No Sign of a Red Wave; Plenty of Signs of a Dobbs Wave

I’d appreciate it if you are going to describe my views you do it more accurately. Your characterization is ridiculous.

 

If you're doing it just to collect on granny's inheritance, then yeah that's wrong, and I think most people will agree that's wrong.

If you or the hospital is doing it because resources are limited and there's only so many people they can take care of at once, that's called hard decisions to yield the best possible desirable outcome. You can't save everyone, no matter how hard you try. That doesn't mean we should go around killing people. Also, neglecting advanced expensive medical treatment is not the same as killing someone that would otherwise be okay if you just left them alone.

 

bump all the threads you want, it’s not about that. I am saying the political discussion around abortion and what it means for this election and future elections is light years more interesting than another “abortion is murder” vs. “no it’s not because…”debate that will go nowhere. And that’s what this devolved into the last few pages.
But hey, to each their own.

 

This description is so inaccurate it is offensive and makes me angry. The fact that you believe this shows you clearly don’t understand the stakes for some involved.

 

I'll play nice with you the second you start playing nice with me. Until then, cry me a river.

 

When I bumped it, what you said was kind of my point but 715 decided to go full C-Tal and I decided to play along for amusement purposes.

 

Fair enough. That’s how C-Tal roll. My failure to understand that is me victimizing them.

 

As long as the standards are allowed to change as the science changes, and there is scientific consensus, sure. No problem. Last, if you are going to tell me there is scientific consensus that human life begins at conception, I'll would say that statement is patently false. There is no consensus among biologists.

 

For "some involved." haha. Classic abortion advocate argument, treating the outlier as the norm to justify your position.

The most common reasons for abortion are socioeconomic.

Poverty is the Commonest Reason For Abortion: This is not a choice

 

No consensus among biologists suggests that there are more reasons to believe life begins at conception than religion, then.

 

Looks like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

 

We aren't talking about wrong, we are talking about legal though. You can make life or death decisions for loved ones who cant make it for themselves, a child, an older relative, etc. Whatever the case, the burden of care is lifted (which would fit your convenience criteria) when they pass. But sometimes that is the most merciful or humane thing you can do. Similarly, you may find having an abortion for any reason wrong without making it illegal, just like they dont make it illegal to end the life of a loved one in certain cases. Its a personal decision, one people should make with their own values, not the government's or some specific religion's.

 

Why? Defer to religion? No thanks. Already explained why.

 

I apologize to all of the islamists who chop off the heads of infidels. I am victimizing them by my posting. Clearly they have a sincere belief their religion should be law of the land and I should respect that.

 

This you?

You struck first, don't get mad at me for responding.

 

If you think that advocating so that people cannot kill unborn children is the same as advocating to murder people who disagree with you religiously, you're a lot dumber than I thought.

 

There are a lot of reasons people get abortions. The fact that some are “socionomic” doesn’t mean they are of convenience.

Besides, why is that even relevant? This is always the dumbest pro life argument - those who are irresponsible and have unprotected sex out of marriage (or I guess in marriage) should be punished for their misdeeds by having to forcibly give birth to an unwanted child.

 

I never said to defer to religion.

My point is the view that life begins at conception is scientifically supported, albeit disputed. I happen to believe that view is correct. But the point is the pro-life stance does not need religion to support itself on the political stage. It only needs science and logic.

 

i think my views have been pretty consistent here.