(02-09-2021 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 08:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I am not a religious person. Christian background, but also previously atheist.

I think abortion is the killing of a human being. Not a religious stance, a common sense stance. Something that was alive and identifiable as human is no longer alive.

Whether or not it is a legal killing is another matter. Whether or not it is a justified killing is yet another.

I cannot see how lad is going to justify those killings, but this should be interesting.

I don't believe it is the killing of a human being. Pretty easy to justify allowing abortions.

I don't think we should outlaw abortion completely (fine with some restrictions, especially based on viability) because of the health issues it creates for women.

As OO just providedm, I completely believe that that are anti-abortion stances that aren't based on religious teachings. Not sure if that was in question, but it seemed to be getting close to it at least.

I think it it is human from the moment of conception. Science (you guys like science, right?) tells us that if we take a sample from the embryo, it will come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if that embryo is not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years does it become human?

Don't give me the old "viability" tap dance, unless you are prepared to tell me an infant can survive without help or that a person on life support is not a human being.

This line clearly indicates that you aren't actually interested in this conversation and you're more interested in trying to prove a point without understanding mine.

Abortion is a tricky subject - you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I'm of the opinion that our laws should not outlaw abortions, and I've already provided some insight into that - hope that tap dancing is good enough for you.

Well, I guess if your mind is closed, all that is left to me is to explain my thoughts more.

IF you are assuming I am anti-abortion, you need to think again. I am neither pro- nor anti- abortion. I have lived both before and after RVW, and have seen the negatives of each regime. I leave it up to the lawmakers to decide if they want to condone the killing of a human. Saying it is not human is just a way to justify it, a way chosen in the past by Hitler and numerous slaveowners.

All of which has zero to do with my conviction that when a human fetus is aborted, a human life is ended. Sometimes this is done legally, such as in the death penalty, self-defense, or abortion, but legal or illegal, in every case a human life is terminated.

I see you chose not to answer my question.

The viability thingie is a legal concept, not a scientific one. A human baby does not suddenly become human because it can lie in a crib and cry, or because it can survive a couple of hours outside the womb, but only if cared for by an older human.

My mind is open to any facts you can provide to define the fetus as nonhuman.

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, I am not stating that, sorry you interpreted it that way.

Since we were talking about Catholics and their political stance on abortion, it was clear I was talking about this specific instance. See the change in bold to make that crystal clear.

I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

(02-09-2021 09:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see you chose not to answer my question.

The viability thingie is a legal concept, not a scientific one. A human baby does not suddenly become human because it can lie in a crib and cry, or because it can survive a couple of hours outside the womb, but only if cared for by an older human.

My mind is open to any facts you can provide to define the fetus as nonhuman.

You're taking my comment of saying that "I don't believe it is the killing of a human being" as meaning I am defining something as nonhuman...

I continue to choose to not answer this question because you continue to choose to clearly not be interested in actually listening. You've jumped to conclusions multiple times on a topic that is very, very complicated.

I have read your stances on abortion many times and I don't take you to be explicitly and exclusively anti-abortion. I recognize that you do see that it's a complicated issue, and I don't see me changing your mind on the legality of abortion or your personal definition of when human life begins, what an unborn baby can (or should be defined as), etc. And you don't seem to be interested in doing anything but pre-defining me and then faux asking questions.

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

Separating law from religion and separating society from religion are very different things, and I've not come close to the latter. Religion certainly has a place in society, an important one in multiple ways. I just really don't want laws to be passed that are fundamentally based on religious teachings since many of those whom they govern may not practice the same faith.

I do not view abortion as murder because of the status of the fetus at the time of the abortion (if it's unable to survive with modern care).

But let's say it is murder, I would still not support a total ban in this instance because of the pragmatic response. We know women are going to get abortions, and a complete ban increases risks for both the unborn and mothers. Trying to compare an abortion to a more traditional definition of murder ignores the role the mother plays in the equation and how their lives are intrinsically intertwined.

