This will oust the corruption of transgender (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

You do realize what the baking of the cake refers to, righit? it doesn't just refer to baking a cake. it refers to FORCING a baker to bake a cake with a message that they'd rather not take on the project. forcing them to by a lawsuit

The cake issue was obvious and easy. But it is simply a surrogate for the left's attempt to control how you think. If they can make you decorate a cake with words and symbols that go against your religious beliefs, can they make you perform an abortion if you are a Catholic doctor? Can they make you write pornography if you are an author? Can they force you to allow your children to be sexualized at a young age for the sake of "inclusion"?

This case was touted as being about religious freedom but really it was about freedom, period. Why can you not be allowed to refuse any custom job that doesn't suit you? For some reason or no reason at all? This is different from the public accommodation of serving walk-in customers. If they are ordering from the menu and otherwise being orderly and not causing a problem, you have to serve them but if they want something not on the menu, you don't have to accommodate the request.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

This Chinese Zoo made dogs up to look like Pandas.... I posted it here because it seems relevant to this thread:-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836754475748671901

 

[ColinEssex]

can they make you perform an abortion if you are a Catholic doctor?

'They' can't make you do anything. I worked in hospitals for 40 years and my work involved working with Consultant surgeons of all kinds. I remember a gynaecologist who was a nice chap, he would never perform a termination other than for the pregnancy to continue would be a danger for the mother's health. It wasn't on religious or other grounds, it was just his principal. So all terminations where the pregnancy was not wanted by the girl were referred to a different gynaecologist.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

'They' can't make you do anything.

You haven't been paying attention to what is going on in the world. When the choice is your livelihood or your ethics, you are left with no good option and many people cave to the pressure. The entire medical "industry" caved to the lies of COVID even though they knew very early on that the young and the healthy were not in jeopardy and that surgical masks didn't stop the spread and that the draconian shutdowns didn't work either.

 

[ColinEssex]

You haven't been paying attention to my comment. You referred to an abortion and Catholic gynaecologist. I replied with a fact. I wasn't referring to the stupid wars or covid advice given at the time.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

So, you know ONE ethical doctor. Good for you.

 

[ColinEssex]

A clinical termination done properly is a far better option than a backstreet abortion or the pregnant girl using knitting needles and gin.

I suppose you support backstreet abortions where the girl risks their life. Forget all this 'when does life start' rubbish. Usually if a baby is not planned, they get dumped off on nannies / family or anyone to bring them up so the mother doesn't need to care and continues making money. That's the problem in todays world, that's why sons and daughters turn out the way they do. No family values anymore. No proper upbringing.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That's the problem in todays world, that's why sons and daughters turn out the way they do. No family values anymore. No proper upbringing.

The first part of your 2nd paragraph is maybe a bit off, but on this statement, Col,... you are spot-on.

I absolutely don't support backstreet abortions with (probably) unsanitary instruments and insufficient resources for cases when something goes wrong. I take the viewpoint that some woman somewhere WILL want an abortion for reasons I don't happen to like. But it is not my right to tell her she can't have it IF her religious viewpoint doesn't agree with the "life begins at conception" crowd. Scientifically, philosophically, anthropologically, or ethically, many different viewpoints exist about the beginnings of life and the only one that REALLY counts is what the law allows.

 

[Isaac]

A clinical termination done properly is a far better option than a backstreet abortion or the pregnant girl using knitting needles and gin.

I suppose you support backstreet abortions where the girl risks their life. Forget all this 'when does life start' rubbish. Usually if a baby is not planned, they get dumped off on nannies / family or anyone to bring them up so the mother doesn't need to care and continues making money. That's the problem in todays world, that's why sons and daughters turn out the way they do. No family values anymore. No proper upbringing.
Col

Wow I'm sorry but I think that suggesting that something should be legal merely because of how chaotic it gets when people do it illegally isn't a very good justification. On that justification we should make all drug use legal too

 

[The_Doc_Man]

On that justification we should make all drug use legal too

I will remind you that prohibition (of alcohol) occurred in the USA in 1920 and didn't make it past 1933 before the 18th amendment was repealed. You can't legislate away people's vices and bad habits. People fixate on things and all other considerations go by the wayside.

