>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > Politics and Religion Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2019, 07:10 AM   #151
mikiemo83
Disrespect Coach
 
mikiemo83's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gillette Stadium Basement
Posts: 74,258
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $965771242
My Mood


mikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond repute
mikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond reputemikiemo83 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by O_P_T View Post
I understand what your saying Tim, but see the earlier response to Mark Henderson in post 99.

The use of the term "life" grants a certain degree of ambiguity that in turn allows those in favor of abortion to avoid the fundamental question.

Using the term "person" eliminates any such ambiguity.

By definition, a "person" is a human being.

If one still supports abortion after another "person" is in existence, then one clearly thinks that there are certain classes of human beings that are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as others.

There's no wiggle room, there's no obfuscation possible. One is adopting the very same beliefs as those who were in favor of slavery.

Now to be clear, I am not saying that those who are in favor of abortion think they are killing "persons".

I accept at face value that they honestly believe for many abortions another "person" does not yet exist.

I'm OK with that.

I don't have an issue with either side that honestly believes that another "person" comes into existence at "X" and uses that as the basis for their argument and position.

Prior to "X" is is perfectly correct that it is a only a question for the woman and the doctor.

After "X" it is blatantly obvious that it is not. There is a third party involved, that cannot speak to defend itself, and so it is absolutely appropriate that there be some process to have others defend it's rights.

I don't think anyone, on any side of this debate, would disagree that this is what is appropriate prior to and after "X".

And so, the fundamental question is very simple. When is "X"?

I don't expect the two sides to agree as to when "X" happens. That's OK. IMHO, we don't have the knowledge today to determine that with any reasonable degree of certainty.

So it's perfectly fine for the two sides to disagree on when "X" happens.

What is unacceptable to me, is that the two sides insist their ideas about when "X" happens is absolute truth, that the other side agrees with this.

So you get the pro-abortion side ranting about "controlling women's bodies" and the anti-abortion side ranting about "baby killers".

When the reality is that the two sides don't agree on when "X" happens, and so have fundamentally different set of assumptions and definitions that form the basis for their perspective.

As such, communication is impossible and the two sides talk past each other.

So by using the term "person" as opposed to "Life", one reduces the probability that the concept of "X" is misconstrued by the two sides.
sounds like you are trying to define what is undefinable. I have to think that when it becomes a person is not something on can measure precisely but I agree if the two sides could agree on such a specific time frame a lot of the debate would be silenced.

BUT pro-life will continue to say at conception - speaking on a biblical Soul being in place. Pro-choice will have a different answer.

now if we could get those within each fraction to give a definitive answer to when a Person begins to exist we could then start to try to mitigate a solution no one will be completely happy with, but would be a compromise between the two sides.
  mikiemo83 is online now Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2019, 02:10 PM   #152
O_P_T
Why Be Normal
 
O_P_T's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Windsor, CT
Posts: 20,636
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $806375
My Mood


O_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousy
O_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousy
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikiemo83 View Post
sounds like you are trying to define what is undefinable. I have to think that when it becomes a person is not something on can measure precisely but I agree if the two sides could agree on such a specific time frame a lot of the debate would be silenced.

BUT pro-life will continue to say at conception - speaking on a biblical Soul being in place. Pro-choice will have a different answer.

now if we could get those within each fraction to give a definitive answer to when a Person begins to exist we could then start to try to mitigate a solution no one will be completely happy with, but would be a compromise between the two sides.
I don’t have any idea how one would “prove” with any level of certainty when a “person”. Comes into existence.

But one doesn’t have to be able to do that to have a debate on the question be helpful.

I’m pretty sure that most people would think that a woman and her doctor should make the decision if there isn’t another “person” present.

Likewise, most people would accept that if there is another “person”, then it isn’t unreasonable to ask about the rights of the other person.

The two sides can agree on this while still disagreeing about when the other person first comes into existence.
__________________
I AM PATRIOTS

"Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick".
Paraphrasing George S. Patton
  O_P_T is offline Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2019, 07:28 AM   #153
IU_Knightmare
Registered User
 
IU_Knightmare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: God's Country
Posts: 617
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $156250
My Mood


IU_Knightmare won't go home lonely tonight
IU_Knightmare won't go home lonely tonightIU_Knightmare won't go home lonely tonight
Alabama Man!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...6sr?li=BBnbfcL


__________________
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail, but a true friend would be sitting in the cell with you saying "THAT WAS F'ING AWESOME!"

  IU_Knightmare is online now Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2019, 01:56 PM   #154
tehmackdaddy
post tenebras lux
 
tehmackdaddy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: IN the world, but not OF the world
Posts: 18,195
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $487041
My Mood


tehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on money
tehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on moneytehmackdaddy should have their picture on money
Quote:
"BOVARD: Planned Parenthood Has Revealed Its True Self For The World To See"

One unanticipated side effect of the political moment we are currently living through is that it has made all participants very honest — particularly Democrats and leftists.

The party that, for years, eye-rolled at allegations of socialism is now practically being run by a self-identified Democratic Socialist. Democratic candidates for president are open and eager to eliminate private health insurance, embracing a position even further to the left than systems in the United Kingdom and Canada. All 10 candidates in the second Democrat debate last month went on record supporting open borders. And Bernie Sanders earnestly believes that most Americans actually want to pay more in taxes.

