Trump to expand Hobby Lobby to "moral convictions"

riscdeac said:

Okay then we are on the same page. Thanks for clarifying.

Well I can only say how I feel. It's not religious. I can't argue personhood as you have shared here

I would have to say the baby lives through the moms womb. If the brain isn't alive as you say, I look at it as the brain isn't fully developed yet. However, the determination to end the baby's life in utero because baby is still growing and needs to live off of its mother is the same baby that isn't developed enough to walk and talk and eat on its own outside of the womb either.

The machine is not the uterus. The baby is dead living on the machine as all other humans who have been declared brain dead as in a fully functioning brain that has been injured and dies. The machine is a simple pump. There is nothing artificial about a baby developing brain inside of the womb. The womb isn't a pump and the baby is alive and continuing to grow and live.

Hopefully be a deac someday too!

By the way, babies die inside the womb. I have experienced (not me personally) death in the womb. The moms I knew had babies die in the third trimester. They would carry till labor. That was 27 years ago. I know many women this has happened to over the years.

Click to expand...

riscdeac said:

KARLLLLLLLLLLL thinks Moonz may be pregnant and is planning a baby shower!!

Click to expand...

riscdeac said:

KARLLLLLLLLLLL thinks Moonz may be pregnant and is planning a baby shower!!

Click to expand...

riscdeac said:

Now I'll be a friend to Karllllllll and tell him not to use the expression "very very badly". Lolol

Click to expand...

riscdeac said:

You have a strong opinion about conception and value. Common sense really has nothing to do with it. You can pick and choose any point from conception on and argue.

Click to expand...

Louis Gossett Jr said:

It never makes sense because the people that support these weird bullshit positions,usually in the name of religion, contradict that moral high ground with some other hypocritical action two seconds later. Like hobby lobby and their investments in companies that make birth control.

Click to expand...

I know so many of these people, particularly when I was in college. I remember MULTIPLE couples in college that accidentally became pregnant, but they were against abortion as it was "against god's will" or they considered it killing and therefore breaking a commandment. But they were all much more scared of telling their parents who were paying their bills than going against god, so they all got abortions. One such person I know had 3 in two years. People always tell me stuff like this for some reason, even when I'm not a close friend. I guess because as a general rule I don't gossip, and they wanted to tell someone. Anyway that particularly chick I unfriended on FB a couple years ago after seeing all her evangelical tirades against abortion.

🙄

🙄. Had she not come from a considerable amount of money and had actually had all three children, she wouldn't have a pot to piss in these days. But of course she feels quite holier than thou because I guess she believes her own lies. Almost wish I hadn't unfriended her so she could see this...she's certainly the epitome of high class white trash. Even with a degree from WFU.

Click to expand...

Like Elizabeth, Megan's* childhood in the deep South was steeped in evangelical moral and social codes. She went to church every Sunday and attended a private Christian school from the fifth grade on. "It was a part of every aspect of my life. All the people I associated with were evangelical," Megan, now 34, recounts. At the time, she took their teachings to heart. "I'm a people pleaser and I wanted to do what was right. I got straight As. I played sports. I went along with it."
Then Megan went away to college and, after a year of dating her first boyfriend, decided she was ready for sex. She knew she needed birth control, but she was worried that if she used her health insurance to pay for it, her mother would find out she was sexually active. So Megan went to a nearby Planned Parenthood instead—easy enough to hide if she paid in cash. "Nothing with any sort of paper trail," she says.
To go to Planned Parenthood—a place many evangelicals associate only with abortions—was an uncomfortable step. But Megan had come to grips with the fact that she was already crossing a red line by engaging in premarital sex; she decided she might as well be responsible about it.

By senior year, Megan and her boyfriend had broken up. She was dating around for the first time and had stopped taking birth control. That's when a guy "took advantage" of her. She hesitates as she relates the incident, drawing in a sharp breath. Then: "There was a situation where I felt pressured to go beyond the point that I wanted to go."
After the assault, Megan discovered that she was pregnant. The news devastated her. Which explains why, despite her upbringing, she made an extreme decision: to return to Planned Parenthood and get an abortion.
Megan had done the moral math. It was worse to endure the disgrace of being an unmarried mother than it was to live with the secret—and the guilt—of terminating the pregnancy. "There was just so much shame in being pregnant and unmarried," she explains. "I thought, There is no way I can face my mother and my community back home with this." Again she paid for everything in cash. To this day, her family doesn't know.

Click to expand...

riscdeac said:

Maybe you will finally answer PHDOC

WHAT is it with Christians and Evangelicals? I was raised in the North. Is the entire south like this? How much of the south is made up of these extreme evangelical nuts? Can you answer me this time?

Click to expand...

riscdeac said:

So regardless of science or religion, the beginnng of life is debatable always

Click to expand...

ConnorEl said:

Sorry to be away and not able to continue the discussion. And maybe sorry to revive a bit this thread. I just won't have much availability to be here for a while.

RJ's right, the OP is really not about "abortion" so much as health insurance and influences wrt particular coverages. I have never favored a government "takeover" of health care, but we do need, IMO, government regulation of the same. Within limits, deductibles, co-pays, etc. can reasonably vary. But what testing or treatments are covered or not should be based on factors of value, necessity, etc. Not religion. Not that any such decisions are necessarily simple or straightforward. But they should be based, IMO, on medical, ethical, and economic considerations. Yet even then, such determinations don't occur in a cultural vacuum.

I also agree that it makes no sense to argue for the value of unborn human life and seem relatively (or at all) unconcerned about human life after birth.

Assigning value to human life is ideally done subjectively by the one living their particular life. Most living organisms, yes even single celled ones, seem to strive to live, so the "desire" (merely biologic or conscious) to live is generally reasonable to assume. And do live until they naturally degenerate and dissipate, find themselves in an non-sustaining environment, or are killed by another organism (typically as a food source but maybe as a perceived competitor for resources, etc.).

We are naturally, however, compelled to assign some value to other things (alive or not). And we must make such evaluations both as individuals and collectively as a society. And these evaluations are largely just conditioned preferences. Being able to point to some "objective" property of an object is not the same as any object possessing an "intrinsic" value. Value determinations are inherently subjective and require an evaluator.

So it is for us to decide if and to what extent we value pre-born human life. At this time in our society, determination of that value is largely left to the parents, particularly/especially the mother. So there's nothing "intrinsic" about it. Some are highly valued, others not. Or not as much as the life of the mother unencumbered by parenthood, or unembarrassed by unplanned or unwed pregnancy.

The notion of personhood, useful or even necessary as it may be, is an artificial construct. Usually designed to exclude the non-persons from certain rights, privileges and protections granted to persons in a society. Ultimately it's just a way to express a subjective value preference, even if based on some objective property.

Hell, Eric Trump says opponents of his Dad are non-persons! [They’re not even people”: why Eric Trump’s dehumanizing language matters]

Click to expand...