New Abortion Law Wave

[cracker]

What about the fact that science in itself it it's own flawed religion? I mean, it's what's taught now as the defacto standard and considered the only way to live by. The same can be said about other stuff in the past. Science is just the popular one these days.

Science is about the opposite of religion:

Science

• Based on what can be observed/measured
• The facts are used to reach the best possible understanding of a concept
• Is constantly evolving as more information is discovered
• The practitioners welcome (serious) questions, dissents and critiques

Religion

• Based on faith (belief in something that can't be measured)
• Facts/"facts" are found that support the desired concept
• Parts can be/are changed according to what the practitioners want
• The practitioners get offended, and sometimes cause fights, wars, mass murder, etc when there are questions, dissents and/or critiques

Those are just a few.

 

[Foxi4]

Science is about the opposite of religion:

Science

• Based on what can be observed/measured
• The facts are used to reach the best possible understanding of a concept
• Is constantly evolving as more information is discovered
• The practitioners welcome (serious) questions, dissents and critiques

Religion

• Based on faith (belief in something that can't be measured)
• Facts/"facts" are found that support the desired concept
• Parts can be/are changed according to what the practitioners want
• The practitioners get offended, and sometimes cause fights, wars, mass murder, etc when there are questions, dissents and/or critiques

Those are just a few.

Snark aside, science and religion are neither opposites nor equal, they exist on separate planes altogether. They're not so much contradictory as they are complimentary in life. Religion and philosophy are an attempt at answering questions that science is not equipped to answer. For instance, you cannot scientifically arrive at a system of morals using the tools of science, and conversely, you cannot arrive at the laws of physics using religion. I think that putting yourself in a position where you have to choose one or the other is a little silly, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of these disciplines. I believe what cots wanted to say is that some people choose to worship science as an idol, against their better judgement, when using science as cover often times allows bad actors to push immoral agendas. Let's not forget that science, overall, is the pursuit of finding the truth by being constantly wrong and revising your hypothesis until you are actually right, or at least until the next scientists disproves your theory and restarts the cycle. Throughout history both science and religion have been used to perpetrate atrocities, so in that sense they're similar.

 

[Xzi]

on one end we have people who want to refuse abortions to rape and incest victims, on the other we have people perfectly comfortable with the concept of aborting a child 5 minutes before its due date - neither stance is reasonable and both sides will defend their point of view to the death.

The former we know is true because those are the laws being passed by certain state legislatures. The latter is a gross mischaracterization of the Democratic position, however, which in reality is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Anyone who believes that outlawing abortion will ultimately reduce the overall need for abortion services is a fool. That's why modern first-world nations all keep it legal, and even Sharia law isn't as inflexible on this topic as Republicans in America.

Again, the larger issue for me personally is that this is an attempt to legislate morality, which government has no business attempting.

 

[Superbronx]

I'm taking a page out of zomborgs book with this but.

Since the beginning of time human life has been formed in exactly the same way. Any adult comprehends this concept. Male and female has sex, sperm fertilizes egg, 9 months later a precious baby is born. In today's scientific world, man has developed and is developing alternatives (which is a problem itself)
Every man and woman in their right mind, on the face of this earth is aware of this basic fact. They know without a doubt, that engaging in sex is what produces human life and they know each and every time they engage in the act of sex that they may be making a baby.

They know what the ingredients are, man plus woman, penis plus vagina and sperm plus egg. They know what the process is and how to do it. No one is mistaken.

Just like if you are making a burger you know all the ingredients and you know how to make it. Doesn't matter if at the beginning, the ground beef, bun and trimmings do not look like a burger. It is a burger.

Same way, no even more so with human life. It doesn't matter what stage it's in or how early in development it is, it doesn't matter if the baby so far is only a few cells, since mankind has known since the beginning of time EXACTLY how a life is created, once they engage in the life creating process they know that what they are doing is creating life.

It's not like it's been trial and error. It's not like the result is different every time. It's not like, woops, this time we made a book! Then next time, hey! It was an apple this time! Then next time it's a human baby, then another time it's a car.

