A Christian man's viewpoint: "For what it's worth, I think abortion may well be a sin......."

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

For what it's worth, I think abortion may well be a sin.  And yet I would support codifying Roe V. Wade into law.  Government shouldn't be inserted into peoples' crotches.

[RankStranger]

Yeah, it's not that I'm pro-abortion.  I think it's a terrible thing, and I think it would rarely happen were women not put into terrible situations.

 

I don't support having the government police something as private as lady-parts anyway.  Per HIPPA laws, nobody else even has the right to know that a given woman is pregnant in the first place.  Plus laws simply cannot be enforced without surveillance... and I don't want to government surveilling peoples' genitals.

 

What are the gonna do?  Open up a murder investigation for every miscarriage?

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

9 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

For what it's worth, I think abortion may well be a sin.  And yet I would support codifying Roe V. Wade into law.  Government shouldn't be inserted into peoples' crotches.

OH, oops! That was a continuation of YOUR comment. 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Yeah, it's not that I'm pro-abortion.  I think it's a terrible thing, and I think it would rarely happen were women not put into terrible situations.

 

Such as?

6 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

What are the gonna do?  Open up a murder investigation for every miscarriage?

What if the government mandated men use rubbers? OH, sorry....prophylactics? Or perhaps it was focused more on the man's role in producing the pregnancy in the first place? Or what if the CHURCHES themselves advocated for it? Would that take the heat off laws/government in people's bedrooms? 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

No takers here either? Not even Ed? 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

I guess I'm going to do something more challenging. I know, you are busy. 

[RankStranger]

4 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Such as?

 

 

 

 

I dunno, I'm not female, don't have kids, and frankly I don't give pregnancy a lot of thought.  These things are other peoples' problems.

 

But I'm pretty sure women have abortions when they get into bad situations.  Like being pregnant when they know they can't support a kid.  Or when the father is a piece of shit... of one sort or another.  Or when they can't afford another kid.

 

I'd think you know more about this than I do.  Do you think that the option of abortion is often chosen due to terrible situations that women find themselves in?  Or am I missing something?

 

 

 

Quote

What if the government mandated men use rubbers? OH, sorry....prophylactics? Or perhaps it was focused more on the man's role in producing the pregnancy in the first place? Or what if the CHURCHES themselves advocated for it? Would that take the heat off laws/government in people's bedrooms? 

 

Good luck getting humanzees to cover their penises.  

 

In theory I think that if a woman can legally kill a baby, a man should legally be able to just walk away.  Seems fair to me.  In practice I'm sure that would be a disaster.

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, moxieflux66 said:

I guess I'm going to do something more challenging. I know, you are busy. 

 

Ma'am, this isn't a chat room.  I prefer message boards because sometimes I take days or weeks to reply.

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

No takers here either? Not even Ed? 

I'm anti-feminist and anti-abortion.  Trust and life, not selfishness and death....to the best of our abilities.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Hey, I'm keeping up with modern times and have decided to be neither feminist or maleist.  Instead, being a humanist.  

 

And I believe every baby coming into this world has a right to be wanted.  When that doesn't happen, problems are in the future.  And some are HUGE problems.  It looks like mass shooters tend to come from families where they are not wanted, and do not feel they, or anyone else, is worthwhile.  

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm anti-feminist and anti-abortion.  Trust and life, not selfishness and death....to the best of our abilities.

 

Trust in the government to keep an eye on others' genitals?

[Edgarcito]

22 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Trust in the government to keep an eye on others' genitals?

I'm not an advocate for trusting the government these days.  I think it fair to believe that rape and incest are valid reasons.  I'm pro freedom, .... but obviously freedom and morality mix in this case.  If I have to waiver one way, I'd say allow abortion in light of religious freedom.  Then let the person sort out their own life.  But again, I would prefer that every life gets its chance. 

[Edgarcito]

Just like science, it's presumptuous to assume an outcome given we just don't ultimately know.  So yeah, it's wrong for the government to impose.

[RankStranger]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not an advocate for trusting the government these days.  I think it fair to believe that rape and incest are valid reasons.  I'm pro freedom, .... but obviously freedom and morality mix in this case.  If I have to waiver one way, I'd say allow abortion in light of religious freedom.  Then let the person sort out their own life.  But again, I would prefer that every life gets its chance. 

 

I'd say we more or less agree on this.  

 

I think it's inhumane, immoral, and just plain idiotic that we require many women to go back to work often days after popping out a baby.  They're put in a situation where many have no choice.  It's a detriment to our society that women aren't supported during this time.  The women and their children are demonstrably worse off for this shitty convention... all for the sake of $$.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just like science, it's presumptuous to assume an outcome given we just don't ultimately know.  So yeah, it's wrong for the government to impose.

