[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

The Obituary Page - Red_Dragon - Jan 30, 2023 - 6:58pm
 
• • • • Name My Possum • • • - haresfur - Jan 30, 2023 - 6:51pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Coaxial - Jan 30, 2023 - 6:09pm
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Jan 30, 2023 - 5:49pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jan 30, 2023 - 5:35pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Manbird - Jan 30, 2023 - 3:35pm
 
TV shows you watch - Manbird - Jan 30, 2023 - 3:32pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Steely_D - Jan 30, 2023 - 2:55pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Jan 30, 2023 - 2:11pm
 
Beer - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jan 30, 2023 - 1:57pm
 
Are you ready for some football? - cc_rider - Jan 30, 2023 - 8:02am
 
Out the window - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jan 30, 2023 - 7:56am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - cc_rider - Jan 30, 2023 - 7:55am
 
Things I Saw Today... - Red_Dragon - Jan 30, 2023 - 6:52am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 30, 2023 - 5:45am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Jan 30, 2023 - 4:18am
 
USA! USA! USA! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2023 - 9:07pm
 
NASA & other news from space - kurtster - Jan 29, 2023 - 8:05pm
 
SCOTUS - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2023 - 2:43pm
 
New Music - haresfur - Jan 29, 2023 - 12:34pm
 
Pretty Darn Good Bass Lines - among the best.... - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 8:28am
 
Outstanding Covers - Coaxial - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:56am
 
Bad Poetry - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:41am
 
Audials - roger.holroyd1217 - Jan 29, 2023 - 3:31am
 
The strange tale of KFAT - oldviolin - Jan 28, 2023 - 8:57pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - islander - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:25pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Bill_J - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:24pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Isabeau - Jan 28, 2023 - 1:34pm
 
Economix - R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:07pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - geoff_morphini - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:43am
 
Music Requests - Ralf - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:39am
 
last.fm-scrobbling - hans-juergen - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:25am
 
Immigration - westslope - Jan 27, 2023 - 4:13pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2023 - 3:39pm
 
Linking to "What's Playing" - fraenki - Jan 27, 2023 - 2:18pm
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - black321 - Jan 27, 2023 - 12:42pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Jan 27, 2023 - 10:19am
 
The Monks of Zagorsk - cathyetsylvain - Jan 27, 2023 - 9:16am
 
Having a Bad Day??? - GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:27pm
 
Living in America - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:16pm
 
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul - GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 7:53pm
 
Trump - haresfur - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:59pm
 
OUR CATS!! - Isabeau - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:02pm
 
Oil, Gas Prices & Other Crapola - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:44pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:20pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 10:07am
 
21st century technology - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 9:44am
 
The end of the world - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2023 - 6:38am
 
Joe Biden - kcar - Jan 25, 2023 - 9:21pm
 
Love is... - Isabeau - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:03pm
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - Proclivities - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:35am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jan 25, 2023 - 5:12am
 
a thank you for the team - guy-wernher - Jan 25, 2023 - 3:05am
 
COVID-19 - thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 3:41pm
 
Todd Rundgren - Steely_D - Jan 24, 2023 - 11:08am
 
Republican Party - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 24, 2023 - 8:35am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jan 24, 2023 - 6:44am
 
Surfing! - thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 2:15am
 
::odd but intriguing:: - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 23, 2023 - 9:00pm
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 3:09pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 2:00pm
 
Russia - cc_rider - Jan 23, 2023 - 8:14am
 
NOT Main Mix - ScopPics - Jan 23, 2023 - 4:25am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2023 - 9:14am
 
News of the Weird - Bill_J - Jan 20, 2023 - 7:51pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 20, 2023 - 2:57pm
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - R_P - Jan 20, 2023 - 1:48pm
 
The Bucket List - miamizsun - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:38am
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:02am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - haresfur - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:14pm
 
What music have you paid real money for recently? - kurtster - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:30pm
 
Twitter's finest moment - westslope - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:03pm
 
Tidal / Spotify - bigbargain - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:33pm
 
Is there any GOOD news out there? - black321 - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:06pm
 
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc) - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:17am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Things You Thought Today Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 8307, 8308, 8309  Next
Post to this Topic
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 1:42pm

 Isabeau wrote:


Woa General Patton; I see what you did there. Had no idea you were Hall Monitor over the rules. Buttons noted.
Yes,  I agree  politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care. 


