We Never Know
No Slack
Being the topic seems to be about life/taking life, try assisted suicide.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Well, you are (tacitly) just as dismissive of women, who you equate to murderers for not wanting (for whatever reason, it's their choice) to continue a pregnancy. You just don't mention them -- as if they don't even count as a party to the question.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
You are a funny man. I don't see you mention the unborn babies. You are apparently dismissive of them.
This is why I said in an earlier post that we keep talking past one another. To you, it is simply a question of 'choice' for the mother. Others ask, who speaks for the unborn?
I get it - I thought the way you do for a long time - you think the unborn should have no rights and are just a lump of tissue to be discarded if so desired, yes? I disagree, so...?
Last edited:
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I have no argument for abortion. I am against abortion in most instances.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, my bad. You cannot make a rational argument against abortion either.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Who asked me to do that? All I asked was about Kamala's restrictions. I was never making an argument against abortion.
It can't be "both". That is a nonsensical answer. And I strongly suspect you know it is nonsense.
If Congress sets out one set of guidelines, and the AMA sets out a different set of guidelines, should Congress overrule the AMA, or should the AMA take precedence over Congress?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Pogo
Well-Known Member
You just claimed there are secular reasons, but are unable to present any of them? You don't even have to agree with them, but claiming they exist leaves it up to you to provide evidence for your assertion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You were told by several people including me what her restrictions were and you were given links to boot. It would be back to the standards of Roe v Wade. Regulations were allowed, but they were largely paper tigers. Not because they could not be enforced, but rather because there was no need to enforce them.
Seriously, women do not just go out and have abortions at the drop of a hat. There are usually very good reasons for them.
And here is the ultimate hypocrisy test, if you do not support planned parenthood then one is not really antiabortion. It appears in that case that people are trying to immorally control the behavior of others.
So a brain tumor has rights? If you are arguing that a clump of cells have rights then it should apply to all forms.
Let’s note that zygotes and fetuses before viability have no guaranteed rights in constitutions. And there’s a limited assignment of rights to fetuses after viability.
Again your absolutist, idealistic ideology doesn’t really work in reality. That’s why your beliefs should not apply to any citizens whose beliefs differ.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Ah, another good example of something the government should stay out of.
Note again, moral and religious predilections should not be the decider in another person's decision.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
I was not talking to you.
Yes, I know. The difference is that I would like people who disagree with you to be able to live according to their own consciouses as women who would never choose abortion are free to do, whereas you want them to live as you would force them to.
OK, but that doesn't matter to me or to a pregnant woman who sees the procedure as a moral option that is right for her. You can't seem to get past that YOUR feelings are for YOU. You think that what you judge to be murder or immoral should be imposed on others who disagree. An analogous situation would be one where a woman is forced to get an abortion to satisfy somebody else's moral inclinations. Maybe they don't approve of mixed-race babies and think that they should be aborted in utero because they believe that their god thinks that. How would you feel about them imposing their religious beliefs on your wife or daughter?
If you bristle at the idea - if you think that that is nobody's business including the government's - you can understand what pro-choicers are telling you.
Or maybe you already understand that but just don't care. I've mentioned it to you a few times and you keep coming back to YOUR preferences as if you don't seem to care that other people feel differently than you do and want to live their lives according to their consciences, not YOURS.
So what? He expressed his opinion anyway, and it's one I share. Was that a problem for you? It sems so.
Not from abortion. The government exists to optimize the lives of its citizens, which means its duty is to protect reproductive rights, not limit them. First and second trimester concepti are entitled to no protection that the pregnant woman doesn't provide or choose unless that is the will of the people. It's not. It's the will of the theocrats on the Supreme Court who lied about their intentions and the church whose anti-choice agenda they are there to impose on the will of unwilling people.
He's a liar. I know exactly what Trump means on his coherent days. You still haven't figured out who and what he is.
That's news to me. When I think about all of the decisions I made practicing medicine unaware that the government had laws I was expected to know and obey. Thanks for the heads up.
I actually used to decide when a patient needed to return for follow-up, or how often I wanted them checking their blood pressure or glucose at home. I chose whether a chest X-ray was necessary and which if any antibiotic to prescribe. And there were laws for those all along? I guess that I was lucky to avoid sanctioning and prosecution all those years.
Ok, but what are your reasons for imposing them on people who disagree, assuming that you prefer criminalizing abortion?
This is the bottom line for people like me. It's not about what you feel is immoral for you to do. We don't mind you considering abortion murder or embryos children with rights. Feel free to live your life that way and make arguments in support of your position.
It's that you keep deflecting back to that as if it should matter to others when the discussion turns to who should make those decisions - the mother or the government. Anti-choicers seem uninterested in what these women want for their lives - just what they want to forbid them from doing.
And the rest of us are uninterested in their opinions.
I don't mention "unborn babies" because what is inside the womb is, progressively, a zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus. It becomes a baby when it is born, and not before.
For the sake of clarity, I do not like abortion after viability (third trimester), except in the case of health or death risk. However, I cannot be inflexible on that because there may be reasons I can't anticipate for why the woman waited so long. She may, for instance, have been a hostage and victim of rape, only able to seek help after fetal viability. Or even reasons unknown to me, but pertinent to the woman anyway.
I'm less antagonistic, though not completely, to abortion in the second trimester, and over all -- as I've said in these forums for the past 11 years, I'm not even a fan of abortion as a sloppy means of contraception. I much prefer solid sex education, which alas too many people are frightened of.
But whether I'm a fan or not, my likes and dislikes cannot be dictates that others have to follow. That is where you and I differ. I cannot and will not take it upon myself to force another person to obey my preferences. A girl or woman is a sentient being, fully human in every way. Neither zygote, morula, blastocyst nor embryo can be classified as such, and the fetus only minimally so. I must give way to the sentient human on such matters.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Thanks. This illustrates what I have been trying to say, about talking past each other.
To you, the human being does not exist until 'it' is birthed.
To me, it is a child, made in the image and likeness of God. That is why there is a huge disconnect between us after just your first two sentences.
I know I cannot change your view on this and there is certainly no way you can change mine. So?
Peace
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Who does think that? I can't speak for anyone else, but here's why I support her.
1. She's not Trump.
2. She seems a nice person. Unlike Trump.
3. The rest will emerge, but I remember that the Presidency is not one person, and she seems ready to take advice from those more qualified on a given subject. Unlike Trump.
4. And no matter what, it has to be better than Trump.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
I disagree with Harris on many issues, but you nicely summarized why one should vote for her and not The One Who is Orange (been reading a lot of western fiction lately and so was thinking what a good Indian name would be for Trump).
I would add that if one cares about environmental conservation, Harris is (by far!), the lesser of two evils.
You didn't.
Just tap danced around it.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
That's an interesting one. Is assisting a suicide a medical procedure? I can kill myself without assistance and anyone can help me. It's just that doctors are, or should be, better at it.
Any others?