Compelling Pro Life Argument

[silesian]

Single party state with a capitalist economy, that's fascism.

Putting a single label on the Chinese system is quite simplistic, don’t you think?

 

[LogGrad98]

If I stab someone in the kidney, that could result in their loss of kidney function. Nonetheless, there is no provision that would force me to donate one of my kidneys in recompense. Legally, we treat the bodies of murderers as sacrosanct, but not women who had sex.



Consent has to be granted to an existing entity. What entity is being granted consent at the time of sex?



They don't. If the fetus does not wish to be connected to the woman's uterus, we should allow the fetus to disconnect itself. The fetus should have the same rights as the woman, the right to be disconnected.

However, I don't think many fetuses will exercise that right.



I'm not sure what that phrase is supposed to mean.

Shouldn't she get permission from the fetus before creating it in the first place? If the fetus exercised it's right to leave the womb, it wouldn't affect the woman, but if she exercises her right to evict the fetus it results in the fetus' death, seems the outcome should have something to do with this, as it does in a court of law. If I bail out on my landlord without paying my rent he can sue, but if he evicts me by killing me he would be tried for murder.

Also the stabbing a kidney thing makes no sense. The fetus has had zero choices at all in the entire thing, yet pays the highest price, all without ever being in any position to understand let alone exercise any of it's rights.

Existential rape: the fetus was forced to exist, didn't make the choice, had it forced upon it, possibly against its will. What word other than rape would be more fitting? Existential kidnapping?

 

[silesian]

Single party state with a capitalist economy, that's fascism.

Have you done business in China or spent any time there? Things are not as cut and dry as you may have read. The means of production are privately held in capitalism and they are public ally held in socialism. China is a hybrid. The economy is tightly controlled and the “capitalists” do nothing without the complete oversight of the communist leaders.

There are also companies who are partially or fully state owned. And the implied complete central control is a myth as there are regional power players (also communists) who have extensive powers.

Is it fascist? Communist? Socialist? Capitalist? Yes and no to each. It is Chinese and does fit neatly into any one category.

 

[silesian]

The thing about Trump that I find so interesting is the lack of self-awareness about how history is likely to judge the Trump Administration and those who enabled him. He, and his supporters, are on the wrong side of history, and as the nation regains its collective mind and time passes and the nation is able to put the past into perspective, the Trump Admin will not be recalled as, to put it finely, a high point in US history. He'll be keeping company with, among others, Nixon & Harding as bad/corrupt presidents. I find it so interesting how so few people exhibit any self-awareness about this or exhibit any outward desire to put themselves, and their legacies, on the right side of history.

Yes. Many people will have a hard time explaining their actions to their grandkids. It is going to be fun to read all the books from trump insiders explaining his idiocy and how they tried their best to help guide this buffoon, but to no avail.

Contrast to bush 2, who despite being a weak president, he acted with dignity, treated people with respect, and was mentioned fondly by his staff and adversaries alike. He is a decent human being. In contrast with..... well, you know.

 

[silesian]

Hypocrisy of the Right is more glaring at the moment since it has abandoned long-voiced principles in its all-out pursuit for power and to insert their collective heads up Trump's arse.

I find it comical how trumpsters are dancing in the streets because they learned that trump is not a felon. Poor guys.

 

[Gameface]

The OP video doesn't even make a pro-life argument. Am I missing something?

 

[Gameface]

On a basic emotional level, I'm pro-abortion rights. I'm not going to hide that behind "pro-choice," I'm just going to say that I really want to support abortion rights.

On a moral level, I can't make it work, honestly. There are problems with it, as far as "fairness in a vacuum." Abortion is not "fair." At least not the way it exists today. It may be fair in a historical context, but if you were to start from scratch today, and erase all past hierarchy, all past power dynamics, it would be unjust.

But I live in the real world, and in the real world, today, as things have developed in our history to this point, abortion is power women need to attain equality. So I support abortion rights. Not the "right to chose" I support the right of a woman to get an abortion.

Human life is disposed of and disregarded in our society with much less concern than any woman getting an abortion. Fix that **** and get back to me about abortion.

 

[Eminence]

Have you done business in China or spent any time there? Things are not as cut and dry as you may have read. The means of production are privately held in capitalism and they are public ally held in socialism. China is a hybrid. The economy is tightly controlled and the “capitalists” do nothing without the complete oversight of the communist leaders.

There are also companies who are partially or fully state owned. And the implied complete central control is a myth as there are regional power players (also communists) who have extensive powers.

Is it fascist? Communist? Socialist? Capitalist? Yes and no to each. It is Chinese and does fit neatly into any one category.

I at least would greatly quibble with the difference between state-owned and publicly-owned. Are absolute monarchies somehow socialist/communist because everything is owned/controlled by the 'government' (the monarch), no that would be ridiculous.

 

[One Brow]

Shouldn't she get permission from the fetus before creating it in the first place? If the fetus exercised it's right to leave the womb, it wouldn't affect the woman, but if she exercises her right to evict the fetus it results in the fetus' death, seems the outcome should have something to do with this, as it does in a court of law. If I bail out on my landlord without paying my rent he can sue, but if he evicts me by killing me he would be tried for murder.