No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?

Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 12:40pm

 Steely_D wrote:

* - I didn't say anything about "brutal." You're adding in your own thoughts there, not mine.
** - let's save gun control for a different time, since this is such a complex topic on its own.
*** - doesn't matter what you "believe." The fact is that it's a different, separate thing - yes, dependent on the mother's body. 
**** - not sure why you brought that up. My post doesn't include the words sacred/special/angelic. 
***** - like you are hanging at the Neo natal ward? Be careful what criteria you set up as "truly caring."
****** - and yet, true. There are women out there IRL that have had that many abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
*******- Wait, it takes sperm to make pregnancy? Well that's news to me. But the post was talking about abortion. Let's stay in that arena for a bit, OK?

And I think you missed the point of the whole post: politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care. Are you with me on that or do you just want to get lost in the weeds?


Woa General Patton; I see what you did there. Had no idea you were Hall Monitor over the rules. Buttons noted.
Yes,  I agree  politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care. 
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:49am

 Steely_D wrote:

You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.

I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for more than one woman  who has had almost twenty abortions.

But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.

To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)

So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which  is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"

But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care, and that includes abortion. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.

TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.



Thanks for your insightful and personal comments.

In that world, where we all understand the existential value of our existence, and weighed that in each of our choices, I agree. Leave it 100% to the individual. But that's not the world we live in.

Eventually, at some stage of the debate, politicians will play a role...and I'm searching for the best way they can play that role, and in the most informed way.

Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:42am

 Isabeau wrote:


Don't know at what stage that abortion was performed, but if it was as brutal as it must have seemed to you *, its too bad the politicians who rally for zero gun control didn't have to look at the mutilated bodies of unidentifiable fourth graders**. Perhaps if they did, they would be as circumspect as you.

As for me, the woman's body supports the pregnancy before viability, so if SHE dies, the fetus dies as well. It IS and must remain part of her body until viability. My belief is its NOT a separate life form until it can thrive outside the womb.***  Fertilized eggs are often flushed with menses without a woman's (or society's) knowledge and we all know that the first three months are a time where most spontaneous abortions - miscarriages - take place. There is nothing sacred, special or angelic about this. ****

And yes, politicians who decide medical issues are controlling the woman's body, because if they truly cared about Life, they'd be at the nearest neo natal ward, holding infants and writing checks for their care, not protesting or sitting behind a keyboard to use the issue as a cudgel to bash women with.*****

Your assertion that you've been with women who've had nearly 20 abortions sounds a bit dramatic,****** yet its telling that you comment that pregnancy prevention is the woman's body.
Surely you know it takes male sperm to make a pregnancy and they can and should use contraception too. We'd have a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies if women could simply take Daddy's DNA to the State and say he's gotta pay and help raise what he helped make. Condom sales would go through the roof. *******

* - I didn't say anything about "brutal." You're adding in your own thoughts there, not mine.
** - let's save gun control for a different time, since this is such a complex topic on its own.
*** - doesn't matter what you "believe." The fact is that it's a different, separate thing - yes, dependent on the mother's body. 
**** - not sure why you brought that up. My post doesn't include the words sacred/special/angelic. 
***** - like you are hanging at the Neo natal ward? Be careful what criteria you set up as "truly caring."
****** - and yet, true. There are women out there IRL that have had that many abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
*******- Wait, it takes sperm to make pregnancy? Well that's news to me. But the post was talking about abortion. Let's stay in that arena for a bit, OK?

And I think you missed the point of the whole post: politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care. Are you with me on that or do you just want to get lost in the weeds?
Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:21am

 Steely_D wrote:

Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.

I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for women who have had almost twenty abortions.

But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.

To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)



Don't know at what stage that abortion was performed, but if it was as brutal as it must have seemed to you, its too bad the politicians who rally for zero gun control didn't have to look at the mutilated bodies of unidentifiable fourth graders. Perhaps if they did, they would be as circumspect as you.

As for me, the woman's body supports the pregnancy before viability, so if SHE dies, the fetus dies as well. It IS and must remain part of her body until viability. My belief is its NOT a separate life form until it can thrive outside the womb.  Fertilized eggs are often flushed with menses without a woman's (or society's) knowledge and we all know that the first three months are a time where most spontaneous abortions - miscarriages - take place. There is nothing sacred, special or angelic about this. 

And yes, politicians who decide medical issues are controlling the woman's body, because if they truly cared about Life, they'd be at the nearest neo natal ward, holding infants and writing checks for their care, not protesting or sitting behind a keyboard to use the issue as a cudgel to bash women with.

Your assertion that you've been with women who've had nearly 20 abortions sounds a bit dramatic, yet its telling that you comment that pregnancy prevention is the woman's body.
Surely you know it takes male sperm to make a pregnancy and they can and should use contraception too. We'd have a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies if women could simply take Daddy's DNA to the State and say he's gotta pay and help raise what he helped make. Condom sales would go through the roof. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:16am

 Steely_D wrote:


Yeah, but I bet you weren't going to show off using the word "morula."


you would be correct sir
i had to stop and follow that link
but i will definitely use "zona pellucida" in a manbird thread
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:11am

 miamizsun wrote:
thanks, cause i was just about to say something similar
except the delivering babies part


Yeah, but I bet you weren't going to show off using the word "morula."
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:08am

 Steely_D wrote:

You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.

I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for women who have had almost twenty abortions.

But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.

To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)

So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which  is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"

But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.

TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.



thanks, cause i was just about to say something similar
except the delivering babies part


Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 10:02am

You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.

I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for more than one woman  who has had almost twenty abortions.

But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.

To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)

So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which  is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"

But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care, and that includes abortion. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.

TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.


Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 9:42am

 black321 wrote:

I understand your passionate response, but it didn’t really address my question.


As for following the constitution on this issue…it’s an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of “quickening,” which I believe is around mid-term. Still, that’s only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.


Its a personal, private individual issue, not the issue of the community or the state.  Period.  There should never be any debate in a secular country regarding governing the operations or conditions of any American's internal organs. Period.

 Or should I start reporting the conditions of my bowel movements too? 

Either People who claim to care about "LIFE" do so at every point: Wars, Guns, Healthcare, etc.  or its just merely indulging in Selective Morality. A preponderance of evidence supports the latter.



black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 8:47am

 islander wrote:


I see what you are after, and I think there is merit in it as a discussion. But there are significant differences in the issues that I think limit the usefulness of a 1:1 argument.  Guns are a personal freedom and while they are specifically mentioned in the constitution, there are many personal freedoms where we accept limits (even guns). Abortion is a medical procedure that impacts many portions of the person's life, and honestly it impacts 0% of the lives of those protesting other than their ability to inflict their will on someone else.   

I'm still okay with a few restrictions, but they would pretty much fall in line with what 99% of abortions already are. And I'd leave a wide swath of "medically necessary as defined by a doctor not a politician" that would probably wind up cover another 0.99%.   I'm sure there are a handful of abortions that we could agree to take issue with, but I'd also say that a healthy society would have sex education, and health care systems that would eliminate the vast majority of what's left. 

But I also don't really want broad gun restrictions. I think common sense would cover most of it. But since either we are lacking, or my definition is overly broad, then I do think there are a lot more restrictions that make sense. Mostly mine would be around where you should have them (theaters, stores, public venues, ect.), but I don't really think that's a solution. I think we need a cultural shift that would mock and shame someone sending a christmas card with the family holding guns.  This is also the same cultural shift that would probably give more public health and general public societal support that would eliminate a lot of abortions.   Not surprising then that  while we are at a political stalemate, we won't be making much progress on these items. 

See you next week after the next mass shooting where I'll just copy/paste this. 

I can get behind your points, as a healthy start...and especially the bold. 
Especially the point we could improve the overall health of our society, and the majority of issues we face, with better overall education.
Which brings to mind another thought, I think that (better education) might require an even more radical discussion... a real no child left behind policy. 

