Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Father Heathen]

Good grief. I know because I'm a compassionate human being.

Do you support universal healthcare?

 

[Viker]

I've seen 99 percent and 86 percent both quoted. Look it up.

I find 22 to 25% are vegetarian. And most aren't choosing it because it's a hip trend but for moral/ethical and health reasons.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not what people who oppose abortion are after... it's a medical procedure in a hospital, not an abortion clinic.

You really have to explain your position.

 

[Windwalker]

I referred to those who stormed the Capitol.
They're the small portion.

In this case, they were the pus oozing out of the deeply infected wound that caused it. The MAGA crowd that caused the pus of Jan. 6, is far closer to the surface and far more infected, than the very few radicals on the left called Antifa.

They were blown way out of proportion by right wing politicians and their propagandist media arm called Fox news, as a distraction, compared to the Red Hats who gave us Jan 6, and the near pending death of American democracy. Antifa is but a itty-bitty tiny blip by comparison to this. Example: More than 40% in US do not believe Biden legitimately won election – poll

Besides that though, the term "Antifa" in its broadest sense means "Anti-Fascism". And one would hope that all Americans were that. But as you can see, pro-Trumpism, is pro-Fascism. So not all Americans do believe in Democracy. They want minority rule through authoritarianism.

 

[F1fan]

But but but.... @Wildswanderer's freedoms mun, this isn't fair? His freedoms Trump (yes that was humour) the freedoms of others.

The serious problem with right wing style freedoms is how they lack any broad moral concern for others, and a complete abandonment of social contract. Everything that makes a nation cooperate and ensures safety and trust is sabotaged by what conservatives believe. The opposition to vaccines and masks was only political. We know the value of vaccines, and we know why medical personnel use masks in medical procedures. The right wing disinformation was highly immoral, and they don't care to understand the truth about their political and anti-social attitudes.

 

[F1fan]

Blah blah blah.

IOW, you know I am correct and want to ignore what I stated like a spoiled brat. Even you know that you are incorrect, just as children do who throw their tantrums because they don't get their way.

The fact is your attitudes about Covid, vaccines, and public safety threatens life. Real lives of real existing people, and you don't care. This exposes the moral fraud of your pro-life stance. You still won't offer any solutions to what your abortion ban will cause. You offer no ideas about what to do with thousands of unwanted babies. Or what to do with deformed babies, or those with mental handicaps, or this with serious medical problems that require constant hospitalization or home care. And these are just the most severe cases, most adoptees don't want the hardship cases, so who pays?

Do you have any actual ideas besides blah, blah, blah? You'd better find some serious morality in your soul fast because if you right wingers et your way there could be many thousands of unwanted children dumped at your doorsteps. Are you ready? Or are you going to turn your back on them like you do your fellow citizens who could die if exposed to Covid due to your lack of moral concern and social responsibility?

You just admitted the vaccine didn't work for you or others.

False. The vaccines worked as defined and expected. I said they weren't cures. Only you right wing disinformation advocates are dishonest about the vaccines and public safety, and how many people did your disinformation kill? We can't know. Where is your moral concern? It doesn't exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That ignores the other body involved.

It subordinates the interest of the fetus to that of the potential mother. You keep posting phrases that it seems you think will force others to agree that abortion is immoral. You call them children like that changes the moral calculus, but it doesn't. Then you call them human as if that were a checkmate moment. Now you're implying that the "other body involved" has equal standing with its host and deserves equal consideration.

The people you are debating don't think that way. None of those comments has impacted them at all. Why? I think it's because they share my values. Abortion of a presentient fetus is not immoral whatever else others call a fetus, and the decision about the fate of a pregnancy belongs to the woman, not the state representing the interests of the church.

If you hope to have any impact, you'll need to address both of those. Explain why aborting a presentient fetus should be prevented by law to people who think preventing such abortions is immoral. You can't do that. All you can do is express your intuitions about the matter, not why others should hold them as well. It's as ineffective as others expressing their different values has been with you.

I am not without sympathy. I would be right there with you if we were talking about actual babies and children, or even sentient fetuses. Or sentient puppies. I get that. It just doesn't apply for me to insentient flesh, whatever its potential. I don't know why it does for you. Do you feel the same about frozen embryos? You should if you're to be consistent. They're just as insentient, just as unable to experience pain or terror, and just as much a potential citizen.

For a vaccine that doesn't work? Why would I be forced to take that?

