Political Discussion

User190425 said:
So this state of affairs is disgusting and tragic and the solution is to fix the problems in our adoption system and facilitate finding homes for children. It isn’t murdering them.
Click to expand...
Forced birth in a country with out the necessary safety nets is cruel to all parties and you know it. I can't stress the first two words enough. At the rate things are going it's essentially state sponsored propagation.

The politicians fighting for no exceptions for rape or incest. Thoughts?

I already know the answer is "murder is not the answer and the solution is complicated". Then the idea is to have our country look like the candy conveyor belt scene from I Love Lucy? Where more and more babies are forced to be born into an uncertain future because the people running the show are incompetent or cruel beyond measure? I don't know dude. You talk about the people in power and it sounds like those people are always going to be well-meaning MEN who are just "thinking of the children". People are already dismantling the ability to get contraceptives so where is the safety net there? Abstinence?

Not trying to pack too much into this post but, I wonder how your libertarian views fit into a right to privacy?
 
User190425 said:
For me personally, I did not hold the same value for human life before coming to Christ as I do now. Some will use that as a way to write off my views on the subject, and so be it.
Click to expand...

I'm not writing off your views (althought I do think it's kind of weird that you valued life less before you came to understand that Jesus would prefer it if you valued life), and I am not a Christian (although I was raised in and am familiar with both Catholicism and Protestantism in the US) and in my view the bible does not specifically hold life as sacrosanct.

There's a very vague 'Thou shalt not kill' and then the rest of the Old Testament is a lot of people dying; often at the specific behest and instruction of God; often times it's specifically children and there are of course lots of times when it's exactly what's needed. It feels like a lot of people who couch their anti-abortion stance in religious terms (and I'm specifically not saying this is you -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't know you) are hijacking what they understand or would like the bible to say instead of what it actually says.


folsom_lives said:
Waiting for the "but adoption" argument to this.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty plain -- if an unpleasant and bitter and grievous truth -- to see that most societies just don't care enough about people in general and orphaned children specifically to give a single fuck about adopting kids in anything other than perfunctory numbers. I suppose it's nice that we're Any number of antiabortion true believers will talk about how it's a holocaust and millions of dead babies and will have their picture taken for clout with their "we'll adopt your baby" signs, but there's hundreds of thousands of babies ready to be adopted right now and statistically the majority of them will not have a home or parent at the end of this month.
 
yukbon said:
I'm not writing off your views (althought I do think it's kind of weird that you valued life less before you came to understand that Jesus would prefer it if you valued life), and I am not a Christian (although I was raised in and am familiar with both Catholicism and Protestantism in the US) and in my view the bible does not specifically hold life as sacrosanct.

There's a very vague 'Thou shalt not kill' and then the rest of the Old Testament is a lot of people dying; often at the specific behest and instruction of God; often times it's specifically children and there are of course lots of times when it's exactly what's needed. It feels like a lot of people who couch their anti-abortion stance in religious terms (and I'm specifically not saying this is you -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't know you) are hijacking what they understand or would like the bible to say instead of what it actually says.




I think it's pretty plain -- if an unpleasant and bitter and grievous truth -- to see that most societies just don't care enough about people in general and orphaned children specifically to give a single fuck about adopting kids in anything other than perfunctory numbers. I suppose it's nice that we're Any number of antiabortion true believers will talk about how it's a holocaust and millions of dead babies and will have their picture taken for clout with their "we'll adopt your baby" signs, but there's hundreds of thousands of babies ready to be adopted right now and statistically the majority of them will not have a home or parent at the end of this month.
Click to expand...
A lot of Christians point to the Ten even though a lot of what they justify doing under them would be condemned by Jesus's cut-and-dry Golden Rule "do unto others." There's also a lot to learn in the Bible about living righteously and bringing righteousness into the world through good acts; very little (if anything) about how to impose righteous living on others.
 
Bull Shannon said:
A lot of Christians point to the Ten even though a lot of what they justify doing under them would be condemned by Jesus's cut-and-dry Golden Rule "do unto others." There's also a lot to learn in the Bible about living righteously and bringing righteousness into the world through good acts; very little (if anything) about how to impose righteous living on others.
Click to expand...
Christian evangelists will be the downfall of our democracy.
 
Bull Shannon said:
A lot of Christians point to the Ten even though a lot of what they justify doing under them would be condemned by Jesus's cut-and-dry Golden Rule "do unto others." There's also a lot to learn in the Bible about living righteously and bringing righteousness into the world through good acts; very little (if anything) about how to impose righteous living on others.
Click to expand...

There’s always been, in my experience, a huge difference between personal faith and even deep reading of whatever holy text floats your boat, which can be a deeply personal and positive thing and organised religion which is nearly always about power and subjugation.
 
Bull Shannon said:
Fair enough. I consider it devaluing of the mother's life to force the choice upon them. Especially when privatized healthcare means having a baby is an immediate financial hit, not to mention it disallows a person from choosing whether they have the resources to properly raise that child. Especially when a good education for that little human is not a guarantee, and the ability to provide healthcare to that human is tied to their parent's finances. To put it bluntly: if not for abortion, I would currently have a six year-old child I would be unable to raise with a level of comfort that would be commensurate to the value of their life. Forcing that decision for me seems utterly disrespectful of my own personal spiritual beliefs, as well as my, and the potential child's, ability to live a healthy, fruitful life. Seems opposed to the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for both the current citizen and the potential one.

