The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[Day Man]

On 5/12/2021 at 5:24 PM, Prosuper said:

Psalm 139:13-16 

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

that's great, but in the same way you probably don't base your life on lord of the rings books, a good amount of us consider the bible/any religious text to be complete fiction. 🍻

if you want to life your life based on those principles, have at it.

[Lord Ratner]

On 5/11/2021 at 8:35 AM, HossHarris said:

I’ve yet to meet a violently pro-life individual that has adopted kids. 
 

im sure they exist … I just haven’t met one. 

Overwhelmingly the people I've met who have adopted have been pro-life. Most have been deeply religious.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Day Man said:

that's great, but in the same way you probably don't base your life on lord of the rings books, a good amount of us consider the bible/any religious text to be complete fiction. 🍻

if you want to life your life based on those principles, have at it.

I think he was responding to this

On 5/10/2021 at 9:59 PM, di1630 said:

 I ask my religious friends where in the Bible it talks about abortion...the conversation goes off the subjective rails from there.
 

And this is the best summation of the debate. When you know you're arguing for something uncomfortable, it's easier to just pretend it's not a real consideration.

On 5/12/2021 at 3:26 PM, lloyd christmas said:

Pro-abortion people know that abortion takes a life.  They just choose to direct the conversation somewhere else because most people don’t have the courage or intellectual honesty to just say that they believe in abortion for convenience whether it kills a baby or not.  I’d have more respect for their argument if they did.

 

Pro-gun folks (which I am) do this with mass murder all the time. "But knives kill people too!!" Yeah, dingus, but not as easily. The Vegas Shooter, Quest nightclub, Ft Hood, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc etc... None of those would have had nearly the same fatality rate with a knife. Guns should still be legal. Freedom is paid for in blood, and it's always less that the blood price of tyranny.

[lloyd christmas]

On 5/14/2021 at 12:56 AM, Lord Ratner said:

Pro-gun folks (which I am) do this with mass murder all the time. "But knives kill people too!!" Yeah, dingus, but not as easily. The Vegas Shooter, Quest nightclub, Ft Hood, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc etc... None of those would have had nearly the same fatality rate with a knife. Guns should still be legal. Freedom is paid for in blood, and it's always less that the blood price of tyranny.

You think pro gun folks don’t have the courage or intellectual honesty to condemn mass shootings?  I’m struggling to understand the connection here.  

[M2]

36 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

You think pro gun folks don’t have the courage or intellectual honesty to condemn mass shootings?  I’m struggling to understand the connection here.  

Ditto, and if it comes to mass "killings," emphasis should be on cancer, heart disease, auto accidents, drug abuse and the plethora of other causes which take far more people out than shootings!

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/dataview/how-americans-die/

Of all the ways to leave this life, being a victim of a mass shooting is pretty far down the list of things to actually worry about!

That narrative is about as ridiculous as certain ethnic groups who worry about being shot by the police.  Facts show they are much more likely to lose their lives from a variety of other situations, but we all know that claim is not the driving force behind the movement!

But never let a good crisis go to waste!

[Prozac]

7 hours ago, M2 said:

Ditto, and if it comes to mass "killings," emphasis should be on cancer, heart disease, auto accidents, drug abuse and the plethora of other causes which take far more people out than shootings!

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/dataview/how-americans-die/

Of all the ways to leave this life, being a victim of a mass shooting is pretty far down the list of things to actually worry about!

That narrative is about as ridiculous as certain ethnic groups who worry about being shot by the police.  Facts show they are much more likely to lose their lives from a variety of other situations, but we all know that claim is not the driving force behind the movement!

But never let a good crisis go to waste!

I know you probably don’t mean it this way, but it sounds like your argument is that because natural causes cause more deaths, we should turn a blind eye to mass shootings. That’s like saying seatbelts are unnecessary because you’re more likely to get taken out by cancer. FWIW, I support your right to own a firearm, but just because there are bigger killers out there that doesn’t mean that mass shootings aren’t an issue that deserves attention. 

[Prosuper]

On 5/13/2021 at 8:19 PM, Day Man said:

that's great, but in the same way you probably don't base your life on lord of the rings books, a good amount of us consider the bible/any religious text to be complete fiction. 🍻

if you want to life your life based on those principles, have at it.

Another fairy tale, we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a oligarchy and Joe Biden got 80 million votes. I'll stick with what I have faith in, God and congress is the best that money can buy.

