Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

[PLAYER57832]

PS It is questions like this that make me think that perhaps the Christian Scientists have the right of it. That is, they have the moral ground to say "no abortions", etc because they say, firmly "no medical care". Except... and here is the thing. Those who truly adhere to that position fully are rather few. Maybe it is a moral failing on my part, but if someone has medicine that will save my child or make them more comfortable.. I will & do take it!

[Juan_Bottom]

The Bible says that you don't need medicine. You only need to pray in Jesus name. That's the word of God.

[Lootifer]

The Bible says that you don't need medicine. You only need to pray in Jesus name. That's the word of God.

If only, that would solve SO many of the worlds issues.

[Juan_Bottom]

Then we could be together Lootcy.

[PLAYER57832]

The Bible says that you don't need medicine. You only need to pray in Jesus name. That's the word of God.

It is what some people believe. I don't agree, but it would yes, solve a few problems.

[daddy1gringo]

The Bible says that you don't need medicine. You only need to pray in Jesus name. That's the word of God.

Cute Troll.


A. The Bible doesn't say that.

B. With the possible exception of some tiny fringe group somewhere, no Christian believes that.

[PLAYER57832]

The Bible says that you don't need medicine. You only need to pray in Jesus name. That's the word of God.

Cute Troll.


A. The Bible doesn't say that.

B. With the possible exception of some tiny fringe group somewhere, no Christian believes that.

Correct, sort of. The reference to physicians is commonly understood to mean what we today might call "witches" or "shamans" perhaps.. people who look to other Gods/spirits, etc. However, we also know that Romans and such did practice much more advanced medicine than was once thought.

It is just one of those things about which Christians disagree. But.. take my comment in the context of what I said in full. Even good things have a price. The question is whether this is one and if it is one that we are, if not now, then in the future, willing to tackle as a community... or perhaps, maybe we would have been better "if". However, that "if" is probably about like saying what would have happened if Eve had not taken the apple, though not as destructive.. just as impossible to undo.

[The Fire Knight]

To PLAYER57832:

Actually you are. See, when you choose to use advanced medical procedures, or to have a child that requires extremely advanced procedures, that cost is not fully born by you. It is partially born by other taxpayers, many of whom lack decent medical care themselves.

And guess what? thousands are dying right now, in the US from lack of proper medical care.

OR, take other countries. Yes, war is a big component in famine, poverty overseas. However, the truth is also that we just plain do not have enough resources to let everyone live as you do. So, you decide its OK for you to live that way, and as a result decide that its OK for others not to have what you have in return.

Health care is a completely different topic. The Constitution does not guarantee that the government will keep you alive. If it did, the have been millions of violations of the constitution ever since the nation was founded. The Constitution grants us negative rights. That is... the government can not take away these rights, and has an obligation to protect its citizens from others taking away their rights. Thus... while the government is not obligated to pay for every medical bill you have (positive right to life), and outlaw drugs in order to protect people from destroying their own lives (positive right to happiness), they are obligated to outlaw murder. As to everyone living as I do, again, this is not a debate about poverty. Poverty is very sad, and we need to fight it. But the way to do that is not prejudice against the unborn (arguing that b/c someone has poor parents they will have a bad life and therefore it would be better if they were dead). The parents have no right to infringe upon the baby's right to life, and arguing that poverty is a good reason is absolutely horrible. It is discrimination against babies with worse off parents.

Except, the percentage of late term abortions is well below the percentage of emergency and otherwise life-threatening cases you claim are "just the exception". Also, remember that those statistics do not include abortions that happened early in order to prevent serious issues later.

I can understand when the mother's life is threatened, and think that that is a judgement call (both have a right to life and would be infringing upon the other's either way). Not sure what your arguing about with the percentages and statistics, so if you want to clarify how this fits in then do so. But just b/c a fraction of abortion cases may be legitimate (stated above) does not mean that we should blanket allow all on the judgement call of the parents.

This is even aside from the fact that you keep denying that making abortion illegal means you are putting yourself in charge of a woman's health and body. What gives you the right to decide that anyone else, nevermind someone you don't even know has to undergo a life-threatening medical condition. And make no mistake. Births are far, far, far safer than they were just years ago and far safer than in many places in the world, but every single birth very much does put a mother's life at risk. We deny this, pretend it is not the case, because we mostly want so much the other outcome.

