cdc77331a2f0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/13/rashida-tlaib-anatomy-smear/?utm_term=.c0885b667304
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/politics/rashida-tlaib-holocaust-comments/index.html
I absolutely love WaPO's "The Anatomy of a Smear", they break down in precise detail their own tactics for spreading misinformation and lies through the press. And "transparently phony outrage", man that got me too. The lack of self awareness is astounding.
You Haven't read any of my posts over th last two pages have you? Go an actually read what I've posted and what my stance is. Then I'll be happy to continue this conversation.
Where? I never saw ANY big media corporation praising white nationalists, in fact, the media is very biased AGAINST whites. They praises things "only for black" and criticize when an white do the same.
And no, Trump is not white nationalist, if he is, i an sure that he will try remove the white minority countries from the H1B visa eligible countries
The back drop of the statue removal and renaming of Lee park was always an excuse for the unite the right rally to happen. It was something for the ralliers to hide behind if anything went amiss. Without the removal of the statue option the city would not give them a permit to protest. After the first night torch march, the local politicians declared the rally as unlawful as the messaging changed.
You’d think, if this was actually about the protest of a removal of a statue, one would be able to find one picture or video of a protester who was there holding up a sign saying “protect our heritage” although, that excuse in itself was a lie since Robert E Lee had no ties what so ever to Charlottesville. The very fine people trump was referencing wasn’t at the rally. He just did it anyways to give his base something to hide behind. He also, before he said both sides had very nice people said:
" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent."
So he is blaming only one side on the violence, the one side that doesn’t have a permit.