You're not forced to take it. But you should consider it a privilege to be able to take it if you spend time with other people. You've partially described a lifestyle that might be pretty isolated and off the grid, so that might not pertain to you. My life is in a expat community comprising mostly retirees. Before the pandemic, it was a very social life, and we are rebuilding that slowly now. That would not have been possible without these vaccines, which despite your claims, do work. They save lives and prevent significant morbidity.

A friend Scotty, who is intrigued by every antivaccine crackpot he runs into on the Internet (I suspect he searches for them as many as he encounters), sent me a link to a 35 minute video from another of these people this morning for my opinion. This will review for you just how well this vaccine works to protect the immunocompetent from severe disease, death, and long-haul symptoms (not so much for people who can't evince a robust immune response like Colin Powell, who suffered from a bone marrow disease that eroded his immune system).

Spoiler: what the vaccine protects one from

Sorry, Scotty, but I got three minutes into this and still didn't know where she was going. Can you summarize her concerns and her evidence?

With all of these types of discussions about possible unseen or long term effects of the vaccine, the issue always boils down to whether to take the vaccine or not. Presently, the evidence is strongly suggestive that the vaccine has been effective in minimizing the incidence of severe disease, death, and long-haul Covid.

The evidence regarding other vaccines that have been in use for decades is that long-term unexpected complications of vaccination are unusual. When severe complications have arisen, such as Guillan-Barre following flu shots in the seventies, the onset was generally within two months and always within six.

What is more likely than a long-term complication from a vaccine is a long-term complication from a viral infection. Several hepatitis viruses can lead to cirrhosis. The human papillovirus causes cervical cancer. Chicken pox can result in shingles.

Coronavirus is thought to produce lasting damage to multiple organs. Here's some of what is already known about the long-term sequelae of a coronavirus infection, even mild ones. I think it makes the case for vaccination and taking other precautions against acquiring this infection. Vaccination doesn't prevent infection (or transmission), but it makes for a reduced viral load that is cleared more quickly, making the infection shorter, less severe, and much less likely to be severe or chronic.

LUNG
New study into long-term impacts of lung damage after COVID-19 – UKRI
Study examines the effect of long COVID on lung health (medicalnewstoday.com)
KIDNEY
Kidney Damage Another Consequence of 'Long COVID' (webmd.com)
Long-term effects of Covid-19 on the kidney | QJM: An International Journal of Medicine | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
HEART
The COVID Heart—One Year After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Patients Have an Array of Increased Cardiovascular Risks | Cardiology | JAMA | JAMA Network
COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects - Mayo Clinic
BRAIN
Severe COVID-19 can trigger drop in IQ similar to aging 20 years, study shows - UPI.com
Study Finds COVID-19 May Lower Intelligence (webmd.com)

So what is the risk-benefit ratio with these vaccines? Right now, it leans heavily in favor of vaccination.

 

[F1fan]

Good grief. I know because I'm a compassionate human being.

Not according to what you write in this forum. You show us to have adopted a great deal of right wing disinformation and you repeat it here. You believe you are compassionate because you don't have the skill and ability to reflect on the bogus information you open yourself to. You believe the disinformation and that choice means you taint any capacity for moral decisions. You can't help but make poor moral decisions because you are taking direction from political extremists.

You cite false claims, like your position is popular in the USA when it clearly isn't according to reputable polls. That is evidence of you looking for ways to justify your poor moral decision making, and inept reasoning skill. I suspect you are feeling the inner conflict between the reputable sources and moral arguments against your disinformation and extremist views.

Your response will likely be to double down, more false claims, more denials of fact. Let's find out.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good grief. I know because I'm a compassionate human being.

And you compassion towards a girl who does not want to be a mother, but was maybe coerced or raped into being just that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you agree then that continuing to ban gambling, cannabis, sex trade, etc. makes criminal activity worse rather than better?

No, try to stay on topic.
Apples to oranges.
BTW what is the so called legitimate use for things like the sex trade?
Possession of firearms are guaranteed in the constitution...I don't remember anything in there about hookers.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not according to what you write in this forum. You show us to have adopted a great deal of right wing disinformation and you repeat it here. You believe you are compassionate because you don't have the skill and ability to reflect on the bogus information you open yourself to. You believe the disinformation and that choice means you taint any capacity for moral decisions. You can't help but make poor moral decisions because you are taking direction from political extremists.

You cite false claims, like your position is popular in the USA when it clearly isn't according to reputable polls. That is evidence of you looking for ways to justify your poor moral decision making, and inept reasoning skill. I suspect you are feeling the inner conflict between the reputable sources and moral arguments against your disinformation and extremist views.

Your response will likely be to double down, more false claims, more denials of fact. Let's find out.

I don't have any extremist views. Your personal attacks show me your know you are wrong.