Willie Sutton, who was a multiple repeat offender in terms of bank robbery, was asked in an interview: Why did you rob so many banks? To which his "tunnel vision" answer was "That's where they keep the money." He was so fixated on the money that incarceration wasn't that big a deal for him.

Consider people who want drugs, tobacco products, or guns. We know how bad they can get, but that doesn't stop anyone who really wants any of those things. And the same will be true of abortion. People will want it. They will get it. History shows that you cannot stop them from getting it.

 

[Isaac]

I will remind you that prohibition (of alcohol) occurred in the USA in 1920 and didn't make it past 1933 before the 18th amendment was repealed. You can't legislate away people's vices and bad habits. People fixate on things and all other considerations go by the wayside.

Willie Sutton, who was a multiple repeat offender in terms of bank robbery, was asked in an interview: Why did you rob so many banks? To which his "tunnel vision" answer was "That's where they keep the money." He was so fixated on the money that incarceration wasn't that big a deal for him.

Consider people who want drugs, tobacco products, or guns. We know how bad they can get, but that doesn't stop anyone who really wants any of those things. And the same will be true of abortion. People will want it. They will get it. History shows that you cannot stop them from getting it.

Right but on col's logic we could see how it applied to many things would be disastrous. Murder is illegal, and the hoops people jump through to do it anyway cause additional problems, should we just legalize it? Forget drugs, just insert anything. Point is the same

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Isaac, I agree that there is a slippery slope here.

Forget drugs, just insert anything. Point is the same

Not entirely true. Abortion differs from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, ... pick your other poison - in one significant difference.

The problem with abortion that differs from other human activities is one of agreement on what just happened at a philosophical level during that abortion. I also have to say that I'm playing Devil's Advocate on this because my wife and I agreed that if a child was born to us we would keep it. So my answer is not based on what I would do if WE had a pregnancy, but what women IN GENERAL face with a pregnancy.

Various religions differ in the beginnings of being a person. Judaism says it is when the umbilicus is cut. Some evangelical denominations use the Solomonic definition, "The breath is the life" (referring to "first independent breath.") Scientifically, defining the start of "personhood" requires a scientific test for being a person, and I have known some folks who were upright and walking that might not make it within such definition. Not to forget that some parents, due to beliefs in certain fundamentalist religions, have the right to withhold medical treatment from their child (putting said child's life in God's hands) - which historically has resulted in death of the child AFTER it was born.

This means that there is no universally accepted definition of the discrete and unequivocal beginnings of a person's life. Therefore, at least under the US Constitution, there are two relevant issues. First, the USC says that rights accrue to persons BORN or naturalized to become citizens. Legally, birth is a critical condition. Second, the multitude of personal creeds is protected because discrimination is not allowed based on personal creed. If a person's creed or religion says that the fetus (clearly not born yet) is not a person, then what is abortion? It is not murder if there was no person.

We can all agree (I think) that a person who is walking around, talking, chewing gum (not necessarily all at the same time) and doing other person-like things should not be shot and killed. Or stabbed and killed. Or whatever other method floats your boat. That killing qualifies as murder. But the way laws are written in some states, a cluster of cells the size of my thumb, something that might not yet have developed a brain stem, is still a person and abortion is murder. I'm sorry, but at that point you are on very shaky philosophical ground to say that.

Part of the problem is that lack of a universally accepted definition and the fact that individual beliefs are protected in this country. Therein lies the crux of the discussion. It is not what I believe; not what you believe; but what the aggregate of people believe - and that aggregate does not include a consensus on the start of personhood.

 

[Isaac]

It is not what I believe; not what you believe; but what the aggregate of people believe - and that aggregate does not include a consensus on the start of personhood.

Very true.

I myself am conflicted to some extent on the subject.

The easy thing is disposing of the issue at the extreme ends, i.e. :: Morally I have no problem with the "morning-after pill", and morally I have a huge problem with partial birth abortion, where you are literally stabbing something that is squirming in pain, an obvious baby.

That said, I'm unsure where to put things in the 'middle', but I think leaving it up to states and localities to express their localized conscience is probably the most reasonable place to land - and perhaps the only one.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I have no issues with the morning after pill. Though I oppose abortion, I remember what it was like before Roe vs Wade. I will not condemn a woman to self abort or get an illegal abortion. I had a coworker who got an illegal abortion and then a few miscarriages, in her fifth month, the poor woman had a break down. You can detect a heartbeat at six weeks and the fetus is viable at 22 weeks, so I believe a cutoff at 15 weeks (between the two) should be available. My Mom's slutty Goddaughter user abortions as a form of birth control and had a couple. Get yourself fixed. And I do believe that adults who wish to get fixed should be able to.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Doc, you are arguing for abortion in the delivery room. You are not playing "devil's advocate". No one in this discussion has ever taken the position that abortion should be 100% illegal. At least be honest about that. The Catholic church and probably most Christian denominations believe that life begins at conception and therefore even the morning after pill is a mortal sin because that would be murder. I'm not sure that Rome even allows birth control beyond the rhythm method. I don't think any state bans abortion 100% as they used to. Most have taken a more moderate stand trying to define life as when the fetus becomes viable. Some set that mark at a heartbeat. I think the heartbeat is too early because contraception fails and if a woman is carless, she might not recognise the pregnancy until it is too late to abort by her state's law. My jewish friends recognize life at birth so technically they are OK with abortion (murder) in the delivery room. Science doesn't come into play. So, religions run the gamut from conception to birth. State law is trying to make a rational allowance for differences of opinion based on science.

At some point, we have a second life in play and that second life cannot be terminated willy nilly as you think it should and your argument refuses to recognize that. Please be clear in your argument, When, if ever, does the fetus become a life vs a growth and do you believe that aborting a "life" is murder?

This whole argument is a remnant of the 60's when birth control was illegal and unavailable to unmarried women and so abortion was a huge issue to the women's movement. It seems to be all that the Democrats have left since it comes up in every election.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The Catholic church and probably most Christian denominations believe that life begins at conception and therefore even the morning after pill is a mortal sin because that would be murder.

The point is that you are now basing your comments on a religious belief that not everyone shares.

I have earlier made it clear that (a) my wife and I would not have selected to have an abortion if that were to become an issue (which it didn't) and (b) I don't have the right to preach a particular belief to someone else as though they were mandated to accept it.

When, if ever, does the fetus become a life vs a growth and do you believe that aborting a "life" is murder?

A fetus is a live, but so is a cockroach. You are conflating two different questions. I am honest enough to say I don't know whether abortion should or should not be considered as murder. I am saying I don't know the answer for everyone else and am not arrogant enough to say that I'm right and the world is wrong. Religion, however, IS arrogant enough to make that claim, however falsely.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The point is that you are now basing your comments on a religious belief that not everyone shares.

I do not adopt the position of any religion. Read the statement again. I am merely pointing out the variation on religious views.

Whether you would personally opt for abortion is not relevant. I also would not opt for abortion for a pregnancy initiated within marriage. I think we are discussing what we think a rational "law" should be. Should abortion be available on a whim in the 9th month or should there be some limitation. If there should be some limitation, where does it fall. The far left says no limit at all (which seems to be your position). The religious right says not at all but will live with a heartbeat (6 weeks). The rest of the country is struggling with something that allows a woman as much control as possible but still protects what most of us would consider a living human being and not a cockroach. The science of this changes because as postnatal care improves, a fetus that previously would always die if born prematurely can now survive and thrive. Can we kill something that can survive and thrive just because it is inconvenient? And if we can, why can't we kill grandma when she no longer recognizes us and has become too dangerous to leave unsupervised? Why do we have to spend $100,000 per year to hospitalize her until she dies? The left is trying to redefine morality for our society and you have bought into it because you are letting your objection to religion interfere with your innate morality.

The reason the left hates religion is because it teaches morality. And when people are moral, they are much harder to control.

Why do you keep insisting my position is religious? Interesting that you think a viable fetus is no more worthy of living than a cockroach.

