Also in the news

[marbles]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm not sure that's quite as fair as you think it is - his basic position is 'God is fact', and that's a totally unreasonable premise to force on any argument.

I misunderstood you.  Definitely won’t be the last time - I routinely misunderstand things

 

I was thinking you meant that he wouldn’t budge from his premise, but expected the opposition to make concessions.  
Religion never even popped into my little brain.

Edited 26 June 2022 by marbles

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

It's a very difficult discussion to have when one person openly states 'I won't even listen to you on anything else related to this debate unless you agree with me on one particular premise', which is what our God-believing correspondent did.

 

I am not sure that would be tolerated if anyone else tried to do that in any other discussion.

My post has been deleted but that is not what I said. I said I won’t listen to arguments about other things until you can prove me wrong about one particular thing.

 

As long as science and logic show that a baby in the womb is human, I can’t support any notion of killing it. So that’s where the debate lies for me. Is the baby in the womb human. 
 

There are so many reasons why someone might want an abortion and they are worth talking about so that we can establish some way of dealing with it. But not if we are defining human beings differently, that’s why this topic is so controversial and so 2 sided. So that’s the elephant in the room. 
 

 

[HighPeakFox]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

My post has been deleted but that is not what I said. I said I won’t listen to arguments about other things until you can prove me wrong about one particular thing.

 

As long as science and logic show that a baby in the womb is human, I can’t support any notion of killing it. So that’s where the debate lies for me. Is the baby in the womb human. 
 

There are so many reasons why someone might want an abortion and they are worth talking about so that we can establish some way of dealing with it. But not if we are defining human beings differently, that’s why this topic is so controversial and so 2 sided. So that’s the elephant in the room. 

I disagree with your premise, but I respect your approach.

[Dunge]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

My post has been deleted but that is not what I said. I said I won’t listen to arguments about other things until you can prove me wrong about one particular thing.

 

As long as science and logic show that a baby in the womb is human, I can’t support any notion of killing it. So that’s where the debate lies for me. Is the baby in the womb human. 
 

There are so many reasons why someone might want an abortion and they are worth talking about so that we can establish some way of dealing with it. But not if we are defining human beings differently, that’s why this topic is so controversial and so 2 sided. So that’s the elephant in the room. 
 

 

A lot of people tend to go with viable human life, ie whether the baby/entity/block of cells/whatever it should be called could survive outside of the womb. This is generally accepted to be somewhere around the mid-term point, others may have a more precise definition.

 

As such, my question to you would be - outside of a religious perspective - why should any entity before that date have any greater rights than a sperm?

 

And is the position of viable human life not already a reasonable compromise between pro-life and complete body autonomy?

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

My post has been deleted but that is not what I said. I said I won’t listen to arguments about other things until you can prove me wrong about one particular thing.

 

As long as science and logic show that a baby in the womb is human, I can’t support any notion of killing it. So that’s where the debate lies for me. Is the baby in the womb human. 
 

There are so many reasons why someone might want an abortion and they are worth talking about so that we can establish some way of dealing with it. But not if we are defining human beings differently, that’s why this topic is so controversial and so 2 sided. So that’s the elephant in the room. 
 

 

Without me having to trawl back through the debate, is there any circumstance where you would accept an abortion taking place ? (Other than where the foetus has died). 

[Benguin]

10 minutes ago, Dunge said:

A lot of people tend to go with viable human life, ie whether the baby/entity/block of cells/whatever it should be called could survive outside of the womb. This is generally accepted to be somewhere around the mid-term point, others may have a more precise definition.

 

As such, my question to you would be - outside of a religious perspective - why should any entity before that date have any greater rights than a sperm?

 

And is the position of viable human life not already a reasonable compromise between pro-life and complete body autonomy?

It’s difficult to withdraw from a religious perspective as that’s the lens I look at everything through. For me, life starts at conception. A sperm has the potential to become a human being but it’s not yet. As soon as a sperm fertilises an egg, that’s a human life. I think science largely agrees with that as far as I can tell. 
 

To the second question, I don’t think that is what is on offer from the other side currently. Not even close. 
 

 

[Benguin]

32 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Without me having to trawl back through the debate, is there any circumstance where you would accept an abortion taking place ? (Other than where the foetus has died). 

For me personally, as in my child, no. As a matter of law, I don’t think we should prosecute people who choose abortion in very limited circumstances. Similar to other points of law I.e killing someone who is trying to kill you etc. 

 

 

 

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

For me personally, as in my child, no. As a matter of law, I don’t think we should prosecute people who choose abortion in very limited circumstances. Similar to other points of law I.e killing someone who is trying to kill you etc. 

 

To clarify, if the mothers life is endangered then that is not a justification for you (Yes it’s a dreadful scenario).  I am aware most faiths that do not permit abortion make an allowance for this eventuality.  I note that you would not see a legally restrictive position on this based on your reply. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

For me personally, as in my child, no. As a matter of law, I don’t think we should prosecute people who choose abortion in very limited circumstances. Similar to other points of law I.e killing someone who is trying to kill you etc. 

 

 

 

I'm still curious to know your take on the slippery slope that could now await given this precedent and Judge Thomas' comments.

 

Obergefell v Hodges, Plessy v Ferguson, Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Education, Lawrence v Texas, Griswold v Connecticut...

 

Do you reckon any of these are in the equal rights firing line next? I do, but I'm open to the idea of being convinced otherwise. Given current circumstances, however, it would take some pretty exacting arguments to be convincing.

[st albans fox]

deleted - the debate hasn’t got this far yet ! 

 

Edited 26 June 2022 by st albans fox

[The Horse's Mouth]

9 hours ago, Dunge said:

In answer to your question: Kind of. I’m not sure I’d define it as “not human”, but I’m not sure we ever invented the right word for it. Whatever “it” is, I see it as the mother’s choice until birth, and certainly with different rights to a born baby. Although I appreciate I go further on the topic than others would, and it’s certainly not a hill I intend to die on.

So you're fine with abortion a day before the birth?

[Dunge]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It’s difficult to withdraw from a religious perspective as that’s the lens I look at everything through. For me, life starts at conception. A sperm has the potential to become a human being but it’s not yet. As soon as a sperm fertilises an egg, that’s a human life. I think science largely agrees with that as far as I can tell. 
 

To the second question, I don’t think that is what is on offer from the other side currently. Not even close. 
 

 

I wrote about it being outside of a religious perspective because of your line above “As long as science and logic show that a baby in the womb is human, I can’t support any notion of killing it.”, so I inferred those were the parameters of the debate.

 

I think the whole thing that none of science can state at what point life begins is the whole thing here, particularly with regard to human beings and sentience. It’s a grey area between a sperm being created and a baby being born. Granted fertilisation is probably the most significant thing in that process, but that in itself doesn’t define a human life. The question then becomes one of philosophy or theology. I appreciate from past discussions that I have a lot looser view on the flexibility of those things than you do.

 

As for viable human life, is that not what was on offer generally? I don’t think there was any serious campaign to increase it to “abortions for all”, and even if there was I don’t then see the necessity of moving the needle in the opposite direction.

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

So you're fine with abortion a day before the birth?

Technically yes. But as I say, it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on.

[Dunge]

It’s worth adding that there are very good reasons why you shouldn’t at that point - Medical, psychological; it would be an undoubtedly traumatic experience and I’m not for a moment pretending otherwise. But I wouldn’t prosecute.

[Innovindil]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm still curious to know your take on the slippery slope that could now await given this precedent and Judge Thomas' comments.

 

Obergefell v Hodges, Plessy v Ferguson, Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Education, Lawrence v Texas, Griswold v Connecticut...

 

Do you reckon any of these are in the equal rights firing line next? I do, but I'm open to the idea of being convinced otherwise. Given current circumstances, however, it would take some pretty exacting arguments to be convincing.

I don't follow murican politics all that well, don't suppose you can give a quick summary of what each of those are for the people that can't be arsed to google could you please? 

[HighPeakFox]

I think perhaps we should start a separate thread on this specific topic, otherwise we'll get cut again, and I can totally understand why.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I don't follow murican politics all that well, don't suppose you can give a quick summary of what each of those are for the people that can't be arsed to google could you please? 

Obergefell v Hodges - ruling legalising same-sex marriage.

Plessy v Ferguson - ruling based on racial segregation, "separate but equal" treatment.

Loving v Virginia - ruling legalising interracial marriage (ruling bans of it unconstitutional).

Brown v Board of Education - ruling stating that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional.

Lawrence v Texas - ruling stating that laws criminalising gay sex were unconstitutional.

Griswold v Connecticut - ruling allowing for people to buy contraceptives without government interference/bans.

 

I mention all of these because in the last few days all of these have been suggested, either by Repub lawmakers or Justice Thomas, to be "revisited".

 

6 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think perhaps we should start a separate thread on this specific topic, otherwise we'll get cut again, and I can totally understand why.

For abortion only, I would agree.

[Dunge]

33 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think perhaps we should start a separate thread on this specific topic, otherwise we'll get cut again, and I can totally understand why.

You’re telling me to abort this conversation? 

[Countryfox]

44 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think perhaps we should start a separate thread on this specific topic, otherwise we'll get cut again, and I can totally understand why.

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

For abortion only, I would agree.

I think said thread would probably end up being deleted ..  but they can’t delete it yet cus it hasn’t been born ..  sorry I mean started ..  

 

But seriously I think the argument has fixed on ‘is it a human’ ..  and in my opinion it isn’t a human being until the day it is born. As it gets nearer to being born then the psychological situation changes ..  but ultimately the rights of the woman are paramount.  And to use the obvious argument (yet again) .. a victim of rape should be allowed ..  totally and utterly ..  to have an abortion.  If you would agree with that Benguin then the debate might be able to move on. 

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm still curious to know your take on the slippery slope that could now await given this precedent and Judge Thomas' comments.

 

Obergefell v Hodges, Plessy v Ferguson, Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Education, Lawrence v Texas, Griswold v Connecticut...

 

Do you reckon any of these are in the equal rights firing line next? I do, but I'm open to the idea of being convinced otherwise. Given current circumstances, however, it would take some pretty exacting arguments to be convincing.

If I am honest, I don’t know enough about them to comment anything that would be helpful. 
 

What I can say is that as a Christian we are taught to love sinners and hate sin whereas in the USA there is a lot of hate sinners and hate sin. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they were targeted next. 

[Benguin]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If I am honest, I don’t know enough about them to comment anything that would be helpful. 
 

What I can say is that as a Christian we are taught to love sinners and hate sin whereas in the USA there is a lot of hate sinners and hate sin. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they were targeted next. 

Another thing I would add is, that us Brits have a weird infatuation with US politics and there are far more obvious targets in the world for those with progressive ideologies. I can’t believe how easy the Middle East and Asia get it when it comes to UK students protesting. (Tongue in cheek comment before people get offended) 

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If I am honest, I don’t know enough about them to comment anything that would be helpful. 
 

What I can say is that as a Christian we are taught to love sinners and hate sin whereas in the USA there is a lot of hate sinners and hate sin. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they were targeted next. 

Fair enough.

 

I sincerely hope they aren't targeted next but I think they may be for the exact reasons you state here.

 

42 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Another thing I would add is, that us Brits have a weird infatuation with US politics and there are far more obvious targets in the world for those with progressive ideologies. I can’t believe how easy the Middle East and Asia get it when it comes to UK students protesting. (Tongue in cheek comment before people get offended) 

This is also fair, but it's also something that's popped up before.

 

There certainly are more repressive regimes than the US that come to mind through anything more than a cursory look, however for me the difference is that all of those other nasty places aren't bound and determined to "export" and sell their particular brand of "exceptionalism" to the world and present themselves as the best thing since sliced bread through extensive worldwide media output. Thus, the US is held to a higher standard than those places...which at the present time, it's struggling to meet.

 

Another thing might be that parsing US political news is much easier for UK citizens due to the common language, whereas for other places it's more difficult to understand what's really going on without a grasp of the native tongue.

[Jattdogg]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/norway-shaken-by-attack-that-kills-2-during-pride-festival-1.5962682

 

Not sure if this was posted.  Horrible news.

 

Edited 26 June 2022 by Jattdogg

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/norway-shaken-by-attack-that-kills-2-during-pride-festival-1.5962682

 

Not sure if this was posted.  Horrible news.

 

Yeah.

 

Another fundie trying to terrorist the LGBT community. Seems to be a lot of that about - legislative and out in the world.

[urban.spaceman]

 

I wonder - bear with me - if any of those judges have shares in contraceptive companies?