Author Topic: Buttigieg Defends Abortion by Suggesting the Bible Says ‘Life Begins with Breath’  (Read 9202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,818
I don't disagree personally with any of that, @roamer_1 .    Where we differ is I am willing to try to persuade but unwilling to enlist the state to coerce.

Yet you are perfectly willing to use the power of the Federal Judiciary to deny Georgians their Constitutional rights (see Amendment X).  As for your State, do what you want.  But leave our State out of it.  We will decide what is best for our society, and we will live with that result.  But you have no right to deny our right to choose based on some nonsense about baby-killing being a Constitutionally protected form of birth control that no State can regulate.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,297
I don't disagree personally with any of that, @roamer_1 .    Where we differ is I am willing to try to persuade but unwilling to enlist the state to coerce.   Most women exercise their liberty in the way you describe - they view pregnancy as a blessing and a fulfillment of what makes them female.   But sometimes life's circumstances compel a different choice.   It may be the worst decision a woman can make, but it is still her decision, and hers alone.   

Still an artifice @Jazzhead , and a poor one, discounting not only the right of a living baby, but also the right of the father, to secure for the woman a non-existing preeminence, necessary only in the shade of the consequences of so-called sexual freedom.

In reality - the reality of aeons - the only time there is not the mixture of rights (that of the man, woman and child) is prior to engagement and conception. That is where the clean and clear decision lies, for both parties. PRIOR to the act. There is the moment of reproductive right.

And that artifice is not only insufferable, but will be our doom.

Offline jafo2010

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,525
  • Dems-greatest existential threat to USA republic!

Quote
Jazzhead....
A pre-viable fetus simply isn't, yet, a human being.     A fetus is pre-viable precisely because it is wholly dependent for its survival on the body of the woman in which it is growing.  Without the woman, it cannot have a separate existence.   Hence - vis a vis the woman - it has no separate "right to life".

The majority of the electorate would disagree with you on this issue.  And frankly, what you say here is nonsense.  A fetus is not a human being?  Really?  What is it then?  I know, a lump of cells.  Pure poppycock. 

First off, not one single founder of this great nation would agree with you on that.  You think otherwise?  How could that be possible?  EVERY signer of the Constitution was a Christian.  Not a one was a muslim, or an atheist, not a one.

Because the unborn child/human being is dependent on the mother does not render it to a state of being non human.  Makes zero sense, but then again, liberals make no sense whatsoever.

If Scott Peterson can be indicted, convicted and sentenced to death for the first degree murder of his unborn child, our society recognizes the unborn as a human being!  So, if it recognizes that unborn child as a human being in his case(in California no less), how do we not do so for all in our society? 

The fact is that seven lying sacks of sh*t(unelected too) that sat on the Supreme Court determined that this great nation would practice mass genocide, and murder the most innocent of our society.  From my view, they are just as responsible for the murder of 60+ million unborn as Peterson was for his child.  Until this grave wrong is righted, America will never be a great nation again, and the people that think like you are hellbent to destroy what made this nation great.

And the irony of the whole matter is that people that think like you have fully embraced Margaret Sanger's policies of eugenics, and all of you are totally clueless.  The undesirables of our society, per Sanger's view, are being eliminated every day, those of color, the poor, Catholics, Jews, etc, and she never imagined this level of success for her eugenics policies...never!  And using taxpayer dollars too to fund this nightmare!

I have said it many times here on TBR that we are becoming more and more like Russia.  In saying this, it is no compliment.  I have traveled to Russia a number of times, and their culture is one of not valuing life as we do here in America, or should I say as we once did.  We kill our unborn, and many like you justify that by saying they are not human.  Now we have politicians and doctors saying we can kill after birth, if the mother so chooses, and we are killing people that want to die via assisted suicide, and soon any person wishing to depart this world, much like the character played by Edward G. Robinson in the movie Soylent Green, who decided he had enough and checks out while watching fields of flowers on screen and receiving a lethal dose of something to do the job.  That is where we are headed.

Somewhere along the way to having 330 million people, we all became expendable.  Either we change, or expect to see people's lives being treated as in Russia.  Terrorists seize a school, kill everyone.  They seize a concert hall, kill everybody.  Submarine goes down, yet has people alive that could be rescued by the USA or Britain, let them all die.  That is where we are headed.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,297
Because the unborn child/human being is dependent on the mother does not render it to a state of being non human.  Makes zero sense, but then again, liberals make no sense whatsoever.

IN FACT: Because of the child's dependency upon the mother, and the vital role that plays in the continuation of the house, the greater house, and the race; and further, because of the intrinsic and instinctive connection between the mother and the child, superseding every other relationship, the tuning thereof beginning early on, from conception forward...

Because of that, the rejection thereof makes the mother inhuman, not the child.
The argument, ANY argument, is foolishness.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Would I believe that life begins at conception? No.
Are you ever going to answer the question?

It's been several days so I presume you are still thinking.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
Are you ever going to answer the question?