[M2]

18 hours ago, Prozac said:

I know you probably don’t mean it this way, but it sounds like your argument is that because natural causes cause more deaths, we should turn a blind eye to mass shootings. That’s like saying seatbelts are unnecessary because you’re more likely to get taken out by cancer. FWIW, I support your right to own a firearm, but just because there are bigger killers out there that doesn’t mean that mass shootings aren’t an issue that deserves attention. 

I don't believe car accidents, drug abuse, heart disease, etc. are "natural causes;" nor do I believe any criminal act should be ignored.

My point is the odds of being a victim of a mass shooting is much lower than it's being made out, just as claims certain minorities are being "targeted" by the police.

People are not presenting compelling arguments based on facts, but media hype.  

My advice to them, to quote a caveman, is "Maybe next time you should do a little research."

The truth is out there, but many will still ignore it!

[Lord Ratner]

On 5/15/2021 at 9:25 AM, lloyd christmas said:

You think pro gun folks don’t have the courage or intellectual honesty to condemn mass shootings?  I’m struggling to understand the connection here.  

What? 

 

Condemning them it's easy. Admitting that your stance on firearms *enables* a higher death count in violent events, yet you support it anyways, is not. 

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

What? 

 

Condemning them it's easy. Admitting that your stance on firearms *enables* a higher death count in violent events, yet you support it anyways, is not. 

My original post that you quoted spoke of distractions from the abortion argument.  And we are talking about mass shootings.  

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

My original post that you quoted spoke of distractions from the abortion argument.  And we are talking about mass shootings.  

Yes, exactly. You talked about lacking the moral courage in having an honest discussion. I quoted what you said and gave another example of the phenomenon, since comparison is valuable when discussing such things. It also demonstrates that the phenomenon is not limited to the abortion debate, or the political left. 

 

Good talk.

[HeloDude]

Appears that SCOTUS will overturn Roe and send the abortion legality back to the individual states.  And unless abortion is to be legal everywhere up until the moment of birth, regardless of the reason, then this is the best COA.   This one foot in, one foot out in a majority of the states (due to to Roe) was absurd when you remove the emotions for or against it…not to mention the constant legal challenges at the federal level.  This ruling will send it back to the individual states, where it needs to belong.  And if the left wants any woman (or man?) to be able to have an abortion at anytime, for any reason, then they can donate to groups that will accommodate transportation to one of those states.  Or, people can move if they dislike it so much…and before someone says “people can’t just move”, look at how many people with hardly anything move from South and Central America to the US (most often times illegally) for a better life.  So yes, they can move if they really want to.

My biggest gripe with the pro-choice/abortion crowd is that one of their many arguments is that if abortion is to be made illegal/heavily restricted then there would be all these new born babies in unwanted homes…which is clearly not true.  The adoption waitlist, regardless of ethnic/racial background and gender, is far from short.  If your argument is that a woman should be able to decide what to do with her pregnancy then we can have that debate, but I hate hearing their lies about unwanted babies.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Appears that SCOTUS will overturn Roe and send the abortion legality back to the individual states.  And unless abortion is to be legal everywhere up until the moment of birth, regardless of the reason, then this is the best COA.   This one foot in, one foot out in a majority of the states (due to to Roe) was absurd when you remove the emotions for or against it…not to mention the constant legal challenges at the federal level.  This ruling will send it back to the individual states, where it needs to belong.  And if the left wants any woman (or man?) to be able to have an abortion at anytime, for any reason, then they can donate to groups that will accommodate transportation to one of those states.  Or, people can move if they dislike it so much…and before someone says “people can’t just move”, look at how many people with hardly anything move from South and Central America to the US (most often times illegally) for a better life.  So yes, they can move if they really want to.

My biggest gripe with the pro-choice/abortion crowd is that one of their many arguments is that if abortion is to be made illegal/heavily restricted then there would be all these new born babies in unwanted homes…which is clearly not true.  The adoption waitlist, regardless of ethnic/racial background and gender, is far from short.  If your argument is that a woman should be able to decide what to do with her pregnancy then we can have that debate, but I hate hearing their lies about unwanted babies.

This ruling will be...well an abortion.  To overturn a ruling that is Stare Decisis merely for political reasons is absurd.  Stand by to re-adjudicate every milestone decision each time one party take control and gets more justices on the court.  Prepare for an onslaught from the left to pack the court and go after every conservative ruling.

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Or, people can move if they dislike it so much…

Really?  So many battleground states that will sway by very small majorities and you are telling them to just get out because of a very draconian ruling based on religion.  News flash, they won't move, abortions WILL continue even when a state says not in my backyard.  I feel sad for a lot of women who will go underground and resort to abortion in the shadows, some will pay with their lives...but hey as long as the bible bangers are happy.

