The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[jamil]

Do you think you will see such a result in inflation adjusted dollars? I do not. When your grandfather retired there were about 6 workers per recipient, now it is 3 and expected to be 2 in the coming years. We are getting very close to where we might as well scrap it and let kids take care of their elders…

The "kids" can't take care of themselves, let alone their elders. The US will do what it always does, put the expense on credit and make a promise that a future generation will pay the interest on it.

 

[jamil]

Why was Madoff arrested and congress is not?

Congress makes the laws that Madoff was guilty of violating. They also made the law that created the ponzi scheme known as Social Security. That's why congress has not broken the law they created, and therefor is not arrested.

/denny

 

[jamil]

I volunteer to do taxes for low income tax payers. I've never seen rent anywhere close to this. Most of my clients are in the $4000-$6000 a year range.

This is if Fort Wayne, mind you.

Yeah, but Fort Wayne is a good place to live. Wages, taxes and housing costs are very reasonable compared to other places in the country. Louisville taxes the **** out of everyone, is deeply in debt. Housing costs are way higher than they should be, and wages aren't really all that high compared to fort wayne. I'd really think about moving back if it weren't for the ***damn cold/snow. Maybe global warming will make it more livable.

 

[KLB]

Yeah, but Fort Wayne is a good place to live. Wages, taxes and housing costs are very reasonable compared to other places in the country. Louisville taxes the **** out of everyone, is deeply in debt. Housing costs are way higher than they should be, and wages aren't really all that high compared to fort wayne. I'd really think about moving back if it weren't for the ***damn cold/snow. Maybe global warming will make it more livable.

It's what, a couple of degrees colder on average?

 

[Dean C.]

A couple of things.

First, there is no nuance which makes abortion a celebrated event no matter what you worship. Even if it’s yer ass. It's often a trying event for people with a conscience.

Second, people have been banned for openly mocking people’s religion. You may not remember Mr Jarrel. An INGO personally long departed, whose favorite hobby on INGO was to insult Christians. Maybe dial that nonsense down a touch.

I’m not religious at all, but I am not so confident arrogant that I think it's necessary to disrespect everyone else's religious beliefs. However, if your religious beliefs cause you to worship your ass, maybe it's fair game.

I figured imaginary sky friend was tame, though outside of Exodus I didn't mention any one religion specifically (but it applies to both Christianity and Judaism if memory serves). The appeals court of Indiana again specifically stated the abortion ban was a law pushed by religious dogma and that is why the injunction was stayed

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I figured imaginary sky friend was tame, though outside of Exodus I didn't mention any one religion specifically (but it applies to both Christianity and Judaism if memory serves). The appeals court of Indiana again specifically stated the abortion ban was a law pushed by religious dogma and that is why the injunction was stayed

The appeals court stating it doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

Not stealing is also something Christianity and Judaism believe. I guess we need to get rid of laws against stealing, too, since they constitute "religious dogma"?

 

[Twangbanger]

The appeals court stating it doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

Not stealing is also something Christianity and Judaism believe. I guess we need to get rid of laws against stealing, too, since they constitute "religious dogma"?

Life at Fertilization, like injunctions against usury, is a viewpoint predominantly, and almost exclusively*, espoused within religious traditions. Some have offered tortured syllogisms stacked atop each other like turtles all the way down, to attempt to establish that Life at Fertilization can be arrived at purely via logic, and without recourse to religion. But nobody was convinced. (That's why Jamil himself spent 6 pages arguing against the point in a prior engagement- he knows better than he's putting on here).

Those making peoples' "asses" and what they do with them into religious issues in America are mostly Christians / Jews / Muslims. Like Global Warming, Life at Fertilization is a "consensus" vehemently adhered to in certain circles, which has not been objectively demonstrated. At no time in American legal history - none - has it ever been an established legal, ethical, or moral norm. It is a religious belief, and there is simply no significant non-anecdotal** evidence to the contrary. This court just appears to be saying in this case that Freedom "of" religion also includes freedom "from" religion and its special, dogmatically held beliefs.

*,**: cf. atheist George Will getting pissed because people abort babies with Down Syndrome, because he's the personally-interested father of a Down Syndrome son; a pimple on the ass of America's debate over this issue.

 

[KLB]

Life at Fertilization, like injunctions against usury, is a viewpoint predominantly, and almost exclusively*, espoused within religious traditions. Some have offered tortured syllogisms stacked atop each other like turtles all the way down, to attempt to establish that Life at Fertilization can be arrived at purely via logic, and without recourse to religion. But nobody was convinced. (That's why Jamil himself spent 6 pages arguing against the point in a prior engagement- he knows better than he's putting on here).

Those making peoples' "asses" and what they do with them into religious issues in America are mostly Christians / Jews / Muslims. Like Global Warming, Life at Fertilization is a "consensus" vehemently adhered to in certain circles, which has not been objectively demonstrated. At no time in American history - none - has it ever been an established legal principle across America. Life at Fertilization is a religious belief here, and there is simply no significant non-anecdotal** evidence to the contrary. It's a uniquely religious belief, which is _not_ and has never been an established legal, ethical, nor moral norm in America. The Federal court just appears to be saying in this case that Freedom "of" religion also includes freedom "from" religion and its special, dogmatically held beliefs.

*,**: cf. atheist George Will getting pissed because people abort babies with Down Syndrome, because he's the personally-interested father of a Down Syndrome son; a pimple on the ass of America's debate over this issue.

Are you arguing whether it is a Human life at conception or are you saying that a fertilized egg is not a form of life period?

 

[Twangbanger]

Are you arguing whether it is a Human life at conception or are you saying that a fertilized egg is not a form of life period?

We're talking about a RFRA case, and I'm establishing that Life at Fertilization (meaning a human being with legal rights) is a religious belief - not an established legal one, in any consistent manner, across the nation nor over time.

 

[KLB]

We're talking about a RFRA case, and I'm establishing that Life at Fertilization (meaning a human being with legal rights) is a religious belief - not an established legal one, in any consistent manner, across the nation nor over time.

Thanks. I was just curious.

 

[jamil]

It's what, a couple of degrees colder on average?

I lived in Ft Wayne for like 14 years. Now. Maybe it’s global warming. But back in the day winters were harder and longer in Ft. wayne. Summers are longer here. I’ve been mowing the lawn for like a month now. And I’ll be mowing until November.

 

[JettaKnight]

I lived in Ft Wayne for like 14 years. Now. Maybe it’s global warming. But back in the day winters were harder and longer in Ft. wayne. Summers are longer here. I’ve been mowing the lawn for like a month now. And I’ll be mowing until November.

We only had one chance for me to fire up the snowthrower this year.

FtW winter is a far cry from The Region.

 

[JettaKnight]

What seems to be the average low income without hud's help pay in rent, for say a 2 bedroom house in FW?

Tonight I did one return where the fella only paid $6000 / year for that. That's not uncommon. The neighborhood sucks, but no where near as bad as places in Indy.

 

[Tombs]

Life at Fertilization, like injunctions against usury, is a viewpoint predominantly, and almost exclusively*, espoused within religious traditions. Some have offered tortured syllogisms stacked atop each other like turtles all the way down, to attempt to establish that Life at Fertilization can be arrived at purely via logic, and without recourse to religion. But nobody was convinced. (That's why Jamil himself spent 6 pages arguing against the point in a prior engagement- he knows better than he's putting on here).

Those making peoples' "asses" and what they do with them into religious issues in America are mostly Christians / Jews / Muslims. Like Global Warming, Life at Fertilization is a "consensus" vehemently adhered to in certain circles, which has not been objectively demonstrated. At no time in American legal history - none - has it ever been an established legal, ethical, or moral norm. It is a religious belief, and there is simply no significant non-anecdotal** evidence to the contrary. This court just appears to be saying in this case that Freedom "of" religion also includes freedom "from" religion and its special, dogmatically held beliefs.

*,**: cf. atheist George Will getting pissed because people abort babies with Down Syndrome, because he's the personally-interested father of a Down Syndrome son; a pimple on the ass of America's debate over this issue.

Without tracking down all the prior debate context, life at conception seems far easier of a bar to establish logically than trying to decide what minute, or second, during a pregnancy, it transforms from a lump of cells into life.

It may not be the viewpoint most favorable and compromising with oppositional viewpoints, but to me it makes the most rational sense.

As I've said before, many times on the topic, I think people need to get over the concept of ending a life and concede the point that it is taking a life. The debate would be much more healthy if it was a debate over when it is permissible to take a life rather than arguing what constitutes a life.

 

[jamil]

The appeals court stating it doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

If you recall, there was a lengthy debate over my statement that apart from religious belief, there isn’t a secular rationale for the Christian position.

Not stealing is also something Christianity and Judaism believe. I guess we need to get rid of laws against stealing, too, since they constitute "religious dogma"?

This is not a logical comparison. It’s not just the believing of the thing that makes it dogma. Laws against stealing are universal. The secular benefits to society are obvious. Every society whether religious or not has laws against theft. Unless you’re George Soros trying to destabilize society, there will be laws in pretty much every country that makes theft illegal.

 

[jamil]

Life at Fertilization, like injunctions against usury, is a viewpoint predominantly, and almost exclusively*, espoused within religious traditions.

We’ve already debated that point for weeks. It’s not gonna land any better now.

 

[Dean C.]

Would now be a bad time to ask how many here also support the death penalty while being very anti abortion? I need some help with that cognitive dissonance.

 

[Tombs]

Would now be a bad time to ask how many here also support the death penalty while being very anti abortion? I need some help with that cognitive dissonance.

Ending the life of someone after a trial by jury with legal representation, showing they are guilty of a crime deemed vile enough to warrant it...

vs

Ending the life of someone.... because

But hey I'll concede all you want abortion on demand if it's afforded a trial by jury.

 

[jamil]

Would now be a bad time to ask how many here also support the death penalty while being very anti abortion? I need some help with that cognitive dissonance.

I don’t think you understand their point of view. I don’t think it’s hypocritical. Many believe taking innocent life is murder. A fetus is nothing if not innocent. A murderer forfeits his life by murdering. That’s a logically consistent position.

 

[Twangbanger]

Would now be a bad time to ask how many here also support the death penalty while being very anti abortion? I need some help with that cognitive dissonance.

There's no dissonance. There are all kinds of situations where it's considered legally justifiable to take a life. You're just arguing to make abortion one more of them. Don't make it harder than it is.