Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Farb]

No, I don't expect you to argue with it. It just demonstrates that you don't believe that women are independent, autonomous beings that have a right to decide for themselves what their beliefs are and how they can live their lives when it has to do with their bodies and there is no societal consensus on what constitutes the personhood of a fetus. You believe they should be obligated by law to live in accordance with your religious beliefs.

Just making the point of how intractable the pro-life position is when it comes to privacy and self determination because of the God/Savior complex you have and are epitomizing. The thought that you could be wrong doesn't even cross your mind.

You are correct. The thought of killing an innocent life does not cross my mind as being maybe in the right because I know I am correct of my assessment that it is evil.
Just like I know when an adult molests a child, I don't question it. When I see a man hit a woman, I don't question my instinct that that is wrong as well. When a woman is raped, I never once think that I could be wrong with my primal instinct that the man should be set to pasture.
That is one positive of being on the correct side of a moral argument. I hope one day you get there as well. It is refreshing.

 

[RobF]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman

Would you look at that. Webster and I have the exact same definition. Word for word.

The word that is throwing you for a loop due to your leftism brainwashing is 'female'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

"1a(1): of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs"

Still waiting on your answer.............but I know you won't or rather can't give a answer because it might offend a protected class in the woke hierarchy.

Pay attention. The question I asked you was what "your definition of a woman is, the working definition you use to recognise women on an every day basis."

So unless you're saying you can't recognise women without inspecting their genitals or demanding proof of childbearing, no, you haven't answered the question.

Why not?

 

[coldseat]

You are correct. The thought of killing an innocent life does not cross my mind as being maybe in the right because I know I am correct of my assessment that it is evil.
Just like I know when an adult molests a child, I don't question it. When I see a man hit a woman, I don't question my instinct that that is wrong as well. When a woman is raped, I never once think that I could be wrong with my primal instinct that the man should be set to pasture.
That is one positive of being on the correct side of a moral argument. I hope one day you get there as well. It is refreshing.

The number of people that have committed atrocities in the name of an infallible God and their infallible beliefs throughout history is boundless. They all believed they were right and that their belief gave them the right to subjugate others to live in accordance with those beliefs. You are no different or unique. Also, there's a word for that type of infallible belief, it's called fascism (since I know you love the "ism's").

The real problem with your belief structure (and that of your ilk) is that it's incompatible with our democratic republic and American way of life. When we can't forge compromise and consensus that treats each others as equals with mutual respect in a democratic republic, our government and society break down. That is what is happening now. The only way for your side to accomplish its goals is to force others who disagree to live under your belief system. That's called authoritarianism and what is happening red states right now. My only question is will the American populace wake up before it's too late.

 

[MT15]

Well, considering Western Civilization was the first that outlawed slavery as a whole (that lasted) probably not long.
Is there still slavery present in the world today? Are those in western societies?

I don't think killing an innocent is based in religion. It is a human condition that has been in existence since human were in caves.

You shouldn’t gaslight us that your beliefs about abortion aren’t based on your religion. You’ve said as much already, and it won’t fool anyone here at all. Your belief comes from your religion. It’s not based on anything else.

We know you value the embryo more than you value the woman. And you’re free to feel that way, it is a free country, at least until people like you get control. But you shouldn’t force your religious beliefs on other people who aren’t part of your religion. Period.

You know it’s wrong to do so, yet you are willing to do it. You should grant women the free will that your God grants everyone. If getting an abortion is a sin, that’s up to God, not you. It’s not your business to force anyone else to live by your religious code.

 

[Farb]

Pay attention. The question I asked you was what "your definition of a woman is, the working definition you use to recognise women on an every day basis."

So unless you're saying you can't recognise women without inspecting their genitals or demanding proof of childbearing, no, you haven't answered the question.

Why not?

Did I not just give you my definition of what a woman is. Also, that is the definition I use in my day to day life. Much like the definition humans have used forever in day to day life to determine who is male and female.

Talk about not being an honest discussion. SMH. I have given you my definition and provided links backing it up, all in good faith. So, again, what is your definition?
My guy, if you don't have one or can't provide one, at least be honest enough to admit it.

 

[Farb]

The number of people that have committed atrocities in the name of an infallible God and their infallible beliefs throughout history is boundless. They all believed they were right and that their belief gave them the right to subjugate others to live in accordance with those beliefs. You are no different or unique. Also, there's a word for that type of infallible belief, it's called fascism (since I know you love the "ism's").