No, each and every time when people engage in sex and the woman gets pregnant it's a baby. Surprise! The results NEVER change. EVER. So, no it's not a blob of cells, it's not a virus, it's not a parasite. Each and every time it is a human life.

Anyone who says if you abort after conception as long as it's before the heartbeat is lying to themselves. Anyone who tries to justify it by saying it's not a life yet are fooling themselves because everyone knows sex creates life and if they have sex and become pregnant it's not just cells dividing it's life.


How can all of you intelligent people here actually act like you do not know or have a hard time comprehending exactly when life begins? If you know the process and ingredients, you know a baby is coming and at whatever point you decide to stop it, you are either preventing it from starting or you are killing it. Either way surely you can't be dumb enough to deny its a baby.

 

[Foxi4]

The former we know is true because those are the laws being passed by certain state legislatures. The latter is a gross mischaracterization of the Democratic position, however, which in reality is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Anyone who believes that outlawing abortion will ultimately reduce the overall need for abortion services is a fool. That's why modern first-world nations all keep it legal, and even Sharia law isn't as inflexible on this topic as Republicans in America.

It's absolutely not a mischaracterisation. "Safe, legal and rare" has never been properly quantified into a specific number of weeks that the entire platform was happy to co-sign, anything short of total control, or "full right to choose" is frowned upon, and I have in fact heard certain Democrat representatives stating that an abortion on the way to delivery room should be permissable if that's what the woman wants. In fact, I even read an essay on the merits of "post-birth abortion", which would've been an interesting thought experiment if it was satire, which it wasn't.

 

[cracker]

@Foxi4
That's not exactly true. There are a whole spectrum of beliefs as to what should be allowed or not.

My .02 is that it shouldn't be used flippantly (say habitually not using birth control of some sort because that is the fallback solution). Pregnancies by rape and incest (most often by rape) shouldn't be forced to come to term. Those women/girls are dealing with enough problems. The same goes for the health of the mother, fetus. I couldn't imagine telling someone they had to have a child that has no hope of ever having any semblance of a "life" like someone with microcephaly, hydrocephaly, osteogenesis imperfects, extreme spina bifida, neurofibromatosis, etc. I feel it is a compassionate act in those cases just as euthanasia is for someone incapable of dealing with a medical condition that brings the quality of life to nil.

 

[Xzi]

It's absolutely not a mischaracterisation. "Safe, legal and rare" has never been properly quantified into a specific number of weeks that the entire platform was happy to co-sign, anything short of total control is frowned upon, and I have in fact heard certain Democrat representatives stating that an abortion on the way to delivery room should be permissable if that's what the woman wants. In fact, I even read an essay on the merits of "post-birth abortion", which would've been an interesting thought experiment if it was satire, which it wasn't.

I've heard floods of similar claims coming from the right-wing and the White House lately, but none of them have been proven or properly sourced. Just more propaganda meant to shock people into changing their minds.

 

[notimp]

Science:
Exact language, peer reviewed, falsification based, follows validity, reliability, and reproducibility as concepts. (Is what i measure valid. Are my measurements reliable. Can others reproduce those concepts. (Remove other factors.))

Religion:
Dogma, poetic language

Here is how a religious argument goes. I'm right, because the book said so. I'm better, because I can interpret the book better. (And thats not just 'learned proof' thats their ultimate proof.) I wasn't supposed to know that, because god. Their language is as inexact as possible - something is correct, because the love of Jesus Christ our lord tells us so. Wait, what?
The entire catholic church has maybe half an order that follows a critical thinking approach to problem description.

They derive their power from relics for gods sake (1000s of pieces of the cross of Jesus Christ, that miraculously survived, strains of st. maries hair, they have people chant in groups, they use psychoactive soft drugs in public ceremonies (Frankincense in the catholic church). When they have a problem in doctrine, they congregate to discuss it. Then come up with new doctrine. Half of their legacy was burning books to remove prior knowledge from this earth. They make you do solilequies and memorize stances.

Here is what religion is conceptually.