I ask you, do you consider abortion murder if the mother's life is at risk of carrying the unborn child to term?

As to Blue Laws - let's absolutely repeal those. They're idiotic and backwards.

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 05:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as a 'political stance' on abortion. It's a "Thou shall not kill" stance on abortion.

Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

'Used" to have blue laws? Package hard liquor *still* cant be sold on Sundays, nor can package beer or wine prior to noon on Sundays.

It used to be much worse. When I was a kid, you couldnt buy toys, hardware, or anything not intended to be consumed on Sundays.

Funny thing was, you couldnt buy a kite or string at all on Sundays, but cold buy beer after noon.

(02-09-2021 09:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see you chose not to answer my question.

The viability thingie is a legal concept, not a scientific one. A human baby does not suddenly become human because it can lie in a crib and cry, or because it can survive a couple of hours outside the womb, but only if cared for by an older human.

My mind is open to any facts you can provide to define the fetus as nonhuman.

You're taking my comment of saying that "I don't believe it is the killing of a human being" as meaning I am defining something as nonhuman...

How else could it be taken?

Quote:I continue to choose to not answer this question because you continue to choose to clearly not be interested in actually listening. You've jumped to conclusions multiple times on a topic that is very, very complicated.

I have read your stances on abortion many times and I don't take you to be explicitly and exclusively anti-abortion. I recognize that you do see that it's a complicated issue, and I don't see me changing your mind on the legality of abortion or your personal definition of when human life begins, what an unborn baby can (or should be defined as), etc. And you don't seem to be interested in doing anything but pre-defining me and then faux asking questions.

Can you really not see that you are describing yourself?

For example, you say I am jumping to conclusions and then two sentences later talk about the unlikelihood of you "changing my mind on the legality of abortion". WTH is my opinion on the legality of abortion? Quote me. Show me where I said a damn thing about the legality of abortion. You seem to have jumped to a conclusion that I have a position on the legality of abortion. If there is any, it is the same as the opinion on the legality of the death penalty, something I actually oppose. The legality is whatever the law says it is. I said viability was a legal definition of when a fetus becomes human, not a scientific one. Am I wrong? If so, show me where I am wrong.

Yes, I gave you my personal definition of when human life begins, and asked for yours, and as usual with leftists, if a question's answer makes you uneasy, the question is dodged. They feign umbrage and stalk away, anything to avoid giving an answer. We need to give this pattern of nonresponse a name - how about STFU Syndrome?

How the heck does asking questions predefine you? I'm not asking if you still beat your wife. I am asking you for your opinion. Why are you scared of giving that opinion?

Nothing faux about my questions. I want to know your answers. I want to understand your thinking, and how you arrive at the conclusions you have. But you keep dodging and deflecting like I am an IRS auditor. I think it is because you are afraid to subject your logic/opinion/position to scrutiny. I presented my logic, which you have not tried to correct. When asked for yours, you hide.

It's simple. Just say, "a fetus becomes a human being when X happens". I have presented my opinion. You hide yours behind faux outrage.

(02-10-2021 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

'Used" to have blue laws? Package hard liquor *still* cant be sold on Sundays, nor can package beer or wine prior to noon on Sundays.

It used to be much worse. When I was a kid, you couldnt buy toys, hardware, or anything not intended to be consumed on Sundays.

Funny thing was, you couldnt buy a kite or string at all on Sundays, but cold buy beer after noon.

Sorry, I'm an expat now and thought this had changed as I've not been affected by 'Blue Laws' for many a year. When I head across to the States I normally stock the refrigerator and pantry once. My hard liquor days are behind me such that the two unopened bottles of bourbon on hand will see me through 2021 and beyond.

(02-10-2021 06:34 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

'Used" to have blue laws? Package hard liquor *still* cant be sold on Sundays, nor can package beer or wine prior to noon on Sundays.

It used to be much worse. When I was a kid, you couldnt buy toys, hardware, or anything not intended to be consumed on Sundays.

Funny thing was, you couldnt buy a kite or string at all on Sundays, but cold buy beer after noon.

