Texas bans abortion.

[Fast Eddie B]

It is not nonsense.

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819. ME 15:200

Those are nice finds. There may be quote mining involved, but at least they show Jefferson was aware of two kinds of rights, and seems to be saying one stems from the other.

When I mentioned that human rights can be of two kinds, natural vs legal, I didn’t mean to start a debate as to which was “better”, but just to point out that some of the disagreements about rights in this discussion were folks referring to one or the other type or right.

 

[catsmate]

Most boys looking to get laid would love to have the peace of mind that comes from having had a vasectomy.

There are reversible, no-cut, vasectomy techniques. Surprisingly the "pro-life" crowd aren't in favour of them.......

 

[JoeMorgue]

maybe but someone does need to speak for the rights of the fetus.

No not really. The little clumps of cells that aren't human (or human beings or whatever) don't need their own Paul Heyman.

that may be correct. There definitely truth in what you say. Some will always seek abortions whether or not they are legal or safe.

And for non-psychopaths that would be where you stop trying to restrict them.

ha, ha. nonetheless, there are many whom can't have children of their own that would love to adopt.

1. I don't know that I would make a good father.
2. I don't think I have the means to support a child at this time.
3. I am not married and have no significant other. Maybe someday I will meet ms. right.
4. while I have not adopted, my brother has, if that means anything to you.

Figured you were all talk and no action.

because the doctor is more expert at assessing the risk to the mother if the child is carried to term?

So the doctor gets to tell the woman how much risk she accepts?

 

[catsmate]

Nope, it's only going to do it one way.

Oh all right. Only one of the "ten thousand several doors" will actually open for most people to take their exits by. But there are many ajar.....

 

[abaddon]

but they did in the Declaration. I guarantee you they would support my assertion about the idea that rights come from nature, not governments or a king.

No they would not support your nonsense. The overwhelming majority were not christian.

Yes they were wrong about slavery. Slavery was a great violation of rights . . . yet these were rights the government failed to recognize . . . yet everyone would agree they existed . . . hmm . . .

But your majick buk claims slavery was all fine and dandy. Wanna reject the OT rules because jebus and the NT? OK then, the 10C are out the window. Those are old testament rules. In fact, according to the holey babble, (a book you appear to not have read) jebus endorsed 5 of those and added two more which he plagiarised from hammurabi. I know which because I read that majick buk. You do not because you haven't read it.

If you had, you would be promoting slavery. And human sacrifice. And child murder. And wife murder. And genocide. And incest.

All of those are mandated by your imaginary god and more.

and sometimes the results of said debates end up making good law and sometimes they end up making bad law and fail to recognize certain inalienable rights.

LOL. Nothing exists outside murka, right?

Now, you have claimed to put me on ignore (against forum rules, but I did not report it) so now you are unable to respond or defend your faith.

If you are unable to defend your faith, what use is your faith?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

But your majick buk claims slavery was all fine and dandy. Wanna reject the OT rules because jebus and the NT? OK then, the 10C are out the window. Those are old testament rules. In fact, according to the holey babble, (a book you appear to not have read) jebus endorsed 5 of those and added two more which he plagiarised from hammurabi. I know which because I read that majick buk. You do not because you haven't read it.

If you had, you would be promoting slavery. And human sacrifice. And child murder. And wife murder. And genocide. And incest.

All of those are mandated by your imaginary god and more.

I’m an atheist who feels that ALL Gods are imaginary. And that the bible is full of many of the horrible things you’ve outlined.

But sarcastic, mocking and condescending posts like yours above are of no help whatever in trying to have an intelligent conversation or debate. You may think you’re being clever, but it just comes across as disrespectful and mean.

 

[JoeMorgue]

STOP THE CONVERSATION. AN ATHEIST IS BEING MEAN BY USING FACTS. EVERYONE STOP AND AGREE THAT THE ATHEIST IS BEING MEAN. RICHARD DAWKINS IS THE EXACT SAME AS FRED PHELPS AMIRITE?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I’m an atheist who feels that ALL Gods are imaginary. And that the bible is full of many of the horrible things you’ve outlined.

But sarcastic, mocking and condescending posts like yours above are of no help whatever in trying to have an intelligent conversation or debate. You may think you’re being clever, but it just comes across as disrespectful and mean.

I notice that when people use the magic book that mentions unicorns 9 times to justify why women shouldn't control their bodies, nobody complains.

But the second an atheist points out that the magic book that mentions unicorns 9 times is bunk, they do.

Funny... that.

 

[Darat]

I’m an atheist who feels that ALL Gods are imaginary. And that the bible is full of many of the horrible things you’ve outlined.

But sarcastic, mocking and condescending posts like yours above are of no help whatever in trying to have an intelligent conversation or debate. You may think you’re being clever, but it just comes across as disrespectful and mean.

That often is perceived to be one sided because in many societies and cultures the prevailing religion is accepted as the norm so any inherent disrespect and meanness of the prevailing religion is a blind spot. Not saying two wrongs make a right (but of course they can sometimes) but be aware that there is often much disrespect and meanness on the “religious” side.