Putting myself in charge of a woman's health and body? Well, yes kind of, although the baby is not part of "your body". It is a separate being. Now, obviously the woman will be affected by pregnancy, but the same logic still goes behind preventing murder as does abortion. I can't use my body to kill someone, even if I am negatively affected by them remaining alive.

And asking me what gives me the right to decide that someone else must undergo a "life-threatening" medical condition? Well, although there is a chance of death during pregnancy, in the United States it is 1/10,000. For perspective, the odds of dying in a car accident during any given year: 1/6500. But that is a risk that you take when you have sex. And should you really have the right to kill a child because there is a 1/10,000 chance that it will kill you? If that is the prevailing logic, you should be allowed to kill anyone. There is always a small chance that the waiter who just poured you lemonade is poisoning you. And who knows? You killing your neighbor just might save you from a car accident years later because he always backs his car out of his garage dangerously.

Here is one more point.
Several of you have talked about it as being about the "convenience" of the parents.

Is it? Is it just for convenience?
That's a nice argument, but is it the truth? In fact, no. Not even in the most casual of cases. Having a healthy child is a gift, a treasure. But, like anything good, requires responsibility. Having a child and not properly caring for that child means you are not just failing that child, but you are thrusting your harm, your failure onto society. Sometimes society can fix it. Sometimes kids go into foster care and wind up with better, happier, healthier situations, but not always. Even with adoption, sadly, some adopted kids get abused or are just not raised to be responsible, caring adults. If you thrust a child onto society, then there is a fair belief that you are responsible for everything that child does. If you pass off the child to adoption, then you gamble that it will work out alright. Often it does, but not always. Some people plain don't feel that is a choice they will make.

If you could gaurantee every child a good home, a good upbringing, the healthiest life possible (even given whatever conditions they might have at birth), then you would have an argument. But, you cannot. You want to insist that everyone else take YOUR choice, YOUR option and do as YOU would. But, they are not you. And you don't have any more right to tell that mother that she has to bear that child and thrust it onto society than they have to tell you what religion you should practice.

Further, you ignore what is required to enforce this. What really happens when you tell people they have to raise a child for which they are unprepared, a child they don't really want? I can tell you. Too often they wind up in social services or, worse, jails. And yes.. that can be a worse outcome, not just for that child, but definitely for society.

Again addressing this argument. I do wish that every child could have a life as happy and well-off as mine has been so far. It is tragic how many people waste away their lives lost in crime, poverty, drugs, and in general without love. But when you ask what right do I have to condemn them to this, I would answer that I would not condemn them to this, and who are you to say that they are condemned to this? How can you foresee what a child's life will play out to be when they are not yet born? This is discrimination against them b/c of their situation of their family. You can not make a law about something such as murder based on statistics. That is prejudice, and is not right or just. For example, certain races commit crime more than others, but that doesn't mean we judge them before getting to know them, or that we make laws that reflect this. I can't help but see the similarities here to the white man's burden: those in power making decisions and judgements on those w/o power that they believe will help those w/o power and be better for them. Apparently we still have not learned this lesson.

EXCEPT, my point is that most of you debating this have not even informed yourself enough to KNOW this is the reality, right now! You are so poorly informed that I have taken serious abuse here in these threads for simply posting that definition, for saying it is so...You were that ignorant and yet, your only response is "well.. you ought to know we just were not talking about THAT!"
NO, YOUR First task, if you feel you have the right to tell other people how to live, to declare that a law needs to be changed is to at least understand what the law is today and what all the ramifications are today!
NEITHER you , NOR NIghtstrike, NOR jay.. etc have even halfway done that. THAT is why I say you have no right to a say in this. You trumpet your ignorance, blast me for informing you.
and post sickening pictures as your supposed "response" to what I have already said is what I don't want to happen, what should be controlled, etc.

So, not only have you failed to inform yourself, attacked me without bothering to verify if I was correct FIRST.. but you won't even pay attention to the real comments several of us have made

AND then you claim you have the right to have a say in this matter for strangers whom you don't even know?

Woah... please back off. I'm not trying to blast you. You are almost definitely more informed on the current laws that we have in place at the moment. And I apologize if it has sounded like I was putting you down for telling me what the current laws are. However, please try and understand that I am not wanting for this to be a debate with you defending what is and me arguing against it or vis-versa. I'm am simply expressing my views on what I think should be. And I do not think that miscarriages should be classified as abortions, even if they are, and I would agree with you that they should be allowed, and that if the definition remains "abortion" (even though it is not) then obviously this type of "abortion" should be perfectly legal. And as for me saying that I have the right to tell other people how to live, you are right, no I do not. And again, if I did, I would certainly need to be informed of things as they are like you have said. And if there still misunderstanding between us, then please voice them so I can understand you.