Someone got a book (think of it at the latest model of iPhone before it is mass produced ). Faked, that they could read it. Got power over a bunch of morons that were more stupid than them. Build a house. Made people give them gifts. Displayed the most astonishing gifts, so others would be impressed. Invited everyone to weekly congregations where people brainwash themselves (chants, murmors, drugs, ..) and become 'open to teachings'. When people asked - "you can't make me do that" questions, they deferrerd to hell in the afterlife. While selling absolution tickets to the rich. They burned knowledge (to establish new gods), tortured and held wars over believe systems.

They address the irrational, emotional in human beings (universal love, higher love, abstract love, truth through love) - which is fine, but its still something you chose to focus on. They pray. They use reliques. They use processions. They use the effect of masses. (Look around, so many people are here. Or nowadays - isnt it a shame, how few people are here.) They use rituals. (Science does as well - but mostly in transitioning you from scholar into practitioner.)

Here is what enlightenment scholars did. "Your doctrine has no power over us, people can be made better humans not by "you just got to believe" but by questioning things." Thats basically the difference. That an a few modes of 'dealing with knowledge' in science you go by the premise that a theory is a theory, and only true as long as someone hasnt proven it wrong. In religion, you go by "we already know everything - its in the book".

"And moses got two stone tablets from the lord, after he came down from the mountain, thats so hight, that most of you will never climb it. Look how high the mountain is. Wait - look - a burning bush. Its a sign from god!"

Now - tapping into the irrational and dealing with that - has its positives as well. But to derive modes of action, and 'truth's from it - kind of, not ideal.

Also from a collective power approach, always deal with the poor and the less able, so you don't get in conflict with worldly powers - much. And if you do - survive for maybe a few decades. (Meaning, they never were great at running states. Their power literally comes from collecting money at congregations, and getting the heritage of lonely people - then amassing that over time, by telling your priest sect, they cant't marry - and in the end everything falls back to the church. Think of it. Once theirs - always theirs. Unless wars come along.)

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4
That's not exactly true. There are a whole spectrum of beliefs as to what should be allowed or not.

My .02 is that it shouldn't be used flippantly (say habitually not using birth control of some sort because that is the fallback solution). Pregnancies by rape and incest (most often by rape) shouldn't be forced to come to term. Those women/girls are dealing with enough problems. The same goes for the health of the mother, fetus. I couldn't imagine telling someone they had to have a child that has no hope of ever having any semblance of a "life" like someone with microcephaly, hydrocephaly, osteogenesis imperfects, extreme spina bifida, neurofibromatosis, etc. I feel it is a compassionate act in those cases just as euthanasia is for someone incapable of dealing with a medical condition that brings the quality of life to nil.

I more or less agree, and have stated as much - if the mother's life is threatened, the child is severely disabled or if we're dealing with rape or incest, I'm perfectly happy with abortion being performed. Well, I shouldn't say "happy", but I can accept it as a fact of life. What I can't accept is abortion being used as a form of birth control, or as a "get out of jail free" card for people who lack personal responsibility. I would feel *more* comfortable if they had their tubes tied/had a vasectomy than if they had an abortion - one is a choice regarding their own body, the other does have externalities.

I've heard floods of similar claims coming from the right-wing and the White House lately, but none of them have been proven or properly sourced. Just more propaganda meant to shock people into changing their minds.

You've got Gov. Northam for a start (Mr."Keep the baby comfortable, make a decision later"), then you've got the pretty liberal RHA in New York which is only one flimsy paper tiger away from Abortion-on-Demand, then you've got Bernie Sanders of Loonbagia saying on national television that "it's up to the woman and her phisician, not the government" even up to the point of birth, there's lots of examples. We can have a real discussion about this when the Democrat party quantifies what "Safe, legal and rare" means on a piece of paper that we can read - until then it means nothing at all.

 

[morvoran]

It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or outright approve of the killing of a human life.

For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did.

For those saying that the baby could be deformed, have down's syndrome, or other affliction, life is life. Would you be willing to kill a grown adult with down's syndrome. What about the youtuber Ricky? Are you going to convince him that he should have been aborted? It looks like he sure does appreciate his mother not having him torn out of "her uterus" limb by limb and had his skull crushed before being yanked out and thrown in the trash. Same with rape and incest. Even though the mother went through a horrible experience, why convince them to go through another one immediately after?

