I can see that. I certainly think a lot of people treat church as more of a social thing than a religious thing. I am sure we all know people who go to church regularly that dont practice their religion at all most of the week.
Alabama Abortion Bill
- Thread starter bqknight
- Start date
If I were to say "41% of people in Orlando are fans of UCF" then it would be entirely appropriate to say that nearly half of people in Orlando are UCF fans.
That you're even trying to argue this is the best case for abortion in this thread lmao
once the baby is in the 3rd trimester, there is simply no health problem to the woman that cant be solved by doing an emergency csection of the baby. to state otherwise is a lie.
This really isn't true and I go to Mass almost every Sunday. A lot of people identify as "Catholic" for these generally worthless polls when they probably haven't gone to Church in years. And let's be honest, organizations like Gallup or worse, CBS/ABC aren't really interested in true genuine poll results, they really just want to put out interesting tag lines like "Catholics support abortion!".
Not a single person that we attend Mass with is in favor of abortion. And it's not a topic that gets pushed into the corner.
Mostly because abortion is a horrific, barbaric act that can't possibly be supported if you really think that life is derived from God.
I dont know, one of his biggest concerns is fall-off in attendance and people being less active. Its something we've talked a lot about. I have no idea if the aforementioned poll is accurate, but it wouldn't shock me. I totally agree that the people who come to mass every week are staunchly pro-life, but there a lot of easter and Christmas catholics out there. Who knows where they would fall.
We know couples that have been trying so hard to have a child and have dealt with many miscarriages along the way. When they hear these neofeminsits out there bragging about and cheerleading abortions they've had, it's literally hateful to their ears. It's absolutely vile.
OMG I know! These neofeminists are despicable. They keep track of who can get the most abortions and brag about it to their friends. They literally have a high score board where and the winner every year gets invited to George Soros house and they eat a puppy. Liberals are so disgusting!
Non-viability of the child isn’t a sufficient reason? While rare, it’s entirely possible. Why should a woman be forced to carry to term only to watch her newborn child suffer and die when an abortion could prevent that suffering?
i agree with you, that should also be a sufficient reason. like you said though, it is rare.
Rare is the space in which liberals fight this entire debate. They take the fringes of the issue and present it as what's in the majority and most common when talking about abortion. Abortions are overwhelmingly done as a matter of convenience or preference in this country, yet if you listen to the abortion crowd they'd have you believe that most abortions are done in cases of rape, incest, deformity, threats to the mother's life, etc.
Mostly since they know that admitting that thousands of children are killed annually since they're seen as an inconvenient burden may not sit well with public messaging.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, paint opponents as evil, immoral baby killers! That's the winning ticket!
This same debate has been going on for nearly fifty years with the same points being touted over and over and over again. If some folks think that overturning Roe v. Wade is going to resolve the issue, they're in for a surprise.
Here are the facts:
Fact #1: Embryos/fetuses, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy -- when the vast majority of abortions take place -- are not viable human beings.
Fact #2: The United States is not a theocracy. Catholics and other like-minded fundamentalist Christians can believe anything they want but they should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on all women across this country, especially when they don't represent all Christians.
If the anti-abortion crowd finally get their way and overturn what has been the law of the land for 46 years, they will be opening up a worms that will only intensify the amount of animosity and hatred across this country.
Last edited:
Are you so sensitive about possibly being called an immoral baby killer since you know that's ultimately what's going on here? Does attempting to degrade the status of an unborn child (sorry, errrr a "fetus) make you feel better about supporting the slaughter of that life?
See, I've been at the 8 week ultrasound multiple times now and there's absolutely no question as to whether or not that's a human baby in there. Attempting to assert that it's some "unviable" worthless tumor-esque "thing" is both vile and ridiculous.
The US is not a theocracy, no, but the protection of life is inscribed in our Constitution. I'd say the mass slaughter of innocent life is an affront to that. And yes, I know you're ultra defensive since you want us to believe you're a devout Christian who at the same time supports the mass slaughter of life that comes from God. You seem extremely aware that this is a glaring discrepancy and it's largely reflective of your postings on this subject.
I'm not following here. A non religious person can also believe in protecting human life. Sure you're going to have those who are vocal about their beliefs but I don't think protecting human life is a position unique to religious people. One could very easily reach the same position without being indoctrinated by a religion.
Yes, LIFE. You know, real life. If protecting life in the Constitution meant protecting the unborn, then Roe v. Wade would never have been made into law in the first place. The anti-abortion crowd who want to spin this as baby killing have some tough questions to answer if they get their way. How would you 'pro-lifers' answer these?
- Questions: Will women who get illegal abortions be charged with first-degree murder? If not, why not?
- Questions: Should the father of an aborted child get the same murder charge? or will it have to be proven in court that he knew about it and failed to stop it?
- Question: What type of prison sentence should these unborn murderers serve? If not the same as other 'post-birth' murderers, why not?
- Question: If life begins at conception, what about activities to prevent life-giving conception? (i.e. the pill, condoms, etc.) Since it's preventing life from happening, shouldn't those be considered illegal crimes too?
- Question: In the event of miscarriages (20% of all pregnancies), will we need to bring in medical forensic teams to determine whether the miscarriage was natural and not premeditated murder?
- Question: If life is deemed to begin at conception, will we offer fetuses all of the same rights and privileges we do to post-birth citizens? (i.e. State and Federal tax deductions, etc.)
- Question: Should law enforcement be called in when a pregnant woman is observed having a glass of wine in a restaurant or otherwise engaged in other behaviors potentially harmful to the fetus?
- Questions: If life is life, should rape and incest really be considered legitimate 'excuses' for murdering the unborn child? If yes, why should they trump murder?
- Questions: How can we defend the unborn from arguments that an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life? What kind of medical documentation should be required and who makes the final decision? Should allowances be made to expedite the process if the doctor argues the mother is in grave danger for her life?
- Question: Should any allowances be made for aborting severely handicapped unborn or unborn who doctors have determined will not be able to survive outside the womb?
I was going to post basically the same thing. Since when is a position on abortion limited to a persons religion? If it is, what does that say about secularists that they are in lockstep regarding life?
Your questions are irrelevant given that you hilariously just insisted that you are the arbiter of what "real life" is. You would probably quite disgustingly state that 8 weeks isn't "real life" and yet I've watched my children on an ultrasound at 8 weeks who had a clearly defined body, movement of their arms and legs, etc.
What is that then? Imagine how fuking stupid I would have sounded if I had looked at the monitor showing me this child with a perfectly defined human body, moving its' arms and legs, and said "Hey! What is that? It's surely not a baby and it's not alive so what is it???"
This is the absolute nonsense you people want me to believe. It's anti-science and it's just insane.
Say the guy who's been telling us that real life begins at conception.
If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, you damn well know that the questions I've raised, and countless more, will have to be addressed. The fact you've chosen to ignore them and characterize my post as "absolute nonsense" and my questions as "irrelevant" speaks volumes. Put up or shut up time.
A lot of bad court decisions have been overturned. Unless that decision came from God then it can be rendered a bad decision which I think it will be.
If life doesn't begin at conception then please explain to me, Master of Life, when does it begin? I mean, this is the literal frigigng definition of "conception":
"the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived."
So what is it then, according to you? Conception can occur, but maybe we'll get a dog instead of a human? Conception can occur, but maybe the woman will give birth to a piece of fruit? Since you're into these sorts of absurd mental gymnastics, please tell me 1) when does life begin if not at conception and 2) what is conception then if not the start of a child's life and development?
Life begins at birth. That's why our personal records have always begun with that day since the beginnings of human history.
All of our related laws have been based on this time-honored standard. Now if you, in your role as Master of Life, wish to step in and change the laws regarding when human life begins, then answer the related questions I've raised.
Funny thing about governance, when you people get your way, you'll have to come up with a whole set of revised laws to handle the new way our society will look at pregnancies -- and their terminations -- from beginning to end.
So please, any of you, answer my questions and share with all of us your vision of how this will all work.
Life begins at birth yet a person will be charged with murder if they attack a pregnant woman and kill the child inside.
Jesus Christ. Do you heard how utterly dumb your stance is?
Have you EVER seen an ultrasound? Are you really arguing that a child in the womb at 36 weeks isn’t “life”?
WHAT IS IT THEN?
