Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1081

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I can’t follow the line of reasoning that conflates the two issues.

[/quote]

How many millions of babies did the OP say have been aborted in the US? Ban abortion and those millions upon millions of people will be extant and reproducing. A serious person should be able to at least acknowledge the global population problem and not just sing the line about adapting and technological advances solving everything. As I said, I’m an independent thinker. I’m well aware Malthusian catastrophes are heresy in the conservative movement but I don’t buy into that. I’m open minded and I was very much prepared to accept that but after researching the subject I came to a different conclusion.

1082

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The fresh water “problem” is solvable as soon as desalination becomes a bit more efficient. Why would one bet against that?[/quote]

Yes, and we’ll all be driving 500hp solar powered cars. $-)

1083

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is abortion focused on more than say gang murders or domestic violence related murders?[/quote]
-Abortion is legal.

-Abortion is legal.

-This sentence does not make sense.

Abortion is legal, and it’s not unheard of for a woman to regret having aborted a child earlier in her life. Most forms of violence are already dealt with by the legal system.

Your argument is pitiful.[/quote]

I’m not taking one side of the argument; just pointing out that Lex iniusta non est lex, which means “I’m a smarty pants and here’s my fancy way of saying an unjust law is not law.”[/quote]

Well, I agree, but I’m not sure how that applies to what I posted…

1084

^^ It was an incidental remark relating to abortion. It may be legal but it’s not a just law and therefore is not law. But don’t try to argue that in court of course.

1085

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

If you look at the…peak oil …

[/quote]

Oh my. Not you, SM. Surely not you.
[/quote]

Lol! I’m not saying the sky will fall tomorrow and I know about the advances in technology and the new fields being discovered and so on, but there is a limit and it can’t be too far in the future. Honestly, do you think we’ll all be driving v8s in a thousand years?

1088

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The fresh water “problem” is solvable as soon as desalination becomes a bit more efficient. Why would one bet against that?[/quote]

Yes, and we’ll all be driving 500hp solar powered cars. $-)[/quote]

Maybe I should dig up some quotes from the 19th and early 20th centuries about men walking on the moon within a few decades?[/quote]

Maybe.

1089

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The fresh water “problem” is solvable as soon as desalination becomes a bit more efficient. Why would one bet against that?[/quote]

I am curious, Push.

I know that its been used (desalination) in certain parts of the Mid-East for years now.

In general…where is the Technology now, in terms of it’s widespread, practical use?

Mufasa

1091

[quote]confusion wrote:
…I will say this emphatically and without apology,as an example of what I have been trying to do here, a christian that thinks they need a gun to protect themself,needs to have more faith in god! He is always right there to help you and have angels protect you ! not try to find reasons to explain why it normal to feel that way etc…now,if we are talking about an impersonal god,that’s another thing.
[/quote]

Um, that’s not right either though. God didn’t promise us a rose garden, nor does he command that we sit around do nothing and let Him take care of everything.
This is an old Christian anecdote that illustrates this:

"A man was trapped in his house during a flood. He began praying to God to rescue him. He had a vision in his head of Godâ??s hand reaching down from heaven and lifting him to safety. The water started to rise in his house. His neighbour urged him to leave and offered him a ride to safety. The man yelled back, â??I am waiting for God to save me.â?? The neighbour drove off in his pick-up truck.

Flood

The man continued to pray and hold on to his vision. As the water began rising in his house, he had to climb up to the roof. A boat came by with some people heading for safe ground. They yelled at the man to grab a rope they were ready to throw and take him to safety. He told them that he was waiting for God to save him. They shook their heads and moved on.

The man continued to pray, believing with all his heart that he would be saved by God. The flood waters continued to rise. A helicopter flew by and a voice came over a loudspeaker offering to lower a ladder and take him off the roof. The man waved the helicopter away, shouting back that he was waiting for God to save him. The helicopter left. The flooding water came over the roof and caught him up and swept him away. He drowned.

When he reached heaven and asked, “God, why did you not save me? I believed in you with all my heart. Why did you let me drown?” God replied, “I sent you a pick-up truck, a boat and a helicopter and you refused all of them. What else could I possibly do for you?”"

