Philosophy Now Forum

Ain't nuthin' in this life without risk.

For example: 60% of women who abort have an elevated risk of miscarry with future pregnancies, and women who've aborted more than once (which accounts for half of all American women who abort) have an even higher chance to miscarry.

Not seein' how risk negates the obvious benefits of tubal ligation/vasectomy over abortion, especially since the risks revolve around failure to reverse and not the effectiveness of either procedure to prevent.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:42 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:20 pm Note to others:

Trust me. Only IC's take on what a true Christian is counts here. If you don't share his own take here precisely then you are not a true Christian at all.

Go ahead, ask him.

Naw, you're not paying attention...again.

All I've every said, and all I will say now, is this: it's Jesus Christ who has exclusive right to define what a Christian is. If anyone -- myself included -- has a different definition, then that person is simply wrong.

That's it.

Oh, so each and every Christian is able to make his or her own existentially rooted in dasein subjective determination as to what Jesus Christ would define to be a true Christian? Everyone is equal here?

So, those who insist that, say, Jesus Christ would have rejected capitalism in favor of a socialist economy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left -- their chance of being judged favorably by God is equal to those who profess the opposite?

And since there are Christians across the globe who embrace moral and political values across the entire moral and political spectrum, their understanding of "What Would Jesus Do?" is no better or worse than yours?

You're not arguing that they are wrong if they don't share your own convictions? You're not arguing that your own take on what Jesus Christ Himself would have professed is the starting point?

You're arguing that, say, as long as those like henry quirk share Christ's own moral and political values about abortion and bazookas, it doesn't matter at all that he doesn't actually believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ?

Or is all that still "private" between you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmSo no, actual Christians have zero interest in "theocracy." It would be a totally counterproductive thing, totally incapable of yielding the basic aim of Christianity.

On the contrary, down through history there have been any number of Christians who would render nothing unto Caesar if it was in any way, shape or form opposition to God's will.

Only, they were not true Christians of course.

So, in regard to abortion or gun laws or the separation of church and state, what is IC willing to concede the government can pursue and not feel the wrath of God?

What must all true Christians think and feel about these things?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:42 pmAh, you've changed your tune.

First you said I was wrong for being a "theocrat," which requires the biggest kind of government, and now you say my problem is that I believe in liberty and small government?

No, I would never say that anyone is necessarily wrong for being a theocrat. I would ask them how in regard to things like abortion they believe a government should function. As I asked you. And to the extent they believed it should function in accordance with God's will, I would describe them as theocrats. Then I would take them here...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

...and continue the exchange.

And, hopefully, their beliefs would be considerably more sophisticated than yours.

After all, above all else, I am hoping that someday someone will convince me [at least] take another leap of faith to God. To immortality and salvation.

And I'm not like those here who preach the gospel of atheism by insisting there is no God. Given the profound mystery that is existence itself, of course the explanation might be God. I want there to be one. I want there to be a loving, just and merciful explanation for things like this:

"...the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

I want to believe something other than that my life is essentially -- teleologically -- meaningless and purposeless. And that, soon enough, "I" will tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:11 pm If reproductive control really is the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics) then why aren't folks talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy?

Both are safe, effective, single event procedures. Both are reversible. Neither is particularly controversial today. Most importantly: if reproductive control is really the issue, both allow women and men to exercise it without, for some, killin' a baby or, for others, havin' a pesky parasite removed.

Please.

Woman may want to become mothers someday. Just not here and now. So, if they practice birth control until the time is right but become pregnant anyway, of course, force them to give birth.

After all, if henry became pregnant unintentionally, wouldn't he be willing to give birth? You wouldn't have to hold charging him with first degree murder over his head. No way. He'd give birth because it's simply the right thing to do.

And even though his own God apparently doesn't have a Judgment Day on tap for him, before He split the scene, He provided henry with the inborn capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". And this is his own path to "my way or the highway", "one of us" objectivism.

As for killing the baby, trust him. It's not ever just a "clump of cells" as some insist. No, from the point of conception on, the unborn are full-fledged human beings.

And how does he know this? Well, he believes it. That's proof enough.

Woman may want to become mothers someday. Just not here and now.

Hey, they can just as easily after a tubal ligation as they can after abortion, with roughly the same kinds of risks.

So, if they practice birth control until the time is right but become pregnant anyway, of course, force them to give birth.

I never said that.

After all, if henry became pregnant unintentionally, wouldn't he be willing to give birth?

You wouldn't have to hold charging him with first degree murder over his head. No way. He'd give birth because it's simply the right thing to do.

If I got preggers: you better believe I'd deliver. A man (actual, not a tyranny) who conceives and gives birth? I'd be friggin' famous!

And even though his own God apparently doesn't have a Judgment Day on tap for him, before He split the scene, He provided henry with the inborn capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". And this is his own path to "my way or the highway", "one of us" objectivism.

Don't know what my deism has to do with the benefits of tubal ligation and vasectomy, but, okay, that's a thing.

As for killing the baby, trust him. It's not ever just a "clump of cells" as some insist. No, from the point of conception on, the unborn are full-fledged human beings.

Probably more like from the end of the first trimester on.

And how does he know this? Well, he believes it. That's proof enough.

In context: what I believe is irrelevant and what I know has some facts backin' it.

I got no interestin talkin' about what I believe here, just as I have no interest in talkin' about you, but we can, if you like, talk about, for example, why, if reproductive control really is the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics), aren't folks talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy?

If, however, such a conversation would be, as it often is, just your vehicle to kvetch...

I want to believe something other than that my life is essentially -- teleologically -- meaningless and purposeless. And that, soon enough, "I" will tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

...then I won't waste my time (your supposed existential crisis ain't my problem).

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:42 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:20 pm Note to others:

Trust me. Only IC's take on what a true Christian is counts here. If you don't share his own take here precisely then you are not a true Christian at all.

Go ahead, ask him.

Naw, you're not paying attention...again.

All I've every said, and all I will say now, is this: it's Jesus Christ who has exclusive right to define what a Christian is. If anyone -- myself included -- has a different definition, then that person is simply wrong.

That's it.

Oh, so each and every Christian is able to make his or her own existentially rooted in dasein subjective determination as to what Jesus Christ would define to be a true Christian?

No part of what I said resembles your "summary."

So, honestly, neither you nor I have any idea what you are even talking about.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmSo no, actual Christians have zero interest in "theocracy." It would be a totally counterproductive thing, totally incapable of yielding the basic aim of Christianity.

On the contrary, down through history there have been any number of Christians who would render nothing unto Caesar if it was in any way, shape or form opposition to God's will.

This also isn't any kind of repetetion of anything I said above, nor is it an "on the contrary." It just looks totally irrelevant, to me.

I can't see how even trying to communicate with you is worth any time. You don't seem to pay attention, and nothing you say seems to make any sense in response. There's no line of thought here, no straight course between proposition and reaction.

So I'm just not going to bother.

Those who do not have control over their own reproduction are termed livestock.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:44 pm

Woman may want to become mothers someday. Just not here and now.

Hey, they can just as easily after a tubal ligation as they can after abortion, with roughly the same kinds of risks.

Let me try to understand what you are suggesting here.

A woman wants to become a mother, but given the circumstances in her life, not now. So, knowing that birth control is not always 100% effective, or the possibility that she might be raped, she should get an operation to prevent a pregnancy. Then, when she wants to become pregnant, get the operation reversed?

Okay, what if during the pregnancy that she does want, circumstances dramatically change in her life and she no longer wants it. Too bad? If she has an abortion then it is perfectly reasonable to charge her with first degree premeditated murder? Or if she has the baby and then decides to hold off on her next child, get the operation again? Repeat as necessary until menopause,

So, if they practice birth control until the time is right but become pregnant anyway, of course, force them to give birth.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:44 pm I never said that.

Okay, what would the henry quirk legislation either prescribe or proscribe here for these women?

After all, if henry became pregnant unintentionally, wouldn't he be willing to give birth?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:44 pm

You wouldn't have to hold charging him with first degree murder over his head. No way. He'd give birth because it's simply the right thing to do.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:44 pm If I got preggers: you better believe I'd deliver. A man (actual, not a tyranny) who conceives and gives birth? I'd be friggin' famous!

And, indeed, if men could be become pregnant there is not a single one of them who would ever have an abortion. They may not have intended to become pregnant. Or becoming pregnant might scramble their education or their employment. Or they might have been raped. Or giving birth might do grievous harm to their mental and physical health. But as for Gloria Steinem's suggestion that, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament", that's just a bunch of twaddle?

After all, given that God Himself provided you with the innate capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature", you know that abortion is strictly taboo.

On the other hand, oddly enough, you don't know what having the innate capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" has to do with tubal ligation and vasectomy. Did your Deist God provide you with a list of things that is and is not applicable to?

As for killing the baby, trust him. It's not ever just a "clump of cells" as some insist. No, from the point of conception on, the unborn are full-fledged human beings.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:44 pm Probably more like from the end of the first trimester on.

Probably? Who would have ever suspected that following the dictates of Reason and Nature might only take you to things that are probably true. So, during the first trimester there is a probability that the unborn are just a "clump of cells"? And all those anti-abortionists who insist human life begins at conception are probably wrong?

On the other hand, who among us on this side of the womb ever was born without first having gone through that first trimester?

Indeed, for some that is the tragedy of abortion. They agree that human life begins at conception. And that all abortions are the taking of innocent human life. But they recognize the "rival goods" here. That, if women are forced to give birth, there is no way they can ever truly be the equal of men who can never become pregnant. Men, whose lives can never be adversely changed or even destroyed if forced to give birth.

And, hopefully, their beliefs would be considerably more sophisticated than yours.

[and henry quirk]

After all, above all else, I am hoping that someday someone will convince me [at least] take another leap of faith to God. To immortality and salvation.

And I'm not like those here who preach the gospel of atheism by insisting there is no God. Given the profound mystery that is existence itself, of course the explanation might be God. I want there to be one. I want there to be a loving, just and merciful explanation for things like this:

"...the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

I want to believe something other than that my life is essentially -- teleologically -- meaningless and purposeless. And that, soon enough, "I" will tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:44 pm ...then I won't waste my time (your supposed existential crisis ain't my problem).

My existential crises?

Trust me: hundreds and hundreds of millions around the globe are trying to connect the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then. IC is preoccupied with both sides while you are content to preach your own objectivist dogmas on this side of the grave.

Though, sure, don't waste your time with arguments like mine. Indeed, what if some day my points really do begin to sink in...and your arrogant, authoritarian dictums begin to crumble as my own once did?

This part, henry: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

I've snipped out all reference to my deism and your existential crisis: with the former, it ain't germane; with the latter, I don't care.

-----

A woman wants to become a mother, but given the circumstances in her life, not now. So, knowing that birth control is not always 100% effective, or the possibility that she might be raped, she should get an operation to prevent a pregnancy. Then, when she wants to become pregnant, get the operation reversed?

Not should: could, yes. Again, if all this is about reproductive control, tubal ligation and vasectomy are two methods for a woman and man to exercise such control.

Okay, what if during the pregnancy that she does want, circumstances dramatically change in her life and she no longer wants it. Too bad? If she has an abortion then it is perfectly reasonable to charge her with first degree premeditated murder?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amAs I say: I'm no judge or legislator. I have no granted or privileged say over any one. All I can do is exercise the power I have over myself.

The absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.

So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world(.)

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:46 pmif you're (like) me , and find all that legislation and adjudication as illegitimate as The State who crafts and issues them, you'll scoff the law and do as you see fit.

This means, in the unlikely event congress banned abortion and such a thing was upheld, abortions would still occur just as in the unlikely event congress bans private gun ownership and such a thing was upheld, guns will still be in private hands.

Or if she has the baby and then decides to hold off on her next child, get the operation again? Repeat as necessary until menopause,

Or just keep abortin'. Or refrain from sex. Or use birth control. Or...

She'll have to make up her own mind.

Okay, what would the henry quirk legislation either prescribe or proscribe here for these women?

Nuthin' (see above).

And, indeed, if men could be become pregnant..

...they'd be women. Are we gonna talk about what is? Or will you hang from your skyhooks foistin' up intellectual contraptions that are not?

Probably?

Sure. Fact: the 12 week old fetus has everything in place the materialist or atheist claims are solely responsible for human beings to be human beings. So from the end of the 12 week on, it's probably a good idea to assume he (or she) is a human being. I mean, if we're gonna negotiate and compromise and be moderate, settin' the cut-off at 12 weeks gives everybody sumthin', right?

And, mebbe, while we're at it, we can work toward safe & rare by encouragin' men and women to exercise reproductive control by way of procedures like tubal ligation and vasectomy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:42 pm
Naw, you're not paying attention...again.

All I've every said, and all I will say now, is this: it's Jesus Christ who has exclusive right to define what a Christian is. If anyone -- myself included -- has a different definition, then that person is simply wrong.

That's it.

Oh, so each and every Christian is able to make his or her own existentially rooted in dasein subjective determination as to what Jesus Christ would define to be a true Christian? Everyone is equal here?

So, those who insist that, say, Jesus Christ would have rejected capitalism in favor of a socialist economy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left -- their chance of being judged favorably by God is equal to those who profess the opposite?

And since there are Christians across the globe who embrace moral and political values across the entire moral and political spectrum, their understanding of "What Would Jesus Do?" is no better or worse than yours?

You're not arguing that they are wrong if they don't share your own convictions? You're not arguing that your own take on what Jesus Christ Himself would have professed is the starting point?

You're arguing that, say, as long as those like henry quirk share Christ's own moral and political values about abortion and bazookas, it doesn't matter at all that he doesn't actually believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ?

Or is all that still "private" between you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:42 pmNo part of what I said resembles your "summary."

So, honestly, neither you nor I have any idea what you are even talking about.

Note to others:

By all means, decide for yourself who is wiggling out of actually responding to the other's points here. He wants to bring this all back to Jesus. And then he wants to pretend that what Jesus Would Do is not wholly in sync with what he would himself do in regard to the moral conflagrations that rend us.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pm So no, actual Christians have zero interest in "theocracy." It would be a totally counterproductive thing, totally incapable of yielding the basic aim of Christianity.

On the contrary, down through history there have been any number of Christians who would render nothing unto Caesar if it was in any way, shape or form opposition to God's will.

Only, they were not true Christians of course.

So, in regard to abortion or gun laws or the separation of church and state, what is IC willing to concede the government can pursue and not feel the wrath of God?

What must all true Christians think and feel about these things?

Mr. Wiggle wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmThis also isn't any kind of repetetion of anything I said above, nor is it an "on the contrary." It just looks totally irrelevant, to me.

I can't see how even trying to communicate with you is worth any time. You don't seem to pay attention, and nothing you say seems to make any sense in response. There's no line of thought here, no straight course between proposition and reaction.

So I'm just not going to bother.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless!!

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:45 pm Oh, so each and every...blah.

I seriously cannot be bothered.

There's a minimal IQ test for talking to me. You just failed it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:32 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:45 pm Oh, so each and every...blah.

I seriously cannot be bothered.

There's a minimal IQ test for talking to me. You just failed it.

Coming from you, that's quite the compliment!!

Seriously though, you're not fooling anyone. Well, maybe a few here.

iambiguous, it's nice to see you and Manny really getting to know each other.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:40 pmIt seems to me to be worth exploring for the benefit of everyone here who has tried to reason with Manny in the past, exactly why it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time because Manny is so intellectually dishonest that he cannot answer a straight question about his beliefs with a "yes" or a "no".

There is no conversation with a man like that. All we can do is demonstrate his emptiness.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:36 pm iambiguous, it's nice to see you and Manny really getting to know each other.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:40 pmIt seems to me to be worth exploring for the benefit of everyone here who has tried to reason with Manny in the past, ezactly why it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time because Manny is so intellectually dishonest that he cannot answer a straight question about his beliefs with a "yes" or a "no".

There is no conversation with a man like that. All we can do is demonstrate his emptiness.

Don't forget his penchant for rewriting your argument back at you and telling you that your own point is nothing like the one you wrote for yourself. He seems to be super pissed off here about somebody using one of his own favoured tactics on him.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm I've snipped out all reference to my deism and your existential crisis: with the former, it ain't germane; with the latter, I don't care.

In other words, "given that God Himself provided you with the innate capacity to 'follow the dictates of Reason and Nature', you know that abortion [after the first trimester] is strictly taboo", is not relevant here? That sounds like you're telling us "to hell with Him, I figured out the only rational and virtuous way in which to think about abortions and bazookas all by myself."

And, again, it's not just my existential crisis:

"Trust me: hundreds and hundreds of millions around the globe are trying to connect the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then. IC is preoccupied with both sides while you are content to preach your own objectivist dogmas on this side of the grave."

In other words, not just in regard to abortions and bazookas.

A woman wants to become a mother, but given the circumstances in her life, not now. So, knowing that birth control is not always 100% effective, or the possibility that she might be raped, she should get an operation to prevent a pregnancy. Then, when she wants to become pregnant, get the operation reversed?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmNot should: could, yes. Again, if all this is about reproductive control, tubal ligation and vasectomy are two methods for a woman and man to exercise such control.

Note to all women: that's true. You could do this. See how simple it all becomes when you think like he does and follow the dictates of Reason and Nature.

Okay, what if during the pregnancy that she does want, circumstances dramatically change in her life and she no longer wants it. Too bad? If she has an abortion then it is perfectly reasonable to charge her with first degree premeditated murder?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amAs I say: I'm no judge or legislator. I have no granted or privileged say over any one. All I can do is exercise the power I have over myself.

And thank your lucky stars -- and the Deist God -- that the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" here will never be something that you have to endure.

On the other hand, women will never have to endure an enlarged prostate, will they?

Then this "thing":

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pmThe absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.

As a man. As a man never, ever having to deal with the existential complexities embedded in all of the different sets of circumstances that can result in an unwanted pregnancy.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world(.)

Of course, my point here is that your points are rooted subjectively in the existential parameters of the life that you lived predisposing you to think as you do about abortion and not some other way.

Yeah, yeah, I know: you're sticking with your fulminating fanatic objectivist convictions that you think as you do because all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to think as you to. Well, if they want to be thought of as "following the dictates of Reason and Nature", anyway.

And then the manner in which you fit the Deist God into that.

One thing for sure. In thinking as you do, it must truly comfort and console you right down to the bone. And such that even though there are many, many others who are just as convinced as you are that there is but One True Path here, it's their path not yours.

Or if she has the baby and then decides to hold off on her next child, get the operation again? Repeat as necessary until menopause,

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm Or just keep abortin'. Or refrain from sex. Or use birth control. Or...

She'll have to make up her own mind.

So, she has the option to 1] keep aborting until she is caught and charged with first degree premeditated murder, 2] refrain from sex altogether or 3] use birth control and if the device fails then be forced to give birth or get an abortion and, if caught, be charged with first degree premeditated murder.

And, indeed, if men could be become pregnant there is not a single one of them who would ever have an abortion. They may not have intended to become pregnant. Or becoming pregnant might scramble their education or their employment. Or they might have been raped. Or giving birth might do grievous harm to their mental and physical health. But as for Gloria Steinem's suggestion that, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament", that's just a bunch of twaddle?

After all, given that God Himself provided you with the innate capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature", you know that abortion is strictly taboo.

On the other hand, oddly enough, you don't know what having the innate capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" has to do with tubal ligation and vasectomy. Did your Deist God provide you with a list of things that is and is not applicable to?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm ...they'd be women. Are we gonna talk about what is? Or will you hang from your skyhooks foistin' up intellectual contraptions that are not?

Right, as though no man has ever thanked his own lucky stars that he has never, ever had to deal with that "beyond my control" reality of gender himself.

Probably? Who would have ever suspected that following the dictates of Reason and Nature might only take you to things that are probably true. So, during the first trimester there is a probability that the unborn are just a "clump of cells"? And all those anti-abortionists who insist human life begins at conception are probably wrong?

On the other hand, who among us on this side of the womb ever was born without first having gone through that first trimester?

Indeed, for some that is the tragedy of abortion. They agree that human life begins at conception. And that all abortions are the taking of innocent human life. But they recognize the "rival goods" here. That, if women are forced to give birth, there is no way they can ever truly be the equal of men who can never become pregnant. Men, whose lives can never be adversely changed or even destroyed if forced to give birth.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:14 pm Sure. Fact: the 12 week old fetus has everything in place the materialist or atheist claims are solely responsible for human beings to be human beings. So from the end of the 12 week on, it's probably a good idea to assume he (or she) is a human being. I mean, if we're gonna negotiate and compromise and be moderate, settin' the cut-off at 12 weeks gives everybody sumthin', right?

Come on, henry, you're intelligent enough to know that not a single one of us on this side of the womb ever made it to week 13 without first having been conceived and then made it through the first 12 weeks.

And enough of this "probably" stuff. If you're not certain about everything relating to the morality of abortion, you're admitting to the possibility of other things only being probably true as well. What's next, that in some situations, bazookas probably should not be permitted to be bought and sold?

Or that the "A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment probably doesn't mean that the states can pass laws prohibiting the buying and the selling of bazookas to private citizens?

Sometimes it is useful to remind the morons what the 2nd amendment actually says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This does not preclude a widespread ban of firearms to people who are not part of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA".
But like so many other things in the USA money comes first. Money before People means that arms manufacturers get priority over dead children.

That means real living and independently breathing children,

Every year, 7,957 children and teens are shot in the United States.

I'm given to understand that none of those are shot by people who are part of a well regulated militia.