Show of Hands

Same

This user is currently being ignored

That’s an interesting take. My question is, if we decriminalize robbery, or fraud, or murder do you think the rates would fall?

That is a non sequitur.

I’m kidding. Abortion is a deal breaker. 60 million legal abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade makes my stomach turn. It has to stop.

And banning it will? Women who are desperate enough will get it

Should we make murder legal because it’s going to happen anyway?

No, because murder takes away someone’s life.

When they say life begins at conception it’s cellular life. Brain waves do not begin until weeks 5 or 6. The cerebrum doesn’t develop until weeks 8 to 10. The pain receptors with brain connectivity does not develop until 28 to 30 weeks. Or the third trimester. The myth that it begins in week 20, comes from the noxious stimuli. Or the tissue formed being damaged, and therefore causes the tissue to react, but no pain receptors are attached with the brain at this point. The myth that they scream comes from an anti-abortion film. The only sounds heard come from the operation itself.

Do you know how many abortions are done in the third trimester? 1.3%. These are done due to likely death of the mother, terrible life conditions for the soon to be newborn, and/or severe complications that will likely result in horrific results for both of them.

Whether you like it or not abortions are necessary and a medically responsible for some women.

Your scientific response doesn’t nullify my spiritual belief that life begins at conception. As a pro-lifer, I also support the health of the mother. If they were both to die without termination, save one out of two instead of letting them both die. That is not what is happening in this country though. 60 million unborn babies were not killed to save their mothers. The reality is, it’s not fair to let the mother choose “because it’s her body,” because she isn’t the one who dies. It’s not just her body. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but you can’t convince me that it’s right.

I understand that. I just feel as though it is necessary to provide the scientific evidence as a counter-argument. I do believe in hearing out both sides, and I like to use facts, reason and science in my decisions. I know some prefer to use spirituality, however, in the US separation of church and state is part of the first amendment. Which is why I believe we shouldn’t take away a woman’s choice, and instead that decision needs to be based on the empirical medical evidence.

I understand that the scientific evidence is important, and I’m aware of it. Whether unborn babies feel pain or whether brain waves are present doesn’t affect my belief that they were designed for a purpose though.

Just so you know, not only is the separation of church and state not part of the first amendment, it’s not anywhere in the constitution.

It’s not worded as the separation of church and state, however, it does say in it’s entirety:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That first part of: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” means that the government cannot create laws that are based around any church, mosque or temple. While individuals do have the freedom to worship however they please, they cannot force religious beliefs into law.

their religious beliefs into policy or laws.

It seems my comment was cut off.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1802 that addressed this matter and he stated:


“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

I’m aware of the first amendment. That means that Congress has to stay out of the Church’s business. That is not a two-way separation. In the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson assured the congregation that the federal government could not interfere with their church. It does not say that decisions will never be made based on religious beliefs. That would be impossible. Everyone has beliefs that are based on religion of some sort, even if it looks nothing like mine.

My beliefs are not based on religion. My beliefs are based on pragmatic empirical evidence. There is no evidence the Judeo-Christian/Muslim God exists. Nor is there any tangible proof for any other god or gods. If I became an elected official, then my decisions would be based on evidence and fact. Not spirituality.

Jefferson specially talks about the wall dividing the church from the state. A clear separation. You may try to twist his words for your own religious dogma, however, he is clearly stating that the two are separate in its entirety.

Also, why would the first amendment be “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” if they were only talking about the freedom of the church and individual to worship as they please. They say specifically they will not make any law that is from the perspective of any religious institution. That is a clear indication of a separation of church and state.

Thank God I turned my notifications off on this app.
@Sarahgo I'm not going to lecture you on how you should think. If you want to know my reasoning, I made a comment yesterday, towards the top of this section.

I’ll have the discussion with you.

