Roe v Wade Overturned?

[Immanuel Can]

So even if you are wrong and a human fetus at its earliest stages doesn't have a soul or isn't a human life, they're still wrong to abort one?

Well, let's look at it another way, Gary. I'm not advocating killing anyone. If somebody is, then it's on them to prove, beyond any doubt, that the life they're taking is not sacred, and they are not murdering.

As for me, I advocate killing nobody. So I've got nothing I have to prove. There's no possibility of me being a murderer, even if I were wrong.

But then, there's this: to whom, ultimately, does a person have to answer if he takes another's life?

It's not the person he killed: that person is dead. It's not society, because society can't make something right or wrong by wishing it to be so, or by legislating it to be so. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong. Moreover, society once legislated that slavery was right; but I doubt you and I would now agree they had the right idea. So laws are maleable and fallible. And the victim's dead...

So to whom does a murderer ultimately answer?

Not to me. To God.

Anybody who wants to take Him on can afford to risk taking a life. But I wouldn't. And I wouldn't encourage others to do so.

Maybe you're not guilty of the "murder" of some fetuses in that case but you could be guilty of dooming the human species

Not a chance. Just educate the poor ones, and the population crisis is solved. They regulate themselves.

It's the most scientific solution, as well as the most moral one. We have the studies to back it. So there's no upside to the murder of children. It's entirely unnecessary.

I have to say that yours is a funny argument...it runs, "If we don't murder people, people might die."

[Gary Childress]

Why do you even care about a few fetuses, IC? It's no secret that many Christians welcome the "second coming" that would preface the end of the known world. Take God out of the equation and you all don't seem to have any problem with extinction. It would all be in God's plan, if there even is a God (let alone one who actually gets upset when mere mortals don't worship him).

[Gary Childress]

Well, let's look at it another way, Gary. I'm not advocating killing anyone. If somebody is, then it's on them to prove, beyond any doubt, that the life they're taking is not sacred, and they are not murdering.

As for me, I advocate killing nobody. So I've got nothing I have to prove. There's no possibility of me being a murderer, even if I were wrong.

But then, there's this: to whom, ultimately, does a person have to answer if he takes another's life?

It's not the person he killed: that person is dead. It's not society, because society can't make something right or wrong by wishing it to be so, or by legislating it to be so. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong. Moreover, society once legislated that slavery was right; but I doubt you and I would now agree they had the right idea. So laws are maleable and fallible. And the victim's dead...

So to whom does a murderer ultimately answer?

Not to me. To God.

Anybody who wants to take Him on can afford to risk taking a life. But I wouldn't. And I wouldn't encourage others to do so.

Maybe you're not guilty of the "murder" of some fetuses in that case but you could be guilty of dooming the human species

Not a chance. Just educate the poor ones, and the population crisis is solved. They regulate themselves.

It's the most scientific solution, as well as the most moral one. We have the studies to back it. So there's no upside to the murder of children. It's entirely unnecessary.

I have to say that yours is a funny argument...it runs, "If we don't murder people, people might die."

No. It goes if we don't abort fetuses the world might perish. Your entire argument is based on your worldview derived from a 4000+-year-old book written by people who partook of magic mushrooms and lived in mud houses. And you seem to prefer that account of religion over the findings of modern science. So who's the insane one here?

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you even care about a few fetuses, IC?

Why do I care about human beings? A funny question, Gary.

And "a few"? Gary, they killed over 63 million since 1973...most of them girls, most of them from minorities.

You're fine with that? "A few"???

[Immanuel Can]

Your entire argument is based on your worldview derived from a 4000+-year-old book written by people who partook of magic mushrooms and lived in mud houses. And you seem to prefer that account of religion over the findings of modern science. So who's the insane one here?

Gary, if you look, none of my arguments are based on you believing anything but science.

And since we have the means to solve the problem you say you care about (overpopulation) by doing good for women and without killing anyone...why wouldn't you take it? What's your affection for murdering children?

[Gary Childress]

Why do you even care about a few fetuses, IC?

Why do I care about human beings? A funny question, Gary.

And "a few"? Gary, they killed over 63 million since 1973...most of them girls, most of them from minorities.

You're fine with that? "A few"???

Are you fine with the extinction and genocide of the human species? Two can play at the guilt and condemnation game.

[Gary Childress]

Your entire argument is based on your worldview derived from a 4000+-year-old book written by people who partook of magic mushrooms and lived in mud houses. And you seem to prefer that account of religion over the findings of modern science. So who's the insane one here?

Gary, if you look, none of my arguments are based on you believing anything but science.

And not a one of them is sound.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you even care about a few fetuses, IC?

Why do I care about human beings? A funny question, Gary.

And "a few"? Gary, they killed over 63 million since 1973...most of them girls, most of them from minorities.

You're fine with that? "A few"???

Are you fine with the extinction and genocide of the human species?

I'm fine with educating women, empowering them to make proper, self-governing choices. Then there's no "extinction," even if you believe in the overpopulation panic.

By contrast, you seem to be in favour of totalitarian measures and murdering children...why?

[Immanuel Can]

Your entire argument is based on your worldview derived from a 4000+-year-old book written by people who partook of magic mushrooms and lived in mud houses. And you seem to prefer that account of religion over the findings of modern science. So who's the insane one here?

Gary, if you look, none of my arguments are based on you believing anything but science.

And not a one of them is sound.

Sure they are, Gary.

Are you going to argue that educating women is bad?

[Gary Childress]

Gary, if you look, none of my arguments are based on you believing anything but science.

And not a one of them is sound.

Sure they are, Gary.

Are you going to argue that educating women is bad?

No. Educate away. Educate all you wish. If abortions drop and fertility drops too, then great.

[Immanuel Can]

And not a one of them is sound.

Sure they are, Gary.

Are you going to argue that educating women is bad?

No. Educate away. Educate all you wish. If abortions drop and fertility drops too, then great.

Fertility drops voluntarily. Every time. And the standard of living goes up. Independence increases. And an unvalued half of the population comes into play in the economy. Misogyny drops, because women become more valuable and gain economic power. Children are stabilized, because they're the first thing poor women think about..and they provide for them first. There are all kinds of personal and social benefits to educating poor women.

So what's the attraction of murdered babies? I'm not seeing it.

[godelian]

No, I'm talking at people who live at a level where they can't even afford the uniforms for school.

If they cannot afford a uniform, why do they even need to wear one?
What is the functional use of a uniform that is so important that people cannot live without one?
I am not necessarily against uniforms, but I do not believe that they are worth fretting over either.

That's what I thought. You're in the privileged East, it would seem, not in the places I'm talking about. I mean in places like India, the Philippines, Malaysia, and such.

I specialize in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. What is there so privileged about these countries?

That's not an option she's allowed to have, in those cultures. Nobody's giving her any choice.

A woman can reject every serious suitor that shows up, on the condition that a serious suitor shows up at all, because that does not happen every day either. A lot of men just want cheap or free sexual tension relief. That is why serious suitors are a scarce commodity. If the woman does not want him, he will be gone before she can even say "cheese". The problem of most women is not an abundance of serious suitors. Their problem is almost always the opposite. If a woman believes that she does not want a decent husband, there is nothing more easy than to get exactly not that.

In the market for casual sex, there is much more male demand than female supply. In the serious marriage market, there is much more female demand than male supply. That is why a man is not even interested in marrying a woman who lacks enthusiasm for the idea. He will simply pick another candidate.

So, these women do have a choice. If they do not put in the effort to please a serious suitor, they simply won't have one. All they need to do, to avoid marriage, is to discourage the serious suitor with their lack of enthusiasm for the idea. That guarantees that they will end up alone.

Don't count on men to be interested in women who do not really want to be with them. The man will simply move on to other and better.

Yep, there is. I'm amazed you don't know that. You obviously don't travel much. I know for sure you're wrong about that.

I choose to live in the poorest areas of the Indochinese archipelago. I have lived here for over a decade.

There is obviously no lack of women who want to be the CEO, just like there is no lack of men who want that job. Most men and most women will not make it to the top. When women don't, and get tired of their low-paying office droning job, they try to switch to marrying a man with money. Too late. The men are no longer interested in her at that point.

One way is through corporate donations, and another private fund donations

Yeah, that will fund the useless degrees of millions of women. Coca cola will donate for that!

and another government aid...

For countries with lots of oil and gas revenue, maybe. However, if it has to come out of taxing the general population, then the same old question pops up again: What justifies confiscating money from people in order to pay for the useless degree of yet someone else?

best given to sustainable initiatives like microenterprise, sustainable farming, and microschools, which create independence and self-sufficiency, not handouts and dependence.

So, the idea is to create some more "strong and independent women who need no man".

Men, who make good money, spend it on women. Women, who make good money, will however never spend it on men. Women who make good money do not want a serious nuclear family. On the contrary, they prefer the hookup culture until they are too old to get chosen for one-night stands by Chad or Tyrone. Then they become cat ladies who buy boxes of wine and cry themselves to sleep.

All of this is exactly what is causing the collapse of western civilization. But then again, in my opinion, the best solution is to let the problem just fester, until it solves itself. Most complex problems are solved by doing nothing at all.

[Dontaskme]

Doesn’t look like God is going to stop the wickedness.

Patience.

Meanwhile, patience hasn't worked so far, and most likely never will, children will continue to be born into a world of wickedness, conceived by people who purport to love them already knowing they are risking and putting them in harms way. Even risking the chance of the child being a brute itself, as of the likes of Putin and Hitler to name but a few. But that's ok, patience will win out in the end, and yet the murders continue to this day.

