Fetus in fetu

[Southpaw]

This has to be an elaborate troll account

unfortunately I don't believe it is. honestly sounds like a few of my partners, which is a separate sad issue.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Nephro critical care]

You will be surprised as to people’s opinions about a lot of things. You cannot find them in the news articles even on Fox news. But scroll down to comments and you will know what a lot of people feel about abortion, LGBTQ or even ….. Ukraine war.

 

[anaesthetic]

Just grade A evidence that you can be a physician and still be dumb AF, like mouth breathing can't tie your shoes dumb, in all things non-medicine related.

My wife occasionally tells me the same thing.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I think Trump represents what America is truly about. His ideals represent what people kept hidden beneath the surface, and he made it okay to say whatever they were thinking without any recourse. Hence his ability to do and say whatever that would have sunk careers for any previous politician in history, is actually elevating him and making him more popular in the most upside down world way possible. America will get what it deserves, unfortunately the normal people like us have to suffer the fate what the deplorables want.

Calling whatever large percentage of the country (calling it 25-30% of people who would vote for Trump) deplorable is nonsense. It's more indicative of the lack of exercising sympathy when empathy doesn't fit, little attempt to understand "the other side." I also think it's funny that you describe yourself as normal. Anesthesiologists almost by definition not normal due to the type of work we do, the stresses that come along with it, and the time spent at work. Additionally, a lot of people in medicine grew up with multiple advantages over the average American. Without making it personal I can say its unlikely you are normal (not talking about your hobbies, social habits or anything like that)

Well it's the oldest trick in the book. Nationalism and xenophobia will win you many elections. It relies on the ignorance of the masses.

Downside is that it's generally pretty terrible for the country in the long run.

If you spend all your energy on fictional problems, then you won't have any time for the real problems

Appealing to the masses is a political trick that both parties utilize. Selling your welfare agenda is a common appeal to the "masses" in blue states.

Overall the discussion has really drifted sideways on the thread. Disappointed to see so much progressive group think. The political discussion at the federal level is really pointless nowadays anyway. Lots of posturing on both sides appealing to special interests groups everywhere, but at the end of the day not a lot really happens and each administration disappoints their proponents. For example look at what the Biden administration just did with O&G leases in the gulf, pulling a 180 on his aggressive green agenda.

 

[pgg]

You will be surprised as to people’s opinions about a lot of things. You cannot find them in the news articles even on Fox news. But scroll down to comments and you will know what a lot of people feel about abortion, LGBTQ or even ….. Ukraine war.

Fox News comments? I'm just gonna have to take a pass on that ...

Wait -

Am I infringing on the 1st Amendment rights of the Fox News commenters by ignoring your suggestion to go read their words?

Trying to keep up here.

 

[Nephro critical care]

Colorado district equity docs reveal methodical system to deceive parents on in-school social transitions

Colorado's Jeffco Public Schools implemented gender support plans that allow parents to be kept in the dark on their kids' gender transitioned in schools.

www.foxnews.com

There are two things I don’t want my tax dollars to go yo. One is public schools. I have two kids and I want nothing to do with public schools. Give me what money I am entitled to for paying my property taxes and I will use it to pay the school fees for our kids private faith based schools.
2nd thing is Ukraine war. Its not my war and I don’t want my dollars going to it. I dont want that one of the billions of dollars of weapons we have sent there without any accountability fall in wrong hands and be used against USA in 5-10 years.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Colorado district equity docs reveal methodical system to deceive parents on in-school social transitions

Colorado's Jeffco Public Schools implemented gender support plans that allow parents to be kept in the dark on their kids' gender transitioned in schools.

www.foxnews.com

There are two things I don’t want my tax dollars to go yo. One is public schools. I have two kids and I want nothing to do with public schools. Give me what money I am entitled to for paying my property taxes and I will use it to pay the school fees for our kids private faith based schools.
2nd thing is Ukraine war. Its not my war and I don’t want my dollars going to it. I dont want that one of the billions of dollars of weapons we have sent there without any accountability fall in wrong hands and be used against USA in 5-10 years.

“Public education does not exist for the benefit of students or the benefit of their parents. It exists for the benefit of the social order.

We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education.

So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.” - John Green​

 

[Nephro critical care]

Nation's declining values could signal 'the end of the American empire,' think tank president says

Brownstone Institute's Jeffrey Tucker said that unless the U.S. sees renewed appreciation, the decline in common values could mean "the end of the American empire."

www.foxnews.com

 

[nimbus]

Now lawyers practice medicine. No limit to their desperation. Do we want a western democracy or a theocracy? I was under the impression that the FDA had the authority to rescind FDA approval, not some holy roller judge.

And look at the organizations behind this. They have no standing or authority to dictate morality or ethics for anyone. It’s almost as if they want a steady supply of vulnerable victims. The Catholic Church is an organized pedophile protection ring. The archdiocese of Baltimore is still protecting the rapist/priests by not releasing their names. Altar boys have been diddled for centuries. There’s a reason that joke is so old.

April 7, 2023 - Texas judge suspends approval of medication abortion pill

The Justice Department and Danco, a manufacturer of mifepristone, filed notices of appeal to the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

www.cnn.com

Decades of alleged sexual abuse by Maryland priests detailed in report

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown's office on Wednesday released a redacted version of an investigative report that detailed sexual abuse accusations against clergy within the Archdiocese of Baltimore dating back to the 1940s.

www.reuters.com

And then there is this joker.

People React To Youth Pastor Celebrating Girlfriend's 18th Birthday After Dating Her For 4 Years

Ummmmmmmmmmmm

god.dailydot.com

 

[drmwvr]

You're missing the point.

When a secular person commits an atrocious act based on naturalistic reasoning/morality, we can all logically agree that that person alone is responsible.

When a religious person commits an atrocious act in the name of his god, and then claims that his moral reasoning is based on unverifiable, non-falsifiable, supernatural claims, then there is no empiric way to demonstrate that he alone is responsible. Because faith is a non-reason based belief that can exist despite facts or evidence to the contrary.

That's what makes the latter intrinsically more dangerous. Stalin is an dingus, but we all know he's just a man. A Spanish Inquisitor, otoh, is a vessel of the almighty creator put on this earth to rid humanity of evil. Who are you to question God's will?

Lot's of Christians have made departures from the truth claims of Christianity. You can look them all up if you want, and no where does Christianity claim that torture and execution of political rivals is valid or licit. That Christian administrative/hierarchical framework doubled as civil authority in different parts of the world at different times in history means that there were Christians in civil positions, by virtue of their institutional authority, doing the civil law of the time with all of it's ideologies and biases. Should they know better? Of course. But if you don't recognize the legitimacy of the Christian truth claims, which are grounded in the existence of God, there is no 'knowing better' and you have nothing to complain about when someone does evil. If there is no God, there can be no such thing as evil, just things that don't subjectively appeal to us.


Nimbus wrote:

And look at the organizations behind this. They have no standing or authority to dictate morality or ethics for anyone. It’s almost as if they want a steady supply of vulnerable victims. The Catholic Church is an organized pedophile protection ring. The archdiocese of Baltimore is still protecting the rapist/priests by not releasing their names. Altar boys have been diddled for centuries. There’s a reason that joke is so old.

How a culture of covering up sex abuse at public schools is hurting children — and costing taxpayers millions

How a culture of covering up sex abuse at public schools is hurting children — and costing taxpayers millions School administrators, teachers and staff in California are required by la…

www.redlandsdailyfacts.com

How concerning is this? Or it doesn't matter because Christians aren't behind it?