A child in the womb at 36 weeks is no more proof of life than a chair, according to Shookster
They are both totally lifeless objects
They are both totally lifeless objects
There are now at least four (4) other states with far, far more restrictive abortion ban laws, let alone they start earlier than Alabama's ... but people only talk Alabama's.
I'm also reading countless, ignorant comments from Progressives that 'no woman signed it,' utterly forgetting Alabama's governor is a woman.
The US media is so anti-Alabama, as someone who now lives in Alabama ... even I'm sticking up my middle finger. And I'm Pro-Choice too.
I'm also reading countless, ignorant comments from Progressives that 'no woman signed it,' utterly forgetting Alabama's governor is a woman.
The US media is so anti-Alabama, as someone who now lives in Alabama ... even I'm sticking up my middle finger. And I'm Pro-Choice too.
From the standpoint of civil liberties, yes ... they are.
If I attack a woman who is 36 weeks pregnant and kill the child inside, I will be charged with murder. How many times has a person been charged with murdering a chair?
How long will this idiotic line of thinking continue?
Hey man, I'm against making it a double-homicide when both are killed. But in any case, only a woman gets to decide for her own body, no one else.
Now in the case of what Virginia et al. is doing, I agree with you. Once it's outside her body, it's not about her body any more. If anything, Alabama et al. is just the backlash against that.
I trust a woman to make the right decision more than the state. It's as simple as that.
Same when it comes to someone defending themselves.
What is Virginia "doing?" I've seen plenty of support for third trimester abortions due to medical reasons, but none that suggest that babies should somehow be killed after they are born.
Sigh ... several politicians started going down the path of trying to correlate a woman's right to choose to include outside her body. There are a lot of asterisks that they started talking about, and pretty much ...
Even as a Pro-Choice voter and Libertarian, I was like, "This is why Progressives shoot themselves in the foot."
Roe v. Wade covers a woman's body and a woman's liabilities. It doesn't cover what the state and medical personnel do once the baby is outside the body. That's the 'grey area.'
I.e., every time Progressive takes up that non-sense, it rallies the Conservatives. Now we're seeing the fall-out.
Again, even as a Pro-Choice voter and Libertarian ... as wrong as the Conservatives are in these states, so are the politicians and several of the laws that go beyond what Roe v. Wade addresses.
People who ignore Conservatives when they point that out are just causing themselves grief, because the Conservatives aren't wrong.
Seriously though, I haven't seen anything that suggests women have the ability to "abort" a pregnancy after birth. If you can find it (outside of some shitty Tumblr blog) I'll happily read it.
For the record, I agree with you re: RvW. I don't even really agree with 3rd trimester abortions outside of serious medical issues.
Seriously? Try some transcripts and some bills for starters ... sigh. This is the backlash.
I'm not against 3rd trimester. But the problem is that sometimes the baby 'survives.' What happens then?
I also have some really 'hard questions' for 'Progressives' who 'suddenly discover' they 'don't like a defect their child has' in the 3rd trimester. These are the conversations that should be had.
Or worse? "Oh, the baby wouldn't survive" or "They baby wouldn't have a good life." Ummm ... people don't like to talk about the 'details' of those. "Oh, it's between the woman and her doctor, and they make that decision." Outside her body?!?!?!
Progressives give an 'open door' to Conservatives on that last one ... just like the Virginian politicians, among many others. For every Progressive that says 'oh, they mean X,' I can point out, 'but that also includes Y ... which really does happen.'
People are saying Conservatives talk about things that don't ever happen. No, the Progressives don't cover the ones that Conservatives say ... but do very much happen. Progressives flat out ignore valid arguments, and make it about another one.
Just like when Rosanne Barr was canned, but Bill Mahr is still on. Progressives said Conservatives were talking about Mahr calling Trump an orangutan. No, they were talking about Mahr, quite loosely, using the N-word like it was okay and even chic.
Progressives ignore valid arguments at their own peril. It's crap like that which undoes Roe v. Wade. It's just like all the insults thrown towards various states right now, especially Alabama, and all the 'fear mongering' of the so called 'conservative' Supreme Court Justice majority.