It's been several days so I presume you are still thinking.

Huh? I thought I did. Explain...
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Yet you are perfectly willing to use the power of the Federal Judiciary to deny Georgians their Constitutional rights (see Amendment X).

Guilty as charged.   That is because I support the liberty of the individual,  not the power of the majority to strip that liberty away.   That's what a conservative believes.   You believe it too -  you utterly oppose a tyrannical majority that would restrict your firearms right.   But is that only because that's a right that you happen to care about?

The power of the state to require a woman to reproduce is an imposition on a most basic sort of human liberty.   

Now understand that I do not adopt an extremist position.   A woman's right to choose must be meaningful, but it is not unlimited.  After the fetus is viable,  I think she's had more than enough time to exercise her right.   At that point, IMO, she's assumed a fiduciary obligation that I think the state can choose to enforce.   

I think viability is a useful marker that respects the dignity of each side of this issue.   Liberty is a difficult pill to swallow for some folks - because human beings can make bad choices.   Abortion is a bad choice,  but liberty is what it is.  It's the woman's choice, and hers alone, and God blessed her with both a conscience and free will.   

 But once the fetus can survive on its own,  the fact of its potentiality for humanity is obvious,   and requires only the exercise of fiduciary care.   So let the majority of citizens in your state choose to regulate or ban abortion,  after the point of viability.   

But not before.

Is that a compromise?  Of course it is.   But it is the best means I can think of to reconcile the competing ideals that animate the passions surrounding the abortion debate.     
« Last Edit: September 20, 2019, 12:17:49 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,402
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Guilty as charged.   That is because I support the liberty of the individual,  not the power of the majority to strip that liberty away.   That's what a conservative believes.   You believe it too -  you utterly oppose a tyrannical majority that would restrict your firearms right.   But is that only because that's a right that you happen to care about?

The power of the state to require a woman to reproduce is an imposition on a most basic sort of human liberty.   

You act as if standing up for the lives of the helpless is is treating people who have chosen to engage in sexual activity like brood mares.

No one is requiring her to engage in sexual behaviour or artificially inseminate herself.

No one at all. Any reproduction would, with the rare exception of rape, result from a consensual act on her part.
And, with almost universal sex education, there is little chance anyone capable of having sex doesn't know where babies come fron.

No one forced her to reproduce, the choice was hers.

Once a new life has been created, though, is it not inherent on the State to protect the very life of those who cannot protect themselves? Is this not the reason we have police? Is this not the ultimate duty of the law, to protect the rights of the innocent (a presumption given all) and helpless?

Yet that law, in a jurisprudential abortion, has been contorted to excuse the destruction of the most innocent and helpless.

Quote
Now understand that I do not adopt an extremist position.   
Just because a position is commonly held makes it no less extremist, just as a majority can be wrong, and often has been.
Quote

A woman's right to choose must be meaningful, but it is not unlimited. 
Which is why there are statutory age limits for such behaviour. After all, we can't have oversexed twelve year olds running about breeding like rats.

Quote
After the fetus is viable,  I think she's had more than enough time to exercise her right.
No, the time to exercise that right was before there was a little bun in the oven. 
Quote
  At that point, IMO, she's assumed a fiduciary obligation that I think the state can choose to enforce.   

I think viability is a useful marker that respects the dignity of each side of this issue.   Liberty is a difficult pill to swallow for some folks - because human beings can make bad choices.   Abortion is a bad choice,  but liberty is what it is.  It's the woman's choice, and hers alone, and God blessed her with both a conscience and free will.   

 But once the fetus can survive on its own,  the fact of its potentiality for humanity is obvious,   and requires only the exercise of fiduciary care.   So let the majority of citizens in your state choose to regulate or ban abortion,  after the point of viability.   

But not before.

Is that a compromise?  Of course it is.   But it is the best means I can think of to reconcile the competing ideals that animate the passions surrounding the abortion debate.     
The bad choices are already made before the ept ever says they are pregnant. You keep acting as if reproduction hasn't already occurred. The process has been set in motion by the combination of DNA that produces a unique individual.
Don't start it, no new life. Once it is started, reproduction has occurred. New life has been created. That new life will grow and develop until it dies.

"Viability" is a moveable goalpost, and nonsense. There are enough 20 somethings out there living in a relative's basement, who may be capable of locomotion, even reproduction, but cannot survive on their own.

That's a line that can be dragged all over the field, so contending that it is better to murder some of the people some of the time than declare open season on infants in the womb sounds so much better.
The viability line can come back on the field, on the other end, too.
As people get older or just sick, would you declare them 'non viable' and take them out of play like a damaged piece of equipment? And who gets to choose?

Strip away the gadgets, was Stephen Hawking "viable"?

Statistically speaking, in the few minutes it took to type this, enough babies lost their lives to , when older, fill a school bus, a couple of classrooms, a restaurant. Just because they will instead end up in a bucket/ medical waste pail/make a payment on someone's Lambo, doesn't mean they will be any less dead.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,297
You act as if standing up for the lives of the helpless is is treating people who have chosen to engage in sexual activity like brood mares.