Sorry, I'm an expat now and thought this had changed as I've not been affected by 'Blue Laws' for many a year. When I head across to the States I normally stock the refrigerator and pantry once. My hard liquor days are behind me such that the two unopened bottles of bourbon on hand will see me through 2021 and beyond.

Yeah, same here, except I lack the two bottles of bourbon. Tanq is right, in that there are still some vestiges of blue laws remaining. One is, I believe, a Texas law that prohibits auto dealers from being open on both Saturday and Sunday. That is why every so often you will see a dealer's ad claiming that this sale is so big they will have to be closed all day Saturday to prepare.

Not a fan of blue laws. same for Sharia law. More a fan of free trade.

Stupidest thing I remember that they wouldn't sell diapers on Sunday.

(02-09-2021 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which becomes political when it creates laws outlawing abortion. You connected Biden's religiousness to his political position on abortion rights - it's not as if Biden is himself having the abortion, performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions. So with that being said, I don't see how Biden's political stance on abortion rights affects whether or not he is a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

If one makes a moral or humanistic argument as to why abortion should be outlawed, it's another story about that being a political stance. But outlawing abortion because the 10 Commandments say "thou shall not kill" is as religiously motivated as it comes.

This all comes to the idea that one can be against abortion, but also be against the state outlawing abortion.

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

Separating law from religion and separating society from religion are very different things, and I've not come close to the latter. Religion certainly has a place in society, an important one in multiple ways. I just really don't want laws to be passed that are fundamentally based on religious teachings since many of those whom they govern may not practice the same faith.

But you still ignore that society and religion are intrinsically intertwined. Go back to any 'Western' ever produced and at first any town is a lawless society. But then someone builds a church and law and order are introduced. I'm no anthropologist, but I believe nearly every society that ever existed developed their own religion if one wasn't introduced from an outside source. What did Voltaire say, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." I think you are suggesting that you don't want a law based on the beliefs of one religion that aren't held universally. That's a bit simplistic and a model that doesn't exist. I believe what most everyone wants are laws that don't infringe on the rights of others. You simply don't believe the unborn fall into the category of 'others'.


I do not view abortion as murder because of the status of the fetus at the time of the abortion (if it's unable to survive with modern care).

I think OO has already biatch-slapped you on the viability argument, but your conditions (unable to survive with modern care) would prohibit all third trimester abortion and quite of few of the second trimester ones as well.

But let's say it is murder, I would still not support a total ban in this instance because of the pragmatic response. We know women are going to get abortions, and a complete ban increases risks for both the unborn and mothers. Trying to compare an abortion to a more traditional definition of murder ignores the role the mother plays in the equation and how their lives are intrinsically intertwined.

How does a ban on abortions increase the risk for the unborn? I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say this. The argument that someone will break the law so why have it is no argument at all. And I do understand that the pregnant woman is involved, but I don't understand your use of the word 'mother'. Isn't that what an abortion is trying to 'avoid'. There are other options to abortions and we need to actively support these options. And thankfully there is no longer the stigma about having a child out of wedlock there once was. Unfortunately actions have consequences and rights have responsibilities and the notion of legal, safe, and rare abortions is nonsense.

I ask you, do you consider abortion murder if the mother's life is at risk of carrying the unborn child to term?

Given the advances medicine has made in the past 20/30/40 years isn't the risk of to a mother's life nominal. In fact most of the justification I've heard is about the mental health of the woman.

As to Blue Laws - let's absolutely repeal those. They're idiotic and backwards.
Agreed.

Let's just agree that an unwanted pregnancy is an awful situation that should be avoided. Abortion is not a way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, it's merely a way to avoid the consequences. That's it, I'm done with this.

(02-09-2021 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do not view abortion as murder because of the status of the fetus at the time of the abortion (if it's unable to survive with modern care).

It's not murder because the law says it is not murder. If the law said it was murder, then it would be murder. Changing the laws does not change the fact that a human being has had his life terminated.

