201–210 of 297 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The core issue is 'Is a human obligated to use their body to keep another human alive' A thought experiment. You get too drunk and pass out in a bar. I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood. If you unhook yourself they will die. Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The issues” themselves aren’t even fully agreed upon, especially if they’re not believed to be core by everyone. Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. It’s the basis for the pro-life movement. It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). There are other things some people believe are core which others don’t believe e…
> It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). That banning abortion leads to the deaths of thousands of young women. Pretty sure we all agree that a girl's life starts before she can get pregnant.
2. even if you accept that there would be "deaths of thousands of young women", I doubt those deaths would sway the opinion of someone who thinks each abortion is murder (ie. 629,898 "deaths" from abortion vs "thousands" of "deaths")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The issues” themselves aren’t even fully agreed upon, especially if they’re not believed to be core by everyone. Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. It’s the basis for the pro-life movement. It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). There are other things some people believe are core which others don’t believe e…
> It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). That banning abortion leads to the deaths of thousands of young women. Pretty sure we all agree that a girl's life starts before she can get pregnant.
Many will consider a girl chosing a dangerous, illegal procedure as a criminal and therefore less worthy of consideration. More so than an innocent child who had no choice in its conception. My guess is they won't seriously consider the argument until they themselves, or their adult daughters, are literally in the situation of needing an illegal abortion themselves. (And possibly only in an extreme circumstance like molestation or rape, as some are taught self shame and hatred every week at church.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people I don't believe this is true in western societies anymore. Even in the US, people who describe themselves as "very religious" or belong to a church are the minority.
> people who describe themselves as "very religious" or belong to a church are the minority. i’m not sure this is at all an accurate depiction of americans and religion. last i looked into it—which admittedly was like two years ago—an absolutely terrifying number of americans believed in angels and god. if i’m remembering correctly, it was a wild shocking number, like more than 70%. i mean, if we’re limiting it to on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. I've had my fill of both the screaming liberals and the dusty conservatives. Most of the complex issues deal with morality so it's probably all for naught. The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people. No point using empirical evidence when you don't believe in it to begin with.
> There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. Politics affect people's daily lives. Suggesting that people should just ignore the inherent emotional component of these decisions and the impact that they have on our lives is both incredibly unrealistic and quite a privileged position to occupy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). That banning abortion leads to the deaths of thousands of young women. Pretty sure we all agree that a girl's life starts before she can get pregnant.
1. where are you getting "deaths of thousands of young women" from? According to the CDC the mortality rate associated with live births is 23.8 per 100,000. In the US there are only 629,898 abortions per year. Multiply those numbers out, and you only get 150 deaths. 2. even if you accept that there would be "deaths of thousands of young women", I doubt those deaths would sway the opinion of someone who thinks each ab…
I agree it'll be nearly impossible to convince people who already see abortion as murder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have been required to disclose vaccine status for decades in many situations. Your right to privacy is not absolute; the state (and society in general) frequently need to know things about you to function well, including protecting public health and reducing senseless death. This is a necessary evil for us to have a civilization in the first place and is not "destroying the bedrock of the last 50 years of soci…
It doesn’t matter if the vaccine gives you wings and free beer for life. The government should NOT be able to mandate an injection (tested for not very long) into a person’s sovereign body. (I am vaccinated btw, not that it matters) Privacy violations are NOT a necessary evil. They are the slipperiest of slopes. Look to china to see where this road ends. The government is not our parents, it’s a naughty power hungry…
The main problem is that most governments have historically shown themselves to use every possible angle they can come up with when they want to go after someone, no matter the legal stretch. Thus, collecting data that could be vital to a legitimate concern could also be later misused for other nefarious purposes. If governments would be the "bigger person" so to speak, and not stoop to dastardly levels, more people would have faith that the government would not infringe on their inherent rights without a damn good reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants…
Such rallies are a lot closer to gypsy dancing where a bunch of drugged participants create a whirlpool of emotions, turn off their minds and unleash their animal side. Speeches there serve as mantras of some sort: they must sound a certain rhythmic way, but their meaning is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I agree with you? What's your point?