 

[vector2]

Lot's of Christians have made departures from the truth claims of Christianity. You can look them all up if you want, and no where does Christianity claim that torture and execution of political rivals is valid or licit. That Christian administrative/hierarchical framework doubled as civil authority in different parts of the world at different times in history means that there were Christians in civil positions, by virtue of their institutional authority, doing the civil law of the time with all of it's ideologies and biases. Should they know better? Of course. But if you don't recognize the legitimacy of the Christian truth claims, which are grounded in the existence of God, there is no 'knowing better' and you have nothing to complain about when someone does evil. If there is no God, there can be no such thing as evil, just things that don't subjectively appeal to us.


Nimbus wrote:

How a culture of covering up sex abuse at public schools is hurting children — and costing taxpayers millions

How a culture of covering up sex abuse at public schools is hurting children — and costing taxpayers millions School administrators, teachers and staff in California are required by la…

www.redlandsdailyfacts.com

How concerning is this? Or it doesn't matter because Christians aren't behind it?

Clearly you didn't read the rest of my posts in this too-long thread.

My main point was precisely that no person "knows better" in secular ethical systems, which by virtue of being a product of the human mind gives those systems no ultimate or supernatural authority. It makes them fallible and open to revision and improvement without having to claim that the literal creator of the universe (or a special dude on earth who communicates with him) changed his mind.

Secondly, your phrase "no where does Christianity claim that..." might very well be the most controversial phrase in the history of civilization, lol. There are literally a dozen or more different topics where if you ask ten different Christians what Christianity claims about "X" you'll get ten different answers. I think it's plainly obvious given the diversity of beliefs and denominations that most people have some kind of intrinsic ethical system shaped by evolution, their family, society, culture, etc, and they evaluate the tenets of their chosen religion on some set of already pre-existing criteria/beliefs.

And I have plenty to complain about when someone does "evil." Indeed, my subjective ethical beliefs have just as much validity as anyone else's beliefs, religious or otherwise. Hell, the legal justice system that governs this nation doesn't require a criminal to have broken any particular one of the laws of Abraham, just one of the ones that we all decided that everyone enforces and that everyone is subject to no matter their beliefs.

 

[drmwvr]

Clearly you didn't read the rest of my posts in this too-long thread.

My main point was precisely that no person "knows better" in secular ethical systems, which by virtue of being a product of the human mind gives those systems no ultimate or supernatural authority. It makes them fallible and open to revision and improvement without having to claim that the literal creator of the universe (or a special dude on earth who communicates with him) changed his mind.

Secondly, your phrase "no where does Christianity claim that..." might very well be the most controversial phrase in the history of civilization, lol. There are literally a dozen or more different topics where if you ask ten different Christians what Christianity claims about "X" you'll get ten different answers. I think it's plainly obvious given the diversity of beliefs and denominations that most people have some kind of intrinsic ethical system shaped by evolution, their family, society, culture, etc, and they evaluate the tenets of their chosen religion on some set of already pre-existing criteria/beliefs.

And I have plenty to complain about when someone does "evil." Indeed, my subjective ethical beliefs have just as much validity as anyone else's beliefs, religious or otherwise. Hell, the legal justice system that governs this nation doesn't require a criminal to have broken any particular one of the laws of Abraham, just one of the ones that we all decided that everyone enforces and that everyone is subject to no matter their beliefs.

Did not read the rest. Probably won't. As an aside, I think the claim that 'knowing better' is very possible using reason alone is defensible, whether you believe in 'God' or not. As to my statement about the truth claims of Christianity, fair enough. Christianity used to be a single entity, not thousands of them. So, that's a valid criticism. I might qualify that statement to the first 1500 years or so of Christianity.

 

[vector2]

Did not read the rest. Probably won't. As an aside, I think the claim that 'knowing better' is very possible using reason alone is defensible, whether you believe in 'God' or not. As to my statement about the truth claims of Christianity, fair enough. Christianity used to be a single entity, not thousands of them. So, that's a valid criticism. I might qualify that statement to the first 1500 years or so of Christianity.

Obviously we use reason to create ethical systems, religious or secular. But as already mentioned in the rest of the thread you're not going to read, everyone starts with unprovable axioms as the basis for those systems. For instance, regardless of whether an atheist or a theist believes the statement "human beings ought not murder other human beings," there's no empirical or logical or mathematical proof which makes it so. Which means you might think you can use reason to "know better," but your "better" is entirely subjective.

 

[nimbus]

All this bickering amongst ourselves in a time that we should be coming together to mourn the death of a child snatched from its womb by a doctor espousing repugnant, secular, leftist values.

That “child” was actually snatched from the brain of its 1yo twin. Not sure about the legality of that procedure in some states going forward which is why I posted it. Edge case for sure.

 

[drmwvr]

Obviously we use reason to create ethical systems, religious or secular. But as already mentioned in the rest of the thread you're not going to read, everyone starts with unprovable axioms as the basis for those systems. For instance, regardless of whether an atheist or a theist believes the statement "human beings ought not murder other human beings," there's no empirical or logical or mathematical proof which makes it so. Which means you might think you can use reason to "know better," but your "better" is entirely subjective.

As if empirical or logical or mathematical proof is the only valid way of knowing....use a mathematical proof to establish that it is always and everywhere wrong to rape children. That is either true or it isn't. That we have a visceral response to the idea does not relegate the reality to the subjective category. It's a category error to draw an equivalency between material and moral truths in terms of how they're proved. Reducing what can be known and what is true to what can be measureed is kind of like using metal detector to find buried pottery.

 

[vector2]

As if empirical or logical or mathematical proof is the only valid way of knowing....use a mathematical proof to establish that it is always and everywhere wrong to rape children. That is either true or it isn't. That we have a visceral response to the idea does not relegate the reality to the subjective category. It's a category error to draw an equivalency between material and moral truths in terms of how they're proved. Reducing what can be known and what is true to what can be measureed is kind of like using metal detector to find buried pottery.

The fact that we have a visceral reaction to it being wrong is probably even stronger evidence that we find it wrong for reasons which have a lot of subjective emotional weight but not necessarily rational weight.

The ultimate point is that morality is relative and you don't "know" that things are right or wrong the way you "know" 2+2=4. Throughout the millennia society has accepted perfectly horrific actions (marrying off girls at 12-13yo) as morally normative, and these acceptable or unacceptable actions change dramatically over time. Which means your "moral truths" are only subjectively yours, and the only reason we all follow some of them are because of a popular "vote" taken at any given point in time.

 

[UscGhost]

Nice thing is. The abortion issue seems to be burying republicans. The chase of the ban seems to have interested republican voters far more than maintaining it.

The recent midterms and now this

Abortion was a 50/50 issue. Now, it’s Republican quicksand.

Six in 10 voters support legal abortion in most cases. Just over a third want it to be entirely or mostly illegal.

www.yahoo.com

 

[drmwvr]

The fact that we have a visceral reaction to it being wrong is probably even stronger evidence that we find it wrong for reasons which have a lot of subjective emotional weight but not necessarily rational weight.

The ultimate point is that morality is relative and you don't "know" that things are right or wrong the way you "know" 2+2=4. Throughout the millennia society has accepted perfectly horrific actions (marrying off girls at 12-13yo) as morally normative, and these acceptable or unacceptable actions change dramatically over time. Which means your "moral truths" are only subjectively yours, and the only reason we all follow some of them are because of a popular "vote" taken at any given point in time.

