2021 Political Thread

[maroonedinhsv]

I don't think pro-lifers realize what has been unleashed. More than Half of America is angry and ready to fight back. We're not going to sit back while our rights are being stripped away.

What rights are being stripped away?

 

[WesL]

Wow, didn't expect to see the news that Shinzo Abe was shot in Japan overnight.

Assassination of Japan's Shinzo Abe stuns world leaders

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Friday's shocking assassination of Japan's former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in one of the world's safest countries stunned leaders and drew condemnation, with Iran calling it an “act of terrorism" while Spain slammed the “cowardly attack."

apnews.com

 

[xJownage]

I saw a comment on Reddit recently that really resonated with where I stand on the abortion argument:

As somebody who finds the left and right both extraordinarily cringe, I gotta say it's pretty silly when you folks have the same logic. You sound exactly like the pro-choice people who say "I can't wrap my head around how some anti-choice people think that it's okay for the government to control women's wombs."

I mean, seriously? Pro-life people think life begins at conception, and therefore abortions are killing a living human, which is wrong. Pro-choice people think that life begins later, and therefore performing an abortion before that later point is no different from removing a cyst or any other growth. Is that really that difficult to understand?

I can respect people on either side, and I won't pretend to have the perfect answer for when a sperm cell and an egg become a human being, so I can appreciate both arguments. But, it's frankly embarrassing to pretend you "can't wrap your head around" the other side of the argument. Do you think you're winning the argument by pretending to be retarded? It's the simplest damned argument in the world to see both sides of. One side thinks that a fetus is a human, one does not. Whichever side you agree with, can you really be so dense as to not understand the other side?

This was in response to somebody who was pro-life saying "I know you’re memeing but I still can’t wrap my head around how some pro-abortion people consider it a “medical decision”.

I don't even participate in the abortion argument at all anymore, my argument is pretty nuanced anyways, but nobody is willing to understand it. Neither side even wants to ATTEMPT to understand the other perspective and that's why everybody is screaming at each other with cotton in their ears. It's impossible to have a rational discussion about anything if somebody refuses to try to understand the other side.

 

[KoD]

I saw a comment on Reddit recently that really resonated with where I stand on the abortion argument:



This was in response to somebody who was pro-life saying "I know you’re memeing but I still can’t wrap my head around how some pro-abortion people consider it a “medical decision”.

I don't even participate in the abortion argument at all anymore, my argument is pretty nuanced anyways, but nobody is willing to understand it. Neither side even wants to ATTEMPT to understand the other perspective and that's why everybody is screaming at each other with cotton in their ears. It's impossible to have a rational discussion about anything if somebody refuses to try to understand the other side.

Yeah I pretty much agree with this (broadly). I feel like it's almost entirely useless trying to debate because these fundamental differences in ideology aren't something you can simply argue against, both sides have an authentically rational belief in my opinion. I disagree with a pro-lifer viewpoint but I can completely understand why they have that perspective and it's important to "be in the shoes" of their beliefs.


My own beliefs, however unbiased as I try to make it, ultimately leads me to the conclusion that abortion should be handled at a personal level. I know that's a ridiculous thing to consider when somebody thinks that abortion is the same as murdering a person... But my basic arguments would be:
A majority of people don't share that perspective.
If someone purposefully shoots somebody there's no debate about it being murder. If someone purposefully ends a pregnancy in a roe v wade timeframe, less than half of people consider that murder. There's obviously a major disparity in beliefs. Pro-choice people aren't forcing anybody to have an abortion. Pro-life people are forcing people to have a baby if they inadvertently get pregnant.

There's a lot of other outcomes from overturning roe vs wade such as abortion still being accessible to those who can travel and the least likely to raise a child in a healthy family household now have no option but to have that child. Those are valid arguments but they don't really touch on what I consider a fundamental ideology to guide ones thoughts on the matter. It's absolutely true that will be the case, but it's an external community issue that a pro-choice person might make to argue the ramifications of overturning roe v wade. To me the core issue is that one side is forcing the other into doing something & is compounded by the fact the "something" here is continuing with a pregnancy, giving birth and raising a child for 18+ years. That's a monumental thing to force on somebody and I think as ethically wrong as one would consider terminating the pregnancy ethically wrong. My beliefs don't force anybody else into doing something they don't want to do & that's what I think is fairest considering both sides have understandable justifications.

 

[xJownage]

Yeah I pretty much agree with this (broadly). I feel like it's almost entirely useless trying to debate because these fundamental differences in ideology aren't something you can simply argue against, both sides have an authentically rational belief in my opinion. I disagree with a pro-lifer viewpoint but I can completely understand why they have that perspective and it's important to "be in the shoes" of their beliefs.