I think it illustrates the issue. Faith isn’t about waiting on God to get you out of jams. It’s not about being taken care of, it’s not about making you happy, it’s not about getting rich, it’s not about not having problems, it’s not about getting out of danger. By that line of reasoning, why should we work? Why not just pray for money? Why get a lawn mower, why not trust God to keep your grass short? Why lock your doors? God will send angels to stand guard at your house.
God doesn’t promise us a rose garden. God doesn’t promise that the faithful will be protected from bad things happening to them. If he did, the Apostles would have had nothing to fear, yet they were all martyred; save for one.
Faith is about relationships, it’s about perseverance. The Bible is a means, not an end.
Life is difficult whether or not you have faith. The sun will come up on the religious and atheist a like.

1092

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not taking one side of the argument; just pointing out that Lex iniusta non est lex, which means “I’m a smarty pants and here’s my fancy way of saying an unjust law is not law.”[/quote]

And yet: dura lex, sed lex.

The trick is to discover what is iniusta and what is merely dura.

I would say that the anti-abortion contingent has done a pretty persuasive job of arguing for the former in this case. Generally speaking.

I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.

1093

And that last bit is only just a little exaggerated.

1094

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
People have been crying about overpopulation being the end of the world as we know it for… I don’t know, at least 400 something years now, right?

I’m not particularly worried about it. [/quote]

How many desperately poor countries have you visited?

How many desperately poor inner cities have you visited?

What do they all seem to have in common, other than the smell?

1095

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?

1096

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.

1097

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
People have been crying about overpopulation being the end of the world as we know it for… I don’t know, at least 400 something years now, right?

I’m not particularly worried about it. [/quote]

How many desperately poor countries have you visited?

How many desperately poor inner cities have you visited?

What do they all seem to have in common, other than the smell?
[/quote]

You live in and have traveled extensively Asia, if I’m not mistaken. I never grasped the problem of literal human excess until I saw India.

Then again, nature itself has solved the problem before, and there is every reason to believe that it will do so in the future, to our great suffering.

1098

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.[/quote]

Hypothetical:

You have a wife, a five-year old boy, and your wife is carrying a two-to-a-few-celled zygote that just formed minutes ago. A crazed madman–we’ll call him “SexMachine” for grins and for no other reason–is holding all three of them hostage, and makes you choose between shooting the five year old and having your wife take a “plan b” pill to execute the zygote. You must choose one option or they all die.

Which option do you choose? How do resolve this impossible “Sophie’s choice?” What reasons do you have to justify your choice? (you are not Kirk and you can’t rig the program to get a better outcome).

1099

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.[/quote]

Hypothetical:

You have a wife, a five-year old boy, and your wife is carrying a two-to-a-few-celled zygote that just formed minutes ago. A crazed madman–we’ll call him “SexMachine” for grins and for no other reason–is holding all three of them hostage, and makes you choose between shooting the five year old and having your wife take a “plan b” pill to execute the zygote. You must choose one options or they all die.

Which option do you choose? How do resolve this impossible “Sophie’s choice?” What reasons do you have to justify your choice? (you are not Kirk and you can’t rig the program to get a better outcome).

[/quote]

Well that is more or less exactly what I was going to type out when I wasn’t on a smart phone : )

1100

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.[/quote]

Hypothetical:

You have a wife, a five-year old boy, and your wife is carrying a two-to-a-few-celled zygote that just formed minutes ago. A crazed madman–we’ll call him “SexMachine” for grins and for no other reason–is holding all three of them hostage, and makes you choose between shooting the five year old and having your wife take a “plan b” pill to execute the zygote. You must choose one options or they all die.

Which option do you choose? How do resolve this impossible “Sophie’s choice?” What reasons do you have to justify your choice? (you are not Kirk and you can’t rig the program to get a better outcome).

[/quote]

Well that is more or less exactly what I was going to type out when I wasn’t on a smart phone : )

[/quote]

One option is a coin flip.