Also the stabbing a kidney thing makes no sense. The fetus has had zero choices at all in the entire thing, yet pays the highest price, all without ever being in any position to understand let alone exercise any of it's rights.

Existential rape: the fetus was forced to exist, didn't make the choice, had it forced upon it, possibly against its will. What word other than rape would be more fitting? Existential kidnapping?

Most abortions happen when the woman has no intention of creating the fetus. Your landlord signed a contract with you that gives you right to the property, I am unaware of any such contract between a woman and a fetus.

The victim of a stabbing usually has also not chosen to be stabbed. My point was that, in the case of the stabbing, we don't the responsible person (the stabber) to account by forfeiting part of their body. We only do that to women, because THEY HAD SEX.

Actually, I'm fine with referring to an abortion as an execution, if you are looking for a more emotionally charged word.

 

[LogGrad98]

Most abortions happen when the woman has no intention of creating the fetus. Your landlord signed a contract with you that gives you right to the property, I am unaware of any such contract between a woman and a fetus.

The victim of a stabbing usually has also not chosen to be stabbed. My point was that, in the case of the stabbing, we don't the responsible person (the stabber) to account by forfeiting part of their body. We only do that to women, because THEY HAD SEX.

Actually, I'm fine with referring to an abortion as an execution, if you are looking for a more emotionally charged word.

I'm not looking for anything emotionally charged, I'm looking for an equivalent action to what is happening to the fetus. You are completely skirting the fact that a life is created, which you acknowledge has rights, but then is summarily executed (your word). All of your analogies center around the fetus doing something to the mother, yet ignore what the mother is doing to the fetus.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not looking for anything emotionally charged, I'm looking for an equivalent action to what is happening to the fetus. You are completely skirting the fact that a life is created, which you acknowledge has rights, but then is summarily executed (your word). All of your analogies center around the fetus doing something to the mother, yet ignore what the mother is doing to the fetus.

I agree that killing the fetus is a tragedy. Forcing the woman to carry it is also a tragedy. So, I find myself choosing between two options I think terrible, and take the solution I find fairest under our legal standards.

 

[fishonjazz]

Human life is disposed of and disregarded in our society with much less concern than any woman getting an abortion. Fix that **** and get back to me about abortion.

This.
It often seems that the people who are against abortion the most are also the people who are less caring about non fetus human life.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

I just agree with Jesus. From the POV of Mormon scripture, He identifies the body as a "temple" like three or four times. I agree with that: i) the body is sacred, and ii) the body is the middle ground between heaven and earth. Though I am no longer LDS, there is something that rings true about the content of Mormon texts to me, and I fundamentally disagree with Descartes' notion that the body is merely a machine.

Mormon scripture also indicates that the first stand that Jesus took was on the sanctity of autonomy (referred to as "agency" in Mormon parlance). This stand is what caused the war in heaven, as Lucifer wanted to control all and puppet us through life and back into the Kingdom of God. So both the body and the freedom to choose are sacrosanct to Jesus. This is basic Mormon scriptural cosmology.

If the body is a temple, there is no way in hell that the womb = The United States. So anything therein is not within the jurisdiction of the US government. To pretend so is to defy God. Women are stewards of their bodies, and all decisions on what goes in or out of their orifices should remain solely within the closed council of i) the woman and ii) God. This is the only sensible way that pays respect to Christ's stances on what the body is, and how important personal autonomy is.

It is ridiculous to call a killing anything else than what it is. But if a woman chooses to kill a life that exists within her womb, I think that is absolutely her right. And because it is within a temple, that life is not an American citizen. It is her right to kill within the womb, or have the life removed. Stewardship of a sacred temple of God = a sacred duty that should be left to the individual.

A baby is an American when it enters America. The womb is not, and never should be, understood as such. So birth is what qualifies the baby to rights. Until then, he/she belongs wholly to the mother. As should the decision.

 

[MVP]

I just agree with Jesus. From the POV of Mormon scripture, He identifies the body as a "temple" like three or four times. I agree with that: i) the body is sacred, and ii) the body is the middle ground between heaven and earth. Though I am no longer LDS, there is something that rings true about the content of Mormon texts to me, and I fundamentally disagree with Descartes' notion that the body is merely a machine.

Mormon scripture also indicates that the first stand that Jesus took was on the sanctity of autonomy (referred to as "agency" in Mormon parlance). This stand is what caused the war in heaven, as Lucifer wanted to control all and puppet us through life and back into the Kingdom of God. So both the body and the freedom to choose are sacrosanct to Jesus. This is basic Mormon scriptural cosmology.

If the body is a temple, there is no way in hell that the womb = The United States. So anything therein is not within the jurisdiction of the US government. To pretend so is to defy God. Women are stewards of their bodies, and all decisions on what goes in or out of their orifices should remain solely within the closed council of i) the woman and ii) God. This is the only sensible way that pays respect to Christ's stances on what the body is, and how important personal autonomy is.