The real problem with your belief structure (and that of your ilk) is that it's incompatible with our democratic republic and American way of life. When we can't forge compromise and consensus that treats each others as equals with mutual respect in a democratic republic, our government and society break down. That is what is happening now. The only way for your side to accomplish its goals is to force others who disagree to live under your belief system. That's called authoritarianism and what is happening red states right now. My only question is will the American populace wake up before it's too late.

Key word in your proclamation against religion is 'people'. I will also agree. Humans are horrible creates naturally. Yes, even religious people can be horrible.

Would the shoe not fit on the other foot? By making me live in a society where parents can kill their children in the womb based on nothing but their selfishness, is that not making my 'ilk' live in your accordance with your beliefs? There is a compromise and always will be. The rest of your diatribe is more victimhood virtue signaling (not that I think you purposely did that, I just think it is inevitable when trying to justify the woke orthodoxy.)

How would you compromise on murder?

 

[Farb]

You shouldn’t gaslight us that your beliefs about abortion aren’t based on your religion. You’ve said as much already, and it won’t fool anyone here at all. Your belief comes from your religion. It’s not based on anything else.

We know you value the embryo more than you value the woman. And you’re free to feel that way, it is a free country, at least until people like you get control. But you shouldn’t force your religious beliefs on other people who aren’t part of your religion. Period.

You know it’s wrong to do so, yet you are willing to do it. You should grant women the free will that your God grants everyone. If getting an abortion is a sin, that’s up to God, not you. It’s not your business to force anyone else to live by your religious code.

I was pro-life before I was 'religious' if that helps you at all.

Are you saying that all pro-lifers are religious? I guess if that helps you sleep better at night.

Not once have I ever stated that I value an embryo more than a woman. I also don't and never said I did, value a child more than a woman. They are both life, so they are equal. The one thing that does separate them is that one is innocent and is dependent on those brought it into the world.

It grows tiresome when you continually put words in my mouth.

 

[coldseat]

Key word in your proclamation against religion is 'people'. I will also agree. Humans are horrible creates naturally. Yes, even religious people can be horrible.

Would the shoe not fit on the other foot? By making me live in a society where parents can kill their children in the womb based on nothing but their selfishness, is that not making my 'ilk' live in your accordance with your beliefs? There is a compromise and always will be. The rest of your diatribe is more victimhood virtue signaling (not that I think you purposely did that, I just think it is inevitable when trying to justify the woke orthodoxy.)

How would you compromise on murder?

There is no consensus that abortion is murder or should be considered murder. We all recognize and agree in law that the unjustifiable killing of human being after being born is murder. There is no such consensus on abortion. That is your religious belief.

Also, if you really believe it's murder, then you should also believe that women who have abortions should be subject to imprisonment and even the death penalty, as those are the legal consequences for murder. So do you actually believe that?

Also, no it's not making your "ilk" live in accordance with my beliefs. My beliefs do not include you and your "ilk" having or not having abortions. You and your "ilk" are free to not have any abortions. See, freedom.

 

[MT15]

I was pro-life before I was 'religious' if that helps you at all.

Are you saying that all pro-lifers are religious? I guess if that helps you sleep better at night.

Not once have I ever stated that I value an embryo more than a woman. I also don't and never said I did, value a child more than a woman. They are both life, so they are equal. The one thing that does separate them is that one is innocent and is dependent on those brought it into the world.

It grows tiresome when you continually put words in my mouth.

Not nearly as tiresome as you putting words in my mouth or really, really wanting to take away womens’ bodily autonomy. Trust me, it’s enraging. People wanting to relegate your entire group to second class citizens without the ability to control what happens to their bodies will do that.

 

[MT15]

Did I not just give you my definition of what a woman is. Also, that is the definition I use in my day to day life. Much like the definition humans have used forever in day to day life to determine who is male and female.

Talk about not being an honest discussion. SMH. I have given you my definition and provided links backing it up, all in good faith. So, again, what is your definition?
My guy, if you don't have one or can't provide one, at least be honest enough to admit it.

By your definition, you need to inspect someone‘s genitals to know if they are a woman. SMH indeed.

 

[RobF]

Did I not just give you my definition of what a woman is. Also, that is the definition I use in my day to day life. Much like the definition humans have used forever in day to day life to determine who is male and female.