That, my friend, is an insult to brood mares. Brood mares bring their young to term, and care for them.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
You act as if standing up for the lives of the helpless is is treating people who have chosen to engage in sexual activity like brood mares.

No one is requiring her to engage in sexual behaviour or artificially inseminate herself.

No one at all. Any reproduction would, with the rare exception of rape, result from a consensual act on her part.
And, with almost universal sex education, there is little chance anyone capable of having sex doesn't know where babies come fron.

No one forced her to reproduce, the choice was hers.

Once a new life has been created, though, is it not inherent on the State to protect the very life of those who cannot protect themselves? Is this not the reason we have police? Is this not the ultimate duty of the law, to protect the rights of the innocent (a presumption given all) and helpless?

Yet that law, in a jurisprudential abortion, has been contorted to excuse the destruction of the most innocent and helpless.
 Just because a position is commonly held makes it no less extremist, just as a majority can be wrong, and often has been.  Which is why there are statutory age limits for such behaviour. After all, we can't have oversexed twelve year olds running about breeding like rats.
 No, the time to exercise that right was before there was a little bun in the oven.  The bad choices are already made before the ept ever says they are pregnant. You keep acting as if reproduction hasn't already occurred. The process has been set in motion by the combination of DNA that produces a unique individual.
Don't start it, no new life. Once it is started, reproduction has occurred. New life has been created. That new life will grow and develop until it dies.

"Viability" is a moveable goalpost, and nonsense. There are enough 20 somethings out there living in a relative's basement, who may be capable of locomotion, even reproduction, but cannot survive on their own.

That's a line that can be dragged all over the field, so contending that it is better to murder some of the people some of the time than declare open season on infants in the womb sounds so much better.
The viability line can come back on the field, on the other end, too.
As people get older or just sick, would you declare them 'non viable' and take them out of play like a damaged piece of equipment? And who gets to choose?

Strip away the gadgets, was Stephen Hawking "viable"?

Statistically speaking, in the few minutes it took to type this, enough babies lost their lives to , when older, fill a school bus, a couple of classrooms, a restaurant. Just because they will instead end up in a bucket/ medical waste pail/make a payment on someone's Lambo, doesn't mean they will be any less dead.

Great Post @Smokin Joe!  Sadly, it will have zero effect on the poster you responded to and he will be back again later with the same tired old arguments.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
You act as if standing up for the lives of the helpless is is treating people who have chosen to engage in sexual activity like brood mares.

No one is requiring her to engage in sexual behaviour or artificially inseminate herself.

No one at all. Any reproduction would, with the rare exception of rape, result from a consensual act on her part.
And, with almost universal sex education, there is little chance anyone capable of having sex doesn't know where babies come fron.

No one forced her to reproduce, the choice was hers.

Once a new life has been created, though, is it not inherent on the State to protect the very life of those who cannot protect themselves? Is this not the reason we have police? Is this not the ultimate duty of the law, to protect the rights of the innocent (a presumption given all) and helpless?

Yet that law, in a jurisprudential abortion, has been contorted to excuse the destruction of the most innocent and helpless.
 Just because a position is commonly held makes it no less extremist, just as a majority can be wrong, and often has been.  Which is why there are statutory age limits for such behaviour. After all, we can't have oversexed twelve year olds running about breeding like rats.
 No, the time to exercise that right was before there was a little bun in the oven.  The bad choices are already made before the ept ever says they are pregnant. You keep acting as if reproduction hasn't already occurred. The process has been set in motion by the combination of DNA that produces a unique individual.
Don't start it, no new life. Once it is started, reproduction has occurred. New life has been created. That new life will grow and develop until it dies.

"Viability" is a moveable goalpost, and nonsense. There are enough 20 somethings out there living in a relative's basement, who may be capable of locomotion, even reproduction, but cannot survive on their own.

That's a line that can be dragged all over the field, so contending that it is better to murder some of the people some of the time than declare open season on infants in the womb sounds so much better.
The viability line can come back on the field, on the other end, too.
As people get older or just sick, would you declare them 'non viable' and take them out of play like a damaged piece of equipment? And who gets to choose?

Strip away the gadgets, was Stephen Hawking "viable"?

Statistically speaking, in the few minutes it took to type this, enough babies lost their lives to , when older, fill a school bus, a couple of classrooms, a restaurant. Just because they will instead end up in a bucket/ medical waste pail/make a payment on someone's Lambo, doesn't mean they will be any less dead.


^^^^^^^

This!!! All day every day!
« Last Edit: September 20, 2019, 09:01:22 pm by txradioguy »
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
What is "it" that God said?

I thought I answered that.
'It' is that life begins at conception.  You simply said you do not believe it does.

So what I asked of you is would you believe life begins at conception if God says it does?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 09:14:27 pm by IsailedawayfromFR »
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington