Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 15:03:00 GMT -5
Even though I consider abortion as murder, women don't need to be prosecuted for having them. If anyone was going to be prosecuted, it should be abortion doctors. It doesn't matter whether you prosecute women or doctors or both. In either case, the result is the same: there will be no abortions. And people will be denied their fundamental right to control their bodies. And I will live in a country where I, a non-Catholic, will be forced to serve a Catholic God (or some other pro-life God) that I did not choose. Perhaps the rightwingers got it right after all, maybe I do need to arm myself to protect my rights. You are in luck. No one is going to make you worship anyone. You have unreasonable fears, but you are not alone. When Obama was the president, conservatives were fearful they would be thrown into concentration camps. You are also lucky because the revocation of Roe v. Wade allowed each state to make their own laws regarding abortions. If your state disallows abortions, then you are free to either visit or move to another state that does. This is how the constitution is supposed to work. The constitution limits the federal government to powers explicitly specified in the document, and abortion and a host of other issues such as education are not specified.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 23, 2024 15:09:17 GMT -5
You are in luck. No one is going to make you worship anyone. You have unreasonable fears, but you are not alone. When Obama was the president, conservatives were fearful they would be thrown into concentration camps. You are also lucky because the revocation of Roe v. Wade allowed each state to make their own laws regarding abortions. If your state disallows abortions, then you are free to either visit or move to another state that does. This is how the constitution is supposed to work. The constitution limits the federal government to powers explicitly specified in the document, and abortion and a host of other issues such as education are not specified. It's a done deal the Supreme court has spoken. Unless they can make a constitutional amendment which will never happen. The Democrats will just have to live with it.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 15:13:59 GMT -5
Which is why I support abortion prior to viability. We all have to live with the consequences of our actions. But your pro-life friends are not so generous. They want to prosecute mothers and doctors for abortions. They seek to build a world full of Catholics. And if it stokes your righteous indignation to call it a baby instead of a fetus, good luck with that. But you might find it helpful to consult a dictionary, at least on occasion. Unfortunately a lot of psychos want abortion at any time during the pregnancy, and that is murder, no if's, and's or but's. And well before viability, that "fetus" has all of the things that identify it as a human and it will feel pain when chopped up. Oh, and back to a baby being an organ, we have organs in order to stay alive. That's not the case for a baby. And don't put it all on Catholics, plenty of people feel the same way, just as there's plenty of Catholics, like Biden and Pelosi, who have no problem with babies being chopped into pieces. So that Catholic stuff holds no water. It's a matter of decency. There are some Democrats, such as Virginial Governor Ralph Northam, who in 2019, wanted to allow after-birth abortions related to deformities and viability in third-term pregnancies “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam says in a video from the 2019 interview being shared online. “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In other words, the child could be killed after it was delivered. One has to wonder if people should have the "freedom" to kill their child even after birth. Once we go down this route, what's going to stop people to want to have their children killed when they go through the terrible twos?
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 23, 2024 15:40:56 GMT -5
Too bad the parents of those advocating unlimited abortion did not exercise that "right". You are the one always spouting freedom and liberty. What is more fundamental to freedom and liberty than the right for anyone to do what they want to with their body? The parents of those advocating unlimited abortion did not exercise that right. They obviously did the right thing. Because they produced offspring who fought against those those who want to remove the right of people to do what they want their own bodies. Was I serious? No. But I would not mind if nobody existed that was in favor of abortion on demand. And I think everyone that is in favor of it should consider that they would not exist if their mother had exercised that "right". Liberty is huge, massive, more important than most things. But if one assumes that once fertilized and implanted, that blob is at the very least without metaphysics, a specific future human being separated from being unambiguously a human being only by normal development unimpeded by fatal intervention, then the point at which one person's liberty ends so that another's may exist, is obvious. Note very clearly: self-defense is always a right; nobody not in certain very high risk jobs has a duty to die for someone else. But inconvenience or emotional discomfort or economic loss or normal levels of physical consequences are NOT grounds for self-defense, ESPECIALLY when co-responsible for the condition in the first place. But even if the latter does not apply, babies don't choose their parents and are not responsible for rapist daddy. I have seen a libertarian and non-religious argument made in favor of erring on the side of no abortion that's not self-defense, notwithstanding the woman's liberties. And even going so far as to accept the possibility of public assistance (disgusting though that properly is to libertarians) for both health care and lost income at least for those cases where the activity leading to pregnancy was non-consentual. I wish I could find it again, it was the sort of thing that could upend preconceptions (no pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 23, 2024 15:45:49 GMT -5
The idea of liberty is that people can behave in any manner they wish as long as their behavior does not harm another. In addition to laws that protect liberty, there are laws that prevent injuring others without consequences. As you point out, laws exist to protect others. But the fetus is not an "other". It is inside the woman, like any other organ. It is totally dependent on the woman, like any other organ. It is part of the woman, like any other organ. It is not an "other". Which explains the scenario, during a birth emergency, where it may be medically necessary to sacrifice the life of the fetus to preserve the life of the mother. In this situation, it is the mother's decision and the mother has every right to make that tragic decision. The point is not that the fetus's life has no value - rather the point is that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus. One might argue that the difference between an organ and a fetus is that the fetus can develop into a human being. It is pre-human. Human beings have rights under the law. Pre-humans have few if any rights. And whatever right a pre-human may have is superseded by the right of the woman carrying the pre-human. I actually agree with the Supreme Court that only a fetus capable of independent life (typically at 23-24 weeks) is entitled to legal protection. But even in that case, the mother may abort if her life is at risk. In the case of a conflict of rights, the rights of the human supersede the rights of the pre-human. What I find appalling is that Catholics (and other pro-life religions) think they have the right to tell non-Catholics what is right and what is wrong. If a Catholic chooses not to abort, that is their right. But they want to force their religious beliefs on me, a non-Catholic, and I find that unacceptable. The question is NOT the trade-off of one life for another; obviously, only the woman can speak for herself. The question is the termination of a future life fo mere convenience, whim, economic benefit, or anything less than self-defense. There's also the minor issue of selling "unwanted human tissue". Planned Parenthood is organized murder, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 23, 2024 15:54:26 GMT -5
You are in luck. No one is going to make you worship anyone. You have unreasonable fears, but you are not alone. When Obama was the president, conservatives were fearful they would be thrown into concentration camps. You are also lucky because the revocation of Roe v. Wade allowed each state to make their own laws regarding abortions. If your state disallows abortions, then you are free to either visit or move to another state that does. This is how the constitution is supposed to work. The constitution limits the federal government to powers explicitly specified in the document, and abortion and a host of other issues such as education are not specified. That's right. That's why Trump is right that sending it back to the states is enough, and a federal ban is not appropriate. Not only is that less of a political hot potato (pragmatic consideration), but it's the way the law should work, as opposed to Roe v Wade, which even some who desired its outcome acknowledged was a badly reasoned decision.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 16:17:19 GMT -5
But it's not the mother who is being ripped apart , alive, so she can be pulled through a narrow canal. Absolutely right. It is the fetus, a parasitic growth attached to (and part of) the mother's body, that is being removed. Freedom and liberty give me the right to remove anything attached to (and part of) my body. Freedom and liberty allow you to do what you want, but limit you from harming others including fetuses. Babies are attached to their mothers when breast feeding and are as dependent on the mother in that situation as they were in the womb. Is a breast-feeding baby a parasite?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 16:21:37 GMT -5
Yes, a statistically tiny number of people have bad reactions to any vaccine. Yes, and the kind of old „Astrazeneca“ had more bad reactions..especially by young females Btw. we all have to be thankful..that there were Covid vaccines..normally it lasts up to 10 years or longer to create, produce a vaccine..millions and millions would have died..or far more seriously ill. I'm so thankful that the vaccinated people were dying at a higher rate that unvaccinated people in 2022. Many, many people died as a result of the vaccine. Think of how many could have been saved if they did not get the jab.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 17:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 17:19:49 GMT -5
There's enough evidence to support RFK's positions, but they could be modified: Some vaccines cause autism Some mass shootings are linked to prescription drugs The CIA was involved ( among other parties including LBJ) in the assassination of JFK Some of his positions are in step with the Democratic party - for example: -Baby murder is prochoice -Believes in gun control This is bs.. there is no connection between autism and vaccines..it never was..and it will never be… www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccines-and-other-conditions/vaccines-autism A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. PopulationUsing regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. This study includes data from the U.S. National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS). www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.573736#:~:text=A%20positive%20and%20statistically%20significant,prevalence%20of%20AUT%20or%20SLI.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 23, 2024 17:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 23, 2024 17:48:09 GMT -5
Someone on a roof with gun was a person of suspicion ,but not a threat and they allowed Trump to take the stage when you have people at the rally pointing out the individual that was on the roof ! Would they have done the same if it was a Biden rally? That is the question of the day ! In my thought how convenient to get rid of Trump and put the Republicans in disarray going into a upcoming convention! The Director of the Secret Service didn’t think it was a threat until the gunman pulled the trigger! Now let that sink in, being woke will get you every time !
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 23, 2024 19:22:36 GMT -5
inconvenience or emotional discomfort or economic loss or normal levels of physical consequences are NOT grounds for self-defense Freedom and liberty allow you to do what you want, but limit you from harming others including fetuses. Assume the following scenario: You have a unique and rare blood type. Someone is sick and needs hourly transfusions of your blood type. Nobody else has this blood type and the sick guy will die for certain if he doesn't get these hourly transfusions. You gave him transfusions for a few weeks but have decided you don't want to do it any more. Questions for both of you: 1. Can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? 2. When you stop the transfusions and the sick guy dies, are you guilty of murder? 3. Is the withholding of your blood considered to be harming the sick guy?
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 23, 2024 19:33:41 GMT -5
Someone on a roof with gun was a person of suspicion ,but not a threat and they allowed Trump to take the stage when you have people at the rally pointing out the individual that was on the roof ! Would they have done the same if it was a Biden rally? The Secret Service would have protected Biden. They didn't need to protect Trump because Trump was chosen by God so God would protect him. Which is exactly what happened.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 23, 2024 19:38:25 GMT -5
Someone on a roof with gun was a person of suspicion ,but not a threat and they allowed Trump to take the stage when you have people at the rally pointing out the individual that was on the roof ! Would they have done the same if it was a Biden rally? The Secret Service would have protected Biden. They didn't need to protect Trump because Trump was chosen by God so God would protect him. Which is exactly what happened. LoL...God or incredibly good fortune...Trump still got winged in the ear by a high-powered rifle. So, he still needs protection.
|
|