Pulling the plug on a comatose patient may or may not be murder, depending on the laws. Providing poison and aid to a terminally ill person who wants to die with dignity may or not be murder, depending on the laws in effect in the place they are. But every one of them involves the cessation of the life of a human being.

Shooting an intruder in your home may or may not be murder. Killing a person in a war may or not be murder. Depends on the circumstances surrounding the killing of a human being.

Murder is a legal term, not a scientific one. Murder is defined by legislators, not doctors, not scientists.

If the cops find remains and want to know if they are human, they don't turn to legislators. They turn to labs, where scientists determine the genus and species of the remains. In every case, if those labs inspected the aborted flesh, they would conclude it came from Homo Sapiens.

Quote:But let's say it is murder, I would still not support a total ban in this instance because of the pragmatic response. We know women are going to get abortions, and a complete ban increases risks for both the unborn and mothers.

Agree. Like I said (you may have missed it - again) I was 28 when RVW was adjudicated. i grew up in the days of back room abortions, and saw first hand the trouble it caused to so many families. But it also does not change the fact that the aborted fetus is a human being who was in the earliest stages of normal development.

Quote:I ask you, do you consider abortion murder if the mother's life is at risk of carrying the unborn child to term?

A very rare, but at the same time, real situation. IMO, it is very similar to killing somebody in self-defense. So, in both these cases, I would not consider this murder. It is still, in both cases, the taking of the life of a human being.

In case you still haven't picked up on what I have been plainly saying, I neither oppose nor favor abortion - I simply leave that to the legislators. Same as I do on the Death penalty and Stand Your Ground laws, all of which would involve defining certain acts of killing human beings as legal or illegal.

If you are denying the definition of humanity based on status, then my simple question, restated, is this: What changes in status turn that entity from not human to human?

I prefer to go with the scientific definition of what is human, not legal ones.

Science is continually finding ways to make earlier and earlier babies viable to live outside the womb for a while, but they have not found any way to make a 6 month old abandoned baby viable for long. If lavishing care on a person is all that keeps them alive, what is the difference between a baby and a 90 year old man on life support?

(02-09-2021 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My personal belief is that office holders should be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, not a religious artifact of their choosing.

A rare point of agreement between us! I swore my oath of office on a bible and I do not consider myself Christian. I think the Constitution makes a lot of sense for oath swearing.

Speaking of oaths, any Stormlight Chronicle fans out there?

(02-10-2021 08:51 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:16 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

Separating law from religion and separating society from religion are very different things, and I've not come close to the latter. Religion certainly has a place in society, an important one in multiple ways. I just really don't want laws to be passed that are fundamentally based on religious teachings since many of those whom they govern may not practice the same faith.

But you still ignore that society and religion are intrinsically intertwined. Go back to any 'Western' ever produced and at first any town is a lawless society. But then someone builds a church and law and order are introduced. I'm no anthropologist, but I believe nearly every society that ever existed developed their own religion if one wasn't introduced from an outside source. What did Voltaire say, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." I think you are suggesting that you don't want a law based on the beliefs of one religion that aren't held universally. That's a bit simplistic and a model that doesn't exist. I believe what most everyone wants are laws that don't infringe on the rights of others. You simply don't believe the unborn fall into the category of 'others'.


I do not view abortion as murder because of the status of the fetus at the time of the abortion (if it's unable to survive with modern care).

I think OO has already biatch-slapped you on the viability argument, but your conditions (unable to survive with modern care) would prohibit all third trimester abortion and quite of few of the second trimester ones as well.

But let's say it is murder, I would still not support a total ban in this instance because of the pragmatic response. We know women are going to get abortions, and a complete ban increases risks for both the unborn and mothers. Trying to compare an abortion to a more traditional definition of murder ignores the role the mother plays in the equation and how their lives are intrinsically intertwined.

