SCOTUS hearing on Roe V Wade

[Storm-Chaser]

Storm Chaser took a break from chasing a Storm Front to pop in and share bits and pieces of all that wisdom they picked up from the stack of newsletters and pamphlets.

No, not even the biggest hurricane would come close to the destructive power of the storm all humanity is going through right now. I chase the big ones and this is no exception. This is not category 5, its more like a category 50.

 

[shortylickens]

thats it, I cant take it any more.

You're banned.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Not sure why someone decided to import their Facebook account here but I do wish they would stop.

Trust me you don't want me to give you the unvarnished truth. I use the memes and quotes to soften the blows for you.

 

[shortylickens]

Yes, and I think the biggest problem with power is when people believe the power is bundled with divine support. This is the problem with believing America was founded as a Christian nation. This is the problem with church's claiming they speak for god. If you speak for god, then no one is allowed to question what you say. Your actions are automatically justified. You get unlimited free passes.

I read an article that claimed this is the main reason Donald won in 2016. He appealed to the angry controlling christian mindset. Told them it was their divine right to force their will on other people. That they were morally superior and because of it, they had to vote for him.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

thats it, I cant take it any more.

You're banned.

Oh the humanity!!! Just not the unborn children, right?

 

[dank69]

I was just giving an example. Intent is critical assessing culpability for example. Guess I chose my words poorly. The aborted fetus is denied life on purpose. That is the fundament matter in this debate. The miscarried fetus is denied life, but not intentionally so. That is the main difference. No one has the right to terminate the life of another.

That is a categorically false statement. People have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.

My church, and Christian churches as well, teach that life begins at the moment of conception - a human life. My church has already ruled (~200 years ago) that the matter of 'ensoulment' isn't germane to the legality of abortions. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Period, end of story. No one is responsible for the loss of a fetus due to miscarriage because there is not intent on any persons part (man or women). Whether or not a women intentionally became pregnant or not is also not germane to the topic - as no one has the right to take the life of the fetus. Does unintentional pregnancy result in serious stress for women - yes, absolutely; I do acknowledge that. Punishing the fetus for being conceived is an absolute absurdity.

We just finished establishing that aborting a fetus is not punishing it unless you want to reverse your earlier stance. Of course reversing your stance means that miscarriages are also punishment.

The cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the punishment another human being with death, though totally innocent - is mind boggling!

It sure is!

Obviously, this totally at odds with your world view. This debate just swirls around in circles repeatedly.

It swirls because you ignore holes in your logic as pointed out above. Feel free to refute them if you can. If you just want to ignore them well, that is certainly a choice.

I'm just presenting the perspective of a lay Catholic on this subject - if you want a better explanation, go to a local parish an ask a priest to talk to you about this - he's far more educated about Catholic ethics an moral theology than I am.

Devote Catholics don't expect to be winning any popularity contests based on our views. I certainly don't, I just thought, it might be worthwhile expressing them - since so many people are willing to propose beliefs that we don't actually hold. I'm not trying to win this debate, it's clearly an impossibility; I'm not that gifted.

I could not care less about any religious perspective. Religious perspectives are fine for deciding your internal morals. When it comes to public policy, religious texts and perspectives are as useful as any other fanfiction and should be treated as such.

 

[Paratus]

I’m learning so much in this thread.

killing children with intent bad
Killing children without intent ok

Raped child dying in childbirth good
Raped child not dying in childbirth due to abortion bad.

Truly Christian morals are unparalleled when it comes to children, women, sex and responsibility.

 

[cytg111]

Chinese Scientists Discussed Weaponising Coronavirus In 2015: Report (ndtv.com)
WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic | Taiwan News | 2021-01-18 00:31:00
Documents Reveal Chinese Scientists Discussed Weaponising Coronavirus 5 Years Before Pandemic (news18.com)
China discussed weaponising coronaviruses before pandemic, predicted WW3 with bio-weapons (republicworld.com)

View attachment 54005

Is this Slow under cover?

 

[Ajay]

And at the moment of conception, the woman's life and body becomes one of a vessel and has secondary rights. We know how you feel.

It doesn't matter what I 'feel'. It matters what I think. And I don't agree with you that a women's 'body' has secondary rights. My operating principle is that no one, the woman, her boyfriend, the participating doctor, has the right to deprive that fetus of it's right to live. Since that fetus is completely dependent on on it's mother to survive, that mother has the moral responsibility to provide for it until birth. I am 100% down with doing everything possible to help her raise that child with whatever social programs are necessary if she can't provide for that child after birth. Or, she could put that child up for adoption (thought the system is broken: https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/demo/SEHSD-WP2017-10.html).

 

[brycejones]

No

Is humanity older than 5-6 thousand years?

 

[Ajay]

killing children with intent bad
Killing children without intent ok

No, you just seem to be confused about what 'killing' is. IMHO.

