Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#16

Post by GregD » Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:32 pm

Scott wrote:
GregD wrote:
Scuba wrote:At the moment of conception, it is a life.
First, that is a religious belief. It is not supported by science. Making abortion illegal is imposing your religious belief on someone else, and it is having the government tell someone how to live, and dictating morality.

Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. The rights of the mother ARE NOT subservient to the rights of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the mother is NOT the mother's responsibility. Her uterus is not your property, it's not government property, it's not the fetus's property; it is her very private property to do with as she sees fit.



Roe v. Wade is a compromise. Because there really isn't a clear, clean solution.
I am curious how RvW is a compromise. it made abortion legal. Where is the other side?

And for viability, if I choose to not feed my infant and it dies, does that mean it was not viable yet? You are right, there is no clean answer.
The compromise is the point of viability. Before that the woman can do what she wants; between that and birth some of her rights are subservient to the rights of the child. Imperfect but practical.



User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#17

Post by GregD » Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:10 am

Scott wrote:Sticking to Discrimination:
Most cases you mentioned where someone was harmed by discrimination included other types of corruption or abuses of power. Quid Pro Quo is not discrimination, it is harassment. That is different. The anti-trust might be sticky, but that is less about discrimination and more about price fixing and dishonest business practices. I don't see that as the same issue.

No one has the right to abuse another person. But we should have the right to choose if we do business with an individual.
You seem very close to arguing that dishonest business practices are unacceptable whereas racism and sexism are acceptable. I don't think that is your intent; I think you aren't thinking through the complex inter-dependencies of modern life. In fact we do have the right to choose if we do business with an individual, with some specific exceptions. Current law is at least an attempt to strike an appropriate balance.
Scott wrote:While the list of protected classes is small, but growing, the reality is anyone that falls into one of those categories (even religious these days as Christians seem to be fair game for discrimination on a lot of fronts)
Imagine you were an atheist. The pledge of allegience states, "one nation, under God". Our currency states, "in God we trust". Prayers before government meetings, crucifixes on sheriff cars. Public high school football coaches leading the team in prayer. To an atheist, all that is complete and utter nonsense; Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy kind of stuff. And you think Christians are suffering from discrimination? Get real. Christians have for so long enjoyed preferred status that they can't seem to see that all that is happening is that their status is being equalized (albeit very slowly) to match the status of all non-Christians. No one is challenging your personal expressions of your faith on your personal time. We are pretty sick of religious activities performed by someone acting as a government representative.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#18

Post by GregD » Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:30 am

Scuba wrote:
GregD wrote:
Scuba wrote:At the moment of conception, it is a life.
First, that is a religious belief. It is not supported by science. Making abortion illegal is imposing your religious belief on someone else, and it is having the government tell someone how to live, and dictating morality.

Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. The rights of the mother ARE NOT subservient to the rights of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the mother is NOT the mother's responsibility. Her uterus is not your property, it's not government property, it's not the fetus's property; it is her very private property to do with as she sees fit.

If you think abortion is wrong, fine; don't have one. Don't impose your religions beliefs on someone else; and don't have the government impose your religious beliefs either.

Roe v. Wade is a compromise. Because there really isn't a clear, clean solution.
You claim to be a scientist and say this? Unless the cells being produced after the egg is fertilized are dead, then they are ALIVE. So, if you have LIVING cells formed from the union of sperm and egg, they are an embryo that is ALIVE. If you want to argue viability, that is a different story. Medically, the current standard for viability in the US is 24 weeks, but infants born at 22 weeks have been found to have a 25% survival rate in the US currently.

Even a simple single celled organism is alive, but you are unwilling to say the same about an organism that started as a single celled zygote and transformed into a several hundred celled blastocyst a week later.
It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between a collection of living cells and a human life.

And let's not get too pretentious about it. Our legal system actually places a dollar value on human life; if you are sued for inadvertently causing the death of a person (with no criminality involved) there is a standard dollar amount that is considered appropriate compensation. At one time I think it was about $100 grand. Our country was founded in part on genocide, and our country kills people all the time. And then there are all the people we allow to die out of neglect of one sort or another.

Keep in mind, too, that the mother is alive and carrying a baby to term places her life in some danger.

I am not suggesting your position is unreasonable, only that it is not the only reasonable position.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#19

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:04 am

Scuba wrote:
GregD wrote:
Scuba wrote:At the moment of conception, it is a life.
First, that is a religious belief. It is not supported by science. Making abortion illegal is imposing your religious belief on someone else, and it is having the government tell someone how to live, and dictating morality.

Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. The rights of the mother ARE NOT subservient to the rights of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the mother is NOT the mother's responsibility. Her uterus is not your property, it's not government property, it's not the fetus's property; it is her very private property to do with as she sees fit.

If you think abortion is wrong, fine; don't have one. Don't impose your religions beliefs on someone else; and don't have the government impose your religious beliefs either.

Roe v. Wade is a compromise. Because there really isn't a clear, clean solution.
You claim to be a scientist and say this? Unless the cells being produced after the egg is fertilized are dead, then they are ALIVE. So, if you have LIVING cells formed from the union of sperm and egg, they are an embryo that is ALIVE. If you want to argue viability, that is a different story. Medically, the current standard for viability in the US is 24 weeks, but infants born at 22 weeks have been found to have a 25% survival rate in the US currently.

Even a simple single celled organism is alive, but you are unwilling to say the same about an organism that started as a single celled zygote and transformed into a several hundred celled blastocyst a week later.
Exactly, Scuba. Greg, the scientist, is apparently is arguing that something factually alive is not alive. And if alive, what kind of life is it? Perhaps a dog or cat or rat?

Greg, I wonder if you were a lab scientist working with experiments on lab chimps, if some of those chimps were impregnated for the purpose of the research. would you argue a few days before the expected birth that the products of conception were not alive and chimpanzee? If not, maybe you would make that argument a few weeks before birth or a few weeks after conception? If so, what scientific evidence is available to show that the developing embryo is not life( i.e. not living i.e. dead) or that if a life, not chimpanzee? And if not a chimp, what is it?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#20

Post by sarge » Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:49 am

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:It is not a religious belief.

Its only a religious belief if you want to dismiss the notion that a fetus is a life, nascent yes, but without intervention it would become a sentient being. You're doing so in order to avoid discussing the notion that with life comes rights.

You're the guy who's always criticizing the folks here for not having a productive discussion, yet first shot out of the barrel you dismiss the entire premise of the discussion.
Please then elaborate on how it is something other than a religious belief. It is my understanding that the scientific evidence is that many eggs don't get fertilized; many fertilized eggs don't implant in the right spot; many fertilized and properly implanted eggs are miscarried. There is not, as far as I know, any overwhelming reason to conclude conception is necessarily the moment a human life exists. It is a gradual progression with significant attrition at every step. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude life begins at conception. However, that is not the only reasonable conclusion. What makes your reasonable conclusion "right" and alternative reasonable conclusions "wrong"?
Its rather simple, and I stated it in my post:
without intervention it would become a sentient being
That means "Unless you kill it, it will be a child in a few months."

But if you want to make the definition of when life begins "When the fertilized egg is properly implanted in the womb." I'm OK with that.

Miscarriages are naturally occuring events. Human intervention is not.

And by saying this:
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude life begins at conception. However, that is not the only reasonable conclusion.
Exposes that you really don't beleive its a "religious belief" that life begins at conception, it is only one of at least two "reasonable conclusions."
Then there is the question of when human life is important, and when it is not.


Let me know how you feel about thyat when somebody leaves you inside a burning building because they think the other people inside are importatn but you're not.
For many, religious beliefs answer that question. For me, an atheist, practical and emotional considerations answer that question.
For me, its a consideration of Liberty and Human Rights, religion doesn't enter into the equation. When determining Secular law, it never does.
And there is still point #2. (Edit to add: Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. )
I emphatically do not agree with that idea that mothers owe nothing to their children. You can't tell me that I have an obligbation to help children, but at the same time tell me that mothers don't have that obligation. You just made a powerful argument against Welfare. If the mother of a child has no obligation to the child, why should anybody else? The wholer idea that its acceptable for a mother to treat the child as a nusiance, a thing that can be discarded because there nothing is owed to it is, well, reprehensible. A society that springs up from beleifs like that might look like Detroit or Chicago----which does explain a lot.
In the end we probably won't agree. What then do we do? Succession? Armed conflict? How about a compromise?
Yah. You chuck out the whole idea that Mothers have no obligation to their children, and I'll got along with "Life begins when the fertilized egg is properly implanted in the womb."
Ultimately we are deciding, with this and other issues, are we friends or are we enemies. Armed conflict is the traditional method that humans use to resolve differences. It is always a bad option, but always an option it is.
I've heard this whole "If we overturn Roe V. Wade there will be a Civil War." thing before. Its generally said by the people who say "If Trump gets elected, we'll riot in the streets." and "Parts of the Constution can be rendered null and void because we killed 150,000 people."

