Abortion- Unexpected results

[HisArpy]

We want abortion to be legal with no restrictions.

Despite the majority support for abortion rights generally, 66% said abortion should be legal in, at most, the first three months of a pregnancy. (emphasis added)

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1171...ctions-but-not-as-far-as-red-states-are-going

^THAT means you're out of step with your own supporters and adherents. Which SHOULD normally tell almost anyone that your position is wrong. But you do you and keep insisting that abortion isn't legal and that anyone should be able to get one at any time because it only underscores how little you actually know.

 

[ll74]

^THAT means you're out of step with your own supporters and adherents. Which SHOULD normally tell almost anyone that your position is wrong. But you do you and keep insisting that abortion isn't legal and that anyone should be able to get one at any time because it only underscores how little you actually know.

I prefer codifying Roe as a compromise, which I believe most support.

I would rather have no restrictions, but viability is a good.compromise.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

^THAT means you're out of step with your own supporters and adherents. Which SHOULD normally tell almost anyone that your position is wrong. But you do you and keep insisting that abortion isn't legal and that anyone should be able to get one at any time because it only underscores how little you actually know.

I know I’m an extreme outlier when it comes to abortion rights. Shrug. I’m willing to compromise. I’d be okay returning to what we had under Roe v Wade. I don’t know why you keep arguing about it. You’ve made your position clear—whatever the law is, you’re cool with it.

 

[HisArpy]

I know I’m an extreme outlier when it comes to abortion rights. Shrug. I’m willing to compromise. I’d be okay returning to what we had under Roe v Wade. I don’t know why you keep arguing about it. You’ve made your position clear—whatever the law is, you’re cool with it.

No you're not. You're not willing to "compromise" because you don't understand anything.

2/3rds of Americans, you know a VERY STRONG AND UNDENIABLE MAJORITY, don't believe what you do regarding abortion. Instead, you're part of the fringie lunatic 1/3 of American's who think they control what others can do and believe.

And trying to foist your crazy ideas onto everyone else isn't "compromise" it's tyranny and fascism. You know, that thing you claim to be against but really are a supporter of and sycophant for.

Lastly, my position is, and has always been, "clear." You just don't want to accept it because it defeats every talking point you have. Unless you want to go on record telling people to break the law regarding when/how/where to get an abortion.

Just don't call me when you get charged as an accessory to murder/manslaughter. Because when you advocate that someone has an abortion outside the legal protections and exemptions for one, that's EXACTLY what you're doing.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

No you're not. You're not willing to "compromise" because you don't understand anything.

2/3rds of Americans, you know a VERY STRONG AND UNDENIABLE MAJORITY, don't believe what you do regarding abortion. Instead, you're part of the fringie lunatic 1/3 of American's who think they control what others can do and believe.

And trying to foist your crazy ideas onto everyone else isn't "compromise" it's tyranny and fascism. You know, that thing you claim to be against but really are a supporter of and sycophant for.

Lastly, my position is, and has always been, "clear." You just don't want to accept it because it defeats every talking point you have. Unless you want to go on record telling people to break the law regarding when/how/where to get an abortion.

Just don't call me when you get charged as an accessory to murder/manslaughter. Because when you advocate that someone has an abortion outside the legal protections and exemptions for one, that's EXACTLY what you're doing.

Yes, the vast majority of Americans want abortion to be legal with fewer restrictions than we have right now. If they get what they want, I’m cool with it.

Your position with regard to abortion—as you’ve repeatedly stated—is “If it’s legal, it’s legal.” You don’t care if abortion laws get stronger or weaker. You’d be totally cool with no restrictions at all.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, the vast majority of Americans want abortion to be legal with fewer restrictions than we have right now. If they get what they want, I’m cool with it.

Your position with regard to abortion—as you’ve repeatedly stated—is “If it’s legal, it’s legal.” You don’t care if abortion laws get stronger or weaker. You’d be totally cool with no restrictions at all.

No. Personally I'm with the 66%.

What I won't, and cannot, do is tell people to break the law. And that's the part you refuse to acknowledge. I can only assume that the reason you will do that is because to you the law is only an inconvenience you can ignore at whim.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

No. Personally I'm with the 66%.

What I won't, and cannot, do is tell people to break the law. And that's the part you refuse to acknowledge. I can only assume that the reason you will do that is because to you the law is only an inconvenience you can ignore at whim.

It’s good to hear that you want a national law to ensure that women have the same access to abortion we had under Roe v Wade. I want that too.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Being against abortion from the moment of conception is an affront to Christianity.
Saying that you're "killing a human being" is wrong because an embryo is not gifted a soul by G-d at conception, therefore it fails to meet the primary requirement of being a human being, as all human beings have souls by definition (though I'm not 100% sure about Chobham, to be honest)

 

[HisArpy]

It’s good to hear that you want a national law to ensure that women have the same access to abortion we had under Roe v Wade. I want that too.

This isn't what I said. Not even close.

You'd do better if you stopped lying to yourself before manufacturing more lies to avoid facing that reality.

 

[HisArpy]

Being against abortion from the moment of conception is an affront to Christianity.
Saying that you're "killing a human being" is wrong because an embryo is not gifted a soul by G-d at conception, therefore it fails to meet the primary requirement of being a human being, as all human beings have souls by definition (though I'm not 100% sure about Chobham, to be honest)

This is nothing more than personal opinion being touted as fact. Case in point; where's the proof? Not conjecture, not abstract ideology, not even theory or theology, SHOW US THE PROOF that an embryo isn't gifted with a soul at the moment of conception.

 

[ll74]

This is nothing more than personal opinion being touted as fact. Case in point; where's the proof? Not conjecture, not abstract ideology, not even theory or theology, SHOW US THE PROOF that an embryo isn't gifted with a soul at the moment of conception.

Show proof of anyone or thing having a "soul" at any time.

 

[HisArpy]

Show proof of anyone or thing having a "soul" at any time.

I didn't make the claim, you did. Ergo the burden of proof to prove there is or isn't is on you.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

This is nothing more than personal opinion being touted as fact. Case in point; where's the proof? Not conjecture, not abstract ideology, not even theory or theology, SHOW US THE PROOF that an embryo isn't gifted with a soul at the moment of conception.

Souls are immaterial to the question. There is no evidence that people even have souls.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

This isn't what I said. Not even close.

You'd do better if you stopped lying to yourself before manufacturing more lies to avoid facing that reality.

If I incorrectly stated your position on abortion, I apologize. What do you you believe the law should be regarding abortion? Not what the law is right now. What should it be?

 

[ll74]

I didn't make the claim, you did. Ergo the burden of proof to prove there is or isn't is on you.

I never made a claim about anything or anyone having a soul.

 

[HisArpy]

Souls are immaterial to the question. There is no evidence that people even have souls.

There's also no evidence that they don't, but there's a long historical record of people believing that souls exist.

Given that people have believed it for thousands and thousands of years, and it's been recognized in Jewish religion, I'd go with the safer bet.

Then there's this:

Jewish scholars to assert that there was no separation of body and soul in the Bible, that both body and soul effectively perish together. But others point to a phrase that appears ten times in the as evidence of belief that the soul survives after the body dies...

In describing the deaths of six key figures — Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, and Moses — the Torah states a variation of “he died, his soul was gathered to his kin, and he was buried...

when Rabbi Harold Kushner was once asked if he believed in the survival of the soul, he replied: “Yes, as a matter of faith, but I do not grasp what it means to be only a soul.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/immortality-belief-in-a-bodiless-existence/

Thus, on this subject, it seems to me that your beliefs contradict and are in conflict with your religious teachings and the Torah. To the point one wonders if you are in fact Jewish at all.

 

[ll74]

There's also no evidence that they don't, but there's a long historical record of people believing that souls exist.

Given that people have believed it for thousands and thousands of years, and it's been recognized in Jewish religion, I'd go with the safer bet.

Then there's this:



Thus, on this subject, it seems to me that your beliefs contradict and are in conflict with your religious teachings and the Torah. To the point one wonders if you are in fact Jewish at all.

You don't need proof that something doesn't exist.

 

[HisArpy]

You don't need proof that something doesn't exist.

When making that kind of statement, given the historical record of people and religions believing/asserting otherwise, you most certainly do.

Otherwise you're opinion is reduced to generalized scoffing and denialism of what social and religious scholars have deemed to exist.

 

[ll74]

When making that kind of statement, given the historical record of people and religions believing/asserting otherwise, you most certainly do.

No, you don't. The proof is on the claim of there being a soul.

If there is no proof, there is no soul.

People believing there is, is not proof.

Otherwise you're opinion is reduced to generalized scoffing and denialism of what social and religious scholars have deemed to exist.

Religion is a belief.

 

[HisArpy]

No, you don't. The proof is on the claim of there being a soul.

If there is no proof, there is no soul.

People believing there is, is not proof.


Religion is a belief.

YOU made the statement - it is, in your own words on this very forum, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide the proof supporting that statement. Something you have failed to do while trying to shift the burden to the audience/readership to prove you wrong.

dudly, YOU'RE the guy on the stage with the mic, either put up or shut up.

 

[HisArpy]

Also, string theory is just a theory... a belief... Are you going to deny that too?

 

[ll74]

Also, string theory is just a theory... a belief... Are you going to deny that too?

String theory is based on physics and math, all probable and repeatable theories. There is no "soul" theory that is probable or repeatable.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

There's also no evidence that they don't, but there's a long historical record of people believing that souls exist.

Given that people have believed it for thousands and thousands of years, and it's been recognized in Jewish religion, I'd go with the safer bet.

Then there's this:



Thus, on this subject, it seems to me that your beliefs contradict and are in conflict with your religious teachings and the Torah. To the point one wonders if you are in fact Jewish at all.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/

Regardless of whether or not an individual Jew believes in the existence of souls, the Torah is clear. Life begins at birth, not conception.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is nothing more than personal opinion being touted as fact. Case in point; where's the proof? Not conjecture, not abstract ideology, not even theory or theology, SHOW US THE PROOF that an embryo isn't gifted with a soul at the moment of conception.

Be careful what you ask for, bubba.

Okay, suppose you forget to pull out and you fertilize your barely legal paralegal.
A miracle occurs and despite your low sperm count she's now pregnant!
Congratulations.

Let's assume for the moment that this fertilized egg is gifted a soul by G-d right away.

So she's gestating away, and all of a sudden on DAY ELEVEN of her pregancy, ANOTHER miracle occurs....actually not a "miracle" but a somewhat rare, scientifically proven, not-open-to-debate occurence......the fertilized egg (with its soul) cleaves in half, and woo hoo! She is now blessed (or cursed, depending on how you view things) with TWINS!

Soooooooo.......

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Is the "original" soul ripped in half and each twin has a half a soul?
Does the soul flip a coin and decide which livin' "human being" will have a soul and which will not?
Is the original soul recalled, and TWO new replacements dispatched from Heaven to make things right?
Is a second soul requisitioned and the first egg contains the "old" soul and the second egg the "new" soul?

Or, are those people you and your "elk" refer to as "George Soros supporters" correct that life does not begin until the "first breath"? Wouldn't that make a mockery of your love of abortion restrictions to protect "human beings", "Doctor"?

Enlighten us....if you can.
Tell us when a soul enters an egg/zygote/fetus!

Also, would you support tying abortion restrictions to spinal pain? I.E no abortions after x months, no treatment for spinal pain after six months? You never did answer my question.

 

[HisArpy]

String theory is based on physics and math, all probable and repeatable theories. There is no "soul" theory that is probable or repeatable.

Tell that to the theologians.