But again, the government does have a right and responsibility to do this. There are people who are informed about all of the legal definitions, and they would certainly (I hope) take these things into consideration.

Here is the question you keep pretending does not exist. Is breathing and having a heartbeat enough to really classify someone as truly "living?".

You don't know this, perhaps, but I have said many times that I would not have, could not have an abortion except in the most extreme cases -- the child is dead, sure to die or doomed to a life of continual pain. Even then... I am not sure. But set that aside, because this is not about me, personally. That is key.. a lot of your debate seems to think you are debating with us how we, personally would act instead of understanding that maybe we say there is a limit to what we can tell other people to do.


Interesting story. And I have no idea what nightstrike is saying on healthcare, and don't want to debate it right now. But I agree that the question of breathing and having a heartbeat being enough to classify someone as truly living is a valid one. Going out on a philosophical limb here, I would probably say right now that thinking makes a person truly "living".

Addressing the second part, how we would act instead of what limit we can tell other people to do. This is the simple part. We in America have the right to life (it can not be taken from us). Government protects that right. Roe vs. Wade has put conditions that are wrong on that right. And these conditions must be revised. Working out the details is another debate, but it must take place under the banner of pro-life, recognizing the fetuses and embryos are alive and human. Once you recognize that, then the moral debate on laws and "what is living" can take place. But before this takes place, the battle for recognizing fetuses as humans with the same rights as them must be won, and it has not been yet. No matter what way you look at it, Roe vs. Wade has still made it legal for babies to be killed, and even if 99% were going to be vegetative (which is not anywhere close to the case and I have yet to see any statistics regarding all of your "majority arguments" since you are so knowledgeable) then 1% of 50,000,000 still = 50,000 murders. And this must be stopped. And yes, the United States of America has every right to stop it, b/c that is why we were founded. Rights and the social contract are fundamental to America, and w/o them, we are no longer America.

[jay_a2j]

Well said Fire Knight. Now to get back to watching the 180 movie you posted. Interesting stuff.




Edit: I put it on my Facebook, wow if that video doesn't change your heart I don't know what will.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well said Fire Knight. Now to get back to watching the 180 movie you posted. Interesting stuff.




Edit: I put it on my Facebook, wow if that video doesn't change your heart I don't know what will.

I know; aren't Appeal to Emotion arguments great?

[jay_a2j]

Well said Fire Knight. Now to get back to watching the 180 movie you posted. Interesting stuff.




Edit: I put it on my Facebook, wow if that video doesn't change your heart I don't know what will.

I know; aren't Appeal to Emotion arguments great?

He didn't appeal to their emotions. He used logic. Don't write it off so quickly, you should try it.

[Aradhus]

lol, telling bbs to use logic is akin to telling priests to rape boys.

[keiths31]

lol, telling bbs to use logic is akin to telling priests to rape boys.

Or football coaches...don't limit yourself. There are plenty of boy rape scenarios to use.

[Lootifer]

The Bible says that you don't need medicine. You only need to pray in Jesus name. That's the word of God.

Cute Troll.


A. The Bible doesn't say that.

B. With the possible exception of some tiny fringe group somewhere, no Christian believes that.

I see you are familer with google images too. Here's one for you:

[Aradhus]

lol, telling bbs to use logic is akin to telling priests to rape boys.

Or football coaches...don't limit yourself. There are plenty of boy rape scenarios to use.

What would be the point of that? I'd hardly get a rise out of people by implying that rape is what football coaches are best known for. Plus unlike with priests, it wouldn't be true.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, telling bbs to use logic is akin to telling priests to rape boys.

Or football coaches...don't limit yourself. There are plenty of boy rape scenarios to use.

What would be the point of that? I'd hardly get a rise out of people by implying that rape is what football coaches are best known for. Plus unlike with priests, it wouldn't be true.

This argument is irrefutable.

[keiths31]

lol, telling bbs to use logic is akin to telling priests to rape boys.

Or football coaches...don't limit yourself. There are plenty of boy rape scenarios to use.

What would be the point of that? I'd hardly get a rise out of people by implying that rape is what football coaches are best known for. Plus unlike with priests, it wouldn't be true.

