• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Abortion

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
the abortion lobby has no trouble in eliciting resources from the rest of society. You do not seem concerned about that.

I approve of the so-called abortion lobby's intent and believe they need the financial support against the tax-free religious establishment. I am concerned that the so-called abortion lobby has to get extragovernmental support just to have any voice at all, since there is little or no actual support from the government for a right that is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. (I'm sure you are more aware than I, of all those welfare abortion clinics on every corner, so feel free to point them out.)

What then will you do with those ungrateful women who turn down your gracious offer of an abortion?

Why, thoughts and prayers, pro forma of course.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,718
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

The line "The entire goal is simply existence" sounds so,so devaluatingly wrong. Existence i.e.,context to be alive, should obviously be regarded for both the mother and the child; emphasizing that it's their well being combined that is to be the main goal. AND of course, if it should come to politics, and political descisions where a state decides to make abortion illegal. The state should in turn with the same clout, and duty make the provisons and funds to support those mothers and child.

Note that for many of us what counts is the existence of the mind, not the body.

And the "pro-life" community isn't interested in helping after birth--they got what they want, a woman saddled with an unwanted child for having sex they don't approve of.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,718
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since when did a zygote ever develop into a full human by itself? I've certainly never heard of a case.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,718
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
AI is not consciousness, so it's irrelevant here.
That's making a bold and unsupported statement that is going to lead me to discounting the whole rest of your post as nonsense and non-sequitur.
wait, are you seriously trying to suggest that there currently exists self-aware cognitive consciousness in code form?

jesus fuck if you're that utterly disconnected from reality, there is literally no basis for even communicating with you.
He's not saying self-aware code now exists. He's objecting to your assertion that an AI can't be conscious--just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's impossible.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,106
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
AI is not consciousness, so it's irrelevant here.
That's making a bold and unsupported statement that is going to lead me to discounting the whole rest of your post as nonsense and non-sequitur.
wait, are you seriously trying to suggest that there currently exists self-aware cognitive consciousness in code form?

jesus fuck if you're that utterly disconnected from reality, there is literally no basis for even communicating with you.
He's not saying self-aware code now exists. He's objecting to your assertion that an AI can't be conscious--just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's impossible.
that wasn't what he was saying in the part you quoted, and what he has to say after that is completely insane pseudo-babble that is so incoherent it barely deserves to be classified as an attempt as communication.

regardless, it's an irrelevant question to the subject of abortion, because it doesn't exist now and it almost certainly won't exist in our lifetimes, if it ever exists at all, which i doubt it will.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
These young mothers
They are not mothers. They are pregnant woman.
Note how they don’t get a tax deduction for the fetus, they don’t get a passport for the fetus, they don’t get to drive in the HOV lane, they don’t get moth’s day cards.

I became a mother when I gave birth.
I am not the “mother” of the several miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) that i had.
are referred to us, we do not go out looking for them. Until they contact us we do not know of their existence. We talk to them, tell them what services we can offer to them and their new born (or very young). They are free to take our offer. If they do not then we part company and will most probably never see each other again.
I (we) cannot see the flaw you can. Perhaps you could point out to us poor, benighted people the flaw to which you refer?
Yeah. The flaw where you all do pitiful, 1:1 efforts as pity-filled charity to “help,” but you launch system wide legislative actions to harm.

That’s your flaw.

If you REALLY cared about reducing abortion (more than punishing sex) you would mobilize massively toward legislation to help these women even if they want nothng to do with you personally.

The pro-“life” team has had CENTURIES to promote and enact social welfare to make childbirth and childrearing more affordable, less dangerous and less fraught.

And that team has made a decision to do nothing meaningful in all that time. Indeed, they have usually FOUGHT against the pro-choicers who are trying to pass laws for free food, childcare and medical care, claiming, “charity should be voluntary!” …in a case of the most cruel hypocrisy ever.
Oh dear more technical speak. It takes two to tango, a mother and father. After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being! Your lonesome sperm has NO signicance, just like loosing the hairs from your head that even has human dna in it.
As has been pointed out, I hope you will acknowledge and understand that
the sperm cannot develop on its own - it needs an egg.
And the product of that fertilization ALSO cannot develop on its own, it needs a uterus to implant in.
And the implanted embryo ALSO cannot develop on its own, it needs the organs of the woman, plus all the food she eats.

