Where I stand... because this has apparently been confusing to people...

[Damocles]

I don't want to step on Owl's question, but do you approach this from a 'Religious' view?

I am a Theravada Buddhist. I'm not sure what you mean by the question. However the approach I prefer certainly aligns with my philosophy.

I also think we should approach "personhood" the same way on both sides of life. The point where there is enough brainpower for a fetus to "wonder" what their fingers are for they become a person, just as you die legally once your brain stops functioning and you no longer wonder what you might want to do with those same fingers.

(again these are simplified, I do not have time to get into another wall of text, brevity is a good thing in this circumstance.)

 

[Jack]

This one was huge and lasted quite some time. My experience with earthquakes is much different than yours, though you are right to prefer earthquakes to hurricanes.

Maybe. Our Mothers told us if there ever was the Big One ... the rest of the US would fall off into the Atlantic. That was the attitude we grew up with.

 

[Damocles]

I cannot even imagine a U.S. where the religious do-gooders would go along with your suggestion of an artificial womb, particularly if even a penny of taxpayer money went for R&D for such a thing. Let's say though that 50 years down the road, your invention is created and approved by the FDA. Who then is going to pay for the costs of incubating a fetus for the nine months it takes to grow to maturity? For that matter, who's going to pay to have the fetus removed from the mom? What happens after the fetus is born, who then provides for the child? Who will be his/her parents? The state?

There are plenty of kids waiting for adoptive parents. We don't need to add more to the crowd. We need to make it less expensive and less difficult. Bless you for adopting.

Who is going to pay? The same people who pay for pregnancy now... or whatever we come up with to cover those expenses in the long run. If your sole reason to support killing anything is that it might cost you some money then you don't really have a moral platform to stand on. Sometimes there are costs to doing the right thing. I also believe that we can do better with birth control.

And while there are kids waiting for adoptive parents, there are far too many restrictions placed on those who may want to adopt. Often, like a friend who recently wanted to adopt found, there are age restrictions placed by the agencies. Often kids are available for fostering, but not adoption. It really is way too difficult. On this we have agreement.

I believe, like historic genocides of the past (not saying it is the same thing here, just saying like the fact those people who lived then didn't think of it this way), we will eventually look back at the time we used abortion as birth control as an atrocity.

 

[Damocles]

I disagree with you on the death penalty. We can eliminate mistakes by requiring at least two credible witnesses or DNA evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is not nearly accurate enough to kill people over, some have been wrongly convicted with far more than two witnesses to later be released. It is costly and useless. Let them set in prison never to leave those walls until they are ashes.

 

[Jack]

I am a Theravada Buddhist. I'm not sure what you mean by the question. However the approach I prefer certainly aligns with my philosophy.

I also think we should approach "personhood" the same way on both sides of life. The point where there is enough brainpower for a fetus to "wonder" what their fingers are for they become a person, just as you die legally once your brain stops functioning and you no longer wonder what you might want to do with those same fingers.

(again these are simplified, I do not have time to get into another wall of text, brevity is a good thing in this circumstance.)

I only ask the question because some believe in 'Gods' and 'Ancient Manuscripts'. This influences their thought rather than a cold-blooded pragmatic, logical, reasoned approach.
Killing your child is a tough decision. I would imagine each circumstance is different.

Damocles: "I am a Theravada Buddhist".
Jack: I'm not sure what that is, but I would support you doing whatever you wanted to do with your 'biological tissue' before it was born. I would hope you would have the same respect for me (and others).

Some 'Religious-types' like to CONTROL other people, try to bend them to their way of thinking, force them to do things they don't want to do, take their individual Liberty away under some 'righteous' pretext. I'm for Individual Freedom.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Who is going to pay? The same people who pay for pregnancy now... or whatever we come up with to cover those expenses in the long run. If your sole reason to support killing anything is that it might cost you some money then you don't really have a moral platform to stand on. Sometimes there are costs to doing the right thing. I also believe that we can do better with birth control.

Ding ding ding -- that's a winner. As far as who pays for the fetuses/post-birth children -- that is not my argument; I was playing Devil's advocate from the conservative side since they only care about the pre-born. After that, in conservaworld, you're on your own. Notice that I prefaced my comments with the remark about the religious do-gooders being against such a scheme and not wanting taxpayer funds to go towards it. In other words, it would be a very difficult sell -- to them, not myself.

BTW, the incidence of abortion being used as primary method of b.c. has been dropping, thankfully. (https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rel...-report-using-contraception-month-they-became) To me personally it is abhorrent. Yet it is not *my* place to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. I hope that we can get over our Puritan squeamishness about discussing sexuality and starting in grade school, even, begin to teach kids how our bodies work, how to prevent pregnancy and STDs, and to talk openly and factually about sexuality.


And while there are kids waiting for adoptive parents, there are far too many restrictions placed on those who may want to adopt. Often, like a friend who recently wanted to adopt found, there are age restrictions placed by the agencies. Often kids are available for fostering, but not adoption. It really is way too difficult. On this we have agreement.

I believe, like historic genocides of the past (not saying it is the same thing here, just saying like the fact those people who lived then didn't think of it this way), we will eventually look back at the time we used abortion as birth control as an atrocity.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jack]

Who is going to pay? The same people who pay for pregnancy now... or whatever we come up with to cover those expenses in the long run. If your sole reason to support killing anything is that it might cost you some money then you don't really have a moral platform to stand on. Sometimes there are costs to doing the right thing. I also believe that we can do better with birth control.

And while there are kids waiting for adoptive parents, there are far too many restrictions placed on those who may want to adopt. Often, like a friend who recently wanted to adopt found, there are age restrictions placed by the agencies. Often kids are available for fostering, but not adoption. It really is way too difficult. On this we have agreement.

I believe, like historic genocides of the past (not saying it is the same thing here, just saying like the fact those people who lived then didn't think of it this way), we will eventually look back at the time we used abortion as birth control as an atrocity.

Damocles: "Who is going to pay?'
Jack: That is a legitimate question. How many crack babies can I put you down for?

Damocles: "... then you don't really have a moral platform to stand on."
Jack: No one is claiming that. It could be a financial decision.

Damocles: "... we will eventually look back at the time we used abortion as birth control as an atrocity".
Jack: Do you think China and their 'One Child' policy will be looked at that way? Or will it be looked at as a pragmatic approach to over population?

 

[Mason Michaels]

I agree wholeheartedly. But you are missing the point. The other side doesn't want that. They want to erode our traditions and the meaning of family to fit their narrow family eroding agenda.

This is an agenda to pretend that liking the other sex is normal; that one can choose their gender regardless of biology. This is not about wanting equality, it is about tearing down the very fabric that keeps us civilized.

The Republican being "civilized" ship has sailed.

 

[Irish Exit]

I am a Theravada Buddhist.....

So you started JPP to add a great deal of suffering to your life to kickstart your arse toward the eightfold path did you?

 

[Jack]

Thanks for spilling your guts, man. You are pretty weird, but I reckon I am also.

YOU are the 'Religious-type' that will automatically oppose someone else getting an abortion. YOU will stick YOUR nose in other people's personal affairs. You will use 'Righteous Indignation'.

 

[Damocles]

Damocles: "Who is going to pay?'
Jack: That is a legitimate question. How many crack babies can I put you down for?

One of the main benefits of ex utero incubation would be the fact that there would be no "crack babies".

Damocles: "... then you don't really have a moral platform to stand on."
Jack: No one is claiming that. It could be a financial decision.

It could be, thus the child would be available for adoption in a system that would allow adoption much easier and cheaper.

Damocles: "... we will eventually look back at the time we used abortion as birth control as an atrocity".
Jack: Do you think China and their 'One Child' policy will be looked at that way? Or will it be looked at as a pragmatic approach to over population?

Yes. I believe that China and their "one child" policy has already been looked at that way.

 

[Damocles]

What's your take on Defamation law?

Depends on what you mean. Should you be allowed to lie about somebody because of the 1st Amendment?

 

[Jack]

One of the main benefits of ex utero incubation would be the fact that there would be no "crack babies".


It could be, thus the child would be available for adoption in a system that would allow adoption much easier and cheaper.



Yes. I believe that China and their "one child" policy has already been looked at that way.

Damocles: "One of the main benefits of ex utero incubation would be the fact that there would be no "crack babies"."
Jack: How about unviable/defective babies, unwanted babies, ... there's going to be a lot of babies up for 'adoption'. How many people do you think want to adopt somebody else's unwanted baby? (Try to be realistic, we live in a consumer society where people value 'toys' over 'children')

Damocles: "It could be, thus the child would be available for adoption in a system that would allow adoption much easier and cheaper.'
Jack: Just my opinion, you would have so MANY babies, you couldn't GIVE them all away.

Damocles: "Yes. I believe that China and their "one child" policy has already been looked at that way."
Jack: I guess we have a difference of opinion.

Owl brought up a valid point "Who's going to pay?"
Republicans/Libertarians DON'T want the Government to PAY for unwanted pregnancies. So ... who will be forced to 'PAY'? The person that didn't want the baby in the first place?

 

[Jack]

If I used "righteous indignation" upon you; you would stop breathing. It is not by my hand that you shall receive any "righteous indignation". Grow up.

You are indoctrinated by your religious beliefs. You bring no logic or reason to the discussion, only dogmatic beliefs from the favored Cult.

 

[Damocles]

Damocles: "One of the main benefits of ex utero incubation would be the fact that there would be no "crack babies"."
Jack: How about unviable/defective babies, unwanted babies, ... there's going to be a lot of babies up for 'adoption'. How many people do you think want to adopt somebody else's unwanted baby? (Try to be realistic, we live in a consumer society where people value 'toys' over 'children')

Damocles: "It could be, thus the child would be available for adoption in a system that would allow adoption much easier and cheaper.'
Jack: Just my opinion, you would have so MANY babies, you couldn't GIVE them all away.

Damocles: "Yes. I believe that China and their "one child" policy has already been looked at that way."
Jack: I guess we have a difference of opinion.

Owl brought up a valid point "Who's going to pay?"
Republicans/Libertarians DON'T want the Government to PAY for unwanted pregnancies. So ... who will be forced to 'PAY'? The person that didn't want the baby in the first place?

I already answered the "who is going to pay" question. As well as the "more unwanted babies" question. You may not like my answer, but it was an answer. And no, you wouldn't have "so many", because we also will get better at birth control... There will be a time when you will choose to create life and accidental pregnancy would be almost unheard of... only among splinter religious groups...

 

[Jack]

If I am still here when all your abominations are normal; My testimonies will continue to be consistent. I am not in government. I have no part in governmental injustice. I am innocent. Just a witness.

Translation: "I believe in the Occult and Magic". Thanks for the tip.

 

[Jack]

I already answered the "who is going to pay" question. As well as the "more unwanted babies" question. You may not like my answer, but it was an answer. And no, you wouldn't have "so many", because we also will get better at birth control... There will be a time when you will choose to create life and accidental pregnancy would be almost unheard of... only among splinter religious groups...

OK. Always nice to discuss different viewpoints. Enjoyed it, Damocles. Have a nice night.

 

[Jack]

I will not shitty up this thread more

Praise Jesus! Maybe there really is a God?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Briefs. I don't like hanging bits.

You have bits??

That's so sad.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

His political leaning weren't in doubt. Evince thinks he's Grind, that's the problem.

No, that's the "delusion".