My own beliefs, however unbiased as I try to make it, ultimately leads me to the conclusion that abortion should be handled at a personal level. I know that's a ridiculous thing to consider when somebody thinks that abortion is the same as murdering a person... But my basic arguments would be:
A majority of people don't share that perspective.
If someone purposefully shoots somebody there's no debate about it being murder. If someone purposefully ends a pregnancy in a roe v wade timeframe, less than half of people consider that murder. There's obviously a major disparity in beliefs. Pro-choice people aren't forcing anybody to have an abortion. Pro-life people are forcing people to have a baby if they inadvertently get pregnant.

There's a lot of other outcomes from overturning roe vs wade such as abortion still being accessible to those who can travel and the least likely to raise a child in a healthy family household now have no option but to have that child. Those are valid arguments but they don't really touch on what I consider a fundamental ideology to guide ones thoughts on the matter. It's absolutely true that will be the case, but it's an external community issue that a pro-choice person might make to argue the ramifications of overturning roe v wade. To me the core issue is that one side is forcing the other into doing something & is compounded by the fact the "something" here is continuing with a pregnancy, giving birth and raising a child for 18+ years. That's a monumental thing to force on somebody and I think as ethically wrong as one would consider terminating the pregnancy ethically wrong. My beliefs don't force anybody else into doing something they don't want to do & that's what I think is fairest considering both sides have understandable justifications.

This is pretty much where I am. Ultimately, where you believe life begins is a subjective, personal opinion. There isn't a scientific "definition of the word" that determines where life begins. Even if there was, it's be impossible to trust that said definition is not politically motivated by one side or the other. Telling somebody else that they're dumb for being pro-life or pro-choice is essentially saying that your opinion is worth more than theirs...hint: it's not.

I don't want the government involved in personal opinions at all, so in that regard, the change is a win. That being said, I don't want the states involved either, so it's a phyrric victory that gets me theoretically closer to my ideal, but practically further away.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

This is pretty much where I am. Ultimately, where you believe life begins is a subjective, personal opinion. There isn't a scientific "definition of the word" that determines where life begins. Even if there was, it's be impossible to trust that said definition is not politically motivated by one side or the other. Telling somebody else that they're dumb for being pro-life or pro-choice is essentially saying that your opinion is worth more than theirs...hint: it's not.

I don't want the government involved in personal opinions at all, so in that regard, the change is a win. That being said, I don't want the states involved either, so it's a phyrric victory that gets me theoretically closer to my ideal, but practically further away.

If we can define when life ends, why can’t we define when life begins? Shouldn’t it just be the opposite?

 

[xJownage]

If we can define when life ends, why can’t we define when life begins? Shouldn’t it just be the opposite?

Because those are apples and oranges. When life begins can be decided to be conception, but I'm using the term when life begins to simplify what the argument actually revolves around - does an unborn child have rights that override those of the mother, and furthermore, when do those rights begin? There's simply not an objective answer to that question, because it's essentially just a gray area of morality; impossible to define.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

Because those are apples and oranges. When life begins can be decided to be conception, but I'm using the term when life begins to simplify what the argument actually revolves around - does an unborn child have rights that override those of the mother, and furthermore, when do those rights begin? There's simply not an objective answer to that question, because it's essentially just a gray area of morality; impossible to define.

They are not apples and oranges. There is a distinct medical/clinical definition of death (the absence of life). If you can define the absence of something, you must be able to define the something in the first place.

 

[xJownage]

They are not apples and oranges. There is a distinct medical/clinical definition of death (the absence of life). If you can define the absence of something, you must be able to define the something in the first place.

We're not defining what is life, we're defining when it begins. Those are already two separate things. Separate even further is when that life gains the rights as somebody who's already been born, more specifically the right to life. Those aren't black and white definitions. It's a gray area of morality that ultimately boils down to a subjective opinion.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

We're not defining what is life, we're defining when it begins. Those are already two separate things. Separate even further is when that life gains the rights as somebody who's already been born, more specifically the right to life. Those aren't black and white definitions. It's a gray area of morality that ultimately boils down to a subjective opinion.

I agree, and I still contend that if it’s possible to define when life ends, it should be equally possible to define when it begins or at the very least exists. If there is a measurement or combination of measurements that a zero/null result allows one to be clinically defined as no longer living, then a non-zero/populated value must clinically define one as living - logic dictates this, does it not?

 

[xJownage]

I agree, and I still contend that if it’s possible to define when life ends, it should be equally possible to define when it begins or at the very least exists. If there is a measurement or combination of measurements that a zero/null result allows one to be clinically defined as no longer living, then a non-zero/populated value must clinically define one as living - logic dictates this, does it not?

It's almost like you didn't read the actual nuance of what I said.

Separate even further is when that life gains the rights as somebody who's already been born, more specifically the right to life. Those aren't black and white definitions. It's a gray area of morality that ultimately boils down to a subjective opinion.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

It's almost like you didn't read the actual nuance of what I said.

It’s almost like you didn’t read the actual nuance of what I said

I agree…

However, one of the continuing arguments is when life begins so each side can claim it is/isn’t murder. You brought it up, stating that it’s subjective. I contend that it should not be. So please, tell me why death can be defined but life can not.

 

[xJownage]

However, one of the continuing arguments us when life begins so each side can claim it is/isn’t murder. You bright it up, stating that it’s subjective. I contend that it should not be. So please, tell me why death can be defined but life can not.

When life begins can be decided to be conception, but I'm using the term when life begins to simplify what the argument actually revolves around - does an unborn child have rights that override those of the mother, and furthermore, when do those rights begin? There's simply not an objective answer to that question, because it's essentially just a gray area of morality; impossible to define.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

I read it the first time you posted it, and you said it "can be decided to be conception", which means that you still don't think it can be clinically defined and that there is wiggle room. Pro-life people argue that life begins at conception (so they can claim abortion is murder), pro-choice people argue that life begins at birth (so they can claim abortion is not murder). So, I'm asking you (regardless of all of the other "whose rights are more important" stuff), do you think determining whether something is living is subjective?

 

[xJownage]

I read it the first time you posted it, and you said it "can be decided to be conception", which means that you still don't think it can be clinically defined and that there is wiggle room. Pro-life people argue that life begins at conception (so they can claim abortion is murder), pro-choice people argue that life begins at birth (so they can claim abortion is not murder). So, I'm asking you (regardless of all of the other "whose rights are more important" stuff), do you think determining whether something is living is subjective?

Like I said, i don't think whether something is living is subjective. We're surrounded by living things like animals and plants.

I think when it gains the right to life, and those rights override those of the mother, is debatable. If we talk about this in the scope of the non-aggression principle, for example, both sides can be argued to violate the NAP; pro-life in that it violates the mother's autonomy, pro-choice in that it violates the babies' right to life. This doesn't mean we should be defining morality via the NAP, it has its own problems and is a borderline meme. That being said, you can see how we're already in a gray area as soon as we try to define objective morality. In order to have this conversation about when that life should have those rights, we have to make a determination of when it gains those. Is that sentience? Heartbeat? Viability outside the womb? There's many different perspectives and it's hard to say what's right and wrong.

Just to make it clear how muddled this has become, I talked to two people recently who believe abortion should be illegal after heartbeat. One calls themselves pro-choice, the other calls themselves pro-life.

 

[KoD]

I don't think "life" can be defined scientifically in the way you're using it. A fetus us alive, it has life. The egg and sperm also have life even before fertilization. So to me that's life. To say life starts at a certain point during pregnancy would be entirely subjective because life in that sense isn't defined. There's a development of a heart which starts to beat and the development of a brain that is primed to learn. I don't think those things make it alive, it was always alive even before development started. It's akin to death. Are you dead when your heart stops, or dead when your brain ceases to function and can't recover, or both? To what degree of brain damage would be death if a heart was restarted after stopping? Did that person die? Or is death the point where your heart stops permanently? What about an artificial heart? Etc etc. People are declared dead while cells are still alive in their bodies. I don't see anyway to put this in concrete terms because there's a lot of subjectivity to it, life and death. It's all a moot point to me though, nobody let's an ectopic pregnancy continue just because the fertilized egg is alive. A non-scientific undefined "life" that is different than the actual scientific definition of life is irrelevant to me.

 

[ghost]

Michael Flynn: Faithful Pastors Preach the Constitution Just As Much As the Bible

Michael Flynn is again making waves with statements about his beliefs regarding faith and politics, claiming that preaching the Constitution is an essential responsibility for pastors.

churchleaders.com

 

[JayF]

Michael Flynn: Faithful Pastors Preach the Constitution Just As Much As the Bible

Michael Flynn is again making waves with statements about his beliefs regarding faith and politics, claiming that preaching the Constitution is an essential responsibility for pastors.

churchleaders.com

I agree to an extent. The Constitution like the Bible wants people to choose and not force people into a decision. God has provided a way to a peaceful, moral, and biblical life, but He wants you to choose it and not force it upon the people. Just like the constitution give people the freedom to choose religion as a way of life but no where does the constitution say that Government and the Bible are to be separated from each other.

The constitution does have some issues with it as it was written by man. The bible was given to man by God.

 

[gangstonc]

no where does the constitution say that Government and the Bible are to be separated from each other.

The bible was given to man by God.

But the courts have said that government and religion can not be entangled.

The Bible was given to man by God, but man has changed everything it has touched.

 

[JayF]

But the courts have said that government and religion can not be entangled.

The Bible was given to man by God, but man has changed everything it has touched.

Are the courts right 100% of the time? Show me the constitution where the government is free of religion?