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 8:45am

 black321 wrote:

I understand your passionate response, but it didn’t really address my question.

Understand that I, and I believe most here are not smart enough, or lack the medical background to really address this debate. But that doesn't matter, as the lack of real debate is the point…like with guns, immigration and other issues. Conservatives largely view guns as a black and white issue– we don’t want limits on guns. With abortion for liberals, same... and yes of course, the "compromises" coming from most of the right seem disingenuous.  (not trying to position this as a left or right argument, but an actual argument). Even if you are 100% right, that still doesn't mean we ought not still have this debate. 

As for following the constitution on this issue…it’s an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of “quickening,” which I believe is around mid-term. Still, that’s only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.


a good debate might require both sides to drop the straw and steelman an opposing or different view
intellectual honesty should and probably would bring some respect/credibility to the conversation


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 8:31am

 black321 wrote:

I understand your passionate response, but it didn’t really address my question.

Understand that I, and I believe most here are not smart enough, or lack the medical background to really address this debate. But that doesn't matter, as the lack of real debate is the point…like with guns, immigration and other issues. Conservatives largely view guns as a black and white issue– we don’t want limits on guns. With abortion for liberals, same... and yes of course, the "compromises" coming from most of the right seem disingenuous.  (not trying to position this as a left or right argument, but an actual argument). Even if you are 100% right, that still doesn't mean we ought not still have this debate. 

As for following the constitution on this issue…it’s an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of “quickening,” which I believe is around mid-term. Still, that’s only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.






I see what you are after, and I think there is merit in it as a discussion. But there are significant differences in the issues that I think limit the usefulness of a 1:1 argument.  Guns are a personal freedom and while they are specifically mentioned in the constitution, there are many personal freedoms where we accept limits (even guns). Abortion is a medical procedure that impacts many portions of the person's life, and honestly it impacts 0% of the lives of those protesting other than their ability to inflict their will on someone else.   

I'm still okay with a few restrictions, but they would pretty much fall in line with what 99% of abortions already are. And I'd leave a wide swath of "medically necessary as defined by a doctor not a politician" that would probably wind up cover another 0.99%.   I'm sure there are a handful of abortions that we could agree to take issue with, but I'd also say that a healthy society would have sex education, and health care systems that would eliminate the vast majority of what's left. 

But I also don't really want broad gun restrictions. I think common sense would cover most of it. But since either we are lacking, or my definition is overly broad, then I do think there are a lot more restrictions that make sense. Mostly mine would be around where you should have them (theaters, stores, public venues, ect.), but I don't really think that's a solution. I think we need a cultural shift that would mock and shame someone sending a christmas card with the family holding guns.  This is also the same cultural shift that would probably give more public health and general public societal support that would eliminate a lot of abortions.   Not surprising then that  while we are at a political stalemate, we won't be making much progress on these items. 

See you next week after the next mass shooting where I'll just copy/paste this. 
GeneP59

GeneP59 Avatar

Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday.
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 8:22am

I try not to.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:32am

 Isabeau wrote:


Compromise - the soul of a democratic republic - means following the U.S. Constitution on issues of personal and medical privacy, bodily autonomy and separation of church and state.

Women are not having elective abortions all the way up to the day of birth - that is a malignant fallacy. Abortions after 15 weeks require far more surgical skill, expense and a doctor's approval that it is necessary for the life of the Woman. These are people who were looking forward to being parents and are devastated at finding out a medical condition will render the fetus not viable after birth (like not having a skull casing, or kidneys) or the fetus has died in utero and the sepsis toxins are flowing into the woman's system. These are people who have picked out names, decorated a nursery and they are heartbroken at having to make that choice.
But that choice belongs to a woman, her doctor and her God. Not the state or anyone else's 'Beliefs.'
Why should a woman compromise on her own internal organs in a Nation based on a secular law system?

If you BELIEVE that life begins at conception, that's a belief that not everyone, or even science shares.  My kidneys have human DNA, but it doesn't mean they are 'alive' and I should give them names. Pregnancy is a Process; Not an Instant Pudding Result.