So, sometimes it's OK to rape children...got it.

 

[anaesthetic]

So, sometimes it's OK to rape children...got it.

I mean, you’re gonna have to check with the Catholic church on that one.

 

[vector2]

...got it.

Clearly, you don't.

And it's embarrassing that you have to stoop to the level of distortion and disingenuousness to compensate for the fact that you're mentally incapable of grasping that your subjective feelings about right and wrong are, in fact, subjective. Try again, pal.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

Nice thing is. The abortion issue seems to be burying republicans. The chase of the ban seems to have interested republican voters far more than maintaining it.

The recent midterms and now this

Abortion was a 50/50 issue. Now, it’s Republican quicksand.

Six in 10 voters support legal abortion in most cases. Just over a third want it to be entirely or mostly illegal.

www.yahoo.com

The abortion issue was always going to be an extremely difficult one to work through given the number of regional cultural differences in America. It's not a failure for politicians to struggle through the process especially if it's populace doesn't have a clearly defined definition. I don't have any particular love for politicians but its sad that you are cheering on a struggle to work through a difficult issue.

Clearly, you don't.

And it's embarrassing that you have to stoop to the level of distortion and disingenuousness to compensate for the fact that you're mentally incapable of grasping that your subjective feelings about right and wrong are, in fact, subjective. Try again, pal.

Plenty of distorted and disingenuous responses from posters on the thread that tangentially support your position. Those responses are not called out because of the unfortunate group think that appears on these politically charged threads.

I thought we had a pretty good conversation discussing morals and were only getting into the pitfalls of moral relativism. The nature of such makes it extremely difficult for you to defend your original assertion that religious based beliefs are more easily defensible for the fanatic than an equally off-center person with a secular moral system. To try and put it better, a secular person's relative morals are made up of a complex interaction between their inherent personality and their environment to the point that they are going to have a completely unique sense of what's right and wrong. This would be similar to your example of a religious fanatic who can refer to personal "divine" experiences as justification for anything they want. In a society of moral relativism, would not a person's own unique blend of genetics and experiences not grant them the same justification if not more because in a religion there are structures and laws to appeal to? (I know there would be structure and laws in a secular moral society that could be appealed to, in my example of an individual, or even small group, would potentially be able to claim such a separate distinction to which such an appeal could be worthless)

 

[vector2]

The abortion issue was always going to be an extremely difficult one to work through given the number of regional cultural differences in America. It's not a failure for politicians to struggle through the process especially if it's populace doesn't have a clearly defined definition. I don't have any particular love for politicians but its sad that you are cheering on a struggle to work through a difficult issue.



Plenty of distorted and disingenuous responses from posters on the thread that tangentially support your position. Those responses are not called out because of the unfortunate group think that appears on these politically charged threads.

I thought we had a pretty good conversation discussing morals and were only getting into the pitfalls of moral relativism. The nature of such makes it extremely difficult for you to defend your original assertion that religious based beliefs are more easily defensible for the fanatic than an equally off-center person with a secular moral system. To try and put it better, a secular person's relative morals are made up of a complex interaction between their inherent personality and their environment to the point that they are going to have a completely unique sense of what's right and wrong. This would be similar to your example of a religious fanatic who can refer to personal "divine" experiences as justification for anything they want. In a society of moral relativism, would not a person's own unique blend of genetics and experiences not grant them the same justification if not more because in a religion there are structures and laws to appeal to? (I know there would be structure and laws in a secular moral society that could be appealed to, in my example of an individual, or even small group, would potentially be able to claim such a separate distinction to which such an appeal could be worthless)

In our current system, i.e. a society which is made up of a large percentage (if not outright majority) of people who reject moral relativism and who don't ascribe to David Hume-like principles of empiricism, my assertion that religious fanatical beliefs are more easily defensible ("the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe says X belief of mine is valid and who are you to say otherwise") rings quite true.

If you want to change the base case under which I made my assertion and come up with a different hypothetical society wherein moral relativism is de facto accepted (+- where people don't generally believe that either ethical or moral norms are derived from unfalsifiable supernatural sources), then naturally that will change the context and conditions for what "more easily defensible" even means. Obviously in a situation where nobody cares an iota about the origins or authority behind any given ethical belief, the base validity of all those beliefs is generally equal.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

Reasonable assertion. Would be difficult to create such circumstances widely to test the theory. Personally, I think that it would be difficult to apply those principles across large groups and I think there would be much more fracturing rather than unifying in what you describe.

 

[vector2]

Reasonable assertion. Would be difficult to create such circumstances widely to test the theory. Personally, I think that it would be difficult to apply those principles across large groups and I think there would be much more fracturing rather than unifying in what you describe.

Eh, I dunno. I would assert every system is going to be fracturing in some way and difficult to apply broadly. Just look at how much current society differs on what's considered acceptable ethical or moral behavior. But imo, systems become more fungible, adaptable, and broadly agreeable as they trend toward secularism.

Also, I think there's probably a big misconception that accepting that moral relativism is true is automatically synonymous with free-for-all ethical anarchy (as the disingenuous "well i guess that means we can rape kids sometimes" poster suggested). Accepting that morality is socially constructed and multifactorial is not the same as saying there is no right and wrong.

 

[drmwvr]

I mean, you’re gonna have to check with the Catholic church on that one.

Or the US public school system, beginning with California, just for starters.

Clearly, you don't.

And it's embarrassing that you have to stoop to the level of distortion and disingenuousness to compensate for the fact that you're mentally incapable of grasping that your subjective feelings about right and wrong are, in fact, subjective. Try again, pal.

Meeting absurdity with absurdity. The statement "... your "moral truths" are only subjectively yours, and the only reason we all follow some of them are because of a popular "vote" taken at any given point in time" is boiler plate materialist relativism and can be used to justify any atrocity. With that position there is not a single evil event or category that someone can object to, yet somehow those that actually believe that statement manage to do so, and pretty sanctimoniously.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

Eh, I dunno. I would assert every system is going to be fracturing in some way and difficult to apply broadly. Just look at how much current society differs on what's considered acceptable ethical or moral behavior. But imo, systems become more fungible, adaptable, and broadly agreeable as they trend toward secularism.

Also, I think there's probably a big misconception that accepting that moral relativism is true is automatically synonymous with free-for-all ethical anarchy (as the disingenuous "well i guess that means we can rape kids sometimes" poster suggested). Accepting that morality is socially constructed and multifactorial is not the same as saying there is no right and wrong.

I think you're not taking into account regional variations enough. Take your theory mentioned earlier that religion is at its base merely a human construct instead of vice versa (chicken vs egg question), then you would acknowledge that the tenets of the religious doctrine as merely just a reflection of human tendency or experience (we're going to ignore the "great men" theory shaping human history and focus on your Hume reflection of history as an accumulation of experience). In that sense secularist or religious morals really shouldn't be a question. It should be the actual morals and what humanities reaction to them is. Major religions aren't stuck with the same doctrine over time. Much of Catholic doctrine isn't considered infallible teachings. Teachings and followers have changed and adapted with changing technologies and advances. We'll disagree on what what that means for the religion because I don't mean the statement to disqualify its legitimacy. I'm referring to the idea that systems will become more broadly agreeable over time (I'm fine saying they could be more fungible or adaptable) as there isn't anything inheritably special about religious morals if you believe their origins are natural.

 

[vector2]

Meeting absurdity with absurdity. The statement "... your "moral truths" are only subjectively yours, and the only reason we all follow some of them are because of a popular "vote" taken at any given point in time" is boiler plate materialist relativism and can be used to justify any atrocity.

