Why do 'pro lifers' only care about life inside the womb?

A dog runs from fire and recognizes a threat. Animal shelters murder them.

Dogs need the same rights as people.

And do not go to Jeremiah 1:5 because that is a basis for faith.

Also we are talking US not other cultures.

 

I think the notion of a soul is spiritual first, religious second.

I read a fascinating book on Noetics once. It delves into the scientific pursuit of the quantification of this.

I read a purely fiction book once that postulated that - through Noetics - it may be possible to actually measure the weight of a soul, through extremely precise measurements during the moment of death. Riveting stuff.

If that is the case, it will be a scientific case for the notion of a Soul - something I think exists regardless.

 

Precisely.

Know what I get tired of?

The way that single parents are portrayed in the right wing media, here in my country, certainly by sources such as the Daily Mail ( a far more odious rag than almost any I have seen in the US).

It is 100% BS the way they spin this narrative that single mum's are living the life of Reilly, on state assistance.

They aren't, they truly aren't.

However, the vast bulk of them do their very best job for the baby, and a hard job it is, as well. I know how demanding and tiring I would find it to look after a young baby, on my own, day and night.

So, imo, if the right are anti abortion, then it should follow that they respect, not berate those girls that go ahead, have the baby, and give it all their time and love and care.

If they need a little state assistance to fund that - I don't mind.

I would never want finance to be a reason for any girl to abort.

 

This isn't about what you accept about your own position; it's about what you refuse to accept in the positions of others. You have consistently looked in this thread to 'absolutize' the contrarian position, and that is not only unfair, but it is an illegitimate debate tactic.

No one has contested this, but you seem to continue to feel the need to say it.

Fewer will. More will do the right thing - which is always the goal.

Would fewer deaths of innocents strike you as making progress?

That's ridiculous.

Society needs guidance. Society should not support the notion of murder simply because someone wants to do it. There should be a line, as there is in determining if another person dies.

There is no such allowance in society for killing one of your born kids, there should not also be for killing unborn kids.

Which means that we have to come to a societal conclusion as to which point we think it is, gravitating towards caution due to the importance of the decision. I have stated my best case for the point I chose.

 

Well Jack it is the Devil that lives in them. All people really. They like to feel better about themselves and the only way they can do it is keep someone else down.

 

Conservatives do pay. More than anyone else, Archer. You should be asking people of literally any other ideological persuasion, because Conservatives give more than anyone else to charity. That has been cited multiple times on this forum, and is unassailably true.

 

Fewer will have terminations, if the state say no?

Well, okay, do you have a country that once permitted abortions, then banned it, so that we can see some hard evidence to support your assertion?

What would you do about those that merely got on a plane, and had it done, in another country? You cannot control what someone does, outwith your own legal boundaries?

Where would you find the massive amount of money it would take to add the additional depts to Gov and to the police, so that they had the resource to deal with the new wave of crime that would follow, that crime being having a termination?

As for the 'right thing'...it is only the right thing, according to you.

It is evidently not the right thing for them, otherwise they would not wish to abort.

Funny that, huh - a women having a different right thing for her, to what you want.

 

Great thought. So many cannot understand the difference between spirituality and religion.

 

Watched a film called 21grms.

Based on the idea that on death, the human body loses 21 grams in weight, and this was evidenced as the 'weight of the soul'.

Of course, it can be explained perfectly rationally.

 

Start another thread, and explain it all to us then?

 

Yes, that is true.

It is so pervasive and widespread, and rather depressing.

 

I think we determined before the New Deal that charity alone can't handle the burden of poverty (with or without abortion being legal).

I'm all for entitlement reforms, but I don't think we've reached a point where we can end welfare.

 

Look up the phrase "pearls before swine"

 

Uh...yes. Just like fewer people get murdered because the State says no.

First, a piece on the sheer overstatement of "back-alley abortion" hyperbole, pre-Roe v. Wade.