For those worried about back alley abortions, if the woman destroys her uterus and can't have babies anymore, that's fine as they aren't fit to be a parent anyways since they think they have the right to kill their children. If they die themselves, then just hand them a Darwin's award.

We should be focusing more on ways of preventing these unwanted births rather than letting women think they can just have the baby "problem" removed from "their" body anytime they decide to make a mistake.

 

[Foxi4]

It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or outright approve of the killing of a human life.

For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did.

For those saying that the baby could be deformed, have down's syndrome, or other affliction, life is life. Would you be willing to kill a grown adult with down's syndrome. What about the youtuber Ricky? Are you going to convince him that he should have been aborted? It looks like he sure does appreciate his mother not having him torn out of "her uterus" limb by limb and had his skull crushed before being yanked out and thrown in the trash. Same with rape and incest. Even though the mother went through a horrible experience, why convince them to go through another one immediately after?

For those worried about back alley abortions, if the woman destroys her uterus and can't have babies anymore, that's fine as they aren't fit to be a parent anyways since they think they have the right to kill their children. If they die themselves, then just hand them a Darwin's award.

We should be focusing more on ways of preventing these unwanted births rather than letting women think they can just have the baby "problem" removed from "their" body anytime they decide to make a mistake.

They're the Children of the Lie. And Beta. UH-MAH-ZING!

 

[cracker]

Snark aside, science and religion are neither opposites nor equal, they exist on separate planes altogether. They're not so much contradictory as they are complimentary in life. Religion and philosophy are an attempt at answering questions that science is not equipped to answer. For instance, you cannot scientifically arrive at a system of morals using the tools of science, and conversely, you cannot arrive at the laws of physics using religion. I think that putting yourself in a position where you have to choose one or the other is a little silly, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of these disciplines. I believe what cots wanted to say is that some people choose to worship science as an idol, against their better judgement, when using science as cover often times allows bad actors to push immoral agendas. Let's not forget that science, overall, is the pursuit of finding the truth by being constantly wrong and revising your hypothesis until you are actually right, or at least until the next scientists disproves your theory and restarts the cycle. Throughout history both science and religion have been used to perpetrate atrocities, so in that sense they're similar.

Morality doesn't need religion. Billions of athiests have lived/are living that are moral for morality's sake. Many of the constructs actually are scientific in nature as we can see the effects around us when we choose to murder, steal, lie, etc. Other animals (especially apes) have what we would consider to morals if they were humans. They have no religions.

 

[zomborg]

Not a reply to me, but I'll pick it up.. Numbers 5. Not to mention all the instances of god performing abortions on people who pissed him off.

Book of Numbers 5:11-31. Basically says: should a man have any suspicion that his pregnant wife has been disloyal, he is to take her to the priest and have him make her drink what is essentially poison.

You guys were right. I guess. I read that part and it seems to indicate that in the NIV.
I only read the KJV and it's not worded that way. Either way that was during the old testament times before Jesus came and changed things.
Yes we are still supposed read the old testament but we are supposed to live our lives based on the new testament.
There were a lot of really harsh rules they had to live by in the old testament like stoning people to death but we are not required to live by those anymore.

 

[Foxi4]

Morality doesn't need religion. Billions of athiests have lived/are living that are moral for morality's sake. Many of the constructs actually are scientific in nature as we can see the effects around us when we choose to murder, steal, lie, etc. Other animals (especially apes) have what we would consider to morals if they were humans. They have no religions.

Let's get some things straightened out here. For starters, animals have no moral code. Most animals lack the cognitive ability to perform any higher intellectual function, let alone grasp abstract concepts. In fact, most creatures in the animal kingdom don't even think, per se - they react to external stimuli, which is different. You're focusing a little bit too much on advanced vertebrates there. Secondly, even atheists follow some form of a philosophy in life, and to simplify matters for the sake of this discussion, we'll treat religion as a philosophy with an added aspect of divinity. There are people who believe in the divine and there are people who don't, however both groups *have beliefs*, and it's their belief systems that help them construct moral hierarchies. Even the biggest nihilist believes in something, it's an integral part of the human existence and one of many things that differentiate us from animals.