This will also be the demise of the GOP who was poised to sweep the mid-terms, you just lost a LOT of independents.  All of the recent appointees refused to answer pointed questions about Roe V Wade but they each sat there and mentioned Stare Decisis and its importance, then they turned around and voted to overturn, disgusting.  Now the court has gone the way of the political parties.  Truly sad.

[ClearedHot]

29 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

 Prepare for an onslaught from the left to pack the court and go after every conservative ruling.

It has begun...

 

[HeloDude]

41 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

This ruling will be...well an abortion.  To overturn a ruling that is Stare Decisis merely for political reasons is absurd.  Stand by to re-adjudicate every milestone decision each time one party take control and gets more justices on the court.  Prepare for an onslaught from the left to pack the court and go after every conservative ruling.

Really?  So many battleground states that will sway by very small majorities and you are telling them to just get out because of a very draconian ruling based on religion.  News flash, they won't move, abortions WILL continue even when a state says not in my backyard.  I feel sad for a lot of women who will go underground resort abortion in the shadows, some will pay with their lives...but hey as long as the bible bangers are happy.

This will also be the demise of the GOP who was poised to sweep the mid-terms, you just lost a LOT of independents.  All of the recent appointees refused to answer pointed questions about Roe V Wade but they each sat there and mentioned Stare Decisis and its importance, then they turned around and voted to overturn, disgusting.  Now the court has gone the way of the political parties.  Truly sad.

Your points aren’t invalid…but the current process/system isn’t working either.  So again, this one foot in, one foot out, challenge every new law at the federal level (even though Roe said the states could regulate abortion but just not ban it), the argument that you can do whatever you want with your own bodies unless it has to do with drugs or a covid shot, on and on…at some point, we need a better system.  And The Constitution actually provides it—changing Roe just gets us back closer to it, regardless of whether or not you’re for or against the legality of abortion.

But now to address the bigger elephant in the room—here it goes:  We’re so divided as a country right now that one can ask why we’re even a country.  States’ Rights are continuously taking a back seat to an ever growing federal government.  If the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t like the upcoming change, then perhaps they should stop trying to dictate how everyone else in the country wants to live their life.

I like making the Libertarian Party’s arguments, but then people here call me “weird” or “out of touch”…but then are cool with unborn child being killed the moment before it exits the womb.  

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

If the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t like the upcoming change, then perhaps they should stop trying to dictate how everyone else in the country wants to live their life.

this is...uhhhh...rich.

[HeloDude]

5 minutes ago, Day Man said:

this is...uhhhh...rich.

Isn’t it though?  Let me clarify—the left would have a much better argument of saying they’re for individual rights, if well, they actually were.

Please do not at all take this as defending the right.  As I’ve said plenty fo times before on this forum, if the argument for preserving abortion is because we want to exercise individual liberty to the maximum (and assuming we have no regard for an unborn child), then I can accept that argument.  But that’s not what the left (or right) is about.  So until then, the best thing is for more laws handled at the state level and not the federal level.  Don’t forget, this ruling won’t ban abortion at all.
 

So yeah…pretty…uhhh…rich.
 

 

 

 

 

 

[ClearedHot]

18 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Don’t forget, this ruling won’t ban abortion at all.

Incorrect, 25 states will likely immediately pass laws banning abortion in half the country...some of them on VERY slim majorities.  When making the states rights argument I assume you are universal in that belief?  Individual states can outlaw guns or stop minorities form voting, I mean who needs the Supremacy Clause?  Lets base the whole thing on states rights, the strategy argued by the southern slave owning states.  Yes we are a republic but some on brother...very shaking ground.

[Guardian]

So potentially some mothers will die by conducting illegal abortions. But on the whole there will be much less death if abortion is ruled illegal. The ones that have no voice in the process will likely live in higher numbers and percentages. So from a pure numbers of lives lost argument, the deaths will go way down.

Edit. And don’t forget. Women will still have the right to choose. The right to choose to have sex or not and to take precautions

The right to choose to have a baby or not begins at conception not birth. And they will still be able to choose whether or not to abort the baby. If the law goes away, a decision to abort just becomes illegal is all. Just like theft. You have the right to choose to steal something. It’s your choice. Just so happens if you do, you committed a crime.

[HeloDude]

43 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Incorrect, 25 states will likely immediately pass laws banning abortion in half the country...some of them on VERY slim majorities.  When making the states rights argument I assume you are universal in that belief?  Individual states can outlaw guns or stop minorities form voting, I mean who needs the Supremacy Clause?  Lets base the whole thing on states rights, the strategy argued by the southern slave owning states.  Yes we are a republic but some on brother...very shaking ground.

