Florida woman forced to give birth to a baby that will die immediately

The truth is there is no exact standard. The standard is what we choose it to be. A late term fetus has brain activity, feels pain, etc. If you abort it you are clearly ending a life that is substantially human. An embryo or early fetus has none of those things. You can’t end a life that has never really started.

So do you oppose in vitro fertilization?

 

People like gator_lawyer would have you believe that all culture and norms for Western Civilization pre-1965 and perhaps even later than that are bad because during that time, Jim Crow existed and before that, slavery.

 

Okay, then why are you so condescending towards anybody who dares to draw the line at a different point than you?

You support the same thing as Tilly for example, you just draw the line in a different place. What is everyone who supports a more lenient or strict standard than you an extremist?

 

There's nothing inherently good or bad about something because it is old. We should always reevaluate old traditions and rules to determine whether they are in fact just. My anchor is justice, not duration.

 

People like 715 would have you believe that Jim Crow was good because it was old.

 

Secularist leftist cultists, democratic genocidal slave owners, and I’m condescending?

First, I’m not sure Tilly has a line. Best I can tell he thinks zygotes have more rights than pregnant women. That aside, of course, it is mostly a difference of where you draw the line, but drawing a line at point zero or drawing it halfway through are dramatically different outcomes. They debate is 100% about where you draw the line. It isn’t a trivial issue.

I support the viability standard. But I don’t think somebody who prefers 15 weeks is an extremist. People who support 6 weeks effectively support zero because you don’t know you are pregnant until 4 and if 6 is the law, that pretty much practically eliminates all abortions. A vast majority of people support abortions with limitations. So objectively 6 weeks or less is extremist. As is condoning 8 month abortions except in most the unusual circumstances.

 

There is building burning with a 5 year old toddler and 1000 embryos in it. You can only save one or the other, which one do you choose?

 

Yep. And the reality is, everything from menstrual cycles, to sex, to fertilization, to implantation, to the 40 weeks of pregnancy are all part of the reproductive process.

The issue really is that Christians have recently decided conception, rather than quickening, is the point where the soul is created, so therefore killing the cells bearing that soul is murder.

For people who don’t view it that way, these laws are an absurd and inexcusable violation of bodily autonomy.

One that even most Christian proponents would balk at, by the way, if moved just slightly earlier in the reproductive cycle. If a sect said the soul resides in unfertilized eggs, and that having a period is tantamount to murder, the same argument against abortion could be made against birth control, or even against a decision to not have sex. It’s all very dystopian—your neighbor deciding when and whether you reproduce.

Which is why most people are most comfortable with drawing the line at viability. Because at that point there is no question that you’re talking about an independent person that at least has a shot at living naturally outside the mother.

 

It's usually to have some form of controlling influence on any process as it serves to moderate the course of and changes to that process. Fortunately, "Christians" exist to exert some controlling influence over the abortion process ... debate. Who really knows what sort of birth or child prevention measures would be available today, if it weren't for "Christians" and other anti-abortion groups. Would infanticide be an accepted practice for those who decided they did not want a child?

 

The good ole slippery slope argument.

 

You got here first. Just contrasting the cesspool that is Too Hot with the same thing in the reverse. Here's a good look at your contributions on this thread:

I see a combination of strawman arguments, condescension, and characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as religious radicals and idiots.

Maybe... just maybe... you have it backwards.

 

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear you have a skewed perception of justice.

So let's recap. A poster here says we don't have to worry about not being sinful because sin is a religious standard not a legal one.

I say, we need norms for our culture that need to anchor us.

He says religious folks are the harbingers of cultural decay.

I basically say, "at least they have consistent rules that aren't changing every two seconds."

You come in and say: "Like racism," as though those are the only rules that existed pre-1965.

I don't know, if you want to lump in all of the old rules with racism, which appears to be exactly what you're doing, it kind of looks like you hate the old rules and you support the everchanging standards our culture has today.

 

I see a lot of people on Too Hot who helped turn this place into a pig pen of insults, ad hominem and stupidity who are now mad that people who disagree with them decided to play the same game. "I can't have a conversation with him, he's acting just like me now."

 

Standards are and have always been constantly changing. That is the nature of the world, which is, itself, constantly changing. Heck, look no further than the Bible itself. Very few Christians don't regularly violate rules found in Leviticus. They also don't view their violations as sins nor support the prescribed punishments for the violation of those laws. Should all Christians go back to fully following the rules of Leviticus because without consistent rules, we have no real rules?

 

The only way the Democratic Party can not be considered the current party of racism is if you don't count racism against White people.

The "voting rights legislation" in 2022 was not about voting rights. It's just another bumper sticker on a crappy piece of legislation to try and demonize anyone who opposes it, which is a classic part of the democratic playbook.

It is true that the Democratic Party is now the "pro-minority" party. They just also happen to be the party openly endorsing preferential treatment on the basis of race, which is something Republicans are specifically moving away from.

 

For all of the people who believe in the "Party Switch," answer me this:

Is FDR a liberal or conservative icon?

Is Woodrow Wilson a liberal or a conservative icon?

They served long before the CRA and "the Switch," did they not?

Democrats have always been the party of racism and remain the party of racism today. All they changed was who benefits from the racist policy.

 

As the South became less racist, the South became more Republican.

Hate the South all you want, more for the rest of us. Just leave us alone.

 

This isn't exactly something that can be proven either way, but the argument could also be made that the south became more Republican because it's more socially acceptable to be racist within the Republican party.

 

I don’t presume to have enough knowledge and experience to make this call. I think the mother and her medical providers are much better judges here than you and I are.

 

In my case I think you can draw the line wherever you want. Where we disagree is that you want your opinion to be the law of the land. I being a conservative think this isn’t a choice for the government to make.