How does a ban on abortions increase the risk for the unborn? I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say this. The argument that someone will break the law so why have it is no argument at all. And I do understand that the pregnant woman is involved, but I don't understand your use of the word 'mother'. Isn't that what an abortion is trying to 'avoid'. There are other options to abortions and we need to actively support these options. And thankfully there is no longer the stigma about having a child out of wedlock there once was. Unfortunately actions have consequences and rights have responsibilities and the notion of legal, safe, and rare abortions is nonsense.

I ask you, do you consider abortion murder if the mother's life is at risk of carrying the unborn child to term?

Given the advances medicine has made in the past 20/30/40 years isn't the risk of to a mother's life nominal. In fact most of the justification I've heard is about the mental health of the woman.

As to Blue Laws - let's absolutely repeal those. They're idiotic and backwards.
Agreed.

Let's just agree that an unwanted pregnancy is an awful situation that should be avoided. Abortion is not a way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, it's merely a way to avoid the consequences. That's it, I'm done with this.

I definitely agree with the last statement about abortions being an awful situation that should be avoided at all costs. I just disagree with the government legislating a complete ban on them.

OO did not "biatch slap" me about viability - he simply threw out a claim that it was tap dancing and claimed he won. Viability is a very real way to differentiate when to outlaw abortions when there is no concern for the health of the mother. And I have no problem if that outlaws third trimester abortions (your comments seems to think I would).

And the argument that someone will break the law IS a reason to have reasonable laws. I'm not advocating for unregulated abortion access (it seems like you think I am), I'm advocating against abortion bans.

An example of this is drug use. Look at the benefits Portugal has reaped when they revised their drug laws through decriminalization. They didn't make all drugs legal, but they focused their laws on helping drug users instead of criminalizing them.

(02-10-2021 08:51 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='MerseyOwl' pid='17266347' dateline='1612916206']

So you believe the unborn have no rights? And the nearly unborn have no rights? And the just born, if you're in the commonwealth (small 'c') of Virginia, have no rights. Just to make your position clear.

And if you're opposed to religiously motivated laws, I assume you have no problem with murder or theft or anything the Ten Commandments or Bible or any other religious text might suggest or state. Got it.

Mores to morality to ethics to law. But I guess you don't see the continuum. Laws just exist in isolation. They are created in isolation and only reflect themselves?

Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy that prohibited federal funds being used for abortions in foreign countries. So he is kowtowing to the Left under the guise of providing 'reproductive health services' via Planned Parenthood Global, et. al. He is enabling abortions using federal funds following the tradition of every recent Democratic President. So he's not "performing them, or even explicitly advocating that others have abortions", he's just funding them.

You made an absolutely gigantic leap in that post that is almost insulting.

Assuming that one who is against laws based in religion must be OK with murder is ignorant at best.

Edit: this may be a bit harsh of a response, but think about it. You’re connecting some issues that have clear and obvious morale, ethical, and humanistic issues to religion when they don’t need to be. I’ve never argued that laws that may happen to related to specific religious beliefs are problematic - which is what you’re doing here. I’ve said that laws based on specific religious beliefs are problematic.

And they’re problematic because not everyone practices the same religion, so we should not govern people based on the religious practices of others. But if we find that certain laws, which benefit society and the commons, happen to align with religious practices, that is not problematic.

I believe you are being selective and I see my position as absolute.

You do not see abortion as murder; as denying the right to life to an individual. So either you believe the unborn is not an individual or that they are not alive or both?

I believe that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. My belief is based on my acceptance of the Ten Commandments, religious beliefs according to you.

Yes certain laws based solely on religious beliefs could be problematic. But we don't have any civil laws on religious dietary laws, etc. If you want to find where this occurs go visit an Islamic republic. In Texas we used to have the 'blue laws' that ensured liquor stores were closed on Sunday and beer couldn't be sold before noon on Sundays.

I'm fascinated how you separate society from religion as if they exist to the exclusion of one another?

Separating law from religion and separating society from religion are very different things, and I've not come close to the latter. Religion certainly has a place in society, an important one in multiple ways. I just really don't want laws to be passed that are fundamentally based on religious teachings since many of those whom they govern may not practice the same faith.