It's exhausting replying to you after you said explicitly you're not gonna read the thread. It's like replying to a child who wanders into the middle of a movie to ask what's going on.

With that position there is not a single evil event or category that someone can object to, yet somehow those that actually believe that statement manage to do so, and pretty sanctimoniously.

This is totally false, and you completely misunderstand (probably purposefully) what moral relativism entails. Which, to reiterate: "Accepting that morality is socially constructed and multifactorial is not the same as saying there is no right and wrong." Read that 5 times and then get back to me.

 

[vector2]

. Much of Catholic doctrine isn't considered infallible teachings. Teachings and followers have changed and adapted with changing technologies and advances. We'll disagree on what what that means for the religion because I don't mean the statement to disqualify its legitimacy.

The bolded above nailed the crux of the argument for me. As you can guess, I'm absolutely in the camp that the legitimacy of many proscriptive faiths has been weakened or eroded by the inevitable march of materialistic empiricism. And even a casual glance at history tells us that empiricism subsuming supernatural explanations of natural phenomena happened almost exactly concurrently with Enlightenment thinkers daring to posit that natural or man-made rights can be agreed upon without having to necessarily defer their creation to a deity. Again, that still doesn't mean a naturalistic ethical system is objectively superior to a religious one, but it's food for thought vis a vis claiming divine authority as the font for an ethical belief.

I'm referring to the idea that systems will become more broadly agreeable over time (I'm fine saying they could be more fungible or adaptable) as there isn't anything inheritably special about religious morals if you believe their origins are natural.

This line begs the question: "[religious systems] become more broadly agreeable over time" .......... in relation to what?? One has to wonder about the general legitimacy of any religious moral system if over time essentially every formerly-set-in-stone tenet can be discarded due to an advancement of science or a change in the secular cultural zeitgeist (the shift in perception of gay marriage comes to mind). And if everything in a religious ethical system is fungible because a group of people got together and decided so, at what point does it actually still remain distinguishable from a naturalistic or secular system?

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I'll address the second point first, I did not frame my argument well. It was meant to be from the perspective of one who believes religion is merely a human construct. Specifically in the quote I was acknowledging your assertion that secular systems could become more agreeable over time, I also attempted to say that religions can change over time and have in different ways. Your example of Protestantism responding to the zeitgeist is valid, Mormonisms reversed their stance on polygamy and I'm sure there are countless other examples. I think its fair to question any religion that does this but to also understand that change isn't always invalidating. We brought up Aquinas and his paths to knowledge (the "god of the gaps" does not address what Aquinas does which is to reason in all ways that are given both natural and spiritual) which is an example of how new understandings can be incorporated into the main teachings and how those can also change with it. Again, my intent is to show how religious fervor or fanaticism isn't inherently more dangerous or more defensible than the secular equivalent. As I said prior, I'm not going to defend all religions as I can't. All of them have differing levels of truth in them as do many secular moral systems.

You are right regarding the Enlightenment. The rediscovery of Greco-Roman philosophy provided a ready outlet for those wishing to challenge the Church and her ideas (also the Church as a ruling body was susceptible to the same problems that every ruling body is susceptible too) this has been continuing on through the world and not in the least in America. I think its pretty obvious that the American "Left" has been trying to replace Christianity with a secular moral system for a while now. And don't forget that a major source for these naturalistic thinkers was the Roman Republic who succumbed to civil war and subsequent rule by a monarchy which was then subsumed by Christianity. Maybe tap the brakes a bit when it comes to "inevitable march of materialistic empiricism"

 

[vector2]

I'll address the second point first, I did not frame my argument well. It was meant to be from the perspective of one who believes religion is merely a human construct. Specifically in the quote I was acknowledging your assertion that secular systems could become more agreeable over time, I also attempted to say that religions can change over time and have in different ways. Your example of Protestantism responding to the zeitgeist is valid, Mormonisms reversed their stance on polygamy and I'm sure there are countless other examples. I think its fair to question any religion that does this but to also understand that change isn't always invalidating. We brought up Aquinas and his paths to knowledge (the "god of the gaps" does not address what Aquinas does which is to reason in all ways that are given both natural and spiritual) which is an example of how new understandings can be incorporated into the main teachings and how those can also change with it. Again, my intent is to show how religious fervor or fanaticism isn't inherently more dangerous or more defensible than the secular equivalent. As I said prior, I'm not going to defend all religions as I can't. All of them have differing levels of truth in them as do many secular moral systems.

Yet somehow, someway, the "change" which you consider not to be invalidating invariably occurs at a time in which religious thought leaders decide to "pray on" or "reflect" or engage in temporally very convenient exegesis....in lockstep with the shifting secular or cultural view at that very moment. And I'm sure you can imagine, to a skeptic, the Aquinian explanation that one can simply reason himself into new scriptural "knowledge" or use "natural" revelation is not a particularly satisfying answer for how, say, for instance, half the Methodist Church could suddenly decide in the last 10-20 years that gay clergy and gay weddings are A-OK after 300 years of essentially uniform thought on the issue.

Regardless, I don't think you highlighting that some faiths are capable of changing their minds on some issues invalidates my premise that religious fanaticism is inherently more dangerous. One, because plenty of fundamentalist religions, by design, don't change their minds on pretty much anything, and two, even if a change is made, the new conditions (depending on the religion) still exist in a state in which the ultimate authority is derived from a supernatural source (e.g. think divine revelation and how that relates to the Catholic magisterium, the Church's supposed infallibility, etc).

Again, not to beat a dead horse, but it should be plainly obvious that someone motivated to a particular action because of his belief in the unfalsifiable, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is probably going to be less persuadable than some guy motivated to a particular belief by his neighbor Jeff. Because it's empirically demonstrable that Jeff is fallible. Not so much with YHWH.

You are right regarding the Enlightenment. The rediscovery of Greco-Roman philosophy provided a ready outlet for those wishing to challenge the Church and her ideas (also the Church as a ruling body was susceptible to the same problems that every ruling body is susceptible too) this has been continuing on through the world and not in the least in America. I think its pretty obvious that the American "Left" has been trying to replace Christianity with a secular moral system for a while now. And don't forget that a major source for these naturalistic thinkers was the Roman Republic who succumbed to civil war and subsequent rule by a monarchy which was then subsumed by Christianity. Maybe tap the brakes a bit when it comes to "inevitable march of materialistic empiricism"

Ha, I think it's funny you phrase it as the American Left trying to replace Christianity with a secular moral system. As if that's some phenomenon that started yesterday. Did we forget that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe all believed in a highly abstract and impersonal god who set the universe into motion and then essentially disappeared? Did we forget that their arguably most important influencer was an agnostic empiricist named John Locke? Unfortunately, the GOP claim that this country was founded on principles that resemble modern evangelicalism is a myth that was invented in the 20th century.

And honestly, I find the jump from Enlightenment thinkers having Roman influence to 'be careful what you wish for because Rome fell' to be a bit of a stretch. We have erred way too far on the side of irrational deference to what religion says we can and can't do in this country. Why in the world would I tap the brakes on advocating for a secular viewpoint when just last week we have states banning abortion at 6 wks and judges banning mifepristone? Gimme a break.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

Yet somehow, someway, the "change" which you consider not to be invalidating invariably occurs at a time in which religious thought leaders decide to "pray on" or "reflect" or engage in temporally very convenient exegesis....in lockstep with the shifting secular or cultural view at that very moment. And I'm sure you can imagine, to a skeptic, the Aquinian explanation that one can simply reason himself into new scriptural "knowledge" or use "natural" revelation is not a particularly satisfying answer for how, say, for instance, half the Methodist Church could suddenly decide in the last 10-20 years that gay clergy and gay weddings are A-OK after 300 years of essentially uniform thought on the issue.