When they say life begins at conception it’s cellular life. Brain waves do not begin until weeks 5 or 6. The cerebrum doesn’t develop until weeks 8 to 10. The pain receptors with brain connectivity does not develop until 28 to 30 weeks. Or the third trimester. The myth that it begins in week 20, comes from the noxious stimuli. Or the tissue formed being damaged, and therefore causes the tissue to react, but no pain receptors are attached with the brain at this point. The myth that they scream comes from an anti-abortion film. The only sounds heard come from the operation itself.

Do you know how many abortions are done in the third trimester? 1.3%. These are done due to likely death of the mother, terrible life conditions for the soon to be newborn, and/or severe complications that will likely result in horrific results for both of them.

That’s my point. People shouldn’t need to know at what week a human child feels pain to decide not to kill it anymore, or to decide it qualifies as a human child in the first place. If you just *don’t* kill the fetus, it will be born, as a normal child.

The fact that people want to get pedantic about heartbeat and brain function is my problem. It shows they want to figure out how to prove they’re right rather than actually step back and think if, holistically, what they’re saying makes sense.

It does make sense to know this, as this allows us to make informed decisions. We no longer have to trust religious dogma. We know the facts. Just because you say it’s not needed does not make it so. It is very important as it is a medical procedure preformed for a number of reasons. Including medical and quality of life. You can’t dismiss empirical evidence backed science because it doesn’t suit your agenda.

Your choice of words are frankly ignorant. It is never pedantic to know the development of the foetus. It is important for many reasons, even outside of abortion. Science and knowledge are important, and far out way emotional responses and spiritual beliefs within society as a whole.

If you are against abortion don’t have one. You have no right to tell women that their bodies should be controlled by your thoughts on the matter. When their decision, if they choose to abort the foetus, is backed by scientific and medical evidence.

By economic policy, are you strictly limiting that to climate change related policies or are there other issues such as healthcare, immigration, foreign policy where economic policy is implied?

Oh, oops, I meant ecology, not economy.

The most important stand is our 1st Amendment rights. You can't have anything else without the right to express what you want and or need.

No, I cannot vote for someone to represent me with their interpretation of their religion in policy.

Oh yeah. We’re all out there every day protecting our rights at the end of a gun.

Not activly but the threat that we might does protect all the others every day.

Enjoy your time on Fantasy Island.

Can you expand on your stance on abortion? I’m not looking for an argument, just curious really.

Sure, no prob. It has human DNA, it is alive, and i dont think humans should have the power to take away another humans life.

Unless it interferes with another life .....

I won’t vote for anyone pro-war either. It’s diabolical to do so imo.

Here is a hypothetical situation:
Your nation is under attack. You barely escaped town before it was bombed. Your friends weren’t so lucky. Your country has a good chance to win if they fight back.
Candidate A advocates fighting tooth and nail to protect your people (think W. Churchill).
Candidate B advocates your entire nation surrender unconditionally.
Which would you choose?

.

That’s not being pro-war. That’s acting in self-Defense.

What I mean by pro-war are those politicians that go into the Middle East because of oil, or any other invalid reason.

Really self-Defense and national security with no other option but war are valid. These are just my thoughts and beliefs on the matter.

Also, just because I’m in the UK doesn’t mean I like Churchill. He did some rather awful things, especially to junior partners within the empire.

I agree. Acting in self defense isn’t the same as being pro war.

Ok, we three can agree on that point!
Another hypothetical:
While we may not be actively attacked by another nation, yet have concrete proof that another nation is actively planning on attacking us, is it better to undertake preemptive measures or let the attack happen?

I think we must do everything we can to avoid the violence, such as diplomacy and getting international organisations, such as the UN, involved. If they refuse to cease then everything should be ready for defensive manoeuvring, to avoid allowing the country to be attacked, but preemptive strikes themselves I would say would be maybe a bridge too far, or absolutely a last resort.

Why does that matter to you?

Not something that can be explained. It’s analogous to describing what the stench of S H I T smells like to someone who has no olfactory sense.

I'm so sorry for you lib.

Labels are more important than policy for liberals.