Issues other than abortion

[Victoria33]

One should be against killing other human beings, your position is untenable.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you ever accept that a woman should have complete control over her own body, my position
is the inevitable conclusion.

 

[goout]

If you ever accept that a woman should have complete control over her own body, my position
is the inevitable conclusion.

If you accept

…
Why would anyone accept such a juvenile proposition?
In no other arena is absolute autonomy accepted. It’s the whine of an 8 year old claiming his space without regard for others. When an adult does it, it’s tragic and barbaric and more than a little embarrassing.

Repent and believe the Gospel.

 

[LiveSkype]

Sadly, most politicians who support restricting access to abortion also support cutting Medicaid: not just because of restricting access to abortion/birth control, but also because they want people to work! Trust me, there are many disabled people out there who have a very strong work ethic.
Sadly, the Social Security laws make it hard for people with disabilities receiving SSI to be able to save up money in order live independently WITHOUT losing Medicaid. Although the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014 DOES allow an individual to create a special tax-free savings account that will not jeopardize receiving SSI/SNAP/Medicaid, there are restrictions there.
But since they deal with things in the long-term, they often get ignored.
My solution? Get Special Olympics to the front of the March for Life, as the KofC is one of their BIGGEST supporters. It gets the faces of a marginalized (and often aborted) community OUT THERE for the rest of the Pro-life community to see.

 

[Brendan_64]

The main difference being that slaves were people who were capable of autonomy and self-determination. Not so for a fetus. So when it conflicts with the will of the mother, the mother gets to choose.

So the right to life is dependent o the autonomy and self-determination of the individual concerned? On that basis infanticide is also acceptable, if the ongoing life of the child conflicts with the will of the mother.

 

[Vonsalza]

So the right to life is dependent o the autonomy and self-determination of the individual concerned?

Ultimately? Yeah. And to not put too fine a point on it, it only exists unencumbered when the life in question does not require the bodily sacrifice of another person.

If it does, that right to life becomes muddled by the encumbrance placed on the other person.

On that basis infanticide is also acceptable, if the ongoing life of the child conflicts with the will of the mother.

For probably the 10th time in the thread, this is wrong.

Literally anyone can shake up some formula and give a bottle. The strict dependence on the mother terminates at birth.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

If you ever accept that a woman should have complete control over her own body, my position
is the inevitable conclusion.

If you accept

…
Why would anyone accept such a juvenile proposition?

In a free society it is inherently self-evident.

Again, if a woman doesn’t have control over her body, who controls it for her in this religiously pluralistic society? Catholic God? Hindu God? The God of the Church of the Fonz?

In no other arena is absolute autonomy accepted. It’s the whine of an 8 year old claiming his space without regard for others. When an adult does it, it’s tragic and barbaric and more than a little embarrassing.

Ok, here is where we talk about the progression of personhood.

An 8 year old is a child and is not due the full rights and benefits of adulthood.

And adult woman, on the other hand, has achieved all of the inherent benefits of personhood. She can vote. Own property. And so on.

Repent and believe the Gospel.

Amen.

Don’t forget to separate your Church and our state.

 

[goout]

The strict dependence on the mother terminates at birth.

Really? You didn’t think that through, did you.

The mother can of course give the child to someone else, and the child is still “strictly dependent”.

You haven’t really thought this through very well, and that is the heart of the problem.

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

Vonsalza:

If you ever accept that a woman should have complete control over her own body, my position
is the inevitable conclusion.

If you accept

…
Why would anyone accept such a juvenile proposition?

In a free society it is inherently self-evident.

Again, if a woman doesn’t have control over her body, who controls it for her in this religiously pluralistic society? Catholic God? Hindu God? The God of the Church of the Fonz?

In no other arena is absolute autonomy accepted. It’s the whine of an 8 year old claiming his space without regard for others. When an adult does it, it’s tragic and barbaric and more than a little embarrassing.

Ok, here is where we talk about the progression of personhood.

An 8 year old is a child and is not due the full rights and benefits of adulthood.

And adult woman, on the other hand, has achieved all of the inherent benefits of personhood. She can vote. Own property. And so on.

Repent and believe the Gospel.

Amen.

Don’t forget to separate your Church and our state.

Yes, “personhood” is something that is exactly what man (or woman) says it is and nothing more. I couldn’t have said it better.

Separation of church and state goes both ways of course, it was originally meant to protect religious faith from goverment meddling. Many progressive lawmakers lately have forgotten that, dipping their toe into the waters of unconstitutional religious litmus tests when it comes to SCOTUS and federal judges and so on.

Off topic but Im always amused by progressives who fear monger about a “Gilead” happening here in the USA when it comes to religious people in higher office. That’s right up there with Alex Jones nuttiness…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The strict dependence on the mother terminates at birth.

Really? You didn’t think that through, did you.

The mother can of course give the child to someone else, and the child is still “strictly dependent”.

You haven’t really thought this through very well, and that is the heart of the problem.

No, I have. You’re likely experiencing dissonance at the consistency of it.

The conflict between the agency of mother and supposed agency of child ends at birth.

Beyond that, it’s still in need of care, but it can be performed by anyone willing. Anyone.

 

[Victoria33]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Read more at: John Adams - Our Constitution was made only for a moral... - John Adams

It seems we have this too.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, “personhood” is something that is exactly what man (or woman) says it is and nothing more. I couldn’t have said it better.

Yes. Identical to “rights”.

Separation of church and state goes both ways of course, it was originally meant to protect religious faith from goverment meddling.

What’s a little closer to the truth is that America was already somewhat religiously pluralist and no one wanted a situation where a Christian sect they didn’t like ruled the government.

 

[goout]

goout:

Vonsalza:

The strict dependence on the mother terminates at birth.

Really? You didn’t think that through, did you.

The mother can of course give the child to someone else, and the child is still “strictly dependent”.

You haven’t really thought this through very well, and that is the heart of the problem.

No, I have. You’re likely experiencing dissonance at the consistency of it.

The conflict between the agency of mother and supposed agency of child ends at birth.

Beyond that, it’s still in need of care, but it can be performed by anyone willing. Anyone.

So now you are changing your story (good thing!).
The baby is in fact still “strictly dependent”. As you say.
Now, is the child strictly dependent before the mom gives the child for adoption, or after, or both?

Are you actually admitting that children depend on others for survival?
Sheeesh !! That’s horrific. That’s almost like SLAVERY!

 

[goout]

Sbee0:

Yes, “personhood” is something that is exactly what man (or woman) says it is and nothing more. I couldn’t have said it better.

Yes. Identical to “rights”.

Great. I’m all about rights for cats. That’s what you’re talking about right?

Oh, you mean human rights? As in living human beings?
Wait! That makes your assertion nonsensical.
that can’t be…

 

[goout]

Animal rights assume animals.
Greenpeace hugs trees.
Enviro people love our rivers.

And all of these are based on the presumption…
that we have animals, and trees, and rivers.

But when it comes to human rights, we leave our brain in the parking lot.

 

[Vonsalza]

So now you are changing your story (good thing!).
The baby is in fact still “strictly dependent”. As you say.

Quite right.

But no longer in a way that imperils the mother.

Now, is the child strictly dependent before the mom gives the child for adoption, or after, or both?

Children are always dependent on someone for care.

The difference is peril. A fetus bodily threatens a woman. A child does not.

Sheeesh !! That’s horrific. That’s almost like SLAVERY!

The only slavery here is forcing a woman to carry a baby against her will. Horrific.

 

[Victoria33]

This is all so self-centered and selfish, the fetus can’t live without the mother, basically no respect given to another human being.

 

[goout]

Those mean and awful babies. Imperiling their mothers, enslaving them to nourish and care for them. Demanding little tyrant invaders.

 

[Victoria33]

The only slavery here is forcing a woman to carry a baby against her will. Horrific.

1960s Feminism, a sad comment.

There are plenty of choices before conception without deciding that now, the fetus, baby has no rights. Horrific.

 

[Vonsalza]

No, I’m pro choice specifically because I respect enormously the bodily autonomy of the woman involved.