NomadPatriot wrote:jimboston wrote:You can’t debate religion.Abortion Rights vs. Pro Life... basically debating religion.
I am not religious.. so... your point is null & void
No. I’m not.
I mean, possibly I used the word ‘religion’ and should have used the word ‘spirituality’... but I don’t think spirituality is correct either and religion is more proper here.
You might not be religious in the sense of being part of an organized religion, I wouldn’t know... but the opposition to abortion is absolutely based on some sort of religious/spiritual world view. Period.
The basis for all opposition to abortion is based on the idea that the life of the fetus has value on its’ on and has its’ own ‘right to life’.
Therefore we need to ask the basic question, when does life start. This is a religious/spiritual question.
Science (at least science we have today) cannot answer this question for us. Period.
Proponents of these new ‘fetal heartbeat’ laws are trying to use science to bolster their position, but the argument fails the smell test.
You can’t use science to argue that “life begins when we can detect a fetal heartbeat”. That’s ridiculous because that means that the “start date” for life is dependent on our current level of technology. Today we can detect a fetal heartbeat at about 6 weeks. Prior to ultrasounds/echocardiograms... when we only had stethoscopes... we would’ve had to wait till about 20 weeks to hear a heartbeat. Does that mean that life now starts sooner? That makes no sense.
What about in the future... we could invent so new technology that can detect a heartbeat at 4 weeks. So does that mean proponents of this new law are actually supporting murder by letting abortions occur between weeks 4-6?
It’s a religious/spiritual question. You can’t debate it. I’m not going to convince you abortions are OK because you believe the fetus is a life. I understand your point and respect that point. I actually mostly agree. I however recognize it’s a religious question and have come to the conclusion that it’s not my place ,to push my religious believes onto other people.
I’ve heard so many different dates thrown out by people arguing pro-life / pro-choice...
*fetal heartbeat
*conception
*first trimester
*the point where fetus would be viable (i.e. would survive) outside the womb
The Catholic Church would (essentially) argue that sperm and eggs are life and therefore protected sex and masturbation are sins. I don’t know if their official position has changed, but it wasn’t long ago that IVF was frowned upon by the Catholic Church.
In pre-modern times in some societies infants had no rights and would be killed if they had any obvious birth defects. Essentially post-birth abortions. (I’m thinking of Sparta, but I’m sure there are other societies that existed and may still exist.)
Now, I’m NOT arguing that “post-birth” abortions are something we should allow or go back to. I’m just saying that different societies/people have different beliefs about the ‘start’ of life for a long time. I mean this could turn this into a debate on the ‘value’ of life and how that is also malleable... but that’s a separate and also huge subject.
The whole point here is that you are religious/spiritual wether you admit it or not.
Jim 1 / Nomad 0
NomadPatriot wrote:
jimboston wrote:1) Medicaid is a state program... but ultimately most of the dollars come from the Feds... so that’s a false flag.
I didn't bring up Medicaid.. so.. ok..
You might not have brought up Medicaid, but you replied to Mookie when he mentioned Medicaid.
So how come you can reply to him when you think you have a smart answer, but you decline to comment when I refute your point?
Perhaps because you know I’m correct and you don’t want to admit it.
You can choose to not reply, but saying “I didn’t bring it up” when you did previously comment on it is childish.
Jim 2 / Nomad 0
NomadPatriot wrote:
jimboston wrote:2) these new laws being enacted in some states are outright bans. .
apparently you do not understand the laws being enacted... they are not a " outright ban".. they are based on the fetal Heartbeat.. which starts to occur around the 6 week mark of the pregnancy... you should educate yourself on what your talking about.. you are sounding dumb..
So I was using shorthand so I could type less. Sorry!
I certainly understand the whole concept of how many of these new State Laws are based on fetal heartbeat. Technically you can still get an Abortion prior to the fetus having a heartbeat. In practical terms though it essentially becomes and outright ban. Two reasons...
1) Most women learn/determine they are pregnant 4-7 weeks after conception. So a significant percentage don’t even know they’re pregnant till AFTER the point where the law would prohibit abortion. The one’s that figure it out 3-5 weeks in now have only a week or two to decide that they want and abortion and then schedule /get that abortion.
2) The laws set a culture and threaten the livelihood of doctors / facilities who would otherwise offer abortions. Many will choose to just avoid performing this service because it’s not worth risking the potential repercussions of terminating a pregnancy. It’s opening the door for all sorts of trouble. If a doctor performs an abortion how will said doctor ‘prove’ there was no heartbeat? I’m not going to argue about the real risks to doctors, it’s about the perceived risk... and many will just avoid the risk and choose to not offer abortions thereby limiting access for women.
These laws might not technically be an outright bans, but for all intents/purposes they prohibits and impede to such a degree that in practical terms they’re the same as outright bans for the vast majority of women.
... btw calling me ‘dumb’ really helps your point!
Jim 3 / Nomad 0
You know how you’ve won an argument? When your opponent starts throwing out “Hilter”!
Seriously there are SO many ways that your comparison is invalid I’m not going to start listing them.
Jim 4 / Nomad 0
One final note... your whole initial premise is about the idea that you “don’t want to pay for abortions”... but then you also talk about these new laws that are ESSENTIALLY acting as outright bans on abortion. I mean the title of the thread is “Louisiana governor signs
abortion ban into law”.
These are two separate issues... paying for abortions versus just opposing abortions in general. I mean, you can be anti-abortion AND be opposed to paying for abortions.. but it’s also possible for a person to believe abortions should be legal, but also be opposed to the idea of paying for them. You seem to be overlapping your thoughts on these two separate points. It’s not logical to say “I don’t like paying for abortions, so abortions should be illegal.” Your comments become less valid when you conflate these ideas.
Jim 5 / Nomad 0
Game Over
