Abortion Rights Revisited

[Aurielius]

Abortion debates, yup that's the surefire way to bring us all together around the campfire singing songs and toasting marshmallows. This never ends well. :ninja:

[TheMastersSon]

Never ends well? My original claim and point are still unanswered in this debate, so mission accomplished imo. Bottom line is, advocate for laws against abortion only if you can look your own daughter in the eyes and tell her she's stuck with an unwanted pregnancy because our laws say so. And don't advocate for laws that you yourself are unwilling to follow. How difficult is that? Edited January 8, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

Never ends well? My original claim and point are still unanswered in this debate, so mission accomplished imo. Bottom line is, advocate for laws against abortion only if you can look your own daughter in the eyes and tell her she's stuck with an unwanted pregnancy because our laws say so. And don't advocate for laws that you yourself are unwilling to follow. How difficult is that?

Actually, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

I think the gubbermint sticks its collective nose way to far into folks private lives already, and have been for quite some time. How about:

 

1. Don't tell me what I can, or cannot, do with/to my own body.

2. Don't tell me how to raise my children, as the folks in DC obviously don't have a clue.

3. Don't tell me that my religious views are wrong, because some tiny minority of the entire population says so.

4. Don't try and micromanage my life. That's my wifes job. :D

[HeyYou]

Abortion debates, yup that's the surefire way to bring us all together around the campfire singing songs and toasting marshmallows. This never ends well. :ninja:

I just wanted to add: You are always welcome to come over and toast marshmallows...... I don't know about singing songs though, my singing voice sucks.... (the dogs howl along with me......) And lastly, it's been a tad cold of late, so, the 'campfire' might have to be one of the burners on my gas stove. :D

 

Oh, and your dogs are welcome too. All of ya all can come over whenever ya care to. Just give me an hour or two of advance warning. :D

Edited January 9, 2018 by HeyYou

[skyquest32]

 

Never ends well? My original claim and point are still unanswered in this debate, so mission accomplished imo. Bottom line is, advocate for laws against abortion only if you can look your own daughter in the eyes and tell her she's stuck with an unwanted pregnancy because our laws say so. And don't advocate for laws that you yourself are unwilling to follow. How difficult is that?

Actually, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

I think the gubbermint sticks its collective nose way to far into folks private lives already, and have been for quite some time. How about:

 

1. Don't tell me what I can, or cannot, do with/to my own body.

2. Don't tell me how to raise my children, as the folks in DC obviously don't have a clue.

3. Don't tell me that my religious views are wrong, because some tiny minority of the entire population says so.

4. Don't try and micromanage my life. That's my wifes job. :D

 

Rock on! Agreed not the role of government.

 

To MastersSon final major thing to say to you about abortion directly take it as you will:

 

Edit:

 

I am incidentally no roman catholic, ''hehehe'' but the above was a joke ''I wish you had made it'' but in the classic sense, I mean no disrespect... I do support the Order/structure/work of the holy roman Catholic church, over the ages.

Its performed greatness and has been beautiful to me in form and function.

 

I am not speaking entirely Religiously here but culturally socially, historically and aesthetically. Cause and effect. No talk of the actual Religion. I am also a pragmatist.

 

Its been negatively influenced too much by PC and had to Faux adapt temporally, but they are only saying these things for calculated reasons at this time.

 

Many priests are a great deal more intellectual and knowing than you might think. There work has not changed.

Edited January 9, 2018 by skyquest32

[TheMastersSon]

My dad always claimed that all organized religions are evil, it took almost 40 years for me to understand why he's correct. While there's nothing wrong with mutual expressed love of God and charity imo, due to human nature the mutual faith part inevitably winds up far more political in nature than religious, with an agenda to match. The RCC in particular has never in its entire history recognized even the concept of separation of church and state. To their faithful no difference exists between civil law and religious belief. It's the same popular demographic responsible for keeping the ayatollahs in power in Iran etc. They exert a relentless and inexorable pressure on our civil law while their organizations remain exempt from civil taxes. The RCC, LDS and their myriad subsidiary organizations actively fundraise to introduce and pass civil legislation to eliminate both abortion rights for women and all civil rights for gay people etc. So they are as much if not primarily political forces (just ask John Boehner etc) with self-serving political agendas, as they are religious organizations. A sizable portion of the money plonked down in church baskets every week goes to pay legal settlements for convicted child abusers. Etc. The bottom line and simple, ugly truth is that people are people, and human nature applies equally to everyone as long as one remains human. The only difference among us is in the amount of our emotional and intellectual acceptance of this nature, e.g. show me two dozen Catholic cardinals and I'll show you two dozen intellectual and emotional hypocrites. Ergo:

 

 

The primary purpose of any major religion is and must be to keep itself in business, or else the set of religious beliefs it's based on and chartered to advance is a moot issue.

Edited January 9, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[JimboUK]

Can we stop the religious stuff please? for those unaware why https://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/13193-religious-debates-are-banned/

[HeyYou]

Can we stop the religious stuff please? for those unaware why https://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/13193-religious-debates-are-banned/

Honest Jim, we are TRYING to, but, it's hard to avoid stepping close to that line on some topics.... This being one of them. We aren't really 'debating' religion...... but, we are using religion are part of our arguments......

 

Sorry Man.

[skyquest32]

 

 

Never ends well? My original claim and point are still unanswered in this debate, so mission accomplished imo. Bottom line is, advocate for laws against abortion only if you can look your own daughter in the eyes and tell her she's stuck with an unwanted pregnancy because our laws say so. And don't advocate for laws that you yourself are unwilling to follow. How difficult is that?

Actually, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

I think the gubbermint sticks its collective nose way to far into folks private lives already, and have been for quite some time. How about:

 

1. Don't tell me what I can, or cannot, do with/to my own body.

2. Don't tell me how to raise my children, as the folks in DC obviously don't have a clue.

3. Don't tell me that my religious views are wrong, because some tiny minority of the entire population says so.

4. Don't try and micromanage my life. That's my wifes job. :D

 

Rock on! Agreed not the role of government.

 

To MastersSon final major thing to say to you about abortion directly take it as you will:

 

Edit:

 

I am incidentally no roman catholic, ''hehehe'' but the above was a joke ''I wish you had made it'' but in the classic sense, I mean no disrespect... I do support the Order/structure/work of the holy roman Catholic church, over the ages.

Its performed greatness and has been beautiful to me in form and function.

 

I am not speaking entirely Religiously here but culturally socially, historically and aesthetically. Cause and effect. No talk of the actual Religion. I am also a pragmatist.

 

Its been negatively influenced too much by PC and had to Faux adapt temporally, but they are only saying these things for calculated reasons at this time.

 

Many priests are a great deal more intellectual and knowing than you might think. There work has not changed.

 

Your obviously very young my friend, claim down, I know you believe what you say and its honestly meant. Its just that my opinion of whats good or useful for society and your differs.

 

I am no more evil than you are, though some say I have a wicked sense of humor...its just that my opinion of whats good and yours differ as well as whats useful for society and culture.

 

You cant just apply things to people as universal principles, you have to take the context and intent into account. I'm not attempting to justify anything that is pointless, but from my actions, I do keep a reasonable account of myself...I am generally well liked by those that know me and go out of my way to take positive ''pragmatic'' actions to do what Is helpful and life affirming.

 

The reason is that If I want my experience in the world to be better I must initiate that I wish to see to the best of my abilities in a constructive manner. That is the duty of the individual, or your just a monkey.

 

Debate is just for fun, also to encourage you to see the world in different perspectives. In my view the only universal truth is: reality is what it is and you have to work within that, and use logic to do so. All else is contextual. ''Not mystical'' Never that. Its not faith in Tinkerbell.

 

I am saying, things cannot be misapplied out of context... that takes something 'a concept'' that may be true in one way and turns it into a false statement when you try to universally apply the principle. You need to use discernment and reason to understand the context and realize for the possibility that you may be wrong.

 

Not that you should necessarily just except any assertion given you, but assuming you are not a mystic, one should not just assume other, that they are right and expose or parrot the beliefs of others.

 

It maybe what you or I think is right, but the other way is assuming universal knowledge, or supreme knowledge of every situation factor and context and person. In effect saying there is no more data and nothing else for you to learn.

 

You or I or anyone, can only think what one thinks, you can never be certain of anything except through the law of identification physically a thing is what it is, until and unless proved otherwise by valid scientific method. With opinions to allow for uncertainty is even more vital.