Where's all the hand wringing when foreign Mothers and children are blown away by our guns and tanks during war time, militarily known as "Collateral Damage?"

I guess only SOME fetuses get to be 'Starkist?'


I understand your passionate response, but it didn’t really address my question.

Understand that I, and I believe most here are not smart enough, or lack the medical background to really address this debate. But that doesn't matter, as the lack of real debate is the point…like with guns, immigration and other issues. Conservatives largely view guns as a black and white issue– we don’t want limits on guns. With abortion for liberals, same... and yes of course, the "compromises" coming from most of the right seem disingenuous.  (not trying to position this as a left or right argument, but an actual argument). Even if you are 100% right, that still doesn't mean we ought not still have this debate. 

As for following the constitution on this issue…it’s an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of “quickening,” which I believe is around mid-term. Still, that’s only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.




islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:30am

 maryte wrote:


Well beyond this, the goal is to also criminalize pharmaceuticals that would post-coitally prevent conception (like Plan B)...the goal, ultimately, is to take away a woman's right to control her own body.


Very true. And I should have said criminalize all abortions that don't personally impact them, those they seem to be okay with.  
Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:06am

 black321 wrote:

The question then is (with all sincerity, and clearly each state has its own rules even pro-abortion states), are there compromises from pro-abortion groups?



Compromise - the soul of a democratic republic - means following the U.S. Constitution on issues of personal and medical privacy, bodily autonomy and separation of church and state.

Women are not having elective abortions all the way up to the day of birth - that is a malignant fallacy. Abortions after 15 weeks require far more surgical skill, expense and a doctor's approval that it is necessary for the life of the Woman. These are people who were looking forward to being parents and are devastated at finding out a medical condition will render the fetus not viable after birth (like not having a skull casing, or kidneys) or the fetus has died in utero and the sepsis toxins are flowing into the woman's system. These are people who have picked out names, decorated a nursery and they are heartbroken at having to make that choice.
But that choice belongs to a woman, her doctor and her God. Not the state or anyone else's 'Beliefs.'
Why should a woman compromise on her own internal organs in a Nation based on a secular law system?

If you BELIEVE that life begins at conception, that's a belief that not everyone, or even science shares.  My kidneys have human DNA, but it doesn't mean they are 'alive' and I should give them names. Pregnancy is a Process; Not an Instant Pudding Result.

Where's all the hand wringing when foreign Mothers and children are blown away by our guns and tanks during war time, militarily known as "Collateral Damage?"

I guess only SOME fetuses get to be 'Starkist?'

maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:05am

 islander wrote:


I have yet to hear a compromise position from an anti-abortion proponent.  As evidenced by recent events, their goal is the criminalization of all abortions. 

Edit: I'm open to being incorrect here, but the larger rhetoric an action that I see is 0 abortions. I'm very compromise on 2A. I want guns generally available, but I don't want them in most situations without proper training and guidance. And I do believe that with proper training and guidance, the vast majority of situations would suggest that you leave your gun behind - especially at the movie theater/grocery store/kindergarten/concert venue/park/sportsball game/drinking establishment....



Well beyond this, the goal is to also criminalize pharmaceuticals that would post-coitally prevent conception (like Plan B)...the goal, ultimately, is to take away a woman's right to control her own body.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 6:51am

The question then is (with all sincerity, and clearly each state has its own rules even pro-abortion states), are there compromises from pro-abortion groups?
Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 5:54am

 Steely_D wrote:

But, to be fair: if you really believe - and I mean really believe - then you shouldn't back down. You shouldn't compromise.


Agreed. Otherwise its Cafeteria Christianity and Selective Morality.
Interesting how the bill before SCOTUS was originally arguing for an after 15 weeks ban in Mississippi, but they decided to obliterate Roe anyway. Now, right to life zealots and Republicans realize this could be a losing policy for them ... what are they attempting to go for? A ban after 15 weeks. 
Most medical or surgical abortions are performed in the 8-12 week period. 

Bottom line: Regulating the Internal Organs of any American is the very definition of Unlawful Search and Seizure.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 8307, 8308, 8309  Next