 

[cytg111]

It doesn't matter what I 'feel'. It matters what I think. And I don't agree with you that a women's 'body' has secondary rights. My operating principle is that no one, the woman, her boyfriend, the participating doctor, has the right to deprive that fetus of it's right to live. Since that fetus is completely dependent on on it's mother to survive, that mother has the moral responsibility to provide for it until birth. I am 100% down with doing everything possible to help her raise that child with whatever social programs are necessary if she can't provide for that child after birth. Or, she could put that child up for adoption (thought the system is broken: https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/demo/SEHSD-WP2017-10.html).

Would it not be the moral thing for you to do, to back down of those demands until the bolded is actually functionally in place everywhere you want to impose and enforce this... morality.
You know, get your own ducks in a row before you demand it of someone else and their sovereign autonomy?

 

[ivwshane]

It doesn't matter what I 'feel'. It matters what I think. And I don't agree with you that a women's 'body' has secondary rights. My operating principle is that no one, the woman, her boyfriend, the participating doctor, has the right to deprive that fetus of it's right to live. Since that fetus is completely dependent on on it's mother to survive, that mother has the moral responsibility to provide for it until birth. I am 100% down with doing everything possible to help her raise that child with whatever social programs are necessary if she can't provide for that child after birth. Or, she could put that child up for adoption (thought the system is broken: https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/demo/SEHSD-WP2017-10.html).

How many children have you adopted?

 

[nakedfrog]

Is this Slow under cover?

Whoever it is, they're blatantly trolling, and not worth any further attention (other than old-fashioned ridicule, if you must)

 

[Amol S.]

Chinese Scientists Discussed Weaponising Coronavirus In 2015: Report (ndtv.com)
WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic | Taiwan News | 2021-01-18 00:31:00
Documents Reveal Chinese Scientists Discussed Weaponising Coronavirus 5 Years Before Pandemic (news18.com)
China discussed weaponising coronaviruses before pandemic, predicted WW3 with bio-weapons (republicworld.com)

View attachment 54005

The fact that you have two real news sources from India, tells me either your South Asian ethnicity like me (without the Trumpanzee cultist part), or are from India. Kese ha tu? Ku tum trumpanzee hai?

 

[shortylickens]

This is pretty much how I view the christians in America today, and that includes the forums here:

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Killing children without intent ok

what do you mean by this statement.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

This is pretty much how I view the christians in America today, and that includes the forums here:

I agree. The churches have fallen away from God, and man.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

The fact that you have two real news sources from India, tells me either your South Asian ethnicity like me (without the Trumpanzee cultist part), or are from India. Kese ha tu? Ku tum trumpanzee hai?

I obviously used external news sources because the liberal media never reported on this damning find. Wonder why?

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Is humanity older than 5-6 thousand years?

Modern man has been around for about 5-6 thousand years, I just used that as an example as when God may have been created because that's really the first time he became known to people (old testament). And the first real manuscripts.

 

[brycejones]

Modern man has been around for about 5-6 thousand years, I just used that as an example as when God may have been created because that's really the first time he became known to people (old testament). And the first real manuscripts.

Oh Lordy

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Oh Lordy

Well what's your take exactly?

 

[mect]

It doesn't matter what I 'feel'. It matters what I think. And I don't agree with you that a women's 'body' has secondary rights. My operating principle is that no one, the woman, her boyfriend, the participating doctor, has the right to deprive that fetus of it's right to live. Since that fetus is completely dependent on on it's mother to survive, that mother has the moral responsibility to provide for it until birth. I am 100% down with doing everything possible to help her raise that child with whatever social programs are necessary if she can't provide for that child after birth. Or, she could put that child up for adoption (thought the system is broken: https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/demo/SEHSD-WP2017-10.html).

It doesn't matter if you don't agree that a woman's body has secondary rights, your position makes the rights of the woman secondary to the rights of the fetus. You state that plainly when you say, "My operating principle is that no one, the woman, her boyfriend, the participating doctor, has the right to deprive that fetus of it's right to live." Since the woman's rights to her body come after the rights of the fetus to her body, by definition that means the woman's rights are secondary.

I am curious though if you feel this right to life above all other considerations extends to people after they are born. Does a human's right to life also take priority over another human's right to bodily autonomy. If a person is dieing and needs a kidney transplant, do you believe the government should be allowed to forcibly remove someone else's kidney to save the dieing person's life?

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Does a human's right to life also take priority over another human's right to bodily autonomy.

Yes. Women are designed to have the baby, not kill it. Having the baby is natural, killing it by snipping it's spine with scissors is most definitely not. So in nature, there is no such thing as abortion unless it's stress induced and that's called a miscarriage not an abortion. That's exactly why when women lose a baby due to natural circumstances, it's NOT called an abortion.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It's funny, because my partner's mom goes to an evangelical Orange Idol worshiping church, and she's against abortion because aborted babies go to hell.
And rape babies are, of course, "part of god's plan". Seems to me that if rape babies are part of god's plan, how could abortion violate god's plan? What kind of feeble deity is this? Shouldn't we be undoing existence by proving god fallible if we're mucking up the ineffable plan?

It really hits me wrong when people say that rape babies are "part of god's plan", As it directly is in conflict with his teachings that are in the bible, starting with some of the 10 commandments.