In just the latest episode of truth-telling this week, Planned Parenthood is finally giving up its long-running charade as a women’s health organization and is admitting that it is merely a for-profit abortion advocacy group.

The organization publicly dismissed its president over “philosophical differences.” Those differences, according to a letter posted by the ousted head, Dr. Leana Wen, stem from the fact that Wen apparently thought she was working for a women’s healthcare organization that also performed abortions — rather than an abortion advocacy organization with an overtly political agenda.

“I came to Planned Parenthood to run a national healthcare organization,” Wen said in her resignation letter. “The new board has determined that the priority of Planned Parenthood moving forward is to double down on abortion rights advocacy.”

This is a startling admission from Planned Parenthood, which for years has insisted that it is, first and foremost, focused on an all-encompassing view of women’s health. “This is health care,” claimed a recent public relations campaign. The group has maintained for years that abortion only constitutes 3% of its services.

In Wen, Planned Parenthood found an unapologetic advocate for abortion services. However, she also reportedly balked at the rapacious way the organization wanted to advocate, and celebrate, abortions — in addition to its emphatic embrace of a deeply progressive over-arching philosophy. According to reporting from BuzzFeed, Wen routinely deleted the word “sexual” from the phrase “sexual and reproductive healthcare” in Planned Parenthood press releases and documents, and resisted using abortion as a stand-alone term — adding “abortion care” or rewording it entirely.

Wen also apparently refused to use “trans-inclusive” language, like saying “people,” instead of “women,” and worried that such a progressive posture would “isolate people in the Midwest.”

All of this, including alleged mismanagement, led to Wen’s dismissal.

Her departure comes on the heels of Planned Parenthood stating it is “not going to comply” with new rules from the Trump administration, which block federal funds from organizations that refer women for abortion. After stating for years that this money was critical to its healthcare mission of breast cancer screenings, wellness exams, and screening for sexually transmitted diseases, Planned Parenthood is now forgoing the funds — solely so it can continue to refer women for abortions.

In taking these steps, Planned Parenthood finally unmasks itself as the abortion-focused advocacy group it has always been, and joins the Democratic Party in being honest about the terms of the abortion debate in America.

Abortion that is “safe, legal, and rare” — the mantra of the Clinton years — has been enthusiastically replaced by abortion that is unlimited, unrestricted, and unregulated. Earlier this year, 44 Senate Democrats went on the record opposing medical care to infants born alive after a botched abortion. Democrats for president are now attacking consensus policies which, for decades, have prevented Congress from using taxpayer money for abortion.

The Democrats and their allies are no longer hiding behind a veil of moderation when it comes to abortion. At least they’re finally being honest with voters about it.

Link
This is a real shocker.
__________________
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-MLK Jr.
  tehmackdaddy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2019, 11:57 AM   #155
Giant Octopodes
Registered User
 
Giant Octopodes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 821
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $83988


Giant Octopodes is top drawer
Giant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawerGiant Octopodes is top drawer
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikiemo83 View Post
sounds like you are trying to define what is undefinable. I have to think that when it becomes a person is not something on can measure precisely but I agree if the two sides could agree on such a specific time frame a lot of the debate would be silenced.

BUT pro-life will continue to say at conception - speaking on a biblical Soul being in place. Pro-choice will have a different answer.

now if we could get those within each fraction to give a definitive answer to when a Person begins to exist we could then start to try to mitigate a solution no one will be completely happy with, but would be a compromise between the two sides.
How is it undefinable? We have agreed upon medical and legal definitions for when life ends. Cessation of brain activity and / or heartbeat. If you have brain activity and a heartbeat, you're medically and legally alive. If you don't, you're just a lump of flesh, to be harvested for organs (if you signed up for that) or disposed of.

Why would we use different definitions than the ones we already have to delineate from those who are living and those who are not? Why would the definitions for the end of life be any different than those for the start of it? Many people have differing ideas about what it means to be alive or not but we chose the definitions we did because it's practical- we can see and measure that their heart is or is not beating and their brain is or is not functioning, and can Prove they're alive or dead on that basis. That's true for the beginning of life as well, is it not?

If it has an actively functioning brain and heart, with its own unique brainwave and thoughts, what justification could be used to say it's not a living person? Conversely, if it does not have brain activity, what justification can be used to say that it's medically or legally alive? Seems easy to me, to be honest.

Edit: Also OPT I disagree, when discussing abortion with those in favor of it, and those opposed to it, I've Never had the definition of the start of personhood be a sticking point. Brain activity and a heartbeat has been very easily accepted by the parties involved, and the responses always start with a but. 'But a lot of women don't even realize they're pregnant before then', 'but what about situation x or y', 'but it's not viable then and that's what the law uses'; or 'but it still has the potential for life', 'but it still has a soul', 'but it's still morally wrong / evil', depending on which side they're on.

Last edited by Giant Octopodes; 07-20-2019 at 12:19 PM..
__________________
"We're better because we've worked harder and we've improved and we've gotten better. There’s no shortcut to it. You just can’t draw a couple of carrots on a page and that all of a sudden takes care of it" - Bill Belichick
  Giant Octopodes is online now Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.