Second, an extremely well-cited article proving that Roe v Wade made abortion cases explode in number.

So - clearly - banning abortion reduces their numbers. Anyone should be able to admit this based upon a priori common sense.

Absolutely - and at least that person is doing it without our society's consent, and - in the process - we insulate our society morally, and strengthen it.

A society which compels someone to leave the country to have an abortion is a society which will influence its citizens to live a morally more upstanding and disciplined life. One filled with personal responsibility.

You said you liked that.

Hyperbole - and there's proof: this was not an issue prior to 1973; there is no reason to think different should we return to it.

Why does this statement require saying? The same is true of your statement, using your own standards!

The Moral Relativist places equal value in all positions - but more value on their own. Think about that for a moment: it's contradictory, but completely true.

There is an absolute right way to do things. We are searching for that right way.

I wish to kill my neighbor, because he's a jackass. It's not the right thing for me to have to withhold doing so, but it is the right thing for him.

Do you see the nonsense your standard causes?

Funny like a clown?

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) I pay. I have paid and I will pay. So bill Gates and Buffet are conservatives? Moderates give the most.

And I think the biggest giver is Jimmy Carter.

 

Charity belongs in the past, human beings should have rights, not charity.

And you are right, charity cannot absorb the burden of poverty, which is why there is a welfare state, to ensure that we don't have people starving in the streets, like some Third World nation's.

No US or British Gov would remove the welfare state.

Sure, as bureaucrats like to do, they will spend LOTS of money 'reforming' it, but even the most right wing of British PM's, Thatcher, retained a welfare system.

 

How did we prove that? I completely and vehemently disagree. There was no significant starving of people on the streets at any time, pre- or post- New Deal.

Perhaps your standard is wrong: the burden of poverty should not be handled by ensuring that society pulls an impoverished person out of it.

They must do that by themselves.

Sure we are - particularly now, when (in comparing basic human need now, versus 80 years ago) keeping someone alive hasn't been made any more difficult or financially burdensome, while our society has evolved many multiples, making it so much easier to "deal with the burden of poverty".

You just need to release the notion that "dealing with poverty" means less than you think it does.

 

I agree with you, Archer.

Not heard of Buffet, but I know Gates is v much a philanthropist, and I am not American, however, having listened to Mr Carter speak, he strikes me as having more about him, than ANY of the politicians, from ANY of the US parties today.

 

Do you have a problem with charity?

Does that mean you advocate wealth-distribution? Do the poor have a "right" to a piece of everyone's pie?

 

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm

Look at the rest and read about things you are in denial of.

Hell my mom still tries to save drinking straws by washing them. Most of us do not know BAD!

Just don't go there and save face.

 

He is still the second worst president in the history of the US

 

President; I agree, but person? He was the best we ever had in the white house.

 

Being thrifty, growing your own food, tough times, sharing bathwater, picking peas in a field, etc.. is not the same as "starving on the street"

 

Subdermal, when all is said and done, there is one thing politicians love, well, other than money, and that is votes.

They will do anything to get them.

Now, you are saying that 80% of Americans are Christians, and if all Christians are against abortion, then this means that you have incredible sway, because while not all Christians will vote for the same party, all Christians could presumably use that influence, right across all parties, to ensure that abortion is banned.

However, for some reason, since none of the 2012 candidates that I know of are citing the banning of abortion (or moving it to 14 days after sex), it appears that these candidates are not interested in the 80% of Christians that would presumably be against abortion then?

Doesn't make sense.

If they thought they could win an election on that ticket, they would go with it.

They evidently do not think they would win an election on that ticket.

Same goes for my country.

 

I don't have an issue with charities being there to act as a buffer, or to supplement.

But I believe that key things are human rights, that no decent human being would begrudge another.

I am by no means well off, yet I do not mind at all if a % of my tax is used to give the means to live, to a single parent, with no other income.