 

[F1fan]

For a vaccine that doesn't work? Why would I be forced to take that?

There’s a reason why unvaccinated people die at a rate of 8 to 1 to vaccinated people. You don’t want to believe vaccines don’t save lives but the facts show they do. That you prefer disinformation to facts shows us you aren’t compassionate or have a reasoned moral outlook.

 

[pearl]

At eighty years old this does not affect me, but I'm sure if it comes to pass many will be negatively affected.
Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters (R) declared on his campaign website that if elected, he would vote “only for federal judges who understand that” Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark Supreme Court case that established the right to contraception, was “wrongly decided.”
So It Begins: Mississippi Guv Leaves Door Open For Birth Control Ban (msn.com)

 

[Wildswanderer]

There’s a reason why unvaccinated people die at a rate of 8 to 1 to vaccinated people. You don’t want to believe vaccines don’t save lives but the facts show they do. That you prefer disinformation to facts shows us you aren’t compassionate or have a reasoned moral outlook.

So, if that were correct it's still not a reason I have to be jabbed to save your life. I am responsible for my risk. You can still catch covid regardless . If I choose to eat junk food it not going to make you fat and if I choose a 7 percent higher risk for me it's not going to affect you in any way.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And you compassion towards a girl who does not want to be a mother, but was maybe coerced or raped into being just that?

Ah, another tiny percentage argument. Adoption is a great option.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am not without sympathy. I would be right there with you if we were talking about actual babies and children, or even sentient fetuses

We are..let that child develop and you will have someone you would never be able to justify killing, but you can terminate him now only because he's not fully developed? That is bizarre. In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders.

 

[InChrist]

Sorry but your source is guilty of a rather classic failure. The interpretation of Exodus 21 22-25 is not accurate. Before the pro-life movement it was translated as a fine if the woman lost her fetus. The death penalty only applied if the woman got killed, not the fetus. You have to question a source that finds it necessary to reinterpret its holy book to justify their position. Also it does not even mention the fact that priests in the Old Testament could administer a chemical abortion, against the mother's consent. So it changed one clear verse that supported evolution and ignores a clear case of abortion in the Old Testament.

I have to disagree. When I read Exodus 21:22-25...

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.“


...in context in that passage, as well as the context of the culture, it appears to clearly say that if harm follows then punishment is due, including; life for life. There is no distinction made in the passage between harm of the woman or the child. Also, notice that the scriptures say a woman “with child”. So the death penalty was applied to someone who harmed and killed either a pregnant woman or the child.
You are the one making a failed attempt to alter the meaning of the verse.
I am not aware of anywhere in the OT that allows priests to do chemical abortions. You’ll have to enlighten me and share the specific reference to verse/passage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have to disagree. When I read Exodus 21:22-25...

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.“


...in context in that passage, as well as the context of the culture, it appears to clearly say that if harm follows then punishment is due, including; life for life. There is no distinction made in the passage between harm of the woman or the child. Also, notice that the scriptures say a woman “with child”. So the death penalty was applied someone who harmed and killed either a pregnant woman or the child.
You are the one making a failed attempt to alter the meaning of the verse.
I am not aware of anywhere in the OT that allows priests to do chemical abortions. You’ll have to enlighten me and share the specific reference to verse/passage.

You are not reading that in context. You are adding your own context. Worse yet the interpretation of that verse was changed after the right to life movement became a thing. None of them said "gives birth prematurely". That change was done to poison one's interpreation.

And I am not surprised that you are unaware of the Test of an Unfaithful Spouse. Right to lifers like to pretend that it does not exist or do some extreme hoop jumping to do that.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-29 - New International Version

 

[F1fan]

So, if that were correct it's still not a reason I have to be jabbed to save your life. I am responsible for my risk. You can still catch covid regardless .

Trying to avoid moral responsibility i see.

if you want to avoid going in public and are quarantined with other nonvaxers then fine, you pose no threats. But if you refuse vaccination for political reasons and still go out in public, then you have a low moral interest in society and other people. You might as well be pro-choice since you clearly don’t care about the life of others. Be consistent if you are going to debate morality.

If I choose to eat junk food it not going to make you fat and if I choose a 7 percent higher risk for me it's not going to affect you in any way.

Fatty food is not contagious. Covid is. Bad analogy.

 

[F1fan]

We are..let that child develop and you will have someone you would never be able to justify killing, but you can terminate him now only because he's not fully developed? That is bizarre. In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders.

If you infect a mother and newborn with Covid due to your lack of vaccination are you guiltless of their deaths? Was it their choice to be exposed to Covid by a careless person?