Anti-LGBT/Religious Freedom Laws

Lord Large Hadron Collider!

Don't state talking about his tolerance for opposing opinions....will be e-fisticuffs.

 

It would be more tolerant to force them to provide membership to others? Because that is what I'm saying: they shouldn't be required to provide membership to anyone. What are you saying?

 

No, I think every abortion has to do with the mother's life on some level.

 

Silly semantics. Damned close to full-blown shenanigans.

Would you agree that 99% of all abortions have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rescuing or safeguarding of the mother's physical health, or where the pregnancy occurred as a result of rape and/or incest?

If you do so agree, what primary causes do you then attribute to the eye-popping 99% need for an abortion, save those previously stated reasons, or which resulted for any reason beyond the purely irresponsible in/actions of a woman?

I "get" that you don't believe any fetus is a human until it smokes its first joint, joins a union, attends Bonaroo or does a 6 month stint traveling with various Phish encampments - so we can put the debate of when it's a human aside, and focus on those reasons or causes that necessitate abortions being so overwhelmingly necessary, to begin with, regardless of the fetus' in/humanity. And, as a courtesy, I'll also skip over the many people who are convicted of double-homicide when killing a pregnant woman, criminally convicted of tampering or harming the eggs of certain animal species, laws prohibiting women's use of illicit drugs / alcohol during pregancy, etc. - each of which serve as compellingly strong and legal precedent of affording the protection of life in utero, and the same which you now deny should (or does?) exist - so as to not needlessly and further the already littered and murky waters of the issue.

So, what are the primary reasons why 99 out of 100 require abortions, excluding the safekeeping or rescuing of the mother's physical life, rape, incest or the personal irresponsibility of the woman's in/action? Number the reasons, in hierarchical order, from most to least prevalent, if you don't mind, so as to allow an examination of each, in the same order.

 

As if it weren't already clear, I reject your first premise. That very first one. Gestation and delivery is innately affecting one's health and body.

I'm fully prepared to discuss the double homicide, I have here before.

 

I do wonder how many abortions are "oh my god, I am going to have the risk of dying because of child birth" or "I am not ready to be a mommy"?

 

Well said:

[video=youtube;PJVqhE-3n-k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJVqhE-3n-k[/video]

 

I personally don't think that is even a relevant question. I'm wondering why someone without the financial or ability or will to raise a human being should be compelled to do so simply because of biology. We adjust and circumvent natural biology every single day, why is this way a taboo? If preventing a human life from being born is wrong, then why does the priesthood practice abstinence?

 

Seems it would be a relevant question given the "affects a mother's life" comment.

 

I can circumvent natural biology by shooting you in the face. Why is that taboo?

 

1) Perhaps it isn't relevant.
2) I will be honest here, being a man, I am a little jealous that women get an "out" but men do not. The whole argument about abortion is that it is the woman's body and pregnancy is harsh on it, so it is up to her whether she has the baby or not. A man cannot afford to have a baby or it will wreck his life because he is only 18 years old? Too bad, brother.
3) Prevention of life != aborting life. A priest being abstinent is no different than a monogamous man not impregnating every woman he meets.

 

If you miraculously became pregnant, would it affect your life?

 

My wife becoming pregnant affected my life. Greatly.

 

Because I am a fully formed and conscious being, and I have sovereignty over my body (including my face, such as it is). Likewise, evicting unwanted tissue from one's body is completely within one's rights.

 

Certainly, as would zillions of other things I have no right to control or prevent.

 

Maybe point (2) needs further consideration.

re: (3)- I don't fully agree. But how come Monogamous Man using contraceptives is wrong as well, according to a Catholic priest? It would be because it is rebelling against "God's plan (TM)" for the purpose of sex. Yet here this priest is walking around with a sperm factory that he just wastes on nocturnal emissions and the occasional guilty shower ****. To me, the nature of this hypocrisy and logical inconsistency further extends into the womb. Not to mention how many miscarriages naturally occur-- far greater than the number of abortions. The premise of the sanctity of the origins of a human life is just not supported by the biological reality. "I think, therefore I am." No thinking, no aming. JMO.

 

It wasn't within one's rights not so long ago. Guess we made a grievous error making this process legal.

As for the fully formed and conscious and all that, you are going to have a hard time differentiating a newborn from an 8 month fetus.

 

Got it. Post birth abortions are cool.

 

Well, now the argument is morphing. Originally I was being asked if 99% of abortions were due to it affecting the life of the mother. I argued every pregnancy affects the life of a mother. You said that wasn't relevant to the question... for some reason... and now argue that it affecting the life of the mother is in fact not relevant anyway. Well, if so you should be disagreeing with Tenny's premise before even getting to me. Weird how that isn't how these discussions work.

 

Which is where this argument usually breaks down. A 10 day old baby cannot "think", yet it is considered murder to kill it. 11 days earlier, it is abortion and the mother's choice (at its most liberal interpretation of abortion).

As for priesthood and abortion and sex, I don't care about it, as I am not a Christian nor a Catholic. And while Buddhism is against abortion (for the most part), that is not why I am against abortion. My son's ultrasounds made me do a radical 180 years before I took up Buddhism.