But you still ignore that society and religion are intrinsically intertwined. Go back to any 'Western' ever produced and at first any town is a lawless society. But then someone builds a church and law and order are introduced. I'm no anthropologist, but I believe nearly every society that ever existed developed their own religion if one wasn't introduced from an outside source. What did Voltaire say, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." I think you are suggesting that you don't want a law based on the beliefs of one religion that aren't held universally. That's a bit simplistic and a model that doesn't exist. I believe what most everyone wants are laws that don't infringe on the rights of others. You simply don't believe the unborn fall into the category of 'others'.


I do not view abortion as murder because of the status of the fetus at the time of the abortion (if it's unable to survive with modern care).

I think OO has already biatch-slapped you on the viability argument, but your conditions (unable to survive with modern care) would prohibit all third trimester abortion and quite of few of the second trimester ones as well.

But let's say it is murder, I would still not support a total ban in this instance because of the pragmatic response. We know women are going to get abortions, and a complete ban increases risks for both the unborn and mothers. Trying to compare an abortion to a more traditional definition of murder ignores the role the mother plays in the equation and how their lives are intrinsically intertwined.

How does a ban on abortions increase the risk for the unborn? I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say this. The argument that someone will break the law so why have it is no argument at all. And I do understand that the pregnant woman is involved, but I don't understand your use of the word 'mother'. Isn't that what an abortion is trying to 'avoid'. There are other options to abortions and we need to actively support these options. And thankfully there is no longer the stigma about having a child out of wedlock there once was. Unfortunately actions have consequences and rights have responsibilities and the notion of legal, safe, and rare abortions is nonsense.

I ask you, do you consider abortion murder if the mother's life is at risk of carrying the unborn child to term?

Given the advances medicine has made in the past 20/30/40 years isn't the risk of to a mother's life nominal. In fact most of the justification I've heard is about the mental health of the woman.

I don't believe this is accurate. I believe that pregnancy-related mortality is quite significant particularly in the black community.

I don't know the specifics about 3rd term abortions but from what I understand they are quite rare. I think they happen in only very specific circumstances and it's not like doctors are eagerly performing them.

(02-10-2021 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My personal belief is that office holders should be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, not a religious artifact of their choosing.

A rare point of agreement between us! I swore my oath of office on a bible and I do not consider myself Christian. I think the Constitution makes a lot of sense for oath swearing.

Speaking of oaths, any Stormlight Chronicle fans out there?

I don't know what Stormlight Chronicle is, but it sure sounds interesting.

As for oath swearing, isn't part of that oath to defend and uphold the constitution? maybe they use Bibles (and Korans) because they think that will make it more likely that people keep their oaths.

I don't know if I am a Christian or not- I guess it depends on the definition. Certainly closer to Christianity than any other religion. I was raised in the Church of Christ, so I guess that is where I get a lot of principles, as well as a wealth of Bible knowledge. I became a full-fledged atheist for almost a decade. Later I cam back to being involved in a more liberal(!) branch of Christianity, albeit without becoming a Bible literalist, even serving as a deacon. The last three decades I have not been active in any church.

(02-10-2021 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Viability is a very real way to differentiate when to outlaw abortions

Exactly. It is a legal standard, not a scientific one, used to determine when it is OK to end the life of a human being.

(02-09-2021 08:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it it is human from the moment of conception. Science (you guys like science, right?) tells us that if we take a sample from the embryo, it will come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if that embryo is not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years does it become human?

Don't give me the old "viability" tap dance, unless you are prepared to tell me an infant can survive without help or that a person on life support is not a human being.

If you take a sample of one of my clipped toenails or my hair on the floor after a haircut, it will also come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if my toenail and hair clippings are not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years do they become human?

The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts. Is it a living human if it does not eat, drink, breathe, or defecate?

