Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

[uke2se]

I doubt it. Let's be careful not to label people as rational just because they vote our way.

I have no problem labeling Trump voters as irrational. He was the irrational choice.

 

[Belz...]

I have no problem labeling Trump voters as irrational. He was the irrational choice.

That's not what I said: I said labeling non-Trump voters as rational.

 

[uke2se]

That's not what I said: I said labeling non-Trump voters as rational.

More rational than irrational. But point taken.

 

[fuelair]

The important thing is that we all agree that my personal beliefs in magical sky monsters is so important that everyone else should be compelled by law to not get treatment for ectopic pregnancy even though it is 100% fatal to fetus and mother. And as proof of this I offer the Bible, which passages will not be specified, and also a vague notion that John Hancock might have been a Quaker or something. I demand you respect my beliefs, both religious and legal, and you should go to jail if you defy them.

You have misspelled Quacker in the above. It is well known that Hancock had some fowl blood due to some quirks in his family. Or quacks. Something ducky about them anyway!!!!

 

[turingtest]

I do not agree with killing anyone. Abortion is legal at this point in time. I don't do hypothetical punishments.Chris B.

Gosh- if the punishment is only a "hypothetical" that you're unwilling to deal with, but, in fact, follows from your own absolutist position that abortion of a fetus is an act of murder fully equal to killing a 60-year old man, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to throw around real-life terms like "murder" to begin with. Don't volunteer to be the jury if the sentence is going to be something you won't own- wagging that "holier than thou" finger is fine and easy in the abstract, but not being willing to follow through on framing a subjective moral judgment of others in concrete terms just smacks of (ironically) a half-hearted morality of yours. What kind of morality is an expedient morality, one that can't face itself and its consequences?

 

[turingtest]

And if we accept Chris's starting point women will need to be prosecuted if they do anything to endanger the fetus, and if they have an accident and lose the fetus they will need to be prosecuted for manslaughter (think you call that 2nd degree homicide in the USA?). The idea we hold the fetus sacred from the moment of conception actually run counters to "Judo_Christian" religious traditions.

Yeah, there are many branches that grow from their absolutist tree. One thing I will give Chris credit for is that, even though he doesn't seem willing to follow his own logic where it goes, he's consistent with it as far as he does go. If the unborn life is a human fully equal to any man, woman, or born child, then any abortion- even ones for cases of incest or rape- is murder, and Chris has said he believes as much. I once asked another poster here, who had the same "abortion is murder!" viewpoint, but thought cases of rape/incest were allowable exceptions, how he squared that circle- why would a sacred, inviolable human life be any less so for being the product of a rape? His simple answer was something along the lines of "reasonable people can make compromises." Which makes no sense to me- if your position is an absolute, there cannot, by definition, be any exceptions or compromise, and you're still allowing a choice- it's just that you've arrogated the right to choice to yourself, and disguised the theft as "compromise."

I suspect that folks who won't follow their logic to make the punishment for a woman equal to the crime they claim she has committed realize, on some deep, unrecognized level, that the fetus is not, in fact, the equal of the woman- so the crime is not the thing they want to call it, and she's not the criminal she needs to be to fit their bill of moral indictment. And with folks like the one I mentioned above, who would allow cases of rape/incest to be aborted, I suspect the rationale is one of political expediency- enough people support those exceptions that you could never sell a law that won't allow them.

 

[lomiller]

Rational voters outnumber the irrational ones.

But it seems the irrational ones are more likely to vote.

 

[fuelair]

But it seems the irrational ones are more likely to vote.

This time around for damn sure!!!!!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Gosh- if the punishment is only a "hypothetical" that you're unwilling to deal with, but, in fact, follows from your own absolutist position that abortion of a fetus is an act of murder fully equal to killing a 60-year old man, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to throw around real-life terms like "murder" to begin with. Don't volunteer to be the jury if the sentence is going to be something you won't own- wagging that "holier than thou" finger is fine and easy in the abstract, but not being willing to follow through on framing a subjective moral judgment of others in concrete terms just smacks of (ironically) a half-hearted morality of yours. What kind of morality is an expedient morality, one that can't face itself and its consequences?

Were I to be placed on a jury where the death penalty was a possible outcome, I would inform the judge of my views prior to hearing the case.

Why ponder about the punishment of someone who has an abortion (if it were illegal)? If you really need to know my view on it, I've already provided it. Taking a human life is murder. If abortion becomes illegal I would expect the punishment to fit the crime excluding the death penalty of course.

Chris B.