I think its reasonable to bring up those specific concerns regarding religion if you were considering or evaluating them. The Methodist example is a good one and a good reason that I'm not Methodist. For Aquinas if you want to act the skeptic with it, then you're going to have to do so with something other than a naturalistic, materialist born in part due to Aquinas himself. Aquinas' logic fits into the greater Catholic Church which has addressed practically all of the philosophical questions that humans have struggled with since we had rational thought. Critiquing one aspect of it while holding to an overall loosely defined naturalism that utilizes, again loosely defined, "empiricism" as its justification isn't serious (what I mean by serious is that it isn't a system clearly defined, formed and prepared to fully replace previously set tenets. I'm going to assume that recent secular fads/trends are not in of themselves displays of the systems you're referring to.)

Regardless, I don't think you highlighting that some faiths are capable of changing their minds on some issues invalidates my premise that religious fanaticism is inherently more dangerous. One, because plenty of fundamentalist religions, by design, don't change their minds on pretty much anything, and two, even if a change is made, the new conditions (depending on the religion) still exist in a state in which the ultimate authority is derived from a supernatural source (e.g. think divine revelation and how that relates to the Catholic magisterium, the Church's supposed infallibility, etc).

Again, not to beat a dead horse, but it should be plainly obvious that someone motivated to a particular action because of his belief in the unfalsifiable, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is probably going to be less persuadable than some guy motivated to a particular belief by his neighbor Jeff. Because it's empirically demonstrable that Jeff is fallible. Not so much with YHWH.

I've really been going on the premise that a person who is that far on the fanaticism scale be, it a religious or secular bent and from a mental illness or brainwashing of sorts, that they aren't going to respond to "plainly obvious" logic. Really no difference in rationalizing a member of the Manson Family or a Branch Davidian. I thought we were focusing more on what was more "defensible" which is what I was tailoring my argument too.

Ha, I think it's funny you phrase it as the American Left trying to replace Christianity with a secular moral system. As if that's some phenomenon that started yesterday. Did we forget that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe all believed in a highly abstract and impersonal god who set the universe into motion and then essentially disappeared? Did we forget that their arguably most important influencer was an agnostic empiricist named John Locke? Unfortunately, the GOP claim that this country was founded on principles that resemble modern evangelicalism is a myth that was invented in the 20th century.

I portrayed the left as I did not as a "pro-right/GOP" shot. The federal government today would likely be considered tyrannical by the standards of our Founding Fathers no matter which party is in charge. As far as the distinctions in the parties, I don't see much outside of which large interest groups' mouthpieces they choose to be.

You're right this is not something new and has been going on for a long time, the Founding Fathers didn't write in a Christian dominant set of ideals in the constitution (outside of some specifically Christian touches) they largely supported personal liberty and self-governance, which in a populace predominantly Christian, you had a lot of laws supporting Christian ideals.

The extremely broad and ill-defined "American Left" has pushed back on many of these laws, which as a proponent of self-governance I don't criticize their right too, but has also pushed back hard on societal norms starting in the 1960s and continuing today. This makes up a shift in the zeitgeist that you referenced earlier and an acceleration of the "attack" if you will on traditionally Christian societal norms. Some broad objective evidence of a "worse" society have evolved from this, the largest and most obvious being the large increase in children raised in a non-nuclear family the rates of poverty, increased dependence on welfare, and lower education levels.

And honestly, I find the jump from Enlightenment thinkers having Roman influence to 'be careful what you wish for because Rome fell' to be a bit of a stretch. We have erred way too far on the side of irrational deference to what religion says we can and can't do in this country. Why in the world would I tap the brakes on advocating for a secular viewpoint when just last week we have states banning abortion at 6 wks and judges banning mifepristone? Gimme a break.

It's more of a comment that such a secular world existed before (maybe not completely how you would describe it, but fairly close I think) today's current scientific advancements and that there are lessons that could be learned there. For you last couple of sentences, I don't engage in abortion debate unless there's a clear definition for at what point a human being is defined and why, and/or what rights the mother has and what rights the unborn fetus has in pregnancy.

 

[Just D.O. it]

Yes because the adoption process and foster care system in this country is so robust and efficient, kids are super happy in it as well

The foster care crisis has at best marginal relevance to the "unwanted pregnancy" issue.

When people quote the xyz kids waiting to be adopted issue, they often don't know or purposefully fail to mention the nuance that arises when you actually break it down by age. There are literally waiting lists full of people who have been trying to adopt an infant for years. I promise you that if any mother wants to give up her newborn child, she will have no issue finding good and eager adoptive parents. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for older kids.

It might be crass of me to phrase it this way but adoption is a kind of market. Damaged and abandoned older kids who have been parented and at least to some degree molded by someone else are not a "sought after" commodity, but infants very much are.

So if your main issue with less abortion is "what will we do with the unwanted babies", then you can rest easier because it has already been taken care of.

 

[anaesthetic]

The foster care crisis has at best marginal relevance to the "unwanted pregnancy" issue.

When people quote the xyz kids waiting to be adopted issue, they often don't know or purposefully fail to mention the nuance that arises when you actually break it down by age. There are literally waiting lists full of people who have been trying to adopt an infant for years. I promise you that if any mother wants to give up her newborn child, she will have no issue finding good and eager adoptive parents. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for older kids.

It might be crass of me to phrase it this way but adoption is a kind of market. Damaged and abandoned older kids who have been parented and at least to some degree molded by someone else are not a "sought after" commodity, but infants very much are.

So if your main issue with less abortion is "what will we do with the unwanted babies", then you can rest easier because it has already been taken care of.

As you are aware, the main issue with less abortion isn't "what will we do with the unwanted babies" (because it has already been taken care of), but the issues with mothers who get pressured to have a baby that they can't or won't take care of who do it anyway because of societal, religious, or familial pressures and eventually have to give their kid up, whether it's at age 0 or age >8, thus leading to those "damaged and abandoned" older kids who aren't sought after commodities.

Nuance, right? I promise you that some, if not most, mothers who are forced to give birth to unwanted children (for whatever reason) may have some hesitation in giving them up for adoption right away.

 

[Just D.O. it]

main issue with less abortion isn't "what will we do with the unwanted babies"

I didn't say it was for you or everyone, but certainly some have that as their primary concern or one of their primary concerns. Which is why I cleared up the misleading framing just in case.

leading to those "damaged and abandoned" older kids who aren't sought after commodities.

This is why I said marginally. I'm sure lack of abortion is responsible for some of these scenarios, but I will say that most unfit parents are not a product of abortion restrictions.

Also social and cultural pressures to keep an unwanted child are distinct from abortion in a literal sense. Of course I acknowledge that most people who hold restrictive beliefs overlap on these issues. I just mean to say that one can exist without the other.

You can support reducing these cultural pressures without supporting abortion. So it isn't an effective direct argument against abortion.

I promise you that some, if not most, mothers who are forced to give birth to unwanted children (for whatever reason) may have some hesitation in giving them up for adoption right away.

I don't know the finer details of your personal belief system, but many of the political advocates for increasing abortion access also want it destigmatized meaning they want to mold society to be supportive and encouraging of abortion as an "equal" option.

With that being case, I'm sure we could also work to destigmatize the concept of giving up your child for adoption if you are unfit or unwilling to parent, instead of jumping straight to abortion as the solution for such a scenario.

 

[deleted1156722]

“Adoption, not Abortion” is a catchy slogan for sure. However, women are making decisions about their pregnancy at the time of considering abortion. It is only after they have made a decision to continue the pregnancy that the adoption question arises in terms of whether to parent or place for adoption.

Adoption cannot be a substitute for abortion. Adoption does not relieve the health risks of pregnancy, nor does it alleviate the financial, social, physical and mental burden that the process of unwanted pregnancy / adoption poses.

So shouldn’t our society be equally supportive and encouraging of both of these options, and leave the ultimate decision to the pregnant woman, who based on her unique personal circumstances is the best judge?

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I would rather work to find a solution where the baby gets to live. Why can't some of my tax dollars go to a turbocharged health plan for women who choose not to have an abortion and don't want the child after birth? This is important because an unborn fetus is a marginalized human in today's world. They have a variable definition from individual to individual. With that amount of variation the only certainty that everyone should agree on is that somebody is getting it wrong somewhere which means, at the very least. Even if you are a proponent of the right to an abortion anytime the umbilical cord is attached and even if when unattached and still "alive" that born fetus is not a legal person, then I would have serious concerns regarding the safety of other potential groups to be marginalized as well. Specific groups I think would be at risk would be infants and people born with disabilities. I've read a little bit of Peter Singer's stuff (a hedonistic utilitarian) and find his logic repulsive but irrefutable if you were someone who supported abortion (this is not intended as an inflammatory remark, just an opinion of someone else's reasoning).

Regardless, this is tangential to my points above regarding a healthy society. Brookings has an older article with data that would suggest a "reproductive technology shock" has led to an increased number of out-of-wedlock births making it more difficult for the average child to have success and an increased number of women that have been statutory raped. This would suggest that a lessening of traditional morals and with advance of technology has potentially led to a "worse" society (using worse broadly here and making some assumptions that the older data has held up, it may not have)

 

[deleted1156722]

Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned, the “fetal personhood” is the next frontier in the legal battle over reproductive rights in the U.S.

I am making the case for “fetus does not have legal rights and is not eligible for personhood” strictly based on what is written in the constitution (and I am not bringing in the philosophical ethics of Lockean or Aristotelian views).

The SCOTUS majority states that Roe was “grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child — finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The entire Pro-Life movement celebrated the upholding of the above originalist view of our constitution by the SCOTUS, and therefore overturning it and giving it back to the states was considered in line with the originalist view.

However, if the originalist and textual interpretation of our constitution is going to be our best guidance for abortion arguments, then it is only fair that the same must also serve as the best guidance for personhood arguments.

The 14th Amendment of our constitution grants citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," i.e it defines that a “person” is a citizen when they are born. By that logic, how can we have 2 different definitions of “personhood” from state to state, if fetus is a person only when “born”?

The 26th Amendment of our constitution states “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States”.
No where does it state that 17 years and 4 months can be considered as age for voting and that means the constitution does not recognize fetus as person.

Furthermore, If indeed those states banning abortion are serious about fetus as person, are these states going to allow the pregnant woman to claim her fetus as a dependent on her tax returns or for benefits, or allow the use of the HOV lane while driving, and so on…? One can see the issues with selectively claiming the fetus as person for eliminating abortion rights, but give no other rights to the pregnant woman who is bearing another “person”.

Ultimately, in the absence of concrete answers, most people adopt a convenient “hybrid”account of personhood, according to which an embryo is a non-person, while a late-term fetus is a person. I see this as an easy way out; pick and choose to be a “convenient constitutionalist” or “convenient biologist” depending on the situation- neither of which is fair to the pregnant woman.

edit: I am not aware of any case of a pregnant woman who is “Pro-Abortion”- Yes, they maybe “Pro-choice” or “Pro-Life”, but I disagree with the usage of the word “abortion activists” which paints them as eager and enthusiastic about abortions, which is very far from the truth. Every human being has to face difficult life circumstances that sometimes only they can understand and navigate. Our society needs to be more compassionate and respectful to all the pregnant women and support their choices- be it adoption or abortion.

 

[IMGASMD]

I would rather work to find a solution where the baby gets to live. Why can't some of my tax dollars go to a turbocharged health plan for women who choose not to have an abortion and don't want the child after birth? This is important because an unborn fetus is a marginalized human in today's world. They have a variable definition from individual to individual. With that amount of variation the only certainty that everyone should agree on is that somebody is getting it wrong somewhere which means, at the very least. Even if you are a proponent of the right to an abortion anytime the umbilical cord is attached and even if when unattached and still "alive" that born fetus is not a legal person, then I would have serious concerns regarding the safety of other potential groups to be marginalized as well. Specific groups I think would be at risk would be infants and people born with disabilities. I've read a little bit of Peter Singer's stuff (a hedonistic utilitarian) and find his logic repulsive but irrefutable if you were someone who supported abortion (this is not intended as an inflammatory remark, just an opinion of someone else's reasoning).

Regardless, this is tangential to my points above regarding a healthy society. Brookings has an older article with data that would suggest a "reproductive technology shock" has led to an increased number of out-of-wedlock births making it more difficult for the average child to have success and an increased number of women that have been statutory raped. This would suggest that a lessening of traditional morals and with advance of technology has potentially led to a "worse" society (using worse broadly here and making some assumptions that the older data has held up, it may not have)

I have to admit most of this conversation is above my head.
I agree with we need more social support on the adoption front, what happens during and after pregnancy for those who want to keep the fetus, but don’t have the means to?
Also let’s be honest, are these fetus all created equal? What if the mother is a drug addict. Of a different race than you? With chromosomal abnormalities? Are we welling to support them (both mother and fetus indefinitely) when the mother doesn’t want to carry them to term to begin with?

Anecdotally, had a baby who was born from an addict, born with developmental problems (brain bleed? Malformation? Premature?). In the beginning, the mother was adamant that she wanted to keep the baby with her. After a few neurological interventions, she understood that she’s in way above her head. Now the baby is 2 multiple shunt revisions, infections, no real meaningful movements, developments, will be institutionalized for life. Are you welling to adopt this kid?

Or

11 yo girl, who came in the middle of the night for emergent c-section, because no pre-natal care and pelvis is too small for labor. Screaming, have no idea what’s going on with mom at bedside, over all just a weird vibe. Later on found out, she was raped by her uncle, so kid giving birth to baby.

Sure one may say these are all exceptions, than the norm. Perhaps. But they absolutely happen, and are we as a society welling to support the mother, the baby, the family? To what end?

 

[TexBlazer2106]

However, if the originalist and textual interpretation of our constitution is going to be our best guidance for abortion arguments, then it is only fair that the same must also serve as the best guidance for personhood arguments.

The 14th Amendment of our constitution grants citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," i.e it defines that a “person” is a citizen when they are born. By that logic, how can we have 2 different definitions of “personhood” from state to state, if fetus is a person only when “born”?
....

Ultimately, in the absence of concrete answers, most people adopt a convenient “hybrid”account of personhood, according to which an embryo is a non-person, while a late-term fetus is a person. I see this as an easy way out; pick and choose to be a “convenient constitutionalist” or “convenient biologist” depending on the situation- neither of which is fair to the pregnant woman.

Not sure if this can be applied as the same abortion methods were not present then as they are now (an example of how morals or interpretations change with technology) and this was likely not an issue given any serious thought at the time. I would assume then that any attempted abortion with a baby "born alive" would then be considered a person and afforded the same rights? To that point, your easy way out actually makes the most sense if you were to apply a strictly constitutional interpretation to the argument. If a fetus could survive outside the womb, a mid to late term in your example, then I would apply that logic to the statement above and say that they qualify for "personhood."

Furthermore, If indeed those states banning abortion are serious about fetus as person, are these states going to allow the pregnant woman to claim her fetus as a dependent on her tax returns or for benefits, or allow the use of the HOV lane while driving, and so on…? One can see the issues with selectively claiming the fetus as person for eliminating abortion rights, but give no other rights to the pregnant woman who is bearing another “person”.

I saw that story about the pregnant woman in the HOV lane and I thought it was great. Let them drive in the HOV lane, let some of my tax dollars go to helping them and take more of the ones going to other counter-productive welfare programs go to them as well (I know a lot of programs do this know and creates an incentive to have more children than is prudent, so ideally would go in such a way that would encourage that, I don't know how that would happen off the top of my head)

edit: I am not aware of any case of a pregnant woman who is “Pro-Abortion”- Yes, they maybe “Pro-choice” or “Pro-Life”, but I disagree with the usage of the word “abortion activists” which paints them as eager and enthusiastic about abortions, which is very far from the truth. Every human being has to face difficult life circumstances that sometimes only they can understand and navigate. Our society needs to be more compassionate and respectful to all the pregnant women and support their choices- be it adoption or abortion.

I have seen some videos and articles describing a "pro-abortion" attitude. Although, I don't know if that is a significant number of people. Regardless, I don't lay blame on individual women with difficult choices.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I have to admit most of this conversation is above my head.
I agree with we need more social support on the adoption front, what happens during and after pregnancy for those who want to keep the fetus, but don’t have the means to?
Also let’s be honest, are these fetus all created equal? What if the mother is a drug addict. Of a different race than you? With chromosomal abnormalities? Are we welling to support them (both mother and fetus indefinitely) when the mother doesn’t want to carry them to term to begin with?

Anecdotally, had a baby who was born from an addict, born with developmental problems (brain bleed? Malformation? Premature?). In the beginning, the mother was adamant that she wanted to keep the baby with her. After a few neurological interventions, she understood that she’s in way above her head. Now the baby is 2 multiple shunt revisions, infections, no real meaningful movements, developments, will be institutionalized for life. Are you welling to adopt this kid?

Or

11 yo girl, who came in the middle of the night for emergent c-section, because no pre-natal care and pelvis is too small for labor. Screaming, have no idea what’s going on with mom at bedside, over all just a weird vibe. Later on found out, she was raped by her uncle, so kid giving birth to baby.

Sure one may say these are all exceptions, than the norm. Perhaps. But they absolutely happen, and are we as a society welling to support the mother, the baby, the family? To what end?

It's been an open discussion that I feel has been cordial and thank you for sharing your opinion. My concern with comparing fetus' or taking into account disabilities would lead to similar treatment of people with serious disabilities or other further discrimination. For the 11yo example, that's a long one to unwrap and oddly specific so I don't know if this was a personal experience (not one I'd wish on anyone), either way not sure where to start on that one. Society does need to step up and the overall best way to do that is to take responsibility at a granular level. These federal mandates one way or the other is not the way.

 

[deleted1156722]

Not sure if this can be applied as the same abortion methods were not present then as they are now (an example of how morals or interpretations change with technology) and this was likely not an issue given any serious thought at the time.

The Right/GOP take great pride in upholding the originalist view of the constitution- that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have have had at the time that it became law. That was infact one of the core principles why the SCOTUS with its current make-up overturned Roe v Wade (on the basis of no constitutional right for abortion). If we are talking about constitution as a living and breathing document that changes and adapts to passage of time, that would make the case for the Left/Democrats ideology. If our constitution is a “living document”, then Democrats are correct in that Roe v Wade should not have been overturned.

I would assume then that any attempted abortion with a baby "born alive" would then be considered a person and afforded the same rights? To that point, your easy way out actually makes the most sense if you were to apply a strictly constitutional interpretation to the argument. If a fetus could survive outside the womb, a mid to late term in your example, then I would apply that logic to the statement above and say that they qualify for "personhood."

What you are referring to as “born alive” aka partial-birth abortions” is actually part of a massive disinformation campaign by the anti-choice activists, and one that invokes extreme anguish and confusion for the general public. More importantly, the SCOTUS has already banned the above procedure in 2007, and it is a term that is now only used in political discourse.
The term "partial-birth abortion" actually has no independent meaning: it is not a medical term nor does it refer to a medical procedure. The correct medical term is “intact dilation and extraction” and it constitutes <2% of births that involve severe congenital malformations/ fetuses that cannot survive outside the uterus/ continuation of the pregnancy poses a grievous harm to the mother’s health/life.

I saw that story about the pregnant woman in the HOV lane and I thought it was great. Let them drive in the HOV lane, let some of my tax dollars go to helping them and take more of the ones going to other counter-productive welfare programs go to them as well (I know a lot of programs do this know and creates an incentive to have more children than is prudent, so ideally would go in such a way that would encourage that, I don't know how that would happen off the top of my head)

I applaud you for your above thoughts on creating special privileges for pregnant women, including the tax-payer program for adoption that you mentioned earlier. Wouldn’t it be even more laudable if there is support for similar tax-payer funded program for ALL pregnant women, regardless of their decision to choose abortion or adoption, which would depend on their unique and individual circumstances?

I have seen some videos and articles describing a "pro-abortion" attitude. Although, I don't know if that is a significant number of people. Regardless, I don't lay blame on individual women with difficult choices.

Once again, I would attribute the “ Pro-abortion” thinking to a lot of mis-information from the media when it comes to sensationalizing abortion. Really, IMHO, there is only one category, “Pro-Choice”- as that is the only option that gives the “choice” back to the pregnant woman-(a) the choice of continuing with the pregnancy or (b) the choice of termination of the pregnancy. Both of the above decisions should solely rest with the pregnant woman who is actually navigating some very personal and difficult events in her life, and is trying to do her best in the given situation.
And also, there is no “ninth month abortions”. A ninth month abortion is a unicorn. Terminations after 24 weeks are almost always for severe fetal anomalies and for those pregnancies that are incompatible with life, or continuation of the pregnancy poses a serious maternal health risk.

 

[Just D.O. it]

Wouldn’t it be even more laudable if there is support for similar tax-payer funded program for ALL pregnant women, regardless of their decision to choose abortion or adoption,

No. When pro-life people bring up tax-funded support for pregnancy, it is predicated on the basis of the state having a vested interest in the welfare of the unborn child.

Why would it be "even more" laudable to help out women looking to abort given the above premise?

What you are referring to as “born alive” aka partial-birth abortions” is actually part of a massive disinformation campaign by the anti-choice activists, and one that invokes extreme anguish and confusion for the general public. More importantly, the SCOTUS has already banned the above procedure in 2007, and it is a term that is now only used in political discourse.
The term "partial-birth abortion" actually has no independent meaning: it is not a medical term nor does it refer to a medical procedure. The correct medical term is “intact dilation and extraction” and it constitutes <2% of births

I find it interesting that you bring this up.

Abortion rights activists frequently use the issues of rape, incest, and severe birth defects which invoke extreme anguish and confusion for the general public, but it's interesting to note that these factors are only responsible for about 1-2% of US abortions. Would you agree that also seems a little bit like a "disinformation campaign"?

The fact of the matter is that partial birth abortions did happen. They aren't brought up in the context of them being currently legal or common. rather it shows that the abortion issue is more morally murky than modern abortion activists would have you believe. If the sacred doctrine of the abortion movement about birth being a neat way to establish a transition to personhood was so ironclad and consistent, this never should have been a thing but instead it took several years to draw this new line in the sand.

 

[IMGASMD]

For the 11yo example, that's a long one to unwrap and oddly specific so I don't know if this was a personal experience (not one I'd wish on anyone), either way not sure where to start on that one.

We are still in the anesthesia forum, right guys?

 

[TexBlazer2106]

We are still in the anesthesia forum, right guys?

Not sure what you meant by this. I was referring to a possible patient experience you may have had

 

[TexBlazer2106]

The Right/GOP take great pride in upholding the originalist view of the constitution- that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have have had at the time that it became law. That was infact one of the core principles why the SCOTUS with its current make-up overturned Roe v Wade (on the basis of no constitutional right for abortion). If we are talking about constitution as a living and breathing document that changes and adapts to passage of time, that would make the case for the Left/Democrats ideology. If our constitution is a “living document”, then Democrats are correct in that Roe v Wade should not have been overturned.

I'm not sure I completely understand your point. You're stating that the original public meaning would reflect that they're was no constitutional right for or against abortion, but that now those same words should be interpreted with "today's meaning" and that would dictate that abortion is a constitutional right?

What you are referring to as “born alive” aka partial-birth abortions” is actually part of a massive disinformation campaign by the anti-choice activists, and one that invokes extreme anguish and confusion for the general public. More importantly, the SCOTUS has already banned the above procedure in 2007, and it is a term that is now only used in political discourse.
The term "partial-birth abortion" actually has no independent meaning: it is not a medical term nor does it refer to a medical procedure. The correct medical term is “intact dilation and extraction” and it constitutes <2% of births that involve severe congenital malformations/ fetuses that cannot survive outside the uterus/ continuation of the pregnancy poses a grievous harm to the mother’s health/life.

My reference to "born alive" doesn't refer to any specific definition, the baby is born and they are alive or they aren't. We can talk about marginal cases but I wasn't even attempting to reference them, I'm seeking common ground to define these issues and one thing I think you are agreeing with is that if a fetus has reached a certain gestational age (you referenced 24 weeks above in a different context, but somewhere around there) then aborting the fetus would not be right.

And I would agree with the poster above that "misinformation" is a common problem on both political sides.

 

[deleted1156722]

Regarding Tax- payer funded adoption services vs services for ALL pregnant women regardless of their choice:
Please show me a state in the US that is paying for benefits for pregnant woman for 2 persons by giving tax credits for 2 persons, and allows her to drive in HOV lane.
Answer: Zero.
Then how can the state dictate to the pregnant woman is my question. Again, adoption is not a substitute for abortion. Adoption does not relieve the health risks of pregnancy, nor does it alleviate the financial, social, physical and mental burden that the process of unwanted pregnancy and the adoption process itself.

Regarding Abortion vs Fetus Personhood:
Abortion is basically talking about rights to an elective procedure for a pregnant woman.
Personhood is talking about the rights to entire existence in the world as a pregnant woman.
They are just not the same.

Medical indications vs social indications:
So far, I have been only referencing medical indications of abortions which account for almost all cases of late- term abortions due to fetal anamolies incompatible with life/ and harm to maternal health with continuation of pregnancy. The medical indications should be adequately sufficient for abortion rights - especially for all late late-term abortions, because those are rare (<2%) and almost always due to medical causes as I have mentioned above. These should also be unconditionally supported instead of using misnomers such as “partial birth abortions” or “ninth month abortions” and sensationalizing these cases.(Project Veritas). The social indications such as rape or incest is a whole different discussion, and it is sad that such depraved and unlawful causes of pregnancies in minors is even a topic to argue about.

 

[pgg]

The Right/GOP take great pride in upholding the originalist view of the constitution- that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have have had at the time that it became law. That was infact one of the core principles why the SCOTUS with its current make-up overturned Roe v Wade (on the basis of no constitutional right for abortion). If we are talking about constitution as a living and breathing document that changes and adapts to passage of time, that would make the case for the Left/Democrats ideology. If our constitution is a “living document”, then Democrats are correct in that Roe v Wade should not have been overturned.

No, I have to disagree and argue that this is a completely wrong take.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it can be amended.

It's not a living document in the sense that people (legislators and judges) can just change theirs mind about what it says and means, or dig and twist to pretend it means what they want it to mean. Or what it should mean. Or what would be better for our modern society. However pure and enlightened their motivations are.

Amendment is the mechanism to fix the parts regarded as broken, wrong, evil, or unworkable.

The fact that the amendment process itself is nearly impossible in today's political ****show is an entirely different issue.

 

[deleted1156722]

No, I have to disagree and argue that this is a completely wrong take.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it can be amended.

It's not a living document in the sense that people (legislators and judges) can just change theirs mind about what it says and means, or dig and twist to pretend it means what they want it to mean. Or what it should mean. Or what would be better for our modern society. However pure and enlightened their motivations are.

Amendment is the mechanism to fix the parts regarded as broken, wrong, evil, or unworkable.

The fact that the amendment process itself is nearly impossible in today's political ****show is an entirely different issue.

I see what you are saying here. The point I am trying to make is that “Originalism” interpretation of the constitution is a theory focused on the process, and not on substance. It seeks to conserve the meaning of the Constitution as it was written by the Founders. A good originalist judge will not hesitate to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution’s original meaning, regardless of contemporary and burning socio-political issues or political consequences. Therefore, it cannot be a Living document as how Liberals tend to interpret it. Of course, this originalism viewpoint invariably leads to politically conservative results, and hence the GOP always touts this view.
Although, I completely agree with your point that the Amendment process is completely broken down, and is basically non-existent at this time.

 

[deleted1156722]

I'm not sure I completely understand your point. You're stating that the original public meaning would reflect that they're was no constitutional right for or against abortion, but that now those same words should be interpreted with "today's meaning" and that would dictate that abortion is a constitutional right?

I am comparing the Originalism view which invariably favors the GOP/Right, versus the Living document view embraced by Liberals/Left as it allows judicial interpretation. Please see my above post #148

 

[Just D.O. it]

Please show me a state in the US that is paying for benefits for pregnant woman for 2 persons by giving tax credits for 2 persons, and allows her to drive in HOV lane.
Answer: Zero.
Then how can the state dictate to the pregnant woman is my question.

I wasn't saying many states give big benefits to pregnant women.

I was explaining that IF these benefits did exist, which was the scenario put forth by TexBlazer, it would not really be "even more laudable" to give these benefits to those seeking abortions.

The state can dictate this the same way they can dictate that you can't kill your 3 yr old. The state can dictate you cant steal even if you feel welfare or unemployment benefits are insufficient. The pro-life stance is that abortion is something akin to murder. You don't have a right to demand incentives for "not murdering".

So far, I have been only referencing medical indications of abortions which account for almost all cases of late- term abortions due to fetal anamolies incompatible with life/ and harm to maternal health with continuation of pregnancy. The medical indications should be adequately sufficient for abortion rights.

Yeah... guess what everyone has been ok with abortion done to when there is danger to the mother's life. That was accepted and happening way before ROE came down or any other abortion rights law was passed.

We are not talking about those abortions. We are talking about the modern push for abortion-on-demand to be used as a casual form of birth control.