 

I try to argue against what I think to be right mentally, it hurts but I do it, to allow for the fact that while I think it I may be wrong in whole or in part or not have enough info. Otherwise there is no knowledge gained only assumption and opinion. There could be no new discovery ideas or inventions.

 

The first step in learning is to let go of certainty and apply the scientific method to thoughts and ideas as well in context.

 

For example consider why you may or may not think ''your comments and assumptions suggest'' I am an evil homophobic bigot, what have you asked me, what do you really know about me, what actions to support this? What steps have you really taken to assure yourself of this as even a working theory?

 

That another problem with PC, they just assume mostly, though not always to an individual, that if you do not parrot the same statements as they you are an evil notsee or the like.

 

What they view as good, I may view in whole or in part as insanity or unworkable through cause and effect, dangerous or against human nature neutrally and effectively, nether good or bad. Just non functional for society as universally implied and that it may violate the rights of others by the way these people are defending there self interest or think they are.

 

I am not saying that in its pure form there are not some good and bad points to both conservationism and liberalism.

''No BS I mean that.''Yet anything can be corrupted and misapplied, taken to irrational and illogical hypocritical fanaticism.

 

So, after careful thought and observation, this is my current opinion. Based on cause and effect, the results not the original ideas. That is in part what I think to have happened here.

 

Emotions are natural and valid but should not primarily dictate ones reasoning or actions, they are just indicators of how you currently feel, to motivate action but not determine it.

 

Its become almost purely emotional and illogical, and dangerous on many practical levels, even though useful on lesser practical levels, the sleep of reason as they say...breeds monsters.

 

Moderation, self control and careful evaluation and change is whats needed in my view. The call to non hypocritical reason and guided moderation. All indicators point to this happening to restore a balanced perspective. One that is more workable rational and dose not try to dictate or enforce ''within reason'' morality or opinion ''or economically or socially punish others for there personal values''.

 

On a side note: these people are seeming more and more like Marxist in some ways. Highly disturbing that. No wonder people are upset.

Edited January 10, 2018 by skyquest32

[TheMastersSon]

skyquest32, you gave a perfect example of what invariably happens with the anti-PC mentality. First you compared homosexuality to sex with farm produce, and repeatedly bemoaned recognition of their marriages as somehow an imposition on your sacred right to be a bigoted airhead. And when someone calls you on your bigotry you turn around and make YOURSELF the victim of delusional philosophical imposition. Just pathetic imo. Instead, try making contact with that all-important third brain cell of yours and try answering Barney Frank's question -- that has remained unanswered for 21 years now: How does legal recognition of gay marriage affect your own marriage or personal life? What exact rights are you being denied by it? Be specific if you can manage to answer it at all.

 

My point is, today the major pushes of repression and fascism in the world are definitely not in the form of excessive PC from the left. This push is primarily and close to entirely from our right, and it's clothed in the PC garb of intentional misnomers. "Religious freedom", "defense of marriage", "Islamic fundamentalism" etc. A person's right to his or her religious beliefs stops at everybody else's right not to subscribe to those same beliefs. Likewise, the religious beliefs of a majority cannot according to our Constitution be imposed on any minority, or even on a single person. At least in our country. So "defense of marriage" and abortion laws are not religious freedom, they're imposed fascism under the guise of religion. It is absolutely no different in so-called Islamic Republics, civil law takes a back seat to arguments over interpretations of religious texts and beliefs about sky fairies. As a result Muslim factions have been killing each other moreless continuously for 1400 years now.

 

IMO an anti-PC attitude is generally healthy but it can easily grow into its own form of fascism. Not only sometimes but often PC is actually called for, e.g. when your wife asks if she looks fat in her new dress the correct answer is never do you mean fatter. Ever.

 

If we can use Roy Moore in Alabama for an example, was it PC for him to not only sleep with 14 year-olds as a grown man in his 30's, but defend and brag about the practice? He's asking to be a U.S. Senator, so was it too PC for his past behavior to be explained to his electorate during his campaign? And lastly, was it PC for the person who did explain Moore's behavior to have her home burned down for her trouble? How many people in Alabama view this apparent retaliation as just expected backlash against PC run amok etc?

 

That's my major problem with anti-PC. When overdone it effortlessly morphs into do you mean fatter, and becomes far more violative than any amount of PC itself.

Edited January 10, 2018 by TheMastersSon