I am not suggesting I have the answer for "life" or "living human". But I don't think you have those answers either. And I am more nervous about the idea of a bunch of old men who are not doctors or scientists making those determinations then leaving it to the child-bearers and their physicians (who have sworn the Hippocratic oath), both informed by scientists. (My "old men" reference is talking about politicians, judges, and the clergy, who are predominantly older men who are not physicians or scientists in a relevant field. My "old men" reference is not a reference to people posting on the Quad.)

I probably draw the line for legal "abortions" earlier than most progressives based on my wife's input as well as my feelings about personal responsibility.

At the end of the day, I don't begrudge or judge anyone for their beliefs on abortion. If you do not believe it is a complicated issue, that it is just "black and white", then I think you probably don't have nearly as much respect for my position as I have for yours. I also think abortion is one of the areas where people are least likely to change their minds.

I do take issue when people make silly arguments or rely on things that are not factually accurate, even if I don't take issue with their ultimate conclusions or beliefs.

(02-10-2021 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Speaking of oaths, any Stormlight Chronicle fans out there?

I don't know what Stormlight Chronicle is, but it sure sounds interesting.

A series of fantasy novels by Brandon Sanderson. Even more off-topic than the current discussions Oaths feature prominently in the series.

(02-10-2021 11:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 08:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it it is human from the moment of conception. Science (you guys like science, right?) tells us that if we take a sample from the embryo, it will come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if that embryo is not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years does it become human?

Don't give me the old "viability" tap dance, unless you are prepared to tell me an infant can survive without help or that a person on life support is not a human being.

If you take a sample of one of my clipped toenails or my hair on the floor after a haircut, it will also come back as Homo Sapiens, not anything else.

My question to you is, if my toenail and hair clippings are not a human being, at what point over the next 25 years do they become human?

They are all parts of a human. when an appendix is removed, the humanity of the person is not diminished. Would you want voting rights for a toenail clipping?

The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts. Is it a living human if it does not eat, drink, breathe, or defecate?

Is eating, drinking, breathing, and defecating your definition of being human? My cat does those things.

I am not suggesting I have the answer for "life" or "living human". But I don't think you have those answers either. And I am more nervous about the idea of a bunch of old men who are not doctors or scientists making those determinations then leaving it to the child-bearers and their physicians (who have sworn the Hippocratic oath), both informed by scientists.

I agree to an extent. Are not the old men deciding these things politicians? I am OK with leaving it to the scientists/doctors, if that means you and I don't get a vote. Maybe just let Ph.Ds and MDs decide? All PhDs or just the ones in the biological sciences. No geologists or political scientists. And in medicine, no ophthalmologists or nephrologists? OK, I'm in. Create a board of obstetricians and biologists to make these determinations. After all, I am not trying to influence the politics of this issue, just explain my personal thoughts. I am not on "a side".

I probably draw the line for legal "abortions" earlier than most progressives based on my wife's input as well as my feelings about personal responsibility.

your option. I neither approve nor disapprove.

At the end of the day, I don't begrudge or judge anyone for their beliefs on abortion. If you do not believe it is a complicated issue, that it is just "black and white", then I think you probably don't have nearly as much respect for my position as I have for yours. I also think abortion is one of the areas where people are least likely to change their minds.

I think you, like Lad, have jumped to a conclusion about my thoughts, despite me explaining them over and over. I think abortion is one of the thorniest issues of our time, and I take neither side (I guess that is the mirror image of "both siderism"). The question of whether or not an aborted fetus is human or not is a completely different question, and one that is much simpler IMO.

I do take issue when people make silly arguments or rely on things that are not factually accurate, even if I don't take issue with their ultimate conclusions or beliefs.
If you think any of my arguments are silly or factually inaccurate, please explain which ones and why

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Viability is a very real way to differentiate when to outlaw abortions

Exactly. It is a legal standard, not a scientific one, used to determine when it is OK to end the life of a human being.

Not sure of you point here...

But I would argue it is inherently scientific, since it makes the determination of viability based on the science of the day.

Are you trying to bring this back to the idea of when a fertilized egg should be considered a human?