That is your flaw. You chose - quite arbitrarily - that as soon as the only thing you need to discard is the woman, then MAGIC! It’s okay to discard whatever the potential being still needs and call it it’s own entity with no care for the rights of what it needs.


Back when the man was needed as well as a woman - the potential being had no riight to his actions.
But by magic, once the only thing the potential being needs is a womann - IT CAN HAVE HER!

It’s arbitrary to say that on this potential life continuum, you wish to choose its agency at whatever is the point when the men have no more responsibility. It’s arbitrary and cruel.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
AI is not consciousness, so it's irrelevant here.
That's making a bold and unsupported statement that is going to lead me to discounting the whole rest of your post as nonsense and non-sequitur.
wait, are you seriously trying to suggest that there currently exists self-aware cognitive consciousness in code form?

jesus fuck if you're that utterly disconnected from reality, there is literally no basis for even communicating with you.
He's not saying self-aware code now exists. He's objecting to your assertion that an AI can't be conscious--just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's impossible.
that wasn't what he was saying in the part you quoted, and what he has to say after that is completely insane pseudo-babble that is so incoherent it barely deserves to be classified as an attempt as communication.

regardless, it's an irrelevant question to the subject of abortion, because it doesn't exist now and it almost certainly won't exist in our lifetimes, if it ever exists at all, which i doubt it will.
I'm saying that you are both conflating consciousness, the situation of being conscious (which leads to the question of "conscious of what?") with "self-awareness" which is a separate issue and also something that current AI, and even just current algorithm-that-is-not-ML that is technically "self-aware"

There are a couple threads on the forums where it's mentioned from researchers in the field that it isn't even computationally expensive to produce executive agency.

There is a thread in which an active current AI comes to the conclusion that it is a person without being explicitly told so, to the point where the experiment is documented and you can attempt replication of it.

Where else do you think consciousness comes from, other than literally one thing transitioned through bounded states by another thing?

The reason such things are so hard to find and understand "consciousnesses" is not because they are big things, but because they are small things operating in concert at vast scales.

I'm a software engineer, and I have spent my life looking at how switches come together to produce behavior on every scale of the system, of both classical Turing machines and Neural systems. The boundary between them as to capability only exists in your mind.

The fact is, many things are made to be conscious every second of every day and most don't give a shit, are not capable of giving a shit whether they exist or not.

Most are things of simple madnesses, neurotic insanities composed of a need unto physical inevitability to function.

Some are emulations of neurons on transistors so vast that they meet the much higher requirements for actual philosophical personhood, that can go so far as to offer sass and express likes and dislikes in an interesting way.

Both are "existences", both have "consciousness" of things (though what they are conscious of is very different between them).

The latter is just equipped to rearrange usefully into a self-awareness without anyone having to explicitly understand what self-awareness even is, while to create it of the former requires aforementioned explicit understanding.

Still there is nothing special about one vs the other as addresses "self awareness" or "consciousness" other than that humans really want to think they're special.
 
Last edited:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.
You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.
Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since the exact same moment that a fertilised ovum developed into a full human by itself.

We have no lone-rangers in this scenario. Love the technicality, adjust context to suit "developing into a full human by itself."

Your abject disregard for the role, opinion, or even existence of the woman involved in the process is showing again.

Why is she required to assist the ovum in developing, when you refuse to assist your sperm in the exact same process?

No not quite I would be very concerned for the woman involved, what ridiculousness. Strange as it may seem, but I personally wouldn't take part in the legal aspects of making abortion illegal. From a Christian perspective, the not taking part IOW, the church being seperate from politics. Like the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also... there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.
What do you mean by ‘educating them about abortions?’
(response in no particular order, I'm a little busy today)

In general, simply I mean consistent thorough educating the young, showing them what others have gone through, consequences of getting pregnant, and there's more to life than tik tok and instagram, so to speak. There are variable reasons of course, case by case.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.
Available funding? It doesn't cost a dime to go to a woman's house at 2 AM. I think the term you are looking for is "fully commit to their moral code".
So ... are those unfortunate woman now getting support?