And no, we're NOT deciding if we are friends or enemies. I disagree with my freinds all of the time. I don't make freinds based on politics. I pity those who determ ine who they are going to be friends with based on poltical agreement. They deny to themselves so much of life, and end up bitter people with few freinds.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#21

Post by Scott » Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:23 pm

GregD wrote: You seem very close to arguing that dishonest business practices are unacceptable whereas racism and sexism are acceptable. I don't think that is your intent;
Actually you are hearing me correctly. There is nothing scientific about being or not being racist or sexist. I am neither, but I believe in a free country we have the right to be either, or both. That only extends to belief, not abuse. If you harass, or otherwise actively persecute, that is not acceptable.
GregD wrote: We are pretty sick of religious activities performed by someone acting as a government representative.
I agree. You missed my point on private vs government. To be clear - government should be blind and treat all equally. Police, schools, county clerks, etc. If they don't they are negligent in their duty.

I think I am pretty fair and in the middle on this. I respect and support your rights the same as mine. I find people almost never want fairness. They want to impose THEIR version of morality or ethics on everyone. In some areas I fall into that too. But overall if someone is not harming me, let them do what they want. I don't consider withholding association or non-life essential business dealings as harm. It may not be 'nice", but it is not harm.

Our country was founded by religious people so they in part could continue their own religious ways. WAY over simplified I know. but it is a major part of our history. Saying it should be removed entirely is kinda like arguing against the NAACP because they focus on the advancement of colored people, not all people.

Am I understanding you correctly that we have a duty to NOT be racist or sexist, while at the same time a mother has no obligation to her child?

I see no compromise. I find no difference between abortion, particularly late term abortion, and killing a new born. The space of a few weeks, days, or hours means nothing at that point. Does a mother have a right to kill a newborn? If yes, up until what age? It takes a pretty cold heartless person to do either.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#22

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:56 pm

GregD wrote: Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others. ...............
Again, we are right back to the differences between those who value freedom and those who wish to make others bend to their will.

For Greg, my right to choose not to bake him a cake hurts him. And never mind that his right(if the gov gives him that right, it is certainly not one of the God given inalienable rights spoken of by our founders) to force me to bake him a cake hurts me, by orcing me to do something I find repellent, I do not count. The only thing that counts is his so called right to get a cake from me. His right to force me to bake a cake for him, decorated as he wishes, just as any master can command his slave to bake a cake or do whatever. (obviously, I am just using cake baking as symbol for any number of actions some would like to be able to force me to take, like using or not using certain words etc etc)

And if he can not force me to bake his cake for him, then he has been hurt, a common claim in our current pussified society, a land of "safe places". Never mind that in the last 20-40 years I have not baked him a cake- though others may have, I have not- and yet he has remained unharmed. Never mind that he can get a cake at dozens of other places by people who will be tickled to bake his cake for him, no, it must come from me, or he has been hurt. And never mind that even if he could not buy his cake anywhere, and was unable to bake his own cake, that he could still live a long, healthy life even without that cake. Nope. He would be hurt. He just has to be able to force ME in particular to bake him a cake. And if I claim to be hurt by being forced to participate in something that I find disgusting, well, that is quite all right. For I am not a member of the government protected elite. If I insist on my principles, I best prepare for some serious government wrath. I must do what another citizen- or even non-citizen- commands me to do.

This is called tyranny. It is the antithesis of what our government stood for at it's founding. Try to imagine Washington or Jefferson or most any other of our founders insisting that a Christian bakery must bake a cake for the wedding of 2 homosexuals. Try to imagine that they put such things into our constitution. Is that very thought not preposterous, even laughable?

But this is the difference in those who are for freedom and those who desire enslavement to a PC government. Particularly enslavement of those with different views from them. Because it is how you think that counts, and the approved thinking will not be persecuted by the government. For an easy example of that, try to imagine those who claim that all business must accommodate all people and view points persecuting some blacks who own a bakery when they refused to bake a cake for the KKK convention. Or perhaps persecuting a gay owned and themed bakery ( Gays are us bakery) for refusing to bake a cake celebrating Bill Clinton's signing of and the passage of DOMA, or maybe baking one for the Westboro Baptist Church. Not going to happen, is it? The very idea is laughable, isn't it? That is because some peoples way of thinking is not government approved, and some is. Just like you needed to be very careful about which ideas you expressed in Stalin's atheistic, communist country. They had government reeducation centers to take care of that. We don't, not yet, we just have sensitivity training. Or bankruptcy from government persecution. But not for those that express negative thoughts about Christians, of course. Or maybe against white men. Loretta Lynch will not be going against people who persecute people in those groups, that is for sure. That is not how it works.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#23

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:11 pm

Scott wrote:...................................I think I am pretty fair and in the middle on this. I respect and support your rights the same as mine. I find people almost never want fairness. They want to impose THEIR version of morality or ethics on everyone. In some areas I fall into that too. But overall if someone is not harming me, let them do what they want. I don't consider withholding association or non-life essential business dealings as harm. It may not be 'nice", but it is not harm.

Our country was founded by religious people so they in part could continue their own religious ways. WAY over simplified I know. but it is a major part of our history. ..............................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith
and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620."
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#24

Post by GregD » Sat Sep 03, 2016 5:28 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: For Greg, my right to choose not to bake him a cake hurts him. And never mind that his right(if the gov gives him that right, it is certainly not one of the God given inalienable rights spoken of by our founders) to force me to bake him a cake hurts me, by orcing me to do something I find repellent, I do not count.
As I recall I ultimately agreed with you on that point about the baker. Accuracy in your posts does not seem to be a priority for you.
Last edited by GregD on Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#25

Post by GregD » Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:01 pm

sarge wrote:
GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:It is not a religious belief.

Its only a religious belief if you want to dismiss the notion that a fetus is a life, nascent yes, but without intervention it would become a sentient being. You're doing so in order to avoid discussing the notion that with life comes rights.

You're the guy who's always criticizing the folks here for not having a productive discussion, yet first shot out of the barrel you dismiss the entire premise of the discussion.
Please then elaborate on how it is something other than a religious belief. It is my understanding that the scientific evidence is that many eggs don't get fertilized; many fertilized eggs don't implant in the right spot; many fertilized and properly implanted eggs are miscarried. There is not, as far as I know, any overwhelming reason to conclude conception is necessarily the moment a human life exists. It is a gradual progression with significant attrition at every step. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude life begins at conception. However, that is not the only reasonable conclusion. What makes your reasonable conclusion "right" and alternative reasonable conclusions "wrong"?
Its rather simple, and I stated it in my post:
without intervention it would become a sentient being
That means "Unless you kill it, it will be a child in a few months."

But if you want to make the definition of when life begins "When the fertilized egg is properly implanted in the womb." I'm OK with that.

Miscarriages are naturally occuring events. Human intervention is not.

And by saying this:
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude life begins at conception. However, that is not the only reasonable conclusion.
Exposes that you really don't beleive its a "religious belief" that life begins at conception, it is only one of at least two "reasonable conclusions."
Then there is the question of when human life is important, and when it is not.


Let me know how you feel about thyat when somebody leaves you inside a burning building because they think the other people inside are importatn but you're not.
For many, religious beliefs answer that question. For me, an atheist, practical and emotional considerations answer that question.
For me, its a consideration of Liberty and Human Rights, religion doesn't enter into the equation. When determining Secular law, it never does.
And there is still point #2. (Edit to add: Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. )
I emphatically do not agree with that idea that mothers owe nothing to their children. You can't tell me that I have an obligbation to help children, but at the same time tell me that mothers don't have that obligation. You just made a powerful argument against Welfare. If the mother of a child has no obligation to the child, why should anybody else? The wholer idea that its acceptable for a mother to treat the child as a nusiance, a thing that can be discarded because there nothing is owed to it is, well, reprehensible. A society that springs up from beleifs like that might look like Detroit or Chicago----which does explain a lot.
In the end we probably won't agree. What then do we do? Succession? Armed conflict? How about a compromise?
Yah. You chuck out the whole idea that Mothers have no obligation to their children, and I'll got along with "Life begins when the fertilized egg is properly implanted in the womb."
Ultimately we are deciding, with this and other issues, are we friends or are we enemies. Armed conflict is the traditional method that humans use to resolve differences. It is always a bad option, but always an option it is.
I've heard this whole "If we overturn Roe V. Wade there will be a Civil War." thing before. Its generally said by the people who say "If Trump gets elected, we'll riot in the streets." and "Parts of the Constution can be rendered null and void because we killed 150,000 people."

And no, we're NOT deciding if we are friends or enemies. I disagree with my freinds all of the time. I don't make freinds based on politics. I pity those who determ ine who they are going to be friends with based on poltical agreement. They deny to themselves so much of life, and end up bitter people with few freinds.
Yes, the fetus might become a unique person in a few months, but it isn't one yet. It cannot yet think or even feel. Further, the woman's uterus is hardly passive in the process. The "its a unique person at the moment of conception (or implantation)" is a simplistic view of the situation.

It is unique in our legal system that the rights of party A are deemed subordinate to the rights of party B, and in this case the reason is that party B lacks the ability to live independently from party A (which is pretty much the argument for party B is not yet a unique person, but that was the point above). Your position throws the rights of the woman under the bus in favor of the rights of a portion of tissue that might, eventually become a unique person.

Some of your characterizations of Democrats are quite unfriendly.

The intent of this exercise is to see if we can, at a local level, come to an accommodation on our differences, as an alternative to dealing with them in our national politics and institutions.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#26

Post by sarge » Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:52 pm

GregD wrote:
Yes, the fetus might become a unique person in a few months, but it isn't one yet. It cannot yet think or even feel. Further, the woman's uterus is hardly passive in the process. The "its a unique person at the moment of conception (or implantation)" is a simplistic view of the situation.
You left out the part where, if we did nothing at all, only a naturally occuring process will prevent it from becoming a person.You're view is just as simplistic as mine: "I don't think its a person, so I can kill it."

You do complicate it just a bit by saying mothers have no obligation to their children once born.
It is unique in our legal system that the rights of party A are deemed subordinate to the rights of party B, and in this case the reason is that party B lacks the ability to live independently from party A (which is pretty much the argument for party B is not yet a unique person, but that was the point above). Your position throws the rights of the woman under the bus in favor of the rights of a portion of tissue that might, eventually become a unique person.
It is also unique to our system that those without a voice have advocates that can speak for them. I'm one of those advocates that speak for the babies being killed in an attempt to give both sides of the equation a voice. One does note that everybody who favors abortion have themselves been born.
Some of your characterizations of Democrats are quite unfriendly.
I shall attempt to gather together the broken pieces of my life and try to move on.
The intent of this exercise is to see if we can, at a local level, come to an accommodation on our differences, as an alternative to dealing with them in our national politics and institutions.
The intent of this exercise is to express our opinions. You have yet to make any accomodation or compromise, so nobody else is either.

What would your compromise on abortion be?
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#27

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:22 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: For Greg, my right to choose not to bake him a cake hurts him. And never mind that his right(if the gov gives him that right, it is certainly not one of the God given inalienable rights spoken of by our founders) to force me to bake him a cake hurts me, by forcing me to do something I find repellent, I do not count.
As I recall I ultimately agreed with you on that point about the baker. Accuracy in your posts does not seem to be a priority for you.
Well, that's not very nice. I did not remember you agreeing with me, and you are certainly going against type of your fellow liberals and dems and those you are going to vote for by agreeing with me on that, so perhaps you can forgive my assumption and failure to remember your past divergence from liberal orhodoxy. I stand corrected.

But it hardly matters as I was just using "Greg" as an example of typical liberal thinking any way, and you are going to vote for those who strongly disagree with me on that point, so you will if possible enable them to persecute people who don't want to bake a cake for someone else for unapproved reasons, so what difference does it make that you agree with me on that one point? You still stand with the persecutors of those who fail to bake on command.

But, you said to Scott "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others." Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be a perfect example of that. Since you now point out that you agree with me about the baker, does that mean you are now NOT saying "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others."?

One final clarification about your past opinions. After lengthy debating about forcing women and girls to take biological males into their bathrooms, didn't you finally admit that this was a bad thing? I know you did, but I was never quite sure if you were sincere or just being sarcastic.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#28

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:23 pm

GregD wrote:
Yes, the fetus might become a unique person in a few months, but it isn't one yet. It cannot yet think or even feel. Further, the woman's uterus is hardly passive in the process. The "its a unique person at the moment of conception (or implantation)" is a simplistic view of the situation.

It is unique in our legal system that the rights of party A are deemed subordinate to the rights of party B, and in this case the reason is that party B lacks the ability to live independently from party A (which is pretty much the argument for party B is not yet a unique person, but that was the point above). Your position throws the rights of the woman under the bus in favor of the rights of a portion of tissue that might, eventually become a unique person.

Some of your characterizations of Democrats are quite unfriendly.

The intent of this exercise is to see if we can, at a local level, come to an accommodation on our differences, as an alternative to dealing with them in our national politics and institutions.
Greg, it really is not rocket science, it is actually quite simple. I assume you are a good, normal human being. Do you have any children that you love, or do you love some one else's children? I assume you do. Maybe you were even present during the time surrounding the joyous moment of birth, when that new little girl or boy comes into the world, right?