 

[cracker]

I propose a Newer Testament!

1. Don't be a dick
2. See 1

 

[Foxi4]

I propose a Newer Testament!

1. Don't be a dick
2. See 1

Fun fact, this is kind of what the new covenant already is. Many Christians don't know this, but Jesus effectively replaced the "Old Law" of the Ten Commandments with "New Law" that encompasses all of them on just two through his sacrifice - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". If you always treat your neighbour the same way you would expect to be treated, you kind of can't be a dick.

Damn, this discussion turned from abortion to religion pretty hard now.

 

[Xzi]

You've got Gov. Northam for a start (Mr."Keep the baby comfortable, make a decision later"), then you've got the pretty liberal RHA in New York which is only one flimsy paper tiger away from Abortion-on-Demand, then you've got Bernie Sanders of Loonbagia saying on national television that "it's up to the woman and her phisician, not the government" even up to the point of birth, there's lots of examples. We can have a real discussion about this when the Democrat party quantifies what "Safe, legal and rare" means on a piece of paper that we can read - until then it means nothing at all.

It means we keep working to educate and inform the populace in order to bring the abortion rate down. That's the only long-term answer. As I said previously, simply outlawing it is not a plan. People who identify as Republicans rely on these services just as often as Democrats, and that demand isn't going to magically change in order to correspond with the law.

Thankfully, these anti-constitutional laws are already starting to be struck down. Starting with Mississippi's:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-abortion-ban

 

[notimp]

It's AMAZING how many people here are willing to go along with or outright approve of the killing of a human life.

For the people who think it's just a clump of cells, if the "cells" are not removed from the mother, they will eventually form into a fully functioning human just as we all did.

For those saying that the baby could be deformed, have down's syndrome, or other affliction, life is life. Would you be willing to kill a grown adult with down's syndrome.

Simple concepts. I believe no one in here is for killing people with mental disabilities. As societies we've come that far at least.
(We give parents who are about to have such a child a slightly longer period to decide if they are willing to go through with everything that entails, or have an abortion. Because if they turn neglectful, or angry and harmful towards it,bad scene. Again - compromises for more difficult psychological decisions. But for that you first have to acknowledge that abortions arent the worst thing that can be.)

At one point human beings are bunch of cells. Then the are more, then they arent any longer (when they die hopefully of a natural cause). Now what some people do are dealing with the 'in between phases' in kind of a way to minimize harm.
Also - rational people invented the universal declaration of human rights, and thats the 'best' you can do - in terms of actual enacted humanity in todays scene. Better than "love thy next".


Lets go at this poetically. So - human is love. After humans died, are humans still love? People learned that no - at least not the body, because deceases (and death cults).

Now when do people become human beings with inseperable personal rights? At conception? (Which the church didn't know existed for the better parts of several centuries.) While they are still part of the female body? Something in between.

The new "law wave" (meant to trigger constitutional debates at a time where you have a majority of center right laywers on the constitutional board) is meant to trigger at "the first heart beat". Thats very poetical. But not much more.

What most people came to realize was that having a child, while by no means wanting it - kind of iduces suffering for both the 'childbarer' and the child. And the family of that child, once it grows older. So some not at all fuzzy ("all is love") decisions were made. That took into context that - if women killed themselves, or where willing to mutilate themselves severely - just to not have to go through with a pregnancy - that wasn't _it_.

Now your argument is "but now its too easy". From which point forwhat we now do what? Hold debates over when its just hard enough? Set poetic rules that define human beings as such from the moment of the first "heart beat"?

Also - and this is something you have to deal with. Humans kill each other in wars. They do so whenever there is an issue with not enough food, or place to make a living, or if some god tells them to, or when the bad guy gets a weapon they dont like. That also produces harm, thats generational.

The sentence that now follows, would make you climp up walls, so I can not utter it - but think of the concept at least.