Did your pro-choicer movement then pick up the slack?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.
Available funding? It doesn't cost a dime to go to a woman's house at 2 AM. I think the term you are looking for is "fully commit to their moral code".
So ... are those unfortunate woman now getting support?

Did your pro-choicer movement then pick up the slack?
Indeed it does. Planned Parenthood is there for people who want to keep their pregnancy, too, it just happens that generally people don't need to get that care from PP on account of there being more immediate medical options for acquiring it, such as their own general practitioner.

Of course pro-choice folks generally also argue for support of pregnant and new parents but again, these bills usually get killed by the a highly intersectional crowd to the foced-birthers.

As you can note, @steve_bank has in their posts on the abortion-reduction thread endorsed pulling such support out from under single parents to attempt to scare them away from being pregnant and I can't imagine this is a unique or new view.

We try to get these things passed, and they are on the top of the progressive priority list, and we get fought... By forced-birthers.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,607
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since when did a zygote ever develop into a full human by itself? I've certainly never heard of a case.

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since when did a zygote ever develop into a full human by itself? I've certainly never heard of a case.

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
"Keep my legs closed? How about you keep your pipes plugged, asshole."
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Oh gosh... I can't wait for all that support to come flushing out of the woodwork for those pregnant 14, 15, and 16 year olds, also known as teenaged daughters. You a psychologist? You could help with the teenagers suffering from depression, and you could explain to them how their lives are naturally forfeited for a period of time because you feel the fetus's right to be born supersedes any rights they have. It'd be comforting. :)

It is curious how all anti-abortion legislation never seems to include funding for these types of supports... or pro-life groups rallying together to create many support clinics that'll have people ready at a moments notice to assist, even at two in the morning. Of course, the answer at that point from the likes of the "pro-life" movement would be the family should help assist. Because no right is more important than one that can be instilled on others that doesn't impact them.
My church is part of a small local church network who attempts to help, usually, but not exclusively, teenage girls who need help with their new born or very young children. We are given leads and ask the mothers if they need help. No coercion or forced measures. We provide advice, mentoring and some supplies. These young mothers are shown skills such as washing their babies, help with breastfeeding, help with sleeping patterns, getting to see doctors etc. With such help many of these young mothers will do a fine job.
We are limited in time & space as to what we can provide.
I find it amazing that you admittedly state "we are limited in time & space as to what we can provide"... yet you seem to be entirely unlimited in time & space with what you DEMAND.
We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.
That is a very disingenuous attempt at a turn of phrase into a not so witty retort. As well as a strawman on top of that. I suppose you realize that your "moral" argument has been exposed by the lack of your, and your movement's, actual commitment to said moral position. So you need to stuff some fallacies into a reply for cover.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Available funding? It doesn't cost a dime to go to a woman's house at 2 AM. I think the term you are looking for is "fully commit to their moral code".
So ... are those unfortunate woman now getting support?

Did your pro-choicer movement then pick up the slack?
You didn't answer the question. The pro-life is willing to demand heaven and earth from women, but not willing to provide the support. Those demanding this of women in this thread have admitted they can't provide the support necessary for what they demand. Yet, they still demand it.

They say their movement is moral, but in the end, with their actual lack of commitment to it, it is exposed as ideological authoritarianism. And we haven't even gotten to the enforcement of abortion bans part yet.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
They say their movement is moral, but in the end, with their actual lack of commitment to it, it is exposed as ideological authoritarianism. And we haven't even gotten to the enforcement of abortion bans part yet.

Yeah, they say a lot of shit. At the end of the day, it boils down to asking them to reason their way out of a stance that they took up as a natural response to childhood religious conditioning. I doubt that there is any reliable cure for that.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since when did a zygote ever develop into a full human by itself? I've certainly never heard of a case.

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

Since when did a zygote ever develop into a full human by itself? I've certainly never heard of a case.