If so, since I suppose you agree with most abortion rights folks like planned parenthood and Hillary Clinton and most well known feminist, and the Democratic Party platforms that have no limitations on the right of a woman to get that tissue out of her body at any time, even at 9 months gestation. Do you support those rights of women? Or do you place some limitations on a woman's right to choose an abortion for any reason and at anytime?

If you do not, if you are like Hillary and Obama and Planned Parenthood, then let us now go back to any children you may love and children you might have been associated with (even if just as a family friend) the joys of their birth. Now picture a late term abortion. The kind of abortion that the murdered Tiller the Baby Killer was famous for doing, or that black doctor in Philadelphia that went to jail not for his horror show of an abortion clinic, or the for later killing of children who were born alive after surviving his 1st attempt attempt to kill them ( hey, it happens, whatcha gonna do? ), but mostly for harm or risk to his adult female patients. So picture that bundle of joy in the protective and loving arms of his mother. Back it up a few minutes or hours, she changes her mind on the delivery table and demands an abortion(right to abortion on demand). Do you say that the mom and doctor had the right to, a few minutes or hours before that child you love, to go into the woman with surgical instruments and rip that little baby limb from limb as it tries to scream in pain? Or to turn it around and deliver it head first, so that it would still not be born(partial birth abortion) and thus fully legal for killing, puncture it's skull with scissors and suction his/her brains out, and then deliver the dead baby? Do you say they have the right to commit that evil on this innocent unborn(almost born)? Do you support them and deny that any one that would do this is any less of a monster than Dr. Mengele of Auschwitz?

No? Then what about a week earlier, or 3 weeks earlier, OK then? Well if you do place a limitation at some point, you are now limiting a woman's reproductive rights. Which place you in disagreement with the average liberal democrat and feminist. With Obama and Clinton. "I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare............................This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. " Of course, Tiller did all of his late term abortions for the sake of the mothers health. This usually means mental health, as I worked with obstetricians for 36 years, doing the anesthesia both general and epidural, and none could tell me why a woman might be to the point where you could deliver only the head, and yet to go ahead and deliver the rest of the baby alive might kill the mother. If you have gone that far, why not deliver the baby and give it up for adoption? And to try and abort a late term baby other than partial birth would add it's own risks to the mothers life.

I do not know at what month/gestation Clinton or Obama would limit abortions, if ever, I have heard 36 weeks, but certainly "government should have no role" indicates few to zero limitations on the woman's choice. That is what you are voting for. But what about you? Any limitations of at what point a woman can make a choice to get rid of that tissue inside her? Or are you good to go with ripping a baby apart or putting scissors through it's skull even minutes before birth? You talk about a collection of cells, but let's get down to it: any limitations on a woman's right to choose, or not?
http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/my- ... undid=8838
http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/my- ... undid=8837
http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/my- ... undid=7915
http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/my- ... undid=7267
http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/my- ... undid=5265
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#29

Post by Scott » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:47 am

in local compromise and working together, we way too often revert to the most heated topics and that obscures the rest. Abortion and religion are two things that people are rarely searching for information to change their mind. We are set in our beliefs, so arguments get heated and lines drawn.

We each need to figure out what stakes in the ground are immovable for us, then see where we have common ground or room to overlap. If there is none, then the national politicians are right, the other sides are evil. I hope that is not the case. But Fear it might be. I don't think local control means everyone agrees though, it is just a smaller area and sample, so we don't have to live with things that work in NYC in rural Texas.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#30

Post by sarge » Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:13 am

Scott wrote:in local compromise and working together, we way too often revert to the most heated topics and that obscures the rest. Abortion and religion are two things that people are rarely searching for information to change their mind. We are set in our beliefs, so arguments get heated and lines drawn.

We each need to figure out what stakes in the ground are immovable for us, then see where we have common ground or room to overlap. If there is none, then the national politicians are right, the other sides are evil. I hope that is not the case. But Fear it might be. I don't think local control means everyone agrees though, it is just a smaller area and sample, so we don't have to live with things that work in NYC in rural Texas.
I'm not looking for "local compromise." Demanding compromise is a way of telling people "You're never going to get what you want politically, so you might as well do it my way."

I've seen no compromise from the other side. I DO see them demanding compromise from my side.

Offer me a compromise first, then I'll consider it.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest