Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 3, 2021 10:14:03 GMT -8
Carrying a child to term is no burden a man gets to "enjoy".Same issue as always regarding the child. When does the child have a right to live?One way or another, the parenting you're referring to comes after the fact, and I agree with those assessments as they are consistent with my values. A child is a living human being from conception. Human rights mandates their needs/rights be considered from that point. The Declaration of Independence mandates from that point, they have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. The U.S. Constitution establishes they will not be deprived of [their rights] without due process of law. As you know, there's a very large segment of the population that does not agree with you. I'm pretty sure the US Constitution was silent with regard to the rights of an unborn child. Using that as "evidence" of your position being the lawful one doesn't hold water IMO. This is a moral issue, plain and simple. Attempts to re-classify moral issues as legal ones are damn near impossible given the wide, and growing, spectrum of morality. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 3, 2021 10:39:04 GMT -8
A child is a living human being from conception. Human rights mandates their needs/rights be considered from that point. The Declaration of Independence mandates from that point, they have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. The U.S. Constitution establishes they will not be deprived of [their rights] without due process of law. As you know, there's a very large segment of the population that does not agree with you. I'm pretty sure the US Constitution was silent with regard to the rights of an unborn child. Using that as "evidence" of your position being the lawful one doesn't hold water IMO. This is a moral issue, plain and simple. Attempts to re-classify moral issues as legal ones are damn near impossible given the wide, and growing, spectrum of morality. IF one accepts that an unborn child is a living human being, the U.S. Constitution absolutely does (or, in. today's world, "should") protect them. We cannot dismiss it just because the courts or "large segments of the population" don't agree. But the Constitution is not silent. I do agree it is a moral issue for pro-life advocates. Pro-abortion advocates do see it as a legal one. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 3, 2021 10:46:20 GMT -8
You have conflated several issues here, in my opinion, erroneously: 1. No one has said Snowflake doesn't have a right. What MDDad said, and with which I agree, is, he discounts an opinion from a man who will never face that decision, personally. 2. The issue for liberals is freedom of choice. That puts them in opposition to conservatives whom generally see it as an issue of life. The two sides will never see eye to eye because each believes (or at least states even if they don't believe) the priority of their perspective. I have come to believe "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are listed in order of importance, but of course that best suits my perspective. 3. If you're talking legally, there is not a well-defined point past which a woman no longer has a choice. If you're talking morally, that point is conception. 4. Are you asking about "the consequence of the choice" to have unprotected sex? BOTH partners should bear those consequence (although, admittedly, we as a society are still lopsided in that equation). But you're probably talking about the consequence of the choice to have an abortion; and unfortunately, other than the man might be forced to pay for it, physiologically and emotionally, only the woman bears that consequence... which is something about which most pro-abortionists won't discuss. Insofar as whether or not the man should "impose his will" on the woman, no, of course not. However, at minimum, the man should be involved in the decision AND the court should appoint a Guardian ad Litum to represent the rights and liberties (if not the life) of the unborn child. 1. So the discussion is about who has the right to discount another's opinion. Isn't that really a function of objectivity? 2. Both sides use the freedom of choice argument as it fits their perspective. Abortion & mass vaccination are examples of this. And of course, both sides will claim "but this is different". 3. Yes, legally. Trying to use morality on a population of 300+ million would be like herding cats. This really has become the basis for my belief that we're too big, and too far apart to be able to co-exist with the other side. 4. Consequence of choice I was referring to was post-conception, and did not include what I consider to be the far less important financial considerations. The focus, IMO, should be on the woman who bears the physiological and emotional consequence. - That is not what you said. You commented on "anyone [having] no right to opine about anything."
- That has not been my observation: Conservatives use "my body, my choice" only to throw it in the faces of liberals in the vaccination arguments.
- I agree, we will never bring the two sides together. In fact, I believe if the pendulum swings too much further towards "life of the unborn," the snowflakes will riot.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "the focus." If you mean "the choice," then I disagree.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 3, 2021 11:15:51 GMT -8
Trying to use morality on a population of 300+ million would be like herding cats. Yes, but it wasn't that way until recently. It began in the 1960's, when the left began attacking and undermining our notions of God and religion, to the point that many Americans now believe citizens of faith are superstitious fools. When God and religion are undermined, so also are the objective concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. And when those things become subjective, we are left with everyone deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Hence a herd of confused cats. This also is a very new phenomenon. For our entire existence as a nation we've had political differences, but they were differences of policy and priority. They never devolved into differences that became primarily emotional and personal...until recently. Now we not only disagree on matters of politics, but we've reached the point where both sides believe the other is either insane or evil. There is now a personal dislike and contempt between people on the left and right that may be a first for our society, and I don't know that we have a roadmap for how to get back to what used to be normal. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 3, 2021 11:31:14 GMT -8
Trying to use morality on a population of 300+ million would be like herding cats. Yes, but it wasn't that way until recently. It began in the 1960's, when the left began attacking and undermining our notions of God and religion, to the point that many Americans now believe citizens of faith are superstitious fools. When God and religion are undermined, so also are the objective concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. And when those things become subjective, we are left with everyone deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Hence a herd of confused cats. This also is a very new phenomenon. For our entire existence as a nation we've had political differences, but they were differences of policy and priority. They never devolved into differences that became primarily emotional and personal...until recently. Now we not only disagree on matters of politics, but we've reached the point where both sides believe the other is either insane or evil. There is now a personal dislike and contempt between people on the left and right that may be a first for our society, and I don't know that we have a roadmap for how to get back to what used to be normal. I started feeling this way before Obama was elected, and had hoped we could finally put aside this notion of racial inequality given the fact we just elected a half-black president. Was I ever wrong! As you noted, we've lost all objectivity. Our last 3 presidents have spent most of their time vilifying the other side. Like a failed marriage, our current state of affairs has now devolved into the likelihood of significant political violence between left and right. The roadmap to "normal" is to physically distance from each other, and let each side live life as they see fit. For that, we will have to spend our time figuring how to divide our assets...just like any other divorce. No, it's not easy. But it's necessary. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 3, 2021 11:36:52 GMT -8
As you know, there's a very large segment of the population that does not agree with you. I'm pretty sure the US Constitution was silent with regard to the rights of an unborn child. Using that as "evidence" of your position being the lawful one doesn't hold water IMO. This is a moral issue, plain and simple. Attempts to re-classify moral issues as legal ones are damn near impossible given the wide, and growing, spectrum of morality. , the U.S. Constitution absolutely does (or, in. today's world, "should") protect them. We cannot dismiss it just because the courts or "large segments of the population" don't agree. But the Constitution is not silent. I do agree it is a moral issue for pro-life advocates. Pro-abortion advocates do see it as a legal one. Isn't that the issue? Liberals do not accept an unborn child as a living human being. I believe they see it as an appendage of the mother, and not a distinct, separate individual...until birth? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 3, 2021 11:55:44 GMT -8
A child is a living human being from conception. Human rights mandates their needs/rights be considered from that point. The Declaration of Independence mandates from that point, they have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. The U.S. Constitution establishes they will not be deprived of [their rights] without due process of law. As you know, there's a very large segment of the population that does not agree with you. I'm pretty sure the US Constitution was silent with regard to the rights of an unborn child. Indeed. The US Constitution is silent on abortion or on what if any "rights" are enjoyed by the unborn. The Declaration of Independence doesn't "mandate" anything, certainly not rights for the yet to be born. Heck, even the Bible doesn't mention abortion. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 3, 2021 12:06:13 GMT -8
The roadmap to "normal" is to physically distance from each other, and let each side live life as they see fit. For that, we will have to spend our time figuring how to divide our assets...just like any other divorce. No, it's not easy. But it's necessary. My oldest son lived in Houston for about eight years, and I visited him there several times. For some reason I don't quite understand, I never got the impression that Texas was all that different from California. Last week I visited Texas again for three days for our game against Duncanville, and my feeling is now completely different. Some very positive observations: (1) Gasoline was $2.60 a gallon. (2) Dallas-Fort Worth Airport was almost completely empty, as were the freeways and roads leading to it. (3) The young lady at the car rental counter was wearing a Texas T-shirt. She asked, "Did y'all have any trouble leaving California to come to the United States?" (4) Duncanville is about 25 miles from DFW Airport. The freeway both ways was almost completely empty again. The edge of the freeway was manicured grass and thick deciduous trees for the entire distance. (5) All the hotel and restaurant people we dealt with and all the people at the high school were black. And everyone of them was friendlier and funnier than the last one. They were an absolute joy. (6) The team had dinner at a small family-owned BBQ joint when they arrived. We got there an hour before them and had all-you-can-eat BBQ for $7.50. (6) Friday afternoon we went to a local Mexican restaurant for a late lunch/early dinner. A huge meal of an enchilada, a tamale, a small burrito, a taco, rice, beans and a 16 oz. margarita cost $13.85. All the chip and salsa you wanted was free. (7) The weather was very cooperative. About 91 degrees on Friday with little humidity. (8) We walked Dealy Plaza for about an hour. Just as it impressed me the first time I was there, the distances involved between the 6th floor window and Kennedy's car are much, much shorter than you would think if you've never been there. Oswald could have made those shots even without a rifle scope. I'm ready to move to Texas in a heartbeat if I can convince my kids to come along. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 3, 2021 12:08:44 GMT -8
Trying to use morality on a population of 300+ million would be like herding cats. Yes, but it wasn't that way until recently. It began in the 1960's, when the left began attacking and undermining our notions of God and religion, to the point that many Americans now believe citizens of faith are superstitious fools. When God and religion are undermined, so also are the objective concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. And when those things become subjective, we are left with everyone deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Hence a herd of confused cats. I think many of them revealed themselves to be fools when they founded the "Moral Majority" and preached nonsense about how gays cause hurricanes and other such idiocy. Do you remember one of the religious right's favorite sisters from the 60's, Ms. Anita Bryant? I think she and other idiots like her bear a great deal of responsibility for the image of religious people as intellectually deficient, not some conspiracy by the left. Stupid is as stupid does, as they say. BTW, your notion that this turning away from religion is a cause for our alleged moral decay is just another one of the stupid tropes that Bryant and other religious fanatics like to spew. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 3, 2021 12:14:08 GMT -8
The roadmap to "normal" is to physically distance from each other, and let each side live life as they see fit. For that, we will have to spend our time figuring how to divide our assets...just like any other divorce. No, it's not easy. But it's necessary. I'm ready to move to Texas in a heartbeat if I can convince my kids to come along. If you do, remember that everyone has the right to carry a concealed gun and you probably want to pick up a home generator...or a condo in Cancun for when the power goes out again. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 3, 2021 13:02:47 GMT -8
We've got former Los Al folks that packed up and moved to Idaho. Very similar reports, except for the weather.
I've got same issues as you...kids / grandkids.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 3, 2021 14:27:40 GMT -8
Grandkids are like massive boat anchors. You can't move an inch without them letting you go.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 3, 2021 14:47:25 GMT -8
Wait till they start running around. My "herding cats" crack will make more sense.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 3, 2021 17:21:31 GMT -8
IF one accepts that an unborn child is a living human being, the U.S. Constitution absolutely does (or, in. today's world, "should") protect them. We cannot dismiss it just because the courts or "large segments of the population" don't agree. But the Constitution is not silent. I do agree it is a moral issue for pro-life advocates. Pro-abortion advocates do see it as a legal one. Isn't that the issue? Liberals do not accept an unborn child as a living human being. I believe they see it as an appendage of the mother, and not a distinct, separate individual...until birth? See, but I don’t accept they don’t “believe” an unborn child is a human being. I think they cannot acknowledge the fact it is without abandoning their argument. Other than a woman’s Liberty, they have nothing: They can’t cite science because science does not support them. They can’t even call it a child or a baby… it MUST be “just” a fetus or an embryo. It is not coincidence that in over 10 years of pointing out the unborn are both living and human, not one pro abortion advocate… not even one… will even acknowledge the fact, or respond in any way. They are so married to their position, chanting “woman’s liberty” is all they have. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Sept 3, 2021 20:05:51 GMT -8
Insofar as whether or not the man should "impose his will" on the woman, no, of course not. However, at minimum, the man should be involved in the decision AND the court should appoint a Guardian ad Litum to represent the rights and liberties (if not the life) of the unborn child. 4. Consequence of choice I was referring to was post-conception, and did not include what I consider to be the far less important financial considerations. The focus, IMO, should be on the woman who bears the physiological and emotional consequence. The conflict in most cases is that the woman wants the abortion, and the man does not. Where you go wrong, in my humble opinion, is that if it were he vs. she, yes, maybe the woman should win out. But it's NOT he vs. she...There's another life involved. who speaks for the baby? I doubt that the baby, if it could choose, would choose to be ripped apart by forceps (for example). Or poisoned, or whatever. So it actually is 2-1...He + the baby vs. she. (And, of course, I am certain that Jesus and his mother, would side with the man in these cases. But, of course Vile Pagan is an atheist, so that hold no weight with his ilk.) |
|