Not paying much attention to the allegations over in the US are you? Anyway...how about Boy Scout Leaders? They sure like their boys.

[BigBallinStalin]

Gentlemen, as much as you two enjoy discussing other people having sex with little boys, shall we shift the discussion to something more appropriate like baby smashing, eating fetuses, or drinking placenta tea?

[keiths31]

Gentlemen, as much as you two enjoy discussing other people having sex with little boys, shall we shift the discussion to something more appropriate like baby smashing, eating fetuses, or drinking placenta tea?

Thanks...I needed that

[The Fire Knight]

To Lootifer:

No not at all, but it's a priority thing here. I'm purely a pragmatist in this area: Sure abortions are bad, but the consequences of not having abortions are worse. I'd personally rather all these pro-lifers would spend their time helping starving kids in Africa than crapping on about some half-religious-half-interpretation-of-the-law thing that doesn't even really affect them.


The consequences of not having an abortion = baby lives
The consequences of having an abortion = baby dies

A priority thing here? Who is being subjective? And since when is genocide not a priority? And you can argue that it is more important for say missionaries to help starving African kids than fetuses, but you can't say that for the American government. Since when are American citizens a lower priority than African citizens in the eyes of their own government?

As to the half-religious thing... the Enlightenment ideals that created America claimed that every citizen had certain basic rights given to them from their creator that couldn't be taken from them by anyone. This is religious, and has its basis in Christianity (love your neighbor as yourself). Now, no doubt it is a useful idea for atheists, who would have an obvious vested interest in outlawing murder, but there is no inherent reason why people should be protected if atheism is the basis. If there is no God, it is all about power, and whoever has power has rights (the government and whatever class, race, party, religion, born/unborn that it is), and whoever doesn't either does not have rights or are shown mercy and allowed rights. These two ideas are juxtaposed to each other, and one how our government was founded, while the other is a current incorrect train of thought that is coming up in today's society. So yes, our Constitution is religious in basis, even though religious freedom is granted. Without this basis, there is no telling how our government could transform itself, or how much power it could obtain.

Can you do a little mind-experiment for me? Lets extrapolate two situations into the future: One where abortion is outlawed and one where abortion is frowned upon in certain situations (and embraced in situations that Player is talking about mostly), but accepted as a necessary procedure in modern society. Now what does the distant future look under these two scenarios? (specifically referring to things that abortions can practically impact).


Experiments require actually doing them for results. Seeing as I do not have around 2 million people at my disposal, I am unable to do your experiment.

However, if you are referring to things such as the crime rate and poverty, I would respond to you as I did player. You can not assume that those with worse off parents will grow up into criminals or poor people. Just as you can not assume that the asian walking right next to you is more likely than the mexican on the other side to pick your pocket. Even if it were true, it is discrimination/prejudice.

Also, just to further point out inconsistency in your post, when you say "I'd personally rather all these pro-lifers would spend their time helping starving kids in Africa", I could just as easily say that letting them die helps African society. Less poor people means less economic strain, less environmental degradation, higher literacy rates, less strains on the food supply and government resources, and many other things. But should their government really be able to wipe them out for the "good of humanity". Extrapolate that one into the future... legalized and acceptable genocide.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

As to the half-religious thing... the Enlightenment ideals that created America claimed that every citizen had certain basic rights given to them from their creator that couldn't be taken from them by anyone. This is religious, and has its basis in Christianity (love your neighbor as yourself). Now, no doubt it is a useful idea for atheists, who would have an obvious vested interest in outlawing murder, but there is no inherent reason why people should be protected if atheism is the basis. If there is no God, it is all about power, and whoever has power has rights (the government and whatever class, race, party, religion, born/unborn that it is), and whoever doesn't either does not have rights or are shown mercy and allowed rights.

Atheists are immoral heathens that'll kill you as soon as look at you, amirite? Please show an example of a largely atheist culture that doesn't provide police or military, or laws against murder.

lol. I think just about every theocracy has suppressed the natural rights of people since the beginning of theocracies. But hey, welcome to the real world! The strong rule, it kinda follows the whole evolution thing.

-TG

[The Fire Knight]

To BigBallinStalin:

For the same reasons that an acorn doesn't equal an oak tree. The two differ in physical and mental stages of development until the end of its life. Quality of life matters, as does rights to life and self-defense, which differ in both cases because the scenarios are different. If you disagree, please explain how the two cases are exactly the same.