Many states currently have laws on the books that would charge an assailant with murder if he injured a pregnant woman and that attack resulted in the death of the fetus. How does that resolve itself with an abortion law that allows abortion up to and including delivery?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You ask me to resolve that which is unresolvable. You feel your way, I feel mine, and 300 million people think their way. You KNOW there is a wide range of disagreement on the subject. If you must know, I would say that if the pregnant woman hadn't opted for abortion and an assailant kills the fetus, the charge ought to be at least equivalent to what Louisiana would call negligent homicide... AT LEAST that much. But our 2nd degree homicide would be fine with me as well. I have no idea what to call it if the woman was on her way to have an abortion when this assailant attacked, other than assault and battery, assault with injury, or assault with a deadly weapon.... something like that. The other 49 states will call those acts a different name. There WAS a crime in your hypothetical situation - but which one? I don't know.

Where in the cockroach comment did I say VIABLE fetus? I didn't. You mischaracterized my comments to say something I didn't say. BACK OFF, Pat. I'm not a total monster. At worst, no more than a partial one. I'm just conflicted on the whole subject because the pregnant woman is a person, too. When I hear of an abortion having occurred, I am sad for the life that never developed but I also am sad for the woman whose life had devolved to the necessity of making such a choice. No abortion occurs in a vacuum. They occur for a reason.

In an ideal world, pregnant women wouldn't be abandoned by their paramours or baby-daddies or whatever. They wouldn't be faced with a life of 20 years hard labor trying to raise a child alone without assistance. Is it any wonder that some young women opt for another solution? I applaud the ones who agree to take on the challenge, but I cannot condemn the ones who chose the other path. This is literally a case where I can NEVER walk a mile in their shoes. All I can do is keep out of their way.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Doc, I hate arguing with you about this and I don't like to pull the gender card but I'm going to. You would never be in a position to have to make the choice of whether or not to abort a pregnancy. Today, If the woman you impregnated would consider keeping the baby, she would probably discuss it with you to determine if there could be a stable relationship to raise the child with two parents. If she did not want to marry you or for whatever reason didn't want to have a child at all, you would never know. She would make the decision and act on it. That is how far we have come. Of course, if she hated you, she would tell you she killed your child.

This discussion was far more important in the 60's when unmarried women were denied contraceptives, men refused to wear condoms, and abortion was against the law, period.

Today, birth control is readily available and covered by insurance or available for free at a clinic. So, unless a woman of childbearing years actively wants to have children, contraception should be used. If pills are not appropriate, there are other mechanical options. Prevention is easily available and men don't have to wear the dreaded things they used to have to wear. Of course contraception is not foolproof and failures do happen. So, a responsible se*ually active female must be diligent and not wonder after three months what happened and why she's getting fat. The progressive mantra of "stupid people shouldn't breed" comes to mind but of course by that time it is too late. This small group of women are what we are worried about, along with the women who are ra*** in their sleep but don't know it. Somehow, I always know the morning after but perhaps not all women do.

This is simply not the crisis the left makes it out to be. The latest anecdotal story about the woman who had an abortion and soon after was having problems and went to a hospital where they didn't properly diagnose her condition (did she even tell them she had had an abortion 24 hours earlier?) so she died of sepsis, is a failure of the hospital and not of the restrictions on abortion. The emergency room was probably filled with illegal aliens with flu symptoms and so the doctors didn't have time for real emergencies.

 

[Isaac]

I have no issues with the morning after pill. Though I oppose abortion, I remember what it was like before Roe vs Wade. I will not condemn a woman to self abort or get an illegal abortion. I had a coworker who got an illegal abortion and then a few miscarriages, in her fifth month, the poor woman had a break down. You can detect a heartbeat at six weeks and the fetus is viable at 22 weeks, so I believe a cutoff at 15 weeks (between the two) should be available. My Mom's slutty Goddaughter user abortions as a form of birth control and had a couple. Get yourself fixed. And I do believe that adults who wish to get fixed should be able to.

You make a really good point actually several of them. I also believe a cut off at 15 weeks would be a pretty reasonable compromise too. Maybe even 12 weeks but basically I agree with that. And I don't quite understand why anyone would put themselves through that as a form of birth control it seems like there are easier methods are there not? Or has not the most explicit sex education the last 50 years has ever seen not done anyone any good in knowing where babies come from?