It strikes me as an imposition of a moral stance on those who don't hold it, with nothing to stand behind beyond morals; whereas something like the drinking age can be defended with statistics about brain development, or seat belt wearing backed by accident survival statistics. And we all know that since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, there have already been lives lost, a measurable human toll, as a result.
Click to expand...
The key difference that I would point out is that drinking age in seatbelts may be argued to have societal benefits they are a primary imposition on a single party to make a decision for themselves. The argument against abortion involves an imposition on a person to protect an innocent third-party.
 
User190425 said:
The question of when a new human life begins is not a question at all. It is at conception. Scientifically there is no other possible answer. That is not in doubt. The debate is to the value of that life and whether it can be balanced against the value of the life of others.
Click to expand...
I think I mostly agree with this premise but the real question is one of personhood and I can't be convinced that begins at conception. While I am easily willing to compromise to "is viable outside the mother" I personally stand at "successfully birthed into the world and not before".
 
User190425 said:
The key difference that I would point out is that drinking age in seatbelts may be argued to have societal benefits they are a primary imposition on a single party to make a decision for themselves. The argument against abortion involves an imposition on a person to protect a third-party.
Click to expand...
Once again sidestepping the lack of protections for the parent, as well as the potential adverse life trajectory of the third-party.
 
folsom_lives said:
Forced birth in a country with out the necessary safety nets is cruel to all parties and you know it. I can't stress the first two words enough. At the rate things are going it's essentially state sponsored propagation.

The politicians fighting for no exceptions for rape or incest. Thoughts?

I already know the answer is "murder is not the answer and the solution is complicated". Then the idea is to have our country look like the candy conveyor belt scene from I Love Lucy? Where more and more babies are forced to be born into an uncertain future because the people running the show are incompetent or cruel beyond measure? I don't know dude. You talk about the people in power and it sounds like those people are always going to be well-meaning MEN who are just "thinking of the children". People are already dismantling the ability to get contraceptives so where is the safety net there? Abstinence?

Not trying to pack too much into this post but, I wonder how your libertarian views fit into a right to privacy?
Click to expand...
The idea that a person’s sex is determinative of the way they will think about this issue, or places inherently more or less value on their thoughts is not a position that I view as valid. Many of the strongest and most ardent anti-abortion voices are women while the judges that decided Rowe were all men. It makes for a good emotional wedge, but it is not based in fact.

As to the subject of contraception, I do not support limiting access to it because that is one of the best ways that we can prevent folks being put in a position where they seek out abortions. I’ve never understood how one can be against abortion and also against contraception.


I am a firm believer that folks have a right to their privacy with regards to how they live their lives. But there is no right to privately kill another human being.
 
Bull Shannon said:
Once again sidestepping the lack of protections for the parent, as well as the potential adverse life trajectory of the third-party.
Click to expand...
I’m not intentionally sidestepping the issue, I believe that I had already answered it in my response to nolady. To believe that death is preferable to being poor or having a hard upbringing is not a decision that can be legitimately made for another person. It’s a eugenicist’s argument and one that I cannot accept on its face.
 
User190425 said:
I’m not intentionally sidestepping the issue, I believe that I had already answered it in my response to nolady. To believe that death is preferable to being poor or having a hard upbringing is not a decision that can be legitimately made for another person. It’s a eugenicist’s argument and one that I cannot accept on its face.
Click to expand...
I think we all agree that on a scientific level life begins at conception. However, your consistent refrain of abortion is the murder of a human life in this discussion strikes me more as a rhetorical framing, just as I could strictly frame it as a medical procedure in an effort to characterize you as being too emotional and irrational about a routine medical procedure. It immediately makes "how okay are we with murder" a shared premise and allows you to equate it with...eugenics. Which is a funny word to bring up, when the communities most adversely affected by forced birth are of color, and this will push racial progress back several decades.
 
User190425 said:
The question of when a new human life begins is not a question at all. It is at conception. Scientifically there is no other possible answer. That is not in doubt. The debate is to the value of that life and whether it can be balanced against the value of the life of others.
Click to expand...
That may be a better formulation. Of course life beginnt at conception but how we value that life in comparison to other living beings depends strongly on religious beliefs
 
Bull Shannon said:
I think we all agree that on a scientific level life begins at conception. However, your consistent refrain of abortion is the murder of a human life in this discussion strikes me more as a rhetorical framing, just as I could strictly frame it as a medical procedure in an effort to characterize you as being too emotional and irrational about a routine medical procedure. It immediately makes "how okay are we with murder" a shared premise and allows you to equate it with...eugenics. Which is a funny word to bring up, when the communities most adversely affected by forced birth are of color, and this will push racial progress back several decades.
Click to expand...
It’s not a rhetorical device. I fully and completely believe that abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life. That is my definition of murder. The only point in which it can be accurately framed as anything other than murder is in cases where it is medically necessary to prevent the death of the mother. In those cases it would be considered equivalent to self-defense.

If you were to describe it as you did I would not question that as I have no reason to dispute that that is how you genuinely and honestly view it. I understand that far and away the majority, if not everyone here thinks that my views on the subject are irrational.

The connection between the movement to make abortion available in this country and eugenics is not a recent invention. It is well documented within the writings and speeches of folks at the early forefront of the movement such as Margaret Sanger. One of the data points along with this that is often brought up in anti-abortion circles and arguments is that in New York City more black babies are aborted then are born annually. I mean, after all if I was a eugenicist who sought the reduction of the population of those that I viewed as being undesirable, why wouldn’t I support abortion for those population groups? (Now that is a rhetorical device to be perfectly and completely clear. There are no groups of people that I view as undesirables. I believe I have been clear and consistent that I view all human life as being valuable.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top