 

[Foxi4]

It means we keep working to educate and inform the populace in order to bring the abortion rate down. That's the only long-term answer. As I said previously, simply outlawing it is not a plan. People who identify as Republicans rely on these services just as often as Democrats, and that demand isn't going to magically change in order to correspond with the law.

I would like to see a stat on that, I somehow doubt that's the case. As for your actual point, it's a ridiculous one. I'll use the commonly used homeless person analogy, simply because I find it very humorous. "Murdering homeless people until we can lower the rate of homelessness" is not a solution if you assign any value to the homeless person's life at all. You might argue that he's a burden, or that he's better off dead since his existence is miserable, but that doesn't make his murder justified and I sleep well knowing that it's illegal to kill a homeless man. Conversely, me saying that you shouldn't murder homeless people *in no way* makes me responsible for the upkeep of the homeless population - just because I didn't choose to stab a homeless man in the head doesn't mean that I am responsible for him going forward.

Once again, in the great majority of cases abortion is a matter of murder for convenience. Depending on where you look, abortions required due to rape or incest total at under 1%, I often see the figure 0.13%, which in my eyes makes this a red herring and non-issue that's meant to push abortions for the remaining 99% who have other reasons. Looking at the CDC stats I can see that the majority of abortions are performed within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and the patients are in their twenties. Moreover, the total number is increasing, not decreasing, which tells me that our more promiscuous modern lifestyle which introduces teens to the issue of sex earlier has the opposite result to the one you're expecting, but that's besides the point. I never quite got the whole "education" angle anyway - what's there to educate those kids about? They know where babies come from, Xzi - don't be silly. They've seen a biology textbook before. There are other causes here and other reasons why abortion is so desirable to a large segment of the population. It's not health reasons - it's desirable because it allows for avoidance of responsibility, and enables carelessness.

Simple concepts. I believe no one in here is for killing people with mental disabilities. As societies we've come that far at least.

At one point human beings are bunch of cells. Then the are more, then they arent any longer (when they die hopefully of a natural cause). Now what some people do are dealing with the 'in between phases' in kind of a way to minimize harm.
Also - rational people invented the universal declaration of human rights, and thats the 'best' you can do - in terms of actual enacted humanity in todays science. Better than "love thy next".


Lets go at this poetically. So - human is love. After humans died, are humans still love? People learned that no - at least not the body, because deceases (and death cults).

Now when do people become human beings with inseperable personal rights? At conception? (Which the church didn't know existed for the better parts of several centuries.) While they are still part of the female body? Something in between.

The new "law wave" (meant to trigger constitutional debates at a time where you have a majority of center right laywers on the constitutional board) is meant to trigger at "the first heart beat". Thats very poetical. But not much more.

What most people came to realize was that having a child, while by no means wanting it - kind of iduces suffering for both the 'childbarer' and the child. And the family of that child, once it grows older. So some not at all fuzzy ("all is love") decisions were made. That took into context that - if women killed themselves, or where willing to mutilate themselves severely - just to not have to go through with a pregnancy - that wasn't _it_.

Now your argument is "but now its too easy". From which point forwhat we now do what? Hold debates over when its just hard enough? Set poetic rules that define human beings as such from the moment of the first "heart beat".

Also - and this is something you have to deal with. Humans kill each other in wars. They do so whenever there is an issue with not enough food, or place to make a living, or if some god tells them to, or when the bad guy gets a weapon they dont like. That also produces har, thats generational.
The sentence that now follows, would make you climp up walls, so I can not utter it - but think of the concept at least.

You're a bunch of cells too. It seems arbitrary to choose how big the lump of cells must be before we consider it human, it's far more productive to discuss circumstances when we can create exceptions to our general dislike of killing human life.

 

[notimp]

Also - here is where our deeper love for children comes from:

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

Its an imprint. They need more care, so we are primed to give them more. Because if we werent - they wouldnt survive as well. And that would hurt us as a species.

We all feel it. Its not that some of us just dont. (Well, psychopaths may not, but those are a very tiny percentage, not half of your populations and more ultimately being in favor of abortions.)