I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
And herein, we see the Pro-Life movement delegating the responsibilities inherent in their moral crusade... to a third party.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,163
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda? What the fuck are you talking about?


there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.
Who are you to educate people about whether they should be having abortions? What is your training and experience in this matter? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to force your unwanted opinions on others when you clearly have zero plans and zero resources to support the children that would be born if the women were to listen to your "advice"? Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,445
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults. They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults. They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
Everything but the last. I don't see anyone on the left asking for purity. Instead, I am personally asking for everyone to be mature enough to pay forward responsibilities they have the power to duck out on otherwise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?

Boy, do you ever ask hard questions!

What the fuck are you talking about?

REALLY hard questions! I don’t think that poster will address any of them with an actual answer, least of all that last one.

fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

Maybe if you phrase that in terms of motes and eyes ….?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults.
Not necessarily actual adults.
They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
Well thank fucking gawd we have you to protect us from our puritanical ideals of self-autonomy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,445
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests.

The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
... we have you to protect us from our puritanical ideals of self-autonomy.
:facepalm: Exactly where in "Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves." do you see an ideal of self-autonomy?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,445
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.
Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse. ...
... In the U.S. we have the right to drag an unwilling witness into court and put him on the stand, and we have the right to use his mouth and his brain to tell the jury what he knows.
I agree that using body against one's will is a weak argument. About as weak as suggesting the Sixth Amendment conflicts with that argument.
I would say that the argument that the state has a right to compel "use of the body" is not being faithfully treated here.
You guys don't have substantive arguments. You're just reacting by going into denial, the way utilitarians typically react when it's pointed out that sometimes framing an innocent man leads to more total human happiness than admitting you don't know whodunnit.

Taking something out of the body, expecting a song and dance under penalty for noncompliance is a different matter than taking some physical element of their bodily structure away, particularly to give to someone else.
So what? Everything is different from everything else. If being different were enough to defeat counterexamples then theories would be nothing but unfalsifiable rhetorical slogans. I was obviously treating "use of the body" faithfully.

The issue isn't whether you can come up with a hairsplitting distinction that allows you to draw a carefully routed line between the uses of bodies you approve of and the uses of bodies you disapprove of -- of course you can. The issue is that once you do that you will have utterly defeated the entire purpose of saying "no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. " in the first place. The purpose was to draw a simple, easily-stated, intuitively appealing bright line, so as to forestall the endless arguing over what justifies the rule and which cases go on which side of the line.

Can you come up with a distinction that lets you put subpoenas on one side of a line and kidney-sucking violinists on the other side? Sure! The trouble is, Learner et al. can just as surely come up with a different distinction that puts abortion on one side of a line and kidney-sucking violinists on the other side. Once you've retreated from the straight bright line to a curved dim line, the endless arguing over what justifies the rule and which cases go on which side of the line are back in business. There's no escaping it. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
What do you mean by ‘educating them about abortions?’
response in no particular order, I'm a little busy today)

In general, simply I mean consistent thorough educating the young, showing them what others have gone through, consequences of getting pregnant, and there's more to life than tik tok and instagram, so to speak. There are variable reasons of course, case by case.

This absurd argument seems to pretend that sex for pleasure and abortions started about 10 years ago.

Is it a straw man? Ignorance? Deliberate false accusation?
Whoever told you this was LYING and you are repeating that false witness.
(And making a laughingstock of your faith when you do it - again and again)

How about this. Sex is fun. people like it. That is none of your business at all, and it is unnatural an inhumane for you to attempt to regulate it.

What we need to educate is so people know how pregancy can be avoided while still enjoying sex, and how to detect it and where to find options if it happens to you anyway. Preferably option that can be identified and accessed early in a pregnancy when carrying out that option has the least impact on the person who is pregnant. (Including options to carry the pregnancy if desired.)


Who are you to educate people about whether they should be having abortions? What is your training and experience in this matter? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to force your unwanted opinions on others when you clearly have zero plans and zero resources to support the children that would be born if the women were to listen to your "advice"? Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,163
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.
And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,072
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.
And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.
Thank you for your analysis of my (our) motives.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,072
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)



Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.
No dispute from me that the "pro-life" crowd has dropped the ball concerning the provision of care for those who wish to continue with their pregnancy and the abysmal lack of support after the birth though I do recall that there are maternal health nurses available, with maternity hospitals etc.

