Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

2&2 Slider To Leyritz · May 29, 2015

Deacon923 said:
Well, according to the Catholic Church, the answer to your question is "yes".

However, the Catholics also have church sponsored classes on natural birth control using the cycle method, so that Catholics can have plenty of sex without fear of (a) babies or (b) hellfire. No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me the critical moral difference between using a spreadsheet to track the wife's cycle vs. using a condom so you don't have to do all that work.

Because God gave you several weeks out of the month to bang without consequences, so take advantage of it. God did not (directly) invent the condom.

WakeandBake · May 29, 2015

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Which individual? If you're talking about the mother, in the vast majority of cases, she made the relevant decision several months prior.

Jesus, for like the 100th time, nobody (even Wrangor) is arguing against it in the case of health concerns for the mother. But 95% of abortions don't involve health concerns for the mother (or rape, or incest, or the other insignificant excuses). Stop arguing against it.

I've said it before, but I agree with Wrangor that to call it anything other than murder is just conscious blinders by whoever is trying to justify it to themselves; however I also don't think it wrong to give that murderous decision to the mother, but just call it what it is. And if we are to treat that as legal, then other types of murder-for-convenience should be legal as well (physician-assisted suicide; third-party euthanasia; life-without-parole death squads, etc.)

what about voluntary manslaughter? You know, pregnancy brain and all...

Deacon923 · May 29, 2015

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Because God gave you several weeks out of the month to bang without consequences, so take advantage of it. God did not (directly) invent the condom.

i am pretty sure this is not the official Catholic explanation.

2&2 Slider To Leyritz · May 29, 2015

I do, in all seriousness. That is what they taught us in Catholic school. The timing is the "natural" way, condoms are man's interference with the natural timing.

DeacWatcher · May 29, 2015

Hey Mods, can we just start a separate thread for abortion?

ImTheCaptain · May 29, 2015

DeacWatcher said:
Hey Mods, can we just start a separate thread for abortion?

so, you want to just end this conversation prematurely?

NonSequiturDeac · May 29, 2015

Deacon923 said:
Well, according to the Catholic Church, the answer to your question is "yes".

However, the Catholics also have church sponsored classes on natural birth control using the cycle method, so that Catholics can have plenty of sex without fear of (a) babies or (b) hellfire. No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me the critical moral difference between using a spreadsheet to track the wife's cycle vs. using a condom so you don't have to do all that work.

I'm not interested in the Church's view, I'm interested in those on here who might be anti-abortion (either pro-choice or pro-life) and their stances on contraception. If it is about preventing the chance of life ever occurring, it seems as though you could back up to suggesting contraception is also immoral or otherwise only view sex as a means towards procreation. I think the latter path is illuminating towards a lot of rhetoric surrounding sexual politics.

ThinkingWithMyDeac · May 29, 2015

DeacWatcher said:
Hey Mods, can we just start a separate thread for abortion?

SkinsNDeacs · May 29, 2015

Lol...funny I can tell what threads were started by a departed poster by the titles.

jhmd2000 · May 29, 2015

PhDeac said:
How many people who are anti-abortion here had no problem with that cop slamming the pregnant woman on her belly?

Out of curiosity, why should a pregnant woman's case be any more aggravated than slamming any other person to the ground on their belly?

deacvision7 · May 29, 2015

NonSequiturDeac said:
I'm not interested in the Church's view, I'm interested in those on here who might be anti-abortion (either pro-choice or pro-life) and their stances on contraception. If it is about preventing the chance of life ever occurring, it seems as though you could back up to suggesting contraception is also immoral or otherwise only view sex as a means towards procreation. I think the latter path is illuminating towards a lot of rhetoric surrounding sexual politics.

I'm pro-choice and pro-consensual sex.

FuckmouthedRube · May 29, 2015

IamThunderbolt said:
Yep.

I'm pro-life, which is actually why I tend to vote more with the left - I actually think it's the party that's more pro-life

Death Penalty - which side seeks to preserve life?

Abortion - 70% of abortions are done for economic reasons (stat from memory, I can try to tack it down if someone wants to argue it)

So which party seeks to extend healthcare, making the cost of having a child manageable?

Which party seeks to raise the minimum wage, increasing the chance a mom (esp, single mom) can care for the child?

Which party is pushing for maternity leave?

Which party is pushing for greater access to childcare and early childhood education?

Which party is pushing for greater access to birth control and non abstinence-only education?

All of these things would reduce the abortion rate in the country and work on the core of the issue.

On the flip side, which party seeks simply to pass legislation, doing nothing to work with the underlying causes of abortion - most likely driving abortions underground?

edited to add: I am in favor of legislating limits on abortions, and pretty strict limits as long as measures are being taken to help parents care for the child. Being actually pro-life and not just pro-birth.

Deacon923 said:
Well, according to the Catholic Church, the answer to your question is "yes".

However, the Catholics also have church sponsored classes on natural birth control using the cycle method, so that Catholics can have plenty of sex without fear of (a) babies or (b) hellfire. No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me the critical moral difference between using a spreadsheet to track the wife's cycle vs. using a condom so you don't have to do all that work.

I'm always puzzled by how the Church can advocate against the use of condoms (especially in developing countries) when they know it's an effective way of slowing the spread of AIDS. Should value all lives and not ignore something that can slow spread of a fatal disease.

PhDeac · May 29, 2015

jhmd2000 said:
Out of curiosity, why should a pregnant woman's case be any more aggravated than slamming any other person to the ground on their belly?

Read Wrangor's posts for more on the subject. I'm curious why you believe the life of a baby is more important when it comes to the decision to have an abortion rather than when a cop decides to put the life of the baby at risk.

jhmd2000 · May 29, 2015

PhDeac said:
Read Wrangor's posts for more on the subject. I'm curious why you believe the life of a baby is more important when it comes to the decision to have an abortion rather than when a cop decides to put the life of the baby at risk.

The what?

deacvision7 · May 29, 2015

jhmd2000 said:
The what?

You apparently don't realize that Ph's views on this topic nearly mirror your own. He said that he is personally anti-abortion, but understands that making that a national law is unfeasible.

jhmd2000 · May 29, 2015

deacvision7 said:
You apparently don't realize that Ph's views on this topic nearly mirror your own. He said that he is personally anti-abortion, but understands that making that a national law is unfeasible.

Ah, yes, the old "it is hard, so we just quit" theory. Too much time near you Millenials for the good Doctor.

2&2 Slider To Leyritz · May 29, 2015

PhDeac said:
Read Wrangor's posts for more on the subject. I'm curious why you believe the life of a baby is more important when it comes to the decision to have an abortion rather than when a cop decides to put the life of the baby at risk.

I don't think it is. If someone assaults a pregnant woman they can usually be charged with homicide or manslaughter as it relates to the fetus, if injury or miscarriage occurs. If the actions of the cop in this instance resulted in either, then he should be charged accordingly.
At least in North Carolina, the laws for third party injury to a fetus are much more stringent than the developmental arguments on here in favor of abortion, as "Unborn child" is defined as a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. Which goes back to my point with Junebug that it is either a human or it is not; it is not some other life form that then becomes a human.

wakephan09 · May 29, 2015

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Jesus, for like the 100th time, nobody (even Wrangor) is arguing against it in the case of health concerns for the mother. But 95% of abortions don't involve health concerns for the mother (or rape, or incest, or the other insignificant excuses). Stop arguing against it.

What on earth are you talking about? Does anyone even read the preceding posts before responding? Or do you rely on your preconceived notions of morality and Fox-news inspired talking points to respond without thinking first?

I am not talking about exceptions in the case of health concerns for the mother. I AM TALKING ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Like a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. Reproductive rights, in general. Or that a woman should be paid the same as a man for the same job. Or violence against women. Institutional oppression. Things like that.

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I've said it before, but I agree with Wrangor that to call it anything other than murder is just conscious blinders by whoever is trying to justify it to themselves; however I also don't think it wrong to give that murderous decision to the mother, but just call it what it is. And if we are to treat that as legal, then other types of murder-for-convenience should be legal as well (physician-assisted suicide; third-party euthanasia; life-without-parole death squads, etc.)

So we agree, more or less. Great.

Wrangor is still caught up in the fact that someone (a lot of people, actually) can be anti-abortion for reasons other than MURDER or vote pro-choice for reasons other than the life of a fetus.

NonSequiturDeac said:
By this logic, should contraception not be considered immoral/illegal too? It's preventing the "potential to become life." Or Plan B?

I'd be interested in answers from both the ideologically pure (Wrangor) and the philosophically curious (wakephan09 and others).

David Lodge, in 1980, on the question:

"Any intelligent, educated Catholic of that generation [early 60s, pre-Pope Paul VI] who had remained a practising Catholic through adolescence and early adulthood had made a kind of existential contract: in return for the reassurance and stability afforded by the Catholic metaphysical system, one accepted the moral imperatives that went with it, even if they were in practice sometimes inhumanely difficult and demanding. It was precisely the strength of the system that it was total, comprehensive and uncompromising, and it seemed to those brought up in the system that to question one part of it was to question all of it, and that to pick and choose among its moral imperatives, flouting those which were inconveniently difficult, was simply hypocritical."

Based on their responses, it seems that most of those people on this thread think that life begins at contraception, and it was only me that proposed the "potential for life" supposition. I suggested it as a hypothetical (in the third person) primarily to posit the flaws in Wrangor's logic (because he really does seem genuinely interested in justifying his personal religious beliefs logically -- e.g. on war). I don't like abortion for a variety of personal reasons, but none of which are because I think it is murder. But none of those reasons are more important, in my opinion, than giving women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies (and again, for 2&2, this is NOT a reference to health concerns for the mother).

PhDeac · May 29, 2015

jhmd2000 said:
The what?

The baby. "Baby" is typically what we call a smaller human. So why do you think it is fine for a cop to slam a pregnant woman on her belly?

wakephan09 · May 29, 2015

jhmd2000 said:
The what?

PhDeac said:
The baby. "Baby" is typically what we call a smaller human. So why do you think it is fine for a cop to slam a pregnant woman on her belly?

See, this is just annoying. Both of you know exactly what the other person is saying, and you are both trolling.

I suppose this is what happens when the same ten people are yelling at each other day after day -- no one is ever going to change their opinions. That's why it is helpful to have a punching bag like RJ who is/was terrible at typing and easy to catch in logical inconsistencies.

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

Well-known member

Well-known member

Scooter Banks

Well-known member

Ricky Peral

I disagree with you

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Unacceptably correct

Mod Emeritus

Well-known member

PM a mod to cement your internet status forever

Unacceptably correct

Mod Emeritus

Unacceptably correct

Well-known member

fuck duke

PM a mod to cement your internet status forever

fuck duke