 

[moebob]

Hopefully abortion doesn't become illegal. We woman should have the right to choose. If you don't believe in it, don't ever get one, but don't push your beliefs onto others. Nobody should have the right to make that choice for someone else, over a body that doesn't belong to them. Especially men. They don't give birth, or carry a child, and should have no say so at all.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Hopefully abortion doesn't become illegal. We woman should have the right to choose.

Just curious.

Do you believe that right should be completely unlimited? Right up until the ninth month and the beginning of labor?

I think society can draw a line somewhere, in order to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the fetus. Do you object to any line at all?

 

[Resume]

Were I to be placed on a jury where the death penalty was a possible outcome, I would inform the judge of my views prior to hearing the case.

Why ponder about the punishment of someone who has an abortion (if it were illegal)? If you really need to know my view on it, I've already provided it. Taking a human life is murder. If abortion becomes illegal I would expect the punishment to fit the crime excluding the death penalty of course.

Chris B.

I'm curious as to how long you've held this view. As demonstrated in some of your posts in bigfoot threads, you pack heat in calibers heavy enough in your words, to penetrate bone and skull.
<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 11.

 

[Distracted1]

But it seems the irrational ones are more likely to vote.

Actually, nearly 3 million more non-irrational voters turned up for the last election.

 

[Darat]

Just curious.

Do you believe that right should be completely unlimited? Right up until the ninth month and the beginning of labor?

I think society can draw a line somewhere, in order to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the fetus. Do you object to any line at all?

My mother has always been a vociferous supporter of legalising post-natal abortion.

 

[Foolmewunz]

My mother has always been a vociferous supporter of legalising post-natal abortion.

The standard argument in a New York coffee shop:

Catholic: Life begins at the moment of conception.
Protestant: It should be considered a "life" at the point the fetus is viable, independently.
Jewish: Around the time they graduate from Medical School.

 

[fuelair]

Just curious.

Do you believe that right should be completely unlimited? Right up until the ninth month and the beginning of labor?

I think society can draw a line somewhere, in order to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the fetus. Do you object to any line at all?

At the certain beginning of labor, no, Prior to that, yes. And I love children and can't not smile at the sight of a baby or a little kid doing something that shows they are learning stuff. Like the little girl under two* who, in a Chinese buffet in New Port Richey, FL many years ago was introducing herself to a bowl of soup by petting it, splashing it and wiping he hands on her hair, face and dress. Her parents clearly understood the importance of experiential learning - as I did/do!!!!!

That helped me a lot after my wife died last month.

I have lots more examples!!!!! They are what help the nice side of me. I can account for the other side too.

 

[fuelair]

Oh, why at the beginning of labor - because the pain reduces the ability to think rationally .

 

[Tero]

Note to fetuses: remember to wave to mommy when you are being ultrasounded! She could abort if you don't.

 

[bruto]

My mother has always been a vociferous supporter of legalising post-natal abortion.

I'm reminded of a line from the old comedy Sanford and Son, in which Redd Foxx remarks to his nemesis Aunt something or other, "Every time I see you it makes me wish birth control was retroactive."

 

[logger]

Yeah, there are many branches that grow from their absolutist tree. One thing I will give Chris credit for is that, even though he doesn't seem willing to follow his own logic where it goes, he's consistent with it as far as he does go. If the unborn life is a human fully equal to any man, woman, or born child, then any abortion- even ones for cases of incest or rape- is murder, and Chris has said he believes as much. I once asked another poster here, who had the same "abortion is murder!" viewpoint, but thought cases of rape/incest were allowable exceptions, how he squared that circle- why would a sacred, inviolable human life be any less so for being the product of a rape? His simple answer was something along the lines of "reasonable people can make compromises." Which makes no sense to me- if your position is an absolute, there cannot, by definition, be any exceptions or compromise, and you're still allowing a choice- it's just that you've arrogated the right to choice to yourself, and disguised the theft as "compromise."

I suspect that folks who won't follow their logic to make the punishment for a woman equal to the crime they claim she has committed realize, on some deep, unrecognized level, that the fetus is not, in fact, the equal of the woman- so the crime is not the thing they want to call it, and she's not the criminal she needs to be to fit their bill of moral indictment. And with folks like the one I mentioned above, who would allow cases of rape/incest to be aborted, I suspect the rationale is one of political expediency- enough people support those exceptions that you could never sell a law that won't allow them.

Of course you conveniently forget the other extreme, kill your baby anytime you like right up to birth? That is the part of being reasonable. I would also allow for the life of the mother, I'm sure that will also confuse you.