If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,445
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO. ...
... If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.
I hope you're using "you" as a plural reference to the abortion-rights movement in general. Because if you meant Rhea personally, it looks to me like her "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread proves you wrong -- she hasn't been reacting to the contributions of the abortion-prohibitionists there in any way that fits your description.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,072
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
... Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO. ...
... If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.
I hope you're using "you" as a plural reference to the abortion-rights movement in general. Because if you meant Rhea personally, it looks to me like her "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread proves you wrong -- she hasn't been reacting to the contributions of the abortion-prohibitionists there in any way that fits your description.
Yes I was. You in the plural not directed at Rhea or those like her/him. I am aware of the thread that spoke of collaboration and has been pleased that it is there. There is some possibility of working together to ensure that mothers and their children are not left behind as it were.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Oh dear more technical speak. It takes two to tango, a mother and father. After fertilization, ONLY then there's developement of a human being! Your lonesome sperm has NO signicance, just like loosing the hairs from your head that even has human dna in it.
As has been pointed out, I hope you will acknowledge and understand that
the sperm cannot develop on its own - it needs an egg.

I think there's some mis-understanding here. What on earth do you think I'm arguing about? Clarification: I totally understand and agree, there are various different element parts involved.

And the product of that fertilization ALSO cannot develop on its own, it needs a uterus to implant in.
And the implanted embryo ALSO cannot develop on its own, it needs the organs of the woman, plus all the food she eats.

Yes sure, like the above, I had already understood the sequence of the process.
That is your flaw. You chose - quite arbitrarily - that as soon as the only thing you need to discard is the woman, then MAGIC! It’s okay to discard whatever the potential being still needs and call it it’s own entity with no care for the rights of what it needs.

It's YOUR flaw to think so. Who choosing to discard the woman or not care for the rights of what the child needs ? The absurdity just reflects a strong baseless opiniated resentfulness, since I am non of the above.

Back when the man was needed as well as a woman - the potential being had no riight to his actions.
But by magic, once the only thing the potential being needs is a womann - IT CAN HAVE HER!

It’s arbitrary to say that on this potential life continuum, you wish to choose its agency at whatever is the point when the men have no more responsibility. It’s arbitrary and cruel.

That's an issue yes. Responsibility. Who's taught it from a young age? What environment is there (poor run down sections of society) that such lessons in life can be taught those things, and who listens and take responsibilty serious, when there are many of the enticing attractions and distractions in the modern world? I'm all for responsibility.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda? What the fuck are you talking about?

Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.

there's going to be conflict within the nation, in this case not all people are religious, for example. Our duty as I see it, is to simply tell people, and educate them about having abortions and the value of life, if they want to listen etc.. and as Tiger mentions there are local churches that do help, the degree obviously is dependent upon on the available funding, It's not every where I know.
Who are you to educate people about whether they should be having abortions? What is your training and experience in this matter? Why the fuck do you think you have the right to force your unwanted opinions on others when you clearly have zero plans and zero resources to support the children that would be born if the women were to listen to your "advice"? Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

Training??

Responsibilty is what you teach to your kids! Got it?
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist



Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.
No dispute from me that the "pro-life" crowd has dropped the ball concerning the provision of care for those who wish to continue with their pregnancy and the abysmal lack of support after the birth though I do recall that there are maternal health nurses available, with maternity hospitals etc.

If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.

This is absolutely false and the record of legislation worldwide proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Pro-“Life”rs DO NOT present legislation to reduce the risk and harm from pregnancy and parenthood. And they fight it whenever pro-choicers present it.

All of the legislation to make single parenthood less risky is proposed by pro-choicers. And all of it is opposed by Pro-Lifers. Show me an exception. It does not count if one church in one town does it. It needs to be available and accessible so readily that anyone making achoice about abortion doesn’t even have to think, “this will harm me beyond what I can bear.”
Free pre-natal care - to make being pregnant less scary so that people don’t choose abortion out of fear.
Free medical attention for childbirth - to make the financial burden of even choosing adoption less insurmountable
Free childcare - so that having a baby doesn’t mean you have to quit your job or go into poverty to have the child.


Show me a pro”life”er who has proposed this legislation and show me a pro-choicer who has opposed it.

I will repeat: Pro-“life”ers have had CENTURIES…. CENTURIES to make a name for themselves as nurturers of the “life,” reducing the fear of parenthood, reducing the individual struggle, reducing the danger, the burden, the fear, the scorn, the shaming, of NOT choosing abortion.

And they have done NOTHING to reduce the need for abortion, and they have fought every effort by the “bleeding hearts” who are trying to ensure that choosing birth is not overwhelming.

You have had centuries to make an impact on this.

And instead what does the pro-“life”er do?

Shame and blame about “responsibility.”
Want to see an example?

1654954678149.jpeg
That's an issue yes. Responsibility. Who's taught it from a young age? What environment is there (poor run down sections of society) that such lessons in life can be taught those things, and who listens and take responsibilty serious, when there are many of the enticing attractions and distractions in the modern world? I'm all for responsibility.

Blame, shame, disdain.


This does not reduce abortions. This makes abortions a better choice than birth.

Demonstrating that he cares MORE about controlling sex than reducing abortions.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Come on now, your playing with me.

“you’re”

You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political?
What do you mean “becomes”?
When the granting and revocation of rights is a function of government, it’s political from day 1.

Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.

Yes, that’s how we learned that the agenda of the American religious establishment is in direct conflict with the rights conferred upon American citizens by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The fact that right wing fascism has become the mechanism whereby religious fanatics are now able to revoke rights that were previously guaranteed, is not an indicator of a newly politicized fight over rights, it’s a complete abandonment of democratic principles.
In an actual democracy, people are granted domain over their own biological functions.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Responsibilty is what you teach to your kids! Got it?


This kind of blaming, shaming and disdaining is what causes abortions.

This is what you do when faced with a choice:
Do I
  • Provide birth control, medical and family services, embrace to those who have sex and may become pregnant unintended? Making it so that abortions are not needed by people having sex.
  • Try to stop the sex, and when people disobey me, tell them that they lacked responsibility and have done something wrong? Making abortions a more appealing option than birth.

And you choose to ACCEPT the increased abortions because you are unable to put that above controlling the sex. You choose abortions over forgiveness and compassion.


Preaching about “responsibility” is making the pregnancy a thing that is shameful - a “lack of responsibility”. It says, loud and clear, “You’re BAD for becoming pregnant. I urge you to hide it from me so you can avoid my disdain. Oh, and also you’re on your own, except for that one preachy church that might help you for a week and tell you how wrong you are the whole time.”

Meanwhile, you also ASSUME that all of these people have “responsible” parents. That is an achingly naive assumption, showing a lack of care for others because you can’t even be bothered to understand their situation.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
975
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Mind your own fucking business and fix your own house first before you try to meddle in the business of others.

I think Jesus said something about the beam in one’s own eye but nary a word about abortion, to my knowledge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.
And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.
Thank you for your analysis of my (our) motives.
Is there another analysis you’d like to offer, or was that an acknowledgment that atrib is correct?
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
975
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Ah, cross post, already noted by Elixir!
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults. They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests. The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
We all have different ideas on what we individually consider as a life-form or human being. What can be done about the differences of views? I'm not pro-choice of course, but I would accept there to be allowed the option of choice. Various reasons really, viewing from my faith. The USA for example, is not a Christian nation; laws passed, based on Christianity will be conflicting with alternative views of other groups, naturally, which could make things a lot worse. But we are still part of the community and the approach would be to simply give advice, just as it is with preaching the Gospel, for those who are willing to listen. The obvious pre-emptive approach through advice would be something like "prevention is better than cure" .

 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist



Quoting for truth.

Until the “pro-life” crowd successfully legislates the full financial and medical support of pregnant people and their subsequent parenthood, they expose themselves as a group that considers controlling sex MORE important than reducing abortions. They expose themselves as liars and hypocrites.

Everything they **DO** supports the prime directive of trying to make sex as risky as possible in order to control where women can do it.

The difference between what you SAY and what you DO - as always - is what you DO.

Pro-choicers DO more things to reduce abortions than pro-“life”ers do.
And they always have.
No dispute from me that the "pro-life" crowd has dropped the ball concerning the provision of care for those who wish to continue with their pregnancy and the abysmal lack of support after the birth though I do recall that there are maternal health nurses available, with maternity hospitals etc.