Actually, I’m very correct.  States might choose to ban abortion, but the ruling itself will not.  Someone can still go to California and get all the tax-payer funded abortions they want.

CH, take a look at my most recent post above—if the country wants to go full blown Libertarian, then I’m on board.  Until then, it has to be a States’ Rights issue unless it’s specifically pro/against in the Constitution.  Slavery, can’t do it.  Banning guns, can’t do it.  Keeping women from voting, can’t do it.  Drugs?  Abortion?  And a long list of other issues…States’ Rights.

But as usual, for 90% of the country it comes down to “Liberty for me but not for thee”.  

 

[jazzdude]

So potentially some mothers will die by conducting illegal abortions. But on the whole there will be much less death if abortion is ruled illegal. The ones that have no voice in the process will likely live in higher numbers and percentages. So from a pure numbers of lives lost argument, the deaths will go way down.

Edit. And don’t forget. Women will still have the right to choose. The right to choose to have sex or not and to take precautions

The right to choose to have a baby or not begins at conception not birth. And they will still be able to choose whether or not to abort the baby. If the law goes away, a decision to abort just becomes illegal is all. Just like theft. You have the right to choose to steal something. It’s your choice. Just so happens if you do, you committed a crime.

So how we as a country (or states) deal with pregnancy due to rape? No choice is made there by the woman, and states are paying laws that outright ban abortion for any reason. Who pays for medical care for the mother-to-be in that case, both during pregnancy and during post partum? Should she have to bear that cost on her own? Or pregnancies that endanger the mother?

[Guardian]

So how we as a country (or states) deal with pregnancy due to rape? No choice is made there by the woman, and states are paying laws that outright ban abortion for any reason. Who pays for medical care for the mother-to-be in that case, both during pregnancy and during post partum? Should she have to bear that cost on her own? Or pregnancies that endanger the mother?

The states make that decision. Seems like you’re asking my opinion on the subject matter so I will answer.

Rape is awful. And pregnancies due to rape, thankfully, are rare. Same with pregnancies that endanger the mother, rare. Tough choices sometimes have to be made. I don’t know what to say about the endangering the mother. It’s a tall order to be able to say that is the case in the first place. And another tall order that says for sure if you don’t kill the baby the mom will die. Tough.

So because the mothers decision to not have sex was violated, does that make it ok for the murder of an innocent, a 2 wrongs situation.

I don’t believe in letting someone kill another human for all kinds of reasons outside the baby’s control. Life isn’t fair. But we try to make it thus. What’s fair about us as born individuals deciding if it’s ok for someone to be able to kill another individual who has no say in the matter. Pretty odd to codify it as a Woman’s choice.

Why wouldn’t she have insurance? I’m not sure I understand your questions on that topic.

It’s for the states to decide if the SCOTUS decides that way. Here’s to hoping an honest, open, unemotional discussion about whether it is or isn’t ok to kill a completely unique individual (so says science) without their input. It isn’t.

[Prozac]

Whatever you think about the morality of it all (newsflash: we ain’t gonna solve it here) CH is right about one thing: This ruling will absolutely energize the left and put potential Republican midterm gains in jeopardy. It will likely continue to be a major issue in the 2024 presidential election with the Dems making the argument that despite their candidate’s fitness, the Republicans cannot be allowed any more potential nominations to the court. This is a major gift to the dems. The Republicans stomped their feet about “activist judges” right up to the point that activism tipped to their favor. 

[bfargin]

The initial ruling by the court in Roe V. Wade was totally ridiculous. The court used the excuse that science hadn't demonstrated that the fetus was a human person (the word fetus actually means "child" or "offspring") and stated that if science/medicine ever established that, their ruling would and should be reversed as the baby would be protected by the 14th amendment. This was definitely not "activist" and is valid and should have been ruled correctly in 1973. We've murdered 61 million babies in the U.S. since that ruling. The most shameful thing we as a nation have ever done (and we've done plenty of other stuff).

No doubt the left will use this ruling as an excuse to continue their assault on the constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

I don’t know what to say about the endangering the mother. It’s a tall order to be able to say that is the case in the first place. And another tall order that says for sure if you don’t kill the baby the mom will die. Tough.

 

Justifiable homicide has a long precedent of legality.  Reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm.  I think an outright ban on all abortion would be an easy slam dunk legal victory to overturn.

CH is correct though.  This is going to get very ugly.