You gave a definition of woman that could only be used to recognise women if you can inspect their genitals or biologically confirm their childbearing potential.

That means that:

You think women only exist in contexts involving their genitals or their child being capacity.

Or you recognise that they do, in fact, exist outside those contexts but you, personally, are still unable to recognise women unless you can see their genitals.

Or you're somehow unable to understand the question of what the working definition is that you use to recognise women when you can't see their genitals.

So which is it?

 

[Farb]

There is no consensus that abortion is murder or should be considered murder. We all recognize and agree in law that the unjustifiable killing of human being after being born is murder. There is no such consensus on abortion. That is your religious belief.

Also, if you really believe it's murder, then you should also believe that women who have abortions should be subject to imprisonment and even the death penalty, as those are the legal consequences for murder. So do you actually believe that?

Also, no it's not making your "ilk" live in accordance with my beliefs. My beliefs do not include you and your "ilk" having or not having abortions. You and your "ilk" are free to not have any abortions. See, freedom.

Again, so only religious people believe life begins at inception?

Sure, on a board level, if a parent has a 'back alley' abortion that I am told will happen so often we will be steping over dead bodies while taking out the trash, then yes, that parent or both should charged by the law of the state where it occurred.

If your 'ilk' wants an abortion why not go to a state that allows it? See, Freedom.

 

[Farb]

You gave a definition of woman that could only be used to recognise women if you can inspect their genitals or biologically confirm their childbearing potential.

That means that:

You think women only exist in contexts involving their genitals or their child being capacity.

Or you recognise that they do, in fact, exist outside those contexts but you, personally, are still unable to recognise women unless you can see their genitals.

Or you're somehow unable to understand the question of what the working definition is that you use to recognise women when you can't see their genitals.

So which is it?

So you can only tell a female by inspecting their genitals? That is odd. Are you saying men and women are exactly a like besides genitals?

How else does a woman exist if not for the biological differences between men and women? I think you are close to forming an definition of the left's version of a woman, you just won't commit to putting it down because you know it is just as silly as it sounds but someone, somewhere might be offended. Almost like a religious sin to be honest.

Why is that I provide a working definition, with links, and you just keep dancing around the question I asked originally?

How do you recognize a woman? If you can't give me that, then there is no fair and honest discussion to be had with you and to be blunt, we can just put a fork in you because you are done

 

[Farb]

Not nearly as tiresome as you putting words in my mouth or really, really wanting to take away womens’ bodily autonomy. Trust me, it’s enraging. People wanting to relegate your entire group to second class citizens without the ability to control what happens to their bodies will do that.

You can vote, can you not?

 

[Farb]

By your definition, you need to inspect someone‘s genitals to know if they are a woman. SMH indeed.

Can you give me a definition of a woman? What makes you a woman?

 

[coldseat]

Again, so only religious people believe life begins at inception?

Sure, on a board level, if a parent has a 'back alley' abortion that I am told will happen so often we will be steping over dead bodies while taking out the trash, then yes, that parent or both should charged by the law of the state where it occurred.

I didn't say only religious people believe that. I said there was no consensus. Something like 60% of the population believes woman should have the right to an abortion until viability. If anything, the consensus is against your belief.

I guess you at least a little consistent. Can't wait to see women who have abortion put in jail and put to death in your America.

If your 'ilk' wants an abortion why not go to a state that allows it? See, Freedom.

Because women have equal protection under the law. Your state doesn't get to abridge their freedom because they elect Republicans. Basic constitutional law.

 

[Farb]

I didn't say only religious people believe that. I said there was no consensus. Something like 60% of the population believes woman should have the right to an abortion until viability. If anything, the consensus is against your belief.

I guess you at least a little consistent. Can't wait to see women who have abortion put in jail and put to death in your America.




Because women have equal protection under the law. Your state doesn't get to abridge their freedom because they elect Republicans. Basic constitutional law.

Do you think a parent has the right to kill a child that is born with a birth defect?

 

[RobF]

So you can only tell a female by inspecting their genitals? That is odd. Are you saying men and women are exactly a like besides genitals?

Read it again. That's what  you're saying. And if you think it's idiotic, I don't disagree.

But if that's not what you think, then you should have no problem giving the definition you use to recognise women that doesn't depend on seeing their genitals.

It's a bit weird that you can't, since you keep insisting it's so easy.