 

By the logic of that argument the government should dismantle all of its nuclear weapons and leave the US vulnerable to attack.

 

Because its presumptuous for government scientists to assume the outcome that these weapons will work as they were designed to.

 

And by the same logic the government should not attempt to put Americans back on the Moon.

 

Because its presumptuous for government scientists to assume the outcome that their spacecraft will work as they were designed to.

 

Nor should the government do anything or spend any money on anything that relies upon scientific assumptions.

 

Because ultimately they don't know. 

 

 

Catch is, science never claims to know anything to 100% confidence.  In science there will always be unknowns.  

 

You therefore have two choices.  Accept the unknowns and allow for them or do no science at all.

 

 

Are you going to give up your job right now Ed, because you ultimately don't know and are forced to make assumptions in your work? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Actually, Walt, if we follow Ed's logic to its extreme conclusion, Ed should never even cross the street because it's presumptuous for him to assume he won't get hit by a car.  

 

It leaves one with little choice in life, if every decision has to be weighed against the presumption of an unknown outcome.  But that's our Ed.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Actually, Walt, if we follow Ed's logic to its extreme conclusion, Ed should never even cross the street because it's presumptuous for him to assume he won't get hit by a car.  

 

It leaves one with little choice in life, if every decision has to be weighed against the presumption of an unknown outcome.  But that's our Ed.

 

 

Yes that’s right, hence Grace.  Glad you understand.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Yes that’s right, hence Grace.  Glad you understand.

Not buying it; because we obviously do not know the outcome of grace, and thus it would be presumptuous to assume it is positive or trustworthy.  Your own "logic" owns you better than we ever could.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes that’s right, hence Grace.  Glad you understand.

 

Your original point was about science, Ed.

 

So, to avoid using assumptions in your science work, you use... grace?

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

25 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Actually, Walt, if we follow Ed's logic to its extreme conclusion, Ed should never even cross the street because it's presumptuous for him to assume he won't get hit by a car.  

 

It leaves one with little choice in life, if every decision has to be weighed against the presumption of an unknown outcome.  But that's our Ed.

 

 

 

Yeah, but if a rattlesnake was threatening his kids he'd kill it immediately Prof.

 

Which is really presumptuous of him.

 

Because he'd be assuming that it was going to harm his kids.

 

He wouldn't be able to KNOW that it was going to.

 

He'd just assume that and... BLAM!

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yeah, but if a rattlesnake was threatening his kids he'd kill it immediately Prof.

 

Which is really presumptuous of him.

 

Because he'd be assuming that it was going to harm his kids.

 

He wouldn't be able to KNOW that it was going to.

 

He'd just assume that and... BLAM!

 

 

 

 

 

Thereby extending "grace" to the rattlesnake?

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thereby extending "grace" to the rattlesnake?

 

Now that's funny!   

[Casualfanboy16]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thereby extending "grace" to the rattlesnake?

Adam and Eve coulda just bonked the Serpent over the head to finish the job. No grace needed!

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Adam and Eve coulda just bonked the Serpent over the head to finish the job. No grace needed!

 

Or god could have saved them having to deal with the serpent at all.

 

By locking it up with the other fallen angels that god imprisoned in chains of darkness once they rebelled against him.

 

(2 Peter 2 : 4 and Jude 6.)

 

But somehow that solution never occurred to the all wise, all knowing, flawless, faultless and perfect god.

 

Or maybe he  meant  for them to be harmed by it?

[Casualfanboy16]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Or god could have saved them having to deal with the serpent at all.

 

By locking it up with the other fallen angels that god imprisoned in chains of darkness once they rebelled against him.

 

(2 Peter 2 : 4 and Jude 6.)

 

But somehow that solution never occurred to the all wise, all knowing, flawless, faultless and perfect god.

 

Or maybe he  meant  for them to be harmed by it?

Dang, well I thought about that sorta. I mean predestination and all that. I don't know the complexities of all that shit, if any, but yeah God is slacking on his job. Or he isn't slacking and just wants to make people come crawling back to worship him because he meant for Adam and Eve to be harmed by the snake, which in turn, fucked the rest of us over. He could've dealt with him from the very beginning but nope. Gotta make us suffer so we can depend on him, I guess.

 

I was more so making a joke like BAM! Just whack the fucker over the head and the problem would be solved. Unless Satan can get back up from that. Then just beat him again. And again. And again. And again.