Christian Trump loyalists undermine Christianity's witness to the culture

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

On 5/17/2019 at 6:50 PM, toddc said:

 

In our legal tradition, "unborn babies" - by which you presumably mean the stages of development, from zygote and beyond, prior to birth - have no rights.

Each of my three sons had rights when I saw the ultrasound  heartbeat around six weeks. 

[homersapien 11,393]

21 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Each of my three sons had rights when I saw the ultrasound  heartbeat around six weeks. 

Not to quibble, but that "heartbeat" at six weeks is technically known as fetal pole cardiac activity".  At that point, there's no circulatory system.

But I understand the sentiment behind your point, even if not relevant to mine.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

In our legal tradition, "unborn babies" - by which you presumably mean the stages of development, from zygote and beyond, prior to birth - have no rights.

 

Wrong. Go read up on family law and inheritance rights/succession law. The moment of conception becomes immensely important. This is but just one facet of our legal tradition undermining your assertion.

 

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

On the other hand, the rights of a girl or woman began at birth, and are proscribed in both our legal tradition and the constitution.

Again, incorrect.

[toddc 13,194]

31 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Each of my three sons had rights when I saw the ultrasound  heartbeat around six weeks. 

Exactly 

[homersapien 11,393]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. Go read up on family law and inheritance rights/succession law. The moment of conception becomes immensely important. This is but just one facet of our legal tradition undermining your assertion.

 

Again, incorrect.

While rights of succession may be granted to an embryo, it is not capable of actually receiving them until born, by definition.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

While rights of succession may be granted to an embryo, it is not capable of actually receiving them until it is born.

You said "unborn babies" have no rights. You said rights begin at birth. You were wrong. 

[homersapien 11,393]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You said "unborn babies" have no rights. You said rights begin at birth. You were wrong. 

I will concede that fetuses can be deeded succession rights if you say so. I can imagine that would be possible in some jurisdictions.

But again, that is a right that is totally contingent on being born to receive, which is my greater point. Our constitution makes no mention of legal rights of the unborn.  It would have been a novel concept in our tradition. 

[toddc 13,194]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

While rights of succession may be granted to an embryo, it is not capable of actually receiving them until it is born.

To me, the question that needs to be answered/clearly defined in the laws are when does the right to life begin, I.e., when does life begin! It might be at birth legally , but I don’t agree with that assessment.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 minute ago, toddc said:

To me, the question that needs to be answered/clearly defined in the laws are when does the right to life begin. It might be at birth legally , but I don’t agree with that assessment.

It's perfectly fair not to agree with it. 

Personally , I am skeptical that a question such as 'when does life begin?' can - or even should be - answered by the legal system, as opposed to the pregnant woman (and father if relevant).

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I will concede that fetuses can be deeded succession rights.

But that is a right that is totally contingent on being born, which is my greater point. Our constitution makes no mention of the legal rights of the unborn.

Oh, there are plenty of examples. Succession rights are but just one example against your assertion. So in order for a woman to be liable for child abuse via prenatal alcohol or drug use, the contingency is live birth? Or what about when a pregnant woman is murdered and the murderer faces double homicide? In both instances, is there no offended right of the "unborn baby" involved? Or how about this, why did the Casey case overturn parts of Roe v Wade? Was there not any recognized right of the "unborn baby" which did not depend on live birth?

Well, the Constitution was never meant to enumerate all rights. For goodness sake, the most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion.... not enumerations of rights.  There are many recognized "legal rights" not mentioned in the Constitution. Do I really need to start listing them? 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But I understand the sentiment behind your point, even if not relevant to mine.

My point is relevant. I do not need a complete closed minded horses ass like you to tell me otherwise Brother Homer. 

I understand "wrong forum".

[homersapien 11,393]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh, there are plenty of examples. Succession rights are but just one example against your assertion. So in order for a woman to be liable for child abuse via prenatal alcohol or drug use, the contingency is live birth? Or what about when a pregnant woman is murdered and the murderer faces double homicide? In both instances, is there no offended right of the "unborn baby" involved? Or how about this, why did the Casey case overturn parts of Roe v Wade? Was there not any recognized right of the "unborn baby" which did not depend on live birth?

Well, the Constitution was never meant to enumerate all rights. For goodness sake, the most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion.... not enumerations of rights.  Do I really need to start listing rights not mentioned in the Constitution? 

 

Do you have a case to cite where a woman was charged and tried for child abuse before a child was born?   I'd like to see that. 

My understanding of Roe v. Wade is that a woman has a right to abort her potential child at any point up to "viability" which is generally considered to be the third trimester. 

I have no problem with holding a murderer responsible for taking the life of both the mother and potential baby.  But I see that more as the expression of a woman's right to keep to keep and protect her potential child. 

Again, my greater point is that a fetus - at least up to the third trimester - currently has no legal right to be born. It's rights are subordinated to the woman's.  You can argue all your want about what rights the fetus does have, but at this point in time, it's the woman's right to make her own choice about abortion - at least up to the third trimester.

And speaking of "most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion" was the irony of that intentional?

 

[homersapien 11,393]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

My point is relevant. I do not need a complete closed minded horses ass like you to tell me otherwise Brother Homer. 

I understand "wrong forum".

I was speaking with a societal, legal perspective, whereas you were speaking in a personal sense. That's what made the comparison irrelevant. I thought that was obvious. 

Sorry if I offended you.  Like I said, I understood your point.  There's no reason to start hurling insults. I suggest you stay out of the discussion it you're going to get upset.

[DKW 86 7,431]

 

 

 

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh, there are plenty of examples. Succession rights are but just one example against your assertion. So in order for a woman to be liable for child abuse via prenatal alcohol or drug use, the contingency is live birth? Or what about when a pregnant woman is murdered and the murderer faces double homicide? In both instances, is there no offended right of the "unborn baby" involved? Or how about this, why did the Casey case overturn parts of Roe v Wade? Was there not any recognized right of the "unborn baby" which did not depend on live birth?

Well, the Constitution was never meant to enumerate all rights. For goodness sake, the most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion.... not enumerations of rights.  There are many recognized "legal rights" not mentioned in the Constitution. Do I really need to start listing them? 

Please stop. You are completely wasting your time here. The Pro-Abortion Crowd HAVE to PRETEND to have Enumerated Rights for Unborn Babies or their entire position falls apart. The Constitution only limits and enumerates the Rights of the Govt. and leaves all other rights as assumed to the Individual. Now, that is completely contrary to the entire philosophy of the Pro-Abortion Crowd. They have to completely stand reality on its head to make their case. Like I said. This is completely contrary to everything most understand about the Constitution, but it is what it is....

[DKW 86 7,431]

19 hours ago, alexava said:

So Am I correct to assume you’re ok with with the “slaughter “ of a baby conceived of rape or incest? 

I am not "okay" with that, but I am also not okay with forcing a woman to proceed with a pregnancy that is the result of an illegal and or violent act. Like most of the nation, I recognize this is not a clean black-white issue in some areas. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you have a case to cite where a woman was charged and tried for child abuse before a child was born?   I'd like to see that. 

Not off the top of my head. If I take the time to research it I’ll let you know. However, the relevant date is when the case of action/wrong occurred. Filing of suit/charges is only relevant for prescription purposes. 

But here's a well-known wrongful death action: Danos v. St. Pierre, where a six-month old fetus was killed in a car accident. The mother was allowed to sue and recover for the fetus' death. Further, many state statutes (see Louisiana as example), do not require live birth for a wrongful death action to be maintained against a culpable party who causes death of the unborn baby/fetus. [See La. CC. Art. 26].

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

My understanding of Roe v. Wade is that a woman has a right to abort her potential child at any point up to "viability" which is generally considered to be the third trimester. 

The trimester framework was expressly overturned in the Casey v Planned Parenthood.

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

I have no problem with holding a murderer responsible for taking the life of both the mother and potential baby.  But I see that more as the expression of a woman's right to keep to keep and protect her potential child. 

Ok. I am not sure if this calls for a response. Does it mean you still maintain an “unborn baby” and now “potential baby” have no rights? 

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

And speaking of "most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion" was the irony of that intentional?

There is no irony. It’s a great reminder that State intrusion is restricted, not prohibited.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

There's no reason to start hurling insults.

I apologize Brother Homer. I was wrong for the insult.

[toddc 13,194]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh, there are plenty of examples. Succession rights are but just one example against your assertion. So in order for a woman to be liable for child abuse via prenatal alcohol or drug use, the contingency is live birth? Or what about when a pregnant woman is murdered and the murderer faces double homicide? In both instances, is there no offended right of the "unborn baby" involved? Or how about this, why did the Casey case overturn parts of Roe v Wade? Was there not any recognized right of the "unborn baby" which did not depend on live birth?

Well, the Constitution was never meant to enumerate all rights. For goodness sake, the most important source of individual rights focuses on restricting State intrusion.... not enumerations of rights.  There are many recognized "legal rights" not mentioned in the Constitution. Do I really need to start listing them? 

 

Yeah, they’re in the Bill of Rights and they are inalienable rights! Thanks nolatiger

[alexava 6,973]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I am not "okay" with that, but I am also not okay with forcing a woman to proceed with a pregnancy that is the result of an illegal and or violent act. Like most of the nation, I recognize this is not a clean black-white issue in some areas. 

Then you are not concerned with saving babies. You are just punishing women for their behavior? 

[DKW 86 7,431]

4 hours ago, alexava said:

Then you are not concerned with saving babies. You are just punishing women for their behavior? 

No, not in the least. You want to talk about the women. There are other lives at stake here. There is something other than just blind adherence to dogma. The women, and the men, can put an end to pregnancies by just being a lil creative in their behavior...

[alexava 6,973]

7 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

No, not in the least. You want to talk about the women. There are other lives at stake here. There is something other than just blind adherence to dogma. The women, and the men, can put an end to pregnancies by just being a lil creative in their behavior...

When you find a way to effect that......

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, alexava said:

When you find a way to effect that......

Do you need a Sex Ed Class?

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Do you need a Sex Ed Class?

I know how it works. Almost every adult human also does. We all know how to “ be creative to prevent it “ too. Yet For some reason in how ever many thousands or millions of years humans have existed, their behavior doesn’t match their knowledge. When you have an idea how to change that, I’m listening. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

8 hours ago, alexava said:

I know how it works. Almost every adult human also does. We all know how to “ be creative to prevent it “ too. Yet For some reason in how ever many thousands or millions of years humans have existed, their behavior doesn’t match their knowledge. When you have an idea how to change that, I’m listening. 

Brother, we are now here. This is the place where you and I actually 100% agree. We have gone thru the history of high schools that gave away birth control and actually watched as the number of teen pregnancies went up. Teens, well, even the most educated teen is still just a teen and they all and we all make and made bad decisions. You cant make anyone change their behavior while they are allowed to totally get a pass on any consequences. Once consequences kick in, like all animals, behavior will change. IE when a male impregnates a female, that male should be DNA tested and if they are the father they should IMMEDIATELY be on the hook for child support. You forever alter few young men's lives and the rest will figure it out. Make it painful. Make it life-changing. Mr-I-Wont-Wear-A-Condom suddenly sees his Mustang GT and chasing skirts life turn into a compact truck with a baby seat or a 4 door Elantra with Baby Seat and job and things will change quickly.

I was asked yesterday by my daughter, Emilee, to attend her sperm donor's 4-5-6th? wedding. I dont even keep up the bastard's lies anymore. Emilee is so mad at her SD that she asked me to go with her. She wanted his family to see her real Dad. The damage the SD has done her, the money he owes her, the way he treats her all add up. When i dated her Mom, I recognized that Emilee was the package deal. I traded in my two door Prelude off for a Taurus. She went along on a lot of, but not all of our dates. (We had the weekends the sperm donor did actually show up and take Emilee, as few as they were.) Last Fathers day she gave me this in front of our my men's group at church. 

Most of the folks at our church didnt know I wasnt her Father. You see, I know a lot about this. Even today, the SDs get away with just about murder. DHR does work and my wife beat the bastard silly in court multiple times, but still he fought and eventually it was just not worth the hassle. 

You make things real for the men involved and "Sexual Creativity" will work. But you have to make it painful to get the change started. I think the drop in abortions during the Obama years was due to courts getting in the faces more and more steadily with the men. 

Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies
https://medium.com/s/can-we-talk/men-cause-100-of-unwanted-pregnancies-eb0e8288a7e5

As a mother of six and a Mormon, I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. When I hear men discussing women’s reproductive rights, I’m often left with the thought that they have zero interest in stopping abortion.

If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.

I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.

Don’t believe me?

Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

As a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

Great question. Modern birth control for women is possibly the most important invention of the last century, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women include migraines, mood swings, decreased libido, depression, severe cramps, heavy bleeding, aneurysm — and that’s just a small fraction of them.

Discouragingly, a promising study on a new male contraceptive was canceled in large part due to… (wait for it)… side effects. To be clear, this list of side effects was about one-third as long as the known side effects for commonly used women’s contraception. There’s a lot to unpack in that story alone. I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But, men, I’ve got good news. Even with the horrible side effects, women are (amazingly!) very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be, but that doesn’t keep women from trying. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment — sometimes multiple doctor’s appointments — and a prescription. They’re not always free, and often not cheap. Some are actually trying to make female birth control options more expensive by allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover them. In addition, contraceptive options for women can’t be easily acquired at the last minute. In most cases, they don’t work instantly.

The pill requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. Again, the side effects can be brutal — and not just in rare cases. Despite the hassle and side effects, I’m still grateful for birth control. (Please don’t take it away.)But it’s critical to understand that women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy.

In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men — i.e., condoms. They’re readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective and work on demand, instantly. They don’t cause aneurysms, mood swings, or debilitating cramps. Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. They can be easily used at the last minute. I mean, condoms are magic! So much easier than birth control options for women.

As a bonus, most women are totally on board with condoms. They keep us from getting STDs. They don’t lessen our pleasure during sex or prevent us from climaxing. The best part? Cleanup is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as jizz drips down our legs.

So why would there ever be unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, it’s very, very common for men to pressure women to have sex without a condom. It’s also not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro tip: That’s assault.)

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Because, for the precious minutes when they’re penetrating their partner, not wearing a condom gives them more pleasure. So… that would mean some men are willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career — so they can experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure. Is this for real?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Brother, we are now here. This is the place where you and I actually 100% agree. We have gone thru the history of high schools that gave away birth control and actually watched as the number of teen pregnancies went up. Teens, well, even the most educated teen is still just a teen and they all and we all make and made bad decisions. You cant make anyone change their behavior while they are allowed to totally get a pass on any consequences. Once consequences kick in, like all animals, behavior will change. IE when a male impregnates a female, that male should be DNA tested and if they are the father they should IMMEDIATELY be on the hook for child support. You forever alter few young men's lives and the rest will figure it out. Make it painful. Make it life-changing. Mr-I-Wont-Wear-A-Condom suddenly sees his Mustang GT and chasing skirts life turn into a compact truck with a baby seat or a 4 door Elantra with Baby Seat and job and things will change quickly.

I was asked yesterday by my daughter, Emilee, to attend her sperm donor's 4-5-6th? wedding. I dont even keep up the bastard's lies anymore. Emilee is so mad at her SD that she asked me to go with her. She wanted his family to see her real Dad. The damage the SD has done her, the money he owes her, the way he treats her all add up. When i dated her Mom, I recognized that Emilee was the package deal. I traded in my two door Prelude off for a Taurus. She went along on a lot of, but not all of our dates. (We had the weekends the sperm donor did actually show up and take Emilee, as few as they were.) Last Fathers day she gave me this in front of our my men's group at church. 

Most of the folks at our church didnt know I wasnt her Father. You see, I know a lot about this. Even today, the SDs get away with just about murder. DHR does work and my wife beat the bastard silly in court multiple times, but still he fought and eventually it was just not worth the hassle. 

You make things real for the men involved and "Sexual Creativity" will work. But you have to make it painful to get the change started. I think the drop in abortions during the Obama years was due to courts getting in the faces more and more steadily with the men. 

Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies
https://medium.com/s/can-we-talk/men-cause-100-of-unwanted-pregnancies-eb0e8288a7e5

As a mother of six and a Mormon, I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. When I hear men discussing women’s reproductive rights, I’m often left with the thought that they have zero interest in stopping abortion.

If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.

I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.

Don’t believe me?

Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

As a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

Great question. Modern birth control for women is possibly the most important invention of the last century, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women include migraines, mood swings, decreased libido, depression, severe cramps, heavy bleeding, aneurysm — and that’s just a small fraction of them.

Discouragingly, a promising study on a new male contraceptive was canceled in large part due to… (wait for it)… side effects. To be clear, this list of side effects was about one-third as long as the known side effects for commonly used women’s contraception. There’s a lot to unpack in that story alone. I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But, men, I’ve got good news. Even with the horrible side effects, women are (amazingly!) very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be, but that doesn’t keep women from trying. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment — sometimes multiple doctor’s appointments — and a prescription. They’re not always free, and often not cheap. Some are actually trying to make female birth control options more expensive by allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover them. In addition, contraceptive options for women can’t be easily acquired at the last minute. In most cases, they don’t work instantly.

The pill requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. Again, the side effects can be brutal — and not just in rare cases. Despite the hassle and side effects, I’m still grateful for birth control. (Please don’t take it away.)But it’s critical to understand that women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy.

In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men — i.e., condoms. They’re readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective and work on demand, instantly. They don’t cause aneurysms, mood swings, or debilitating cramps. Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. They can be easily used at the last minute. I mean, condoms are magic! So much easier than birth control options for women.

As a bonus, most women are totally on board with condoms. They keep us from getting STDs. They don’t lessen our pleasure during sex or prevent us from climaxing. The best part? Cleanup is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as jizz drips down our legs.

So why would there ever be unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, it’s very, very common for men to pressure women to have sex without a condom. It’s also not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro tip: That’s assault.)

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Because, for the precious minutes when they’re penetrating their partner, not wearing a condom gives them more pleasure. So… that would mean some men are willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career — so they can experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure. Is this for real?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

It is ironic you mention forcing men to be financially responsible for children and also claim we have too many people incarcerated. Being put in jail is the best reason I could possibly think of to force men to take care of their responsibility and even that don’t work. Take a look into county jails and see how many men are in for delinquency, then find the baby moma. She’ll tell you she still doesn’t get paid off in the end. Then these fine outstanding men get out (because they are “ nonviolent “) and ruin another woman’s life before he gets a job. I’ve heard these bastards brag about how many kids they have. 

So there is no way to force men to be responsible. As your articulate men are responsible for 100% of pregnancies. But women are on the hook from the moment of ejaculation on. They must have more options. Consequences are not enough to deter human nature.