Your argument is weak, feeble, with very little thought or effort.

I’ve already asked you what would a judgement or punishment upon the wicked look like from God...

You can read all about it in Scripture. It's all there. Start with 2 Peter 3:7-end.

Yes, we know what it says..but my question was..what does what is written on paper actually look like in realtime physical actuality. Have you personally seen with your own eyes, what God's judgement looks like?
Take the man called Putin for example: so far thousands of people have been murdered because of his choice to go to war with a country who did not ask for the war....and yet God has done nothing to stop Putin by way of punishment or intervention....rather, Putin is still walking around unharmed...so why hasn't God put into actual physical action what he said he would do on paper? toward the evil doer's of the world..so that the rest of humanity can actually see for themselves that what is written on paper is indeed carried out in realtime physicality.

Lets see what is written in answer to what God's judgment looks like on paper...here >

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

It seems God is going to destroy the earth by fire as it is written....but that doesn't mean anything unless it's an actuality seen in realtime does it IC...this is what I am trying to get to the bottom of...

So if what is written on paper is true IC...Do you personally think is it moral to want to invite new people to earth, already knowing those children would be physically present at the moment God chooses to ACT out his WORD...and destroy the earth with fire..? which we all know is not a very pleasant experience to have to go through, as most of us already know what the sensation of being burnt by fire feels like, so imagine the horror of being burnt alive until dead will feel like...I mean why would any moral person impose that on a child when they do not have to, when they can do something about it now, to stop that from happening?

You see IC, these are the issues I'm putting to you, which you seem unable to answer in depth with any real thought about them...instead favoring to just point to things written in the bible...why risk having children if they are just going to be burnt alive in the fire God brings?

Surely the only true salvation here for humans would be never to have been born at all?

And supposing this quote was true...

But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Where does that leave our gift from God that is our free will?
If we are to become people of righteousness, by choosing it over evil ...then free will would no longer be a thing for us anymore...we'd all be robotically good people, and sin would never be a thing. How on earth do you think that would play out...a human reality without sin...will any human being alive today ever be a realtime physical witness of a world completely devoid of evil... a utopia where we all get along and live happily ever after....surely, that's just another man-made fairy story IC?


And then finally...supposing God does act on his word and destroys the earth by fire...and we all die....then what?...where's the new heaven and new earth supposed to be exactly and who is going to experience it, who is going to be witness to this ? ...if we are all dead?

Death, another thing we know nothing about, so we will not even know we are dead, let alone know what a new heaven and earth will look like...as you can see IC...none of this makes any sense does it. ?

I was willing to read the Bible, I bought the book, but upon reading it, it became very clear to me that nothing I was reading made any rational sense, except to point toward the human condition, and predicament. It only made sense in the context it was written by humans....but did not make sense in the context it was written by something else that existed as an entity known as God who was not a Human body.

[popeye1945]

THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN REPRODUCTION ARE TERMED LIVESTOCK.

[Astro Cat]

At this point I'm watching all of this with abject horror. I know that Biden et al. will do very little about this other than giving the GOP some strongly worded condemnations for enabling this hyperconservative court (gee, thanks, that helps a lot). Then Dems will ask us vaguely for donations and votes so that they can do... something (I suppose they won't say what, but send in those donations and votes!)

Then we're going to have to do that anyway because the alternative to bottom-feeding, say-anything, do-nothing Dems is infinitely worse in the form of a GOP that has gone so far off the rails that I'm pretty sure we could harvest the turbine power of Lincoln spinning hypersonically in his grave.

What I need from Dems is a plan and messaging about that plan. I don't want them to tell me to send $10 and cast my vote, I want them to tell me "we need to elect this many seats so that we're able to do ____________." The absence of a plan is demoralizing, infuriating, and exhausting. The opinion leaked well before and they still act like they were caught with their pants down, and I'm sick of it. I have less bodily autonomy than a corpse in my state right now.

The GOP is coming for it all and they are playing to win. I need Dems to start actually doing something. Call floor votes to codify Obergefell, Loving, Lawrence, etc. Put clinics on federal land maybe.

At this point I'm open to expanding the court, which I know is dangerous, but what's the alternative? The legislative branch is utterly broken because the country is utterly broken. People are going to suffer in the meantime when SCOTUS pulls rights out from under us that we'll never be able to get through the legislative branch because rural America is as ignorant and hateful as it gets.

Signed, a woman that lost bodily autonomy with Roe, whose relationship is in jeopardy if Thomas gets his way with Obergefell, who despite being a lesbian uses birth control to regulate menstrual problems (also under threat with the fall of Roe), and who is nauseous at the inaction and apathy