When you say that an acorn doesn't always = an oak tree, that is the same thing as saying a fetus does not = an adult. This is obvious. But that doesn't relate to why fetuses are not the same under the law. Of course the two differ in physical and mental stages of development. But at any stage of development, a fetus is still human and deserves the right to life. It doesn't get it at some point along the road, it gets it as soon as it is a human. And sure quality of life matters, but not in recognizing something as human and deserving of life, otherwise I probably deserve life more than an autistic kid under the law. So in answer to your question, I do not disagree. But the cases should be treated the same.

Again, read this site

http://swordandspirit.com/library/proli ... fetus.html

and then tell me why fetuses, even though they are "different" scenarios, should be treated differently.

Choosing to have sex is not the same choice as destroying your 20 year old, mentally handicapped son. If your position is true, then "choosing to having sex" equals "choosing to have a child." But there are different benefits and costs involved. The product even differs. It's like saying that your future fetus equals jay_a2b. It's ridiculous.

Why wouldn't separation of time matter? Explain how the choices being made are exactly the same.

Choosing to have sex categorically means you accept the possibility of having a child. Just like driving 103 in a 40 categorically means that you accept the possibility of killing someone, even if you would prefer not to. Both scenarios take a chance of something (presumably unwanted since the topic is abortion), and both must face the consequences if it occurs. So when you say that choosing to have sex = choosing the possibility of having a child, that is the same as saying driving recklessly = the possibility of manslaughter. And yes, both are true. You can pretend that sex and children are unrelated, but biology says differently. You can not just have sex 10 times a day for the rest of your live, and then at 31 years old push the baby button and have one delivered to you in the mail (hopefully rush shipping if you have any morals ). So no, saying that sex = maybe baby is not ridiculous.

To natty_dread:

Ok... so you're saying that abortion is murder, but then suddenly there are some cases where it isn't murder...

If you really do believe aborting an embryo to be murder, if you really want to argue the moral argument, then it is murder regardless of the disabilities of the embryo.

See, if you kill a person, it's murder, even if that person is in a coma or vegetative state and can do nothing but breathe, it's still murder - at least until euthanasia laws are more widely implemented. And beside that, euthanasia can never be performed without consent. So how come you can argue that abortion is murder, except in some cases where your arbitrary moral views happen to allow it?

You're right... I got lured into that one. If you really want to know what I think, give me another obscure situation that happens to one out of every billion babies and ask me again.

To jay_a2j:

Well said Fire Knight. Now to get back to watching the 180 movie you posted. Interesting stuff.

Edit: I put it on my Facebook, wow if that video doesn't change your heart I don't know what will.


Isaiah actually posted it. And yes, I liked it a lot... we've kind of gone deeper but it is good for convincing those who have not really thought about the issue the pro-life way. And I put it on mine as well.

[natty dread]

You're right... I got lured into that one.

Oh noes! You almost got tricked into thinking critically!

[The Fire Knight]

Atheists are immoral heathens that'll kill you as soon as look at you, amirite? Please show an example of a largely atheist culture that doesn't provide police or military, or laws against murder.

lol. I think just about every theocracy has suppressed the natural rights of people since the beginning of theocracies. But hey, welcome to the real world! The strong rule, it kinda follows the whole evolution thing.

No, they are not. Atheists can be good people too, but there is no Reason to. This is capitalized b/c obviously there are reasons to, one being ostracism from society if you are just plain evil. But without God, there is no higher being, and therefore nobody's morality is more correct than anyone else's. Therefore, rationally, it is just as whatever to kill someone as it is to pay their medical bills when they are in need. Now as to a largely atheist culture that doesn't provide these things. There are none that I can think of, and probably none. But, for society as a whole, laws against murder are logical and there is an obvious benefit for all if there is order and not mass everlasting civil war. However, as far as individuals are concerned, there is no Reason not to kill someone you don't like if you can do it w/o getting caught.

And yes, every state in existence has probably suppressed the rights of people. But 1. America is not a theocracy. and 2. Just b/c all nations have done it doesn't mean we should fight against doing it ourselves.

[The Fire Knight]

You're right... I got lured into that one.

Oh noes! You almost got tricked into thinking critically!

Cool, so you have proved yet again you don't want to understand me, and will just sit on the sidelines and jab at me behind the shield of the internet. I can't change that.