It is ridiculous to call a killing anything else than what it is. But if a woman chooses to kill a life that exists within her womb, I think that is absolutely her right. And because it is within a temple, that life is not an American citizen. It is her right to kill within the womb, or have the life removed. Stewardship of a sacred temple of God = a sacred duty that should be left to the individual.

A baby is an American when it enters America. The womb is not, and never should be, understood as such. So birth is what qualifies the baby to rights. Until then, he/she belongs wholly to the mother. As should the decision.

Great conclusion but why did you need to include supernatural?

 

[fishonjazz]

I just agree with Jesus. From the POV of Mormon scripture, He identifies the body as a "temple" like three or four times. I agree with that: i) the body is sacred, and ii) the body is the middle ground between heaven and earth. Though I am no longer LDS, there is something that rings true about the content of Mormon texts to me, and I fundamentally disagree with Descartes' notion that the body is merely a machine.

Mormon scripture also indicates that the first stand that Jesus took was on the sanctity of autonomy (referred to as "agency" in Mormon parlance). This stand is what caused the war in heaven, as Lucifer wanted to control all and puppet us through life and back into the Kingdom of God. So both the body and the freedom to choose are sacrosanct to Jesus. This is basic Mormon scriptural cosmology.

If the body is a temple, there is no way in hell that the womb = The United States. So anything therein is not within the jurisdiction of the US government. To pretend so is to defy God. Women are stewards of their bodies, and all decisions on what goes in or out of their orifices should remain solely within the closed council of i) the woman and ii) God. This is the only sensible way that pays respect to Christ's stances on what the body is, and how important personal autonomy is.

It is ridiculous to call a killing anything else than what it is. But if a woman chooses to kill a life that exists within her womb, I think that is absolutely her right. And because it is within a temple, that life is not an American citizen. It is her right to kill within the womb, or have the life removed. Stewardship of a sacred temple of God = a sacred duty that should be left to the individual.

A baby is an American when it enters America. The womb is not, and never should be, understood as such. So birth is what qualifies the baby to rights. Until then, he/she belongs wholly to the mother. As should the decision.

Wow. Quite an interesting, outside the box way of looking at it.
Hadn't heard that before. Thanks for the new perspective

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

Great conclusion but why did you need to include supernatural?

If it’s part of my cosmology, why wouldn’t I include it?

 

[LogGrad98]

I just agree with Jesus. From the POV of Mormon scripture, He identifies the body as a "temple" like three or four times. I agree with that: i) the body is sacred, and ii) the body is the middle ground between heaven and earth. Though I am no longer LDS, there is something that rings true about the content of Mormon texts to me, and I fundamentally disagree with Descartes' notion that the body is merely a machine.

Mormon scripture also indicates that the first stand that Jesus took was on the sanctity of autonomy (referred to as "agency" in Mormon parlance). This stand is what caused the war in heaven, as Lucifer wanted to control all and puppet us through life and back into the Kingdom of God. So both the body and the freedom to choose are sacrosanct to Jesus. This is basic Mormon scriptural cosmology.

If the body is a temple, there is no way in hell that the womb = The United States. So anything therein is not within the jurisdiction of the US government. To pretend so is to defy God. Women are stewards of their bodies, and all decisions on what goes in or out of their orifices should remain solely within the closed council of i) the woman and ii) God. This is the only sensible way that pays respect to Christ's stances on what the body is, and how important personal autonomy is.

It is ridiculous to call a killing anything else than what it is. But if a woman chooses to kill a life that exists within her womb, I think that is absolutely her right. And because it is within a temple, that life is not an American citizen. It is her right to kill within the womb, or have the life removed. Stewardship of a sacred temple of God = a sacred duty that should be left to the individual.

A baby is an American when it enters America. The womb is not, and never should be, understood as such. So birth is what qualifies the baby to rights. Until then, he/she belongs wholly to the mother. As should the decision.

While I do not fully agree with this stance, this is probably the most complete explanation of the difference between baby rights and mother rights I've read. I can respect that standpoint.

 

[silesian]

I at least would greatly quibble with the difference between state-owned and publicly-owned. Are absolute monarchies somehow socialist/communist because everything is owned/controlled by the 'government' (the monarch), no that would be ridiculous.

The means of production are controlled publicly in socialism. The means of production are controlled by the monarch in an absolute monarchy. From this you cannot conclude that monarchies are socialist, but rather that monarchies and socialist systems share a this attribute.

If John holds an apple and Susie holds an apple, you can't conclude that John is Susie.

So your statement is indeed ridiculous because of the tortured logic that you are using.

 

[MVP]

If it’s part of my cosmology, why wouldn’t I include it?

Because it may not be part of cosmology of anybody else involved in the decision making. Thus it is really not important if they defy God or not. I think we can talk biology, human rights, etc, but should leave supernatural things outside of the decision making.

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

Because it may not be part of cosmology of anybody else involved in the decision making. Thus it is really not important if they defy God or not. I think we can talk biology, human rights, etc, but should leave supernatural things outside of the decision making.

*shrug, I just assume that you and everyone else here are adult enough to read about another persons point of view without agreeing 100% with their world view.

There is nothing in my opinion the insists that anyone has to believe in God. I feel completely free to include my beliefs anytime I want to. As should you.