dUSt Posted June 30, 2018 Author Share Posted June 30, 2018 GreenScapular, is your pro-choice view based on your belief that a fetus is not a human being or your belief that a fetus is a human being with lesser rights than the mother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) "I love it when people reply to 3.38% of my post... because they dislike literally one sentence... because they think it unfair to try to gauge a summary of their opinion as currently presented... Thank you. But curiously I never once said you were stupid or wrong... and that isn't even a fair reading of my comment. So its also fun when people get to tell me what I mean rather than me. Also thank you." The fact that you consider your logic "too complex" for readers to understand indicates your estimation of our intelligence. The majority of your post - 96.2% by your calculation - detailed your understanding - that's fine. You know what you think, and you laid it our clearly. But you cut the legs out from under your credibility and civility by insulting the rest of us. You're welcome. Edited June 30, 2018 by Luigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Luigi said: "I love it when people reply to 3.38% of my post... because they dislike literally one sentence... because they think it unfair to try to gauge a summary of their opinion as currently presented... Thank you. But curiously I never once said you were stupid or wrong... and that isn't even a fair reading of my comment. So its also fun when people get to tell me what I mean rather than me. Also thank you." The fact that you consider your logic "too complex" for readers to understand indicates your estimation of our intelligence. The majority of your post - 96.2% by your calculation - detailed your understanding - that's fine. You know what you think, and you laid it our clearly. But you cut the legs out from under your credibility and civility by insulting the rest of us. You're welcome. If you want to read an insult where there was none. That is up to you. If you want to be offended like a snowflake beacuse someone doesn't coddle your opinions. That is up to you. But don't you BS me in telling me what I mean or write. If I want to call you an idiot or a creep I will. I don't need any help from you doing that. Which I haven't... yet. I guess I was just unaware that you are a mind reader... so let me put what I do think you are. A jerk. You are deliberately strawmaning my argument because you dont like it and responding to tone, a very imagined tone, one that I have assured you is not there but you keep saying is. Thats a jerk. A very dishonest one at that. 1 hour ago, dUSt said: GreenScapular, is your pro-choice view based on your belief that a fetus is not a human being or your belief that a fetus is a human being with lesser rights than the mother? I reject the false dichotomy and the loaded question in there. I also reject the moral absolutism that you are implying in your question. I dislike and oppose abortion. I just don't think a ban is the right way to do it. I think that it will cause more problems and not really address the underlying causes, the public health approach has. I don't think if a pre-born human is a person or not is relevant. We do plenty of things to post-born human persons who have full rights, including kill them, even when they were not at fault (like drafting them to serve in the military during time of war, which the Catholic Church in just war doctrine not only says is permissible but sometimes just and required). I don't think the calculation of 'is it a human person' is an absolute sacrosanct matter of morality and even if it was I don't think it is practical to have it as a matter of law. But the morality of abortion is a red herring. The OP and the relevant matter is will a new supreme court justice overturn roe v wade. The answer is almost unquestionably no... it won't... Edited June 30, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) hopefully trump will do the right thing, but with politics as it is it is hard to predict. However there is one thing that is certain, if Hillary won the election the Supreme Court of the United States would be very pro-abortion. This fact it Is also the reason why Hillary lost the election. too bad, so sad Edited June 30, 2018 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Trump lost the election... ~65,853,514 votes for Clinton is greater than ~62,984,828 votes for Trump. That means Trump lost by ~2,868,686 votes. What happen is Trump won the electoral college vote, due to the winner-take-all system (which there is a pretty good argument I think that the winner-take-all system is unconstitutional, but that is irrelevant... excepting that if the electoral college vote was proportional to state vote cast Trump still would of lost). In fact if not for gerrymandering, since more Americans voted for a Democratic candidate for the US House than a Republican, the US House would be a Democratic majority right now. Sort of proof of how friendly to democracy, the popular consent and will of the governed, Republicans are... IF we are counting the amount that Trump lost by he lost by the largest margin in US history but yet still became President. If we are counting the amount lost proportional to the US population he still lost pretty badly. The States Trump won, in the winner-take-all system, that pushed him to victory in the electoral college too were also shockingly close... In Wisconsin it was 0.77%... In Pennsylvania it was 0.72%... or in Michigan it was 0.23%... Florida was 1.2%... which isn't even going into the dynamics of third party votes and other factors... Despite Trump's blatant lies that he won in a wave, he lost overwhelmingly... or his blatant lies that millions of illegal votes were cast despite no evidence and investigations into the alleged voter fraud found nothing unusual... also when the reliable Democrat voters for decades were asked why they flipped to Trump their answer is simple... Trump promised to bring their jobs back... this isn't a Reagan revolution and a shift in American thinking. Trump made a promise to get these peoples jobs back and if he can't