 

[cosmicaug]

In reality, many Republican policies cause an unnecessary higher number of abortions as well as developing country levels of perinatal mortality, and for decades, they have been desperate to try to blame others for the situations they created.

Fixed that for you.

 

[abaddon]

I’m an atheist who feels that ALL Gods are imaginary. And that the bible is full of many of the horrible things you’ve outlined.

But sarcastic, mocking and condescending posts like yours above are of no help whatever in trying to have an intelligent conversation or debate. You may think you’re being clever, but it just comes across as disrespectful and mean.

How is it possible to disrespect a fairy story? Why are facts somehow offensive? Is being offended by facts somehow going to change the facts? What if I am offended by the stupid claims theists make? Do I get to complain?

According to you, I should silently lie down, roll over and fake my own death and to hell with reality. Reality does not count and should never be defended anytime, anywhere.

Because we mustn't "offend" anyone with mere reality.

Are you seriously proposing such a position?

 

[abaddon]

That often is perceived to be one sided because in many societies and cultures the prevailing religion is accepted as the norm so any inherent disrespect and meanness of the prevailing religion is a blind spot. Not saying two wrongs make a right (but of course they can sometimes) but be aware that there is often much disrespect and meanness on the “religious” side.

Sure. When I am told that I should kill my eldest child by a religious nut, exactly how much respect should I have for that wingnut? Should I kill him as an abomination, or not? Bible says I should. Plenty of christians say I should.

What is there to respect?

 

[cosmicaug]

You think that some "Creator/Nature" gives people rights. That they exist whether or not people recognize them as if they are some kind of tangible thing rather than the IDEAS that people create themselves. People's 'rights' are a philosophy, a belief system that only exists if PEOPLE/Society say they do. So tell me, where were all these rights that a Creator/Nature gave to us before John Locke's philosophy became popular during the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries?

You know what other right has been traditionally considered to be inherent in the natural order of things/bestowed by a creator? The right of monarchic rule. I mean sure, if you are a monarch or part of the upper echelons in a monarchy it's a little self serving; but that doesn't mean it's wrong, does it?

However, in neither case can you count on going to the woods to be met by a menagerie of forest creatures gathered to hand you clay tablets listing your natural rights. Somehow we still have to figure out for ourselves what real natural rights are, for some reason.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

How is it possible to disrespect a fairy story? Why are facts somehow offensive? Is being offended by facts somehow going to change the facts? What if I am offended by the stupid claims theists make? Do I get to complain?

According to you, I should silently lie down, roll over and fake my own death and to hell with reality. Reality does not count and should never be defended anytime, anywhere.

Because we mustn't "offend" anyone with mere reality.

Are you seriously proposing such a position?

Did you read my post? I agree with virtually everything you said.

I objected to the mocking tone. I think calling Jesus “jebus” is an immature schoolyard taunt. But carry on - I will defend your right to say whatever you want in any way you want. But childish, mocking posts seem out of place in an otherwise fairly civil debate.

 

[cosmicaug]

Why not apply the same rationale for all births? Reversible sterilisation at puberty and mandatory licenses for children.

It sounds like accountability!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Did you read my post? I agree with virtually everything you said.

I objected to the mocking tone. I think calling Jesus “jebus” is an immature schoolyard taunt. But carry on - I will defend your right to say whatever you want in any way you want. But childish, mocking posts seem out of place in an otherwise fairly civil debate.

There's nothing civil about Christian domionists enforcing their will using the authority of the state. One "side" of this is utterly contemptible, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[sphenisc]

How is it possible to disrespect a fairy story? Why are facts somehow offensive? Is being offended by facts somehow going to change the facts? What if I am offended by the stupid claims theists make? Do I get to complain?

According to you, I should silently lie down, roll over and fake my own death and to hell with reality. Reality does not count and should never be defended anytime, anywhere.

Because we mustn't "offend" anyone with mere reality.

Are you seriously proposing such a position?

Come, come. Nobody's suggesting you fake it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And cue the "Okay the bad argument wasn't a hijack but explaining why it's a bad argument is" routine in 5...4...3...2...

 

[ahhell]

Yes the FFs apparently couldn't see the contradiction between life/liberty and owning slaves. Consistent with the biblical norms of that time, they apparently didn't think that the rights of women mattered either so these rights only applied to "all men".

Nevertheless, they laid the foundation that would eventually see rights extended to everybody (rabid right wingers not withstanding).

Read just about anything they actually said on the matter and most definitely saw the contradiction. Even the slave owners. There was clear cognitive dissonance on the matter, otherwise the 3/5 compromise would have actually said slaves instead of other persons. They just couldn't see a way out of it. Which to be fair, was a failing.

 

[ahhell]

There's nothing civil about Christian domionists enforcing their will using the authority of the state. One "side" of this is utterly contemptible, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

This assumes anyone who might be offended by moking Jesus is a christian dominionist. It also assumes there is one other side and that side isn't utterly contemptible. There are quite a few people on the other side that are quite contemptible, the folks willing to write of roughly 40% of the US as utterly contemptible for starters.