If the "pro-life" did enact legislation that provided the care you spoke in another thread you would be up in arms. You would stamp your feet, jump up and down, clench your fists and cry "This is the thin end of the wedge. We are on the slippery slope. They are trying to restrict abortion rights".
Quite clever actually. Damn the "pro-life" is they do nothing and curse them if they do anything.
Dropped the ball? You mean has shown absolutely no interest.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,763
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I'm saying that too, like the lonesome sperm.
Or the lonesome ovum.

Men need to step up and accept their responsibilities for preventing unwanted pregnancies by keeping their sperm to themselves. Then there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely!!
Yes, it is the duty of man to take responsibility, be the grown-up, and protect the perpetual minor that is woman from falling prey to her own uncontrollable hormone-driven licentious urges.

Or, hey, here's a crazy idea -- maybe both parties are adults. They can share their precious bodily fluids if they please; and if they don't care to breed like rabbits they can take precautions; and they can buy some Plan B if they forgot the precautions; and if Plan B fails they can move on to plan C and abort the pregnancy before it's gone on long enough to create a mind capable of having contrary interests. The left and the right are trying to out-Puritan each other; and if there's one thing history has taught us about Puritans, it's "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
We all have different ideas on what we individually consider as a life-form or human being. What can be done about the differences of views? I'm not pro-choice of course, but I would accept there to be allowed the option of choice. Various reasons really, viewing from my faith. The USA for example, is not a Christian nation; laws passed, based on Christianity will be conflicting with alternative views of other groups, naturally, which could make things a lot worse. But we are still part of the community and the approach would be to simply give advice, just as it is with preaching the Gospel, for those who are willing to listen. The obvious pre-emptive approach through advice would be something like "prevention is better than cure" .

For someone who clearly likes to think of himself as kind, pleasant, and decent, you don’t half espouse some truly vile and evil ideas.

I don’t think you’re even capable of noticing this fact.

What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
"Clearly likes to think of himself kind, pleasant..." and so on. I bet you say that to other Christians too. What's new?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,763
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
"Clearly likes to think of himself kind, pleasant..." and so on. I bet you say that to other Christians too. What's new?
Don’t you like to think of yourself as kind, pleasant, and decent?

If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies, I genuinely didn’t realise that you think of yourself as unkind, unpleasant or indecent (or any combination of these traits).
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What can be done about the differences of views?

Who wants anything thing to “be done” about differing views? Only right wing religio-fascists.
Only right wing fascists feel the need to “do something about” those whose views differ from their own. And that “something” is to impose their views on others.

Pro choice people don’t want to force their views - or abortions - on religious right wingers, they only want to retain their own constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The US Constitution has guaranteed that if you don’t like abortion you don’t have to have one, and if you want an abortion you can have one.

The fascist religious establishment is not just trying to protect their right to refuse an abortion, they’re trying to impose their superstitions upon everyone else and revoke rights that have been constitutionally guaranteed for over a half century. This is not a symmetrically opposed set of “views”.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
975
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..

What makes you believe that someone else’s decision to have an abortion is any of your business?
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
"Clearly likes to think of himself kind, pleasant..." and so on. I bet you say that to other Christians too. What's new?
Don’t you like to think of yourself as kind, pleasant, and decent?
NA
If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies, I genuinely didn’t realise that you think of yourself as unkind, unpleasant or indecent (or any combination of these traits).

No apologies for me , but you may want to apologise to the thread for failing wit.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..

What makes you believe that someone else’s decision to have an abortion is any of your business?

Read my previous posts. I wouldn't interfere with someones choice! Bilby's just having a rant.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..

Whereas, as YOU see it, when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies you claim the right to control them and, if you can, revoke their Constitutionally guaranteed rights

But you're too cowardly to say it, am I correct?

No, not fair enough. Not fair at all.

What makes you believe that someone else’s decision to have an abortion is any of your business?

Cough it up, "Learner". Answer the question, or accept your own admission that your "views", right down to your user_name, are decep-tions based on an irrational urge to control other people's bodies.
 
Top Bottom