deliver on that it can be reasonably expected they wont vote for him again. Perhaps why in almost every special election since Trump's election even in deeply red Republican districts, Democrats are winning. Places where Democrats haven't won in decades or longer... places where Trump won not just by double digits but where Democratic/Hillary support was virtually non-existent. I am not sure if this is any indication of where the Republican and Trump party are going... but it doesn't look good for Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 so if Hillary won who would she pick for supreme court justice ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 But that is sort of missing the point.... the whole abortion issue is a fake issue. The Supreme Court will almost certainly never ever overturn roe v wade and even if so it would revert back to congress and the states... and being an open political question, a real political question, the American public rather substantially supports abortion rights... it would be shooting themselves in the foot if Republicans masterminded such a move. Think of it this way... lets talk about another issue near and dear to Republicans. Gun rights. But lets turn the issue on its head some. Suppose... the second amendment was unincorporated overnight. What would that mean? Well.. for starters it wouldn't change very much. Most if not all US States have the right enshrined in their constitutions and the overwhelming majority of Americans do support some kind of right to bear arms. Meaning that it would be unlikely that States or Congress would pass a law contrary to this... If it were only unincorporated the federal congress would still have same limitations set on them as before. In many ways this is the abortion issue. Overturning Roe v Wade is very unlikely and won't effect a ban on abortion... and even if it did the chances of the American people stepping in to change that is very likely... Which.. to note.... guns have the primary purpose of killing human life... just throwing that out there. If this was as pro-life as some people want to pretend this is I think there would be more opposition to the second amendment too... but lets be honest this is not about the inviolate dignity of life but about the opposition to abortion on a very strict and moral absolutism... Also I would propose a very overly simplified and not realistic approach to the whole abortion matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Clinton supports government funding for abortion, Clinton supports abortion up until the moment of birth, Clinton no longer argues that abortion should be rare. Trump claims to be pro-life, strongly disapproves 0f government funding for abortion. no one hear is missing the point except you! Clinton lost the election due to her ultra-liberal , anti christian stated agenda, and had nothing to do with Russian influence or anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Little2add, but those are red herrings and almost wholly unrelated to this Supreme Court appointment. As usual I can expect you to be utterly off-topic moreover when facts don't suit you. US federal law already prohibits, as much as the courts allow, funding to abortion. In fact more than a few states prohibit even private insurance to pay for abortion. The whole your money going to pay for abortions is a strawman... And Clinton never said she supported public funds to abortion... in fact more than several pro-choice groups commented that her positions were notably weaker than Obama's. Hillary Clinton has had a mixed history on late-term abortions... she has generally expressed great distress and discomfort over it... and has shown some opposition to partial-birth abortions. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That is fact. You can scream at the internet and lie all you like. The fact is Trump lost the popular vote. And he won the electoral college due to the winner-take-all rule, because otherwise he would of lost that too. Also the evidence of Kremlim backed collusion is pretty strong. Trump asked the Kremlin's help with Hillary's emails, his campaign manager and aids said they coordinated with wikileaks for their release, Don Jr admits that he with several uppers of the Trump organization and campaign met with Kremlin linked agents for dirt on Hillary Clinton and the relaxing of sanctions against Russia, that Michael Flynn plead guilty for lying to the FBI about failing to register as a foreign agent of Turkey and Russia, that the Trump campaign did in fact lobby the Republican party to weaken its platform language against Russia and regarding their illegal occupation of and proxy war in Ukraine... not to mention the fact that the whole of the NATO Intelligence community tells us that YES the Kremlin is working to undermine western democracy, elections, stability, credibility, and to corrupt them in a manner that favors the Kremlin... This is why there was a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump organization and campaign... this is likely why Trump fully admitted he fired the then FBI director for failing to swear allegiance, to not clear Trump, and/or not end the investigation... and now attacks the Special Counsel Muller... despite being one year in has secured >30 indictments and >10 convictions... That isnt even going into the shell companies that were held by Trump organization affiliates that we KNOW took money from Kremlin backed oligarchs and we KNOW the Kremlin was negotiating with the Trump campaign even while they were a government in waiting to open a new Trump hotel in Russia... We also know that the ending of the war games with US allies Japan and South Korea, by Trump's own words, was Putin's idea and Putin talked Trump into it... Little2Add... it doesn't concern you that Trump attacks is the enemies of everyone who is the enemies of the Kremlin.. and Trump is friends with and praises everyone who is the friends of the Kremlin? That doesnt seem a little odd to you? That no matter what has happened and how often Trump makes nicknames and insults for EVERYONE that hes never ever even hinted an insult at Putin? This is a