davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 16, 2019 6:33:03 GMT -8
Because of this post, I went to Twitter to find it, would up listening to Matt Walsh’s entire speech, and now follow Live Action. thank you for posting this, Credo, I am using the Tweet as my new signature. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on May 16, 2019 7:28:26 GMT -8
Too often we look for complex solutions to problems where simple ones already exist. I apologize for being crude, but the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore the need for abortions) is for women to keep their thighs together and kick their lovers in the nuts when they get too frisky without a condom. Deciding after getting pregnant that a child would be inconvenient and therefore needs to be killed is a terrible solution to what is too often just a lack of self-control.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 16, 2019 8:40:51 GMT -8
Too often we look for complex solutions to problems where simple ones already exist. I apologize for being crude, but the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore the need for abortions) is for women to keep their thighs together and kick their lovers in the nuts when they get too frisky without a condom. Deciding after getting pregnant that a child would be inconvenient and therefore needs to be killed is a terrible solution to what is too often just a lack of self-control. My affirmation of this is “choice” is what happens when a couple decides to have sex. If they do so without protection, the “life” can be the result. this cause-and-effect relationship between unprotected sex and pregnancy has been known for millennia. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on May 16, 2019 8:51:33 GMT -8
this cause-and-effect relationship between unprotected sex and pregnancy has been known for millennia. Apparently not to everyone. When a couple plays sexual Russian roulette sometimes they get the empty chamber and sometimes they get the bullet. But the price of a do-over shouldn't be a dismembered fetus. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 16, 2019 21:26:18 GMT -8
Because of this post, I went to Twitter to find it, would up listening to Matt Walsh’s entire speech, and now follow Live Action. thank you for posting this, Credo, I am using the Tweet as my new signature. Check out some of reaction from the tolerant Left to Matt Walsh's pro-life speech. Those foaming at the mouth this way are of a piece with Rep. Preston Brooks in 1856 and the Bob Ewell character in "To Kill a Mockingbird." Sad. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on May 17, 2019 12:46:21 GMT -8
I am having trouble imagining states such as California or New York every prohibiting abortion. Therefore, every Alabama woman has access to abortion via a Southwest airlines flight.
There are a lot of similarities between the current pro-life/pro choice argument in the country and the arguments for & against slavery nearly 200 years ago. Some pro choice proponents try to shelf the argument by telling pro life folks 'If you don't want an abortion, don't get one". That would be akin to saying slavery should be legal because if you don't want slaves, no one is forcing you to own one.
The "heartbeat" laws being passed in some states are extremely effective at influencing those who have not chosen a side in the fight. Even the most agnostic individual when it comes to abortion is clearly swayed that stopping a heartbeart is indeed murder of a human being.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 17, 2019 13:50:37 GMT -8
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on May 18, 2019 1:17:12 GMT -8
When a couple plays sexual Russian roulette sometimes they get the empty chamber and sometimes they get the bullet. But the price of a do-over shouldn't be a dismembered fetus. I admit I've been ambivalent over this issue for some time. This take, more than any, succinctly covers the issue for me from a moral / responsibility perspective. From a legal perspective, I think the right of the baby to be protected by society starts at the point of viability outside the womb, or basically 22-24 weeks. From a social perspective, I think it's important to discuss the positive and negative consequences over the past 45 years, and ask the question of we'd do it all over again if we had a crystal ball back then. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on May 18, 2019 7:42:01 GMT -8
From a legal perspective, I think the right of the baby to be protected by society starts at the point of viability outside the womb, or basically 22-24 weeks. I'm wondering if "viability outside the womb" may be a tough standard to use in order to evoke the right to be protected by society. In essence, one could argue a perfectly healthy baby born at 9 months is not viable outside the womb without assistance from others, or that a child with Down's Syndrome is not viable in society without special consideration. I think defining "viability" would be more difficult than the current issue of defining "a life" and would open up a ton of loopholes for both sides of the debate. That is the beauty of the heartbeat laws, they layout a simple condition that must be achieved in order for life to be established that only the most deviant in society could argue with. It removes any argument of when life begins for a majority of the pregnancy and allows the future debate to focus in on conception to 6 weeks as opposed to the entire pregnancy. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 19, 2019 8:57:01 GMT -8
I saw Jim Carrey’s tweet this morning.  what an idiot. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on May 19, 2019 10:18:16 GMT -8
From a legal perspective, I think the right of the baby to be protected by society starts at the point of viability outside the womb, or basically 22-24 weeks. I'm wondering if "viability outside the womb" may be a tough standard to use in order to evoke the right to be protected by society. In essence, one could argue a perfectly healthy baby born at 9 months is not viable outside the womb without assistance from others, or that a child with Down's Syndrome is not viable in society without special consideration. I think defining "viability" would be more difficult than the current issue of defining "a life" and would open up a ton of loopholes for both sides of the debate. That is the beauty of the heartbeat laws, they layout a simple condition that must be achieved in order for life to be established that only the most deviant in society could argue with. It removes any argument of when life begins for a majority of the pregnancy and allows the future debate to focus in on conception to 6 weeks as opposed to the entire pregnancy. I think 22-24 weeks is the standard for medical viability, assistance notwithstanding. Using heartbeat as a standard, while clear, makes it hard to justify from a purely legal, right-to-life, perspective. While it may not fit within the mores of certain groups, I believe our laws should be moderate as a rule. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 19, 2019 10:42:22 GMT -8
I saw Jim Carrey’s tweet this morning. what an idiot. These kinds of responses are just further evidence of the Left's practice of projecting their own sins on their opponents. The charge of "colluding with foreigners" to affect the 2016 election is just another example. In this case, it's the tired trope of a so-called Republican "War on Women." But who are the ones attacking (with rhetorical violence) women like the Governor of Alabama and wishing rape upon Matt Walsh's wife and daughter? Liberals: want to find real racism and misogyny? Just look in the mirror. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 19, 2019 11:03:04 GMT -8
Two conservative Millenial women debating the recent abortion bills. Tomi Lahren, who is a regular on FOX News, is admittedly closer to the pro-choice position on this issue. But I think Lila Rose has the better argument here. The law is not the only avenue for reducing and eliminating abortion; the larger effort is building a culture that has a healthy moral view of sexuality and gender, one that will value both chastity and life.
But laws, to the extent that they train a society morally, cannot be ignored.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 19, 2019 17:34:53 GMT -8
To Tomi Lahren’s Position/question,
no, laws,like Alabama’s will not stop abortion, just like building a wall won’t stop illegal immigration.
those are only measures, intended to be only pieces of a bigger program. Strict abortion laws PLUS awareness and education, PLUS greater access to adoption and better fostering programs, etc., are the solution, en toto.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 19, 2019 22:29:32 GMT -8
I can't even imagine what this couple must be going through.
|
|
