I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
l Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?
l Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn. Stoning is a little harsh...but Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
l Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn. Stoning is a little harsh...but Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
My mom said when of sound mind that she wanted us to kill her if she went bad
Instead she got 5 to 10 of dementia because she was so healthy
At that point she isn't of sound mind
My Mom and Dad's entire estate is being devoured at 12.5k per month in a memory care hellhole where everyone is drugged to sleep all day.
I've given strict instructions to my wife and kids to never, ever let that happen to me.
Drop me in the Cascades with a gallon of whiskey and call it a life.
Yep. Happening to on my wife's side of the family as well. You have to have A LOT of disposable income late in life or you have to spend your way down to poverty for Medicaid. It's brutal.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
It should be but that's not the republic to which we were born (or came to in floaties and boats like your people).
We are a nation of compromise.
And sometimes that means taking a 90% win vs. a 100% absolute.
You are skirting the issue. We've? done this before with slavery. Let's? do it again. Think about it. You're not arguing with other guys. I'm Savery Hall bitches.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.
I know lots of atheists who are moral AF. A bunch are ex-catholics in my family, including myself - at times.
The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.
Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Lawyers have the vril worm embedded in their eyes.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.
I know lots of atheists who are moral AF. A bunch are ex-catholics in my family, including myself - at times.
The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.
Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO.
I agree 100%. Which is why I keep declaring that mine is not strictly a religiously-based view. But there's no denying that I derive my basic sense of right/wrong from the west.
Whatever the source, I have always argued that we can have a moral and just society without looking up to the sky. I'm Aristotle, not Plato. I have been persecuted on HCH for this view, but a martyr to the cause I remain.
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Lawyers have the vril worm embedded in their eyes.
OBK would know what that is.
Damone and I ran that guy off like a beeitch. He dead man. He dead.
My mom said when of sound mind that she wanted us to kill her if she went bad
Instead she got 5 to 10 of dementia because she was so healthy
At that point she isn't of sound mind
Then I sincerely wish the law had given you the freedom to acede to her wishes. She had the moral right to the autonomy over her own existence. I believe in that, and even if I didn't, it's not the government's business.
If, on the other hand, she had never communicated any such wish and you and/or your siblings wanted to take it upon yourselves to decide, that would be the government's business. Her life, her choice. The fetus can't decide or communicate, so we have to default to protecting it. If it wants to end its life later on as a clear-thinking adult, then that's another matter.
Comments
I've given strict instructions to my wife and kids to never, ever let that happen to me.
Drop me in the Cascades with a gallon of whiskey and call it a life.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
That might be a good concept to consider.
Test it out on the pretend lawyer Dazzler first.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
#familytrust
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.
Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO.
OBK would know what that is.
Whatever the source, I have always argued that we can have a moral and just society without looking up to the sky. I'm Aristotle, not Plato. I have been persecuted on HCH for this view, but a martyr to the cause I remain.
If, on the other hand, she had never communicated any such wish and you and/or your siblings wanted to take it upon yourselves to decide, that would be the government's business. Her life, her choice. The fetus can't decide or communicate, so we have to default to protecting it. If it wants to end its life later on as a clear-thinking adult, then that's another matter.