Got a hint for everyone ... most of the 'Conservatives' are actually Federalist Society Libertarians. They won't be hearing Roe v. Wade challenges any time soon, leaving the Federal courts to smack down all these state bans, with preceding injunctions. Even the ACLU is trying to educate the masses about this.
But the US media fear-mongering is in full swing.
Not to derail the thread, but there are quite a few differences in Maher and Roseanne. For one, Maher is on HBO Roseanne was on ABC. Obviously more is going to fly on a premium channel than on network TV that doesnt rely on sponsors. I think people forget that a lot of these decisions to get rid of people are nothing more than business decisions. Two, Maher apologized the very next day and it at least came off as sincere, while Roseanne was all over the place in her apologies including continuing to call Valerie Jarret a bitch. And finally, people forget that Maher was also fired from ABC back in the day for something he said so it isnt a double standard.
Last edited:
So a white guy deliberately writing the word n*gger into his prepared remarks is more acceptable because it’s on HBO?
FFS
It wasnt a prepared remark, it was an off the cuff joke during an interview. He also directed it at himself and was clearly joking, even if it was an innapproriate joke. where as Roseanne was going after a specific person with a slur, and it didnt really come off as an attempt at a joke. And I didnt say it was acceptable. He obviously shouldnt have said it. I like Maher, but he obviously crossed a line. But, he apologized and HBO released a statement pretty much immediately, which is different than Roseanne. Ice Cube dressed him down on live TV the next week and he basically sat there and took it, and wasnt defensive or trying to make excuses. I am just saying the circumstances are not the same and HBO and ABC are not held to the same standard by their audience or business model. And the way they handled it after the fact was completely different. Maher was apologetic and willing to take the heat on live TV, where as Roseanne was very defensive and even continued to go after Jarrett. I do think our society forgives people, but being apologetic and sincere is going to earn that forgiveness much quicker than being defensive and not appearing apologetic at all.
Last edited:
But it was not just directed at himself. Damn I cannot stand Progressives that push that BS! It's just that bad. If you call Barr a racist, you're just as racist for defending Mahr!
What would happen if I called myself a White Trash "N-word" in passing?!
I'd be kicked off LPI's Board of Directors, blackballed by Red Hat (which is now IBM) for any work with any of its partners (thousands of companies) and literally barred from any work in FSI or Public Sector.
My career would be over, and I'd have to retire ... let alone my wife and I would be harrassed in my own home with people trespassing all over my 3 acres for the rest of my life.
^^^ That is why I hate the Progressive US media with a passion -- excuse racists of their own party affiliation, destroy the lives of anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them ... like us freedom loving Libertarians.
How your company handles things isnt how every company handles things. I hate it when people make that argument "well if I did this I wouldnt even have a job". Well, he isnt you and he doesnt work for your company. THere isnt some law that every single company has to handle every single incident the exact same way. THere are probably things you could get away with at your job, that people in other jobs couldnt get away with too. ANd I am sorry, but there are plenty of people working in jobs all over this country who have said racists, sexist, or other bigoted type things that have kept their jobs. If the standard is that every white person who says a racist remark has to be fired, then there are a lot of employers that need to be cleaning out their staff.
And you conveniently left out a lot of details in how I pointed out they were different, mainly in how they each responded. Maher apologized immediately, Barr kept trying to play the victim. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone handles their mistakes appropriately.
THere is a Rush Limbaugh clip of him saying the n word on air, from 2013 (which I linked to but took it down because I am not sure if it is allowed, but you can easily find it) and guess what, he didnt get fired and is still one of the most listened to radio hosts in the country.
My 'company'? Did you not read a word of what I said?
Anything IBM ... done
Anything Red Hat ... done
Anything LPI, GNU/Linux, Upstream community ... done
Anything in Financial Services Industry (FSI) ... done
Anything in Government Public Sector ... done
Why? I'm a racist in the court of public opinion ... easily found out by anyone.
That is basically my entire, 25 year (post-intern) career there.
Done, over ... bye-bye.
That includes even the >>50% of stuff I do outside the US at times.
Why? Because the US media is where their national media gets stuff from too.
I'm still dispelling BS with my non-US colleagues, that the US media has already retracted.
I'd be not only 'starting over,' I'd have to accept everything with caveats.
That's 99% of Americans dude.
Your post is an utter load of BS.
Similar threads