completely off-topic issue... about the Kremlin backed efforts to undermine American democracy which we know is also happening in 2018 according to the US intelligence community and law enforcement.. But I really feel compelled out of a love of a nation that isn't Putin's plaything to point out that these are facts. I can get citations for every single thing mentioned here in excess... I would gladly take four more years of Bush Jr... or even Mike Pence... Trump is a traitor and a tyrant... a malignant narcissist who pathologically lies all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Okay Trump received 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.Dec 20, 2016 62 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Oh little... I knew it was a mistake even humoring you again in mercy... And evidence of your dyscalculia persists... ~65 million votes for Clinton... ~62 million votes for Trump... ~65 million is MORE than ~62 million. That is called LOSING the popular vote. But I really sincerely and without an attempt to belittle you think there is something not right about you that impedes your judgement and thinking, moreover your comprehension of numbers... this is not the first time that very basic math has stumped you... But unless you can admit your lie that Trump allegedly won the popular vote... I am reverting back to my policy of not responding substantively to any of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I am reverting back to my policy of not responding substantively to any of your posts. I and 62.9 million winners, thank you Edited July 1, 2018 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 president Trump said Friday he’d narrowed his search for a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy to about five finalists, including two women, and will announce his pick on July 9. A person familiar with the process said Friday that White House officials were focused primarily on five federal appeals court judges -- Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I reject the false dichotomy and the loaded question in there. I also reject the moral absolutism that you are implying in your question. I dislike and oppose abortion. I just don't think a ban is the right way to do it. I think that it will cause more problems and not really address the underlying causes, the public health approach has. I don't think if a pre-born human is a person or not is relevant. We do plenty of things to post-born human persons who have full rights, including kill them, even when they were not at fault (like drafting them to serve in the military during time of war, which the Catholic Church in just war doctrine not only says is permissible but sometimes just and required). I don't think the calculation of 'is it a human person' is an absolute sacrosanct matter of morality and even if it was I don't think it is practical to have it as a matter of law. But the morality of abortion is a red herring. The OP and the relevant matter is will a new supreme court justice overturn roe v wade. The answer is almost unquestionably no... it won't... The question isn’t really a moral absolutism. It’s asking what principles your moral framework (if any) you base your judgement on abort. I’m not the brightest color, but it seems that your opinion is that abortion is vaguely undesirable, and restrictions are impractical and/or ineffective whilst infringing on the rights of the mother. But fundamentally, you aren’t against it in principle. Please clarify where I may be in error. Many people voted for Trump with the hope he’d select SC Judges of a generally “conservative” tendency. Conservatism is defined differently within these voters, but this being mostly a Catholic populated website, the definition mostly includes anti abortion. Most have hope that a conservative judge may lead to an eventual overturn of Roe v Wade. I don’t think most expect it to happen quickly, but see it as a step in the right direction. You yourself point at the power of general opinion that it is legal and practically convenient. That is similar to theprevious legal and social opinions about slavery and alcohol. Prohibition was rejected on practical reasons. Slavery was much harder to eliminate because it took a development of general social and legal opinions based on moral principles and effected in a messy melange of military and legal battles. Hopefully the US will limit the abortion wrangling to media and political fields. So, along with hope in an anti abortion opinion, anti abortionists arguments address moral principles. It’s logical to ask the questions that may box opponents onto the horns of a dilemma. Given that a woman is a person with rights, it follows that persons have rights. When is an entity not a person, such as an in-womb entity, a terminally ill entity, a non-independent immature entity, a damaged by illness or genetic abnormality entity? Who or what constitutes “personage” is the crux of the issue that needs to be addressed and understanding and application evolved and developed within human societies. It is human nature to narrowly define personage so that some can be labeled as ”others” and be subservient to the needs and wants of the “us”. The issue and discomfort at our borders is rooted in the same principle causing issue and discomfort in wombs, in access to education, and economic security., etc. Impractical, inconvenient, and not the majority social opinion are not reasons to ignore the issues. They’re the reasons to discuss, disagree, argue, listen, identify principles, and come up with marginally effective and flawed solutions as human societies stumble on through history. Being without core principles is less than helpful. Edited July 1, 2018 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) human abortion is a barbaric, disgusting practice. both the mother and father (not just the mother) are responsible for the life and well-being child if human abortion is ever ruled illegal, birth control including RU486 will remain. whether or not RU486 is a form of human abortion is a debate for another day. Edited July 1, 2018 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts