God spoke to me today

[Carl Tuckerson]

The LORD does not require productive discussion. HE wishes HIS commands to be obeyed.

But... how will we figure out who best understood His commands?

His? I thought it was "SHE who must be obeyed"?

Take it up with Jamie!
Unless you're one of those HEATHENS worshiping some nature hippie goddess, in which case Jamie will surely dispense of you with fire and sword, as a fervent discipline of the LORD.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Jamie,

When the "pro-misogynistic-fascism" camp looks at abortion we see an establishment of institutionalized murder, most people simply do not agree with the notion that a fetus or foetus(American and British respectively) is ever not a human life worth valuing, that is a fundamental difference in understanding which I hope will someday be resolved in a way that allows both sides to agree on the basic definition of human life.

Thank you for engaging reasonably, and I apologise for my anger - which was and is genuine.

I regard an unborn foetus as a *potential* human. It is not a fully fledged human life yet, but it has the potential to become one. In this respect I totally regard it as a thing which has value. I simply take the position that respecting the right of women to control what happens to their bodies is something which is more valuable, both for individual women and for society.

I certainly don't take the position that the foetus is irrelevant or worthless - it is simply the case that it does not have such high value that preserving it must trump all other considerations.

I will now begin to speak for myself, I grew up in a very sheltered environment, I was always fed the very propaganda to which you are reacting so angrily(I understand the passion, but it doesn't help your case to cuss out your opponent). I never even considered(until recently) the ramifications of demanding that every women keep her child if she becomes pregnant. As a child I learned about abortion before I knew fully what rape was, this is obviously a gross oversight and one I will try to rectify when I have children of my own. I assume that the vast majority of people on my side of the aisle have similar backgrounds and perspective.

Context is useful. I am sure we have had very different upbringings. My passion is genuine but you're right it doesn't engender good discussion. Sorry.

I want also to defend my God. I will start my condemning the Representatives actions and words, no-one should ever claim to speak for God(of course there are cases in which God does actually speak to people, however I believe it rarely concerns mass government legislation). The one thing I can say for God is that he never supports any kind of evil, included in "evil" are all the things you listed AND the killing of a human infant before it is born. I might be willing to concede that some abortions do not constitute "evil," especially those that are conducted on a women who was raped or if the women is dying. Of course humanities definition of "evil" has changed dramatically throughout history, there are those in my camp who would insist that God is the same God of the Hebrew old testament. That is simply false. The true Christian God(I'm aware of the irony in my saying this) is one concerned not with punishment but with compassion and mercy.

I think we are in agreement regarding Representative Hill's frankly bizarre claim that God personally instructed him to pass strict anti-abortion legislation.

My claim that God spoke to me is, of course, facetious. God did not speak to me. I do not recognise "God" therefore I cannot comprehend of such a thing existing, let alone speaking to me. My point in saying "God spoke to me" was twofold. Firstly it was to highlight how absurd Representative Hill's claims are; secondly on a wider point I think it is an illegitimate tactic for any politician to claim that their public policy proposals are correct "cuz God said so". Whatever God is, he isn't some kind of celestial Stone Cold Steve Austin directing the agenda of the Florida legislature. To claim such things is laughable and it is correct and proper to mock Representative Hill for claiming it.

I believe that the "problem" of abortion is one much too complicated to be solved with government intervention. A highly unpopular opinion on both sides of the aisle that would probably get me booed of the stage in churches and college campuses alike("thrown" is probably a more accurate word in the latter case, although I wouldn't put it past some churches to do the same). I believe that the answer lies not in legislation but in education of both sides. Us "pro-misogynistic-fascism" types need to understand the inevitable consequences and uncomfortable realities that surround forcing women not to kill their infants, I don't know what your side needs to learn, but I'm sure if you are honest with yourself you could come up with something.

Please try not to read any of the above with sarcasm. It is intended to be read with come seriousness, if you are too angry to read it and respond properly now please go cool off and come back when you're ready to have a "productive discourse."

I appreciate your response and would not accuse you of sarcasm at all. Thank you for taking the time to write this.

[Jamiet99uk]

Something tells me an abortion thread should probably stay in the politics forum

Yes sorry, genuine mistake. I had the "Off Topic" forum open, reading another post, which was sufficiently political in its nature I thought I had the Politics area of the forum open. Sorry.

[Jamiet99uk]

I literally said we should only abort white men. How did you interpret my preoccupation is protecting them. lmao

Because it appeared that you were being sarcastic or facetious, duh. I do not think that you genuinely advocate for the abortion of anyone, white or otherwise, based on other posts you have made on this topic.

Literally none of what I do is relevant to whether the foetus is a human being or not. The problem with a lot of societal issues is people like you always assume malice or ill intent in the other side. Like it's just so mind numbingly stupid for pro choicers to go around claiming "Pro-lifers don't care about the baby, they just want to control women's bodies." Like it's just so retarded to push that narrative, that it's hard to believe it's done in good faith.

The problem with your rebuttal here, Fluminator, is that Senators in Alabama have literally admitted that their strict new anti-abortion law is not about protecting foetuses. Foetuses in IVF clinics may be thrown in the incinerator without issue. Here is the quote:

“The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”
- Clyde Chambliss, Alabama state senator, and sponsor of the Alabama abortion bill.

The Alabama senate only cares when there's a woman involved whose choice over her own body needs to be denied. This is a fact. It has been stated.

Like almost 50% of pro-lifers are women.

Sadly, many of these women appear to have fallen for the indoctrination of the cult they belong to - which of course is largely male controlled. Anti-abortion legislation exists in the context of a patriarchal, male-dominated society which sets out to keep women under control. Some women, regrettably, are so well controlled by this society that they willingly participate in it.

I'm beginning to think the loudest men on twitter who send out "I'm a femininst and pro choice!" are just wanting less responsibility so they can sleep around with more women, without concern of what happens to her. Because hey, she can get an abortion if I get her pregnant!

It some men have this motivation, that is vulgar and unpleasant. It does not apply to me, I can assure you. When I do sleep with women, I use protection, but protection can fail. I do not wish to father children. Ever. However, if I were to accidentally impregnate a woman, the question of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy would be entirely hers and I would support her either way - because the foetus is inside her body.

Since it's so important to you, I do donate to the local pregnancy care center though, which supports rape victims.
I plan on adopting if my future hypothetical wife is down with it.
I imagine I disagree with those fertility clinics, but don't know much about them.
I don't know this Mike Hill guy. If God exists, I don't think he supports rape or incest or human trafficking.

Thank your for sharing those perspectives. I respect them. If you one day adopt, good luck. I am sure you would be a caring father.

[Fluminator]

Thank you Jamiet. I think you're a good person and your passion cones from genuine care. Sorry for trolling you a little.

I'll have to look into Clyde saying only fetuses inside wombs are worth protecting because that's effed up. If you're right then America's pro life sector needs some serious rechecking on my part and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Jamiet99uk]

Here's a source:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/al ... b-setting/

[MajorMitchell]

Jamiet99uk, I do like you, I love your passion and your compassion. But you simply cannot in the Forum use a particular word that you used in your second post. Just use "utter ****"
Using such an offensive word in my opinion, devalues your message. It will, without any doubt also incur the wrath of the Almighty Mods.
Please offer an apology immediately for the use of that offensive word. It's extremely offensive to Women and using it is, in my opinion, totally counter productive to your genuine desire to help women have a basic right.

I've been controversial enough in the circumcision thread. My views on abortion rights are well known, I support Women's rights to choose abortion, and support the rights of women to have access to publicly funded medical services that include abortion.

My views on religious matters are also reasonably well known.

I'm hoping this will be my only post in this thread.

I would ask the Almighty Mods to be lenient with Jamiet99uk if he expresses regret for using the offensive word.

[MajorMitchell]

Can't help myself. Carl and Flash. She who must be obeyed is my good lady wife, my Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib, Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors lying on a sofa eating cakes and I can authoritatively inform you both that Her Serene Imperiousness is firmly of the view that all women must have the right to choose abortion and the right to have publicly funded abortions in decent, safe conditions.
Defy God's & Deities if that is your choice. My sincere advice is..never defy my Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib. I won't mention your regrettable lapse to her, be thankful, she's deadly with a Purdey.

[CruaaderReynauld]

Well god spoke to me today...

He told me I was a loser.

[Jamiet99uk]

Well god spoke to me today...

He told me I was a loser.

But Cru-Rey, if you donate $333 to KestasFaithMission.jesus, you can be a WINNER. A $333 seed is all it takes to improve your Reliability Rating, your body odour, and your career!

CALL NOW and have your Chase account details to hand.


#prayforreynauld

[MajorMitchell]

Got bored. This suggestion from Fulminator that men who are pro choice do it so they can be less responsible when they have sex because there's the abortion option to get them out of parenting responsibilities.
How about a form of the antithesis proposition?
If a man who is "anti~women's rights to choose abortion" gets a woman pregnant as a result of casual sex (so outside of an established relationship, so an unplanned pregnancy within an established relationship doesn't bring on the penalty) then he gets castrated ? That is, if a chap is opposed to women having the right to choose abortion, then he must take full responsibility for where he "secretes his seeds" and if he fails with that responsibility then pays a heavy price. I'm willing to make it a "two strikes your nuetered policy", ie one testicle a time.
I've suggested it before, and guess what? Suddenly, from men opposed to women's right to choose abortion, there's either silence or the most imaginative reasons offered why this "just isn't fair" on men who oppose women's rights to choose abortion.

[MajorMitchell]

Not sure how kestas got involved in that Faith mission Jamiet99uk.
Shouldn't it be the "Pious Pope & Carry On Celibate Cardinals Child Abuse Crisis Centre for Crucifying Victims & All Sins Forgiven at Cost Price & Three Candles" Drive~in Bar & Grill ???

[Carl Tuckerson]

Got bored. This suggestion from Fulminator that men who are pro choice do it so they can be less responsible when they have sex because there's the abortion option to get them out of parenting responsibilities.
How about a form of the antithesis proposition?
If a man who is "anti~women's rights to choose abortion" gets a woman pregnant as a result of casual sex (so outside of an established relationship, so an unplanned pregnancy within an established relationship doesn't bring on the penalty) then he gets castrated ? That is, if a chap is opposed to women having the right to choose abortion, then he must take full responsibility for where he "secretes his seeds" and if he fails with that responsibility then pays a heavy price. I'm willing to make it a "two strikes your nuetered policy", ie one testicle a time.
I've suggested it before, and guess what? Suddenly, from men opposed to women's right to choose abortion, there's either silence or the most imaginative reasons offered why this "just isn't fair" on men who oppose women's rights to choose abortion.

The analogy would be forcing the man to raise the child, not castrate him. You get silence in response to this suggestion because your analogy is retarded.
What is it with pro-abortion advocates and their seething hatred for men? You just can't help yourselves with insane overextension.

[flash2015]

It looks like conservatives want to take this much further than Roe vs Wade though. They want to overturn Griswold vs. Connecticut which stopped states from banning abortion:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/ ... -disaster/

Griswold vs. Connecticut was the foundation of the "right to privacy" interpretation of the constitution. If they were able to overturn that too, that would mean Lawrence vs. Texas (which banned states from outlawing sodomy - i.e. homosexuality was effectively outlawed in 13 states until 2003) which depends on the Griswold vs. Connecticut case would be gone too.

Again, at its core is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of sex. Many conservatives believe the primary purpose of sexual activity is to produce a child. As it says in the article:

"It is no coincidence that Roe v. Wade followed just a few years after Griswold v. Connecticut. Griswold didn’t just lay the legal groundwork for the Roe ruling. It helped establish a cultural climate — admittedly, amid the larger context of the Sexual Revolution — that not only separated sex from its natural purpose but marked that separation as a public guarantee."

[flash2015]

Arggh! Duplicate

[MajorMitchell]

No Carl, you forget the childbirth experience, perhaps making men shit a bowling ball ? My analogy goes to the crux of pregnancy, the cause...insemination. No insemination, no pregnancy. We take away the license to drive from drunk drivers. Why not remove the ability to inseminate from irresponsible inseminators ?

You say that men should simply "raise the child themselves" Is that in the best interests of the children? Why would anyone believe that irresponsible inseminators will make good single parents? The evidence would suggest that the antithesis would be the norm.
Look at the delinquency rate for men meeting their child support payments responsibilities.
I refute your allegation that men who support Women's rights to choose abortion and have publicly funded abortions in decent, safe conditions axiomatically hate other men. That is frankly illogical and risible. Most men who support Women's rights to safe abortion services have simply discussed the issue with the women they know, and most importantly, LISTENED to these women.
That's how my views on abortion were principally formed, by listening attentively to my Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib, Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors lying on a sofa eating cakes.

I glimpsed a documentary about millennials in Japan which discussed their over working lifestyles, and the rather extraordinarily high rate of virginity amongst young men. Poor young Blighters.
I'm all for men and women having lots of enjoyable and satisfying sex, but in a safe, responsible loving way.
So your accusation about hating men is a complete load of BS. I don't hate men.
Perhaps, again the antithesis is the case, it's men who hate, or probably more correctly, FEAR women who are the problem

[Carl Tuckerson]

No Carl, you forget the childbirth experience, perhaps making men shit a bowling ball ? My analogy goes to the crux of pregnancy, the cause...insemination. No insemination, no pregnancy. We take away the license to drive from drunk drivers. Why not remove the ability to inseminate from irresponsible inseminators ?

You say that men should simply "raise the child themselves" Is that in the best interests of the children? Why would anyone believe that irresponsible inseminators will make good single parents? The evidence would suggest that the antithesis would be the norm.
Look at the delinquency rate for men meeting their child support payments responsibilities.
I refute your allegation that men who support Women's rights to choose abortion and have publicly funded abortions in decent, safe conditions axiomatically hate other men. That is frankly illogical and risible. Most men who support Women's rights to safe abortion services have simply discussed the issue with the women they know, and most importantly, LISTENED to these women.
That's how my views on abortion were principally formed, by listening attentively to my Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib, Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors lying on a sofa eating cakes.

I glimpsed a documentary about millennials in Japan which discussed their over working lifestyles, and the rather extraordinarily high rate of virginity amongst young men. Poor young Blighters.
I'm all for men and women having lots of enjoyable and satisfying sex, but in a safe, responsible loving way.
So your accusation about hating men is a complete load of BS. I don't hate men.
Perhaps, again the antithesis is the case, it's men who hate, or probably more correctly, FEAR women who are the problem

You came up with an incredibly inane analogy, that you continue to pretend makes any sense, comparing abortion restrictions to castration to make the apparently serious proposal that any man who has a child outside of marriage should be castrated. I assumed you must have some axe to grind against men and were just coming up with a bizarre excuse to castrate men, because the alternative is that you have horrendous logic skills.

The equivalent to forcing a man to become sterile (via castration) for impregnating a woman and preventing her from getting an abortion would be forcing a woman to become sterile for impregnating a woman and seeking an abortion. Literally no one proposes this or has ever proposed this. You are very far off the mark.

Nothing else in your rambling has any bearing to your initial inane proposal to which I responded. The equivalent of compelling a pregnant woman to carry to term is not castration, it's compelling the man to raise the child. You are being wildly irrational.

[orathaic]

Literally none of what I do is relevant to whether the fetus is a human being or not. The problem with a lot of societal issues is people like you always assume malice or ill intent in the other side. Like it's just so mind numbingly stupid for pro choicers to go around claiming "Pro-lifers don't care about the baby, they just want to control women's bodies." Like it's just so retarded to push that narrative, that it's hard to believe it's done in good faith. Like almost 50% of pro-lifers are women.

My experience is that most of them are acting in good faith, they have simply been conditioned to believe downright hysterical nonsense about us. Jamie isn't lying or misrepresenting his position for Internet points when he says we are "misogynistic fascists." He earnestly views us as such, and no amount of demonstration to the contrary will break through.
There might be a few people consciously engaging in meta-posturing, trying to shift the Overton Window by pretending to be hysterical, but for most of them it is the real deal, and I suspect Jamie is one of them.
Not that that helps you in trying to have a conversation. Our little White Knight Templar over there isn't one to negotiate with demons.

<snip>

You are right to state that the pro-choice side believes their own propoganda. This is a great example of tribalism and othering, both the 'pro-life' tribe and the 'pro-choice' tribe have a narrative, they tell stories about the other side. The stories may be straw men or otherwise misleading, but what is important is they are effective recruitment tools.

There is a great video about the general meme sharing nature of this kind of tribalism, but generally the narrative is simple, makes you angry at the other, and misses any nuance (see: https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc)

So both sides will call the other names, 'baby-killer' or 'woman-hater' are good examples, and either can say simply, 'well actually...

... Many women are pro-life and don't hate themselves'

... Foetuses are not babies'

That said. There are a few points worth mentioning.

It is of little surprise that there is a fuzzy area at the start and end (edges) of life where things are less than clear. This results in the two discussions where we talk about euthanasia and abortion. As technology has changed and we've been able to bring people back from the brink of death our definition has changed, and as we've gotten to the point where we can keep brain-dead bodies alive indefinitely in a 'vegetative' state we have come to understand that things like a heart beat or breathing are important but they do not qualify for quality of life (ie you can be alive, but you'd hardly call it living, and call you 'you').

So we do need to put some serious thought into these issue as they continue to change. Neither side is particularly interested in serious thought. Mostly because people don't like thinking, they like simple answers which they can understand, and even if 1 in 100 members of the group are willing to do the thinking, that should be enough for the group to adopt a position (and honestly, there are good reasons to assume it is inefficient for every to think independently through all the details and nuance when a simple narrative is enough to get them into the tribe/hating the other side).

Secondly we have invented numerous mental tools for simplifying thinking. Math is a great example, we all learn that 2+2=4 and thusly there is no need to argue that 2 apples costing 2$ per apple should cost 4$. Simplifies everyday interactions immensely. No-one argues that math is a useful mental tool. god(s) is another mental tool. You get to simplify moral decision making by referring to god. Does this tool help resolve the pro-life vs pro-choice question? Many would say yes. Though this whole thread would entirely disagree. It does not make the question as simple as buying apples. Though the pro-life crowd often see the simplicity of not 'killing babies'.

[orathaic]

Following on from that rant, indulge me in a second one.

Are foetuses babies? Well categorical thinking is another tool for simplifying things. It often leads to errors, and i would advocate for defining things based on their qualities. For example, brain dead humans in a vegetative state do not have the quality of conscious (or otherwise) thought. Therefore you can say they are alive, but they are no longer people.

Babies have the quality that they can survive independently outside their mother's uterus. Therefore, after about 24 weeks, a foetus becomes a baby. There is still maybe a 50/50 chance of survival are 24 weeks, but that is a fine cutoff point. The vast majority of abortions happen before 24 weeks, and those that happen after are consider medically necessary (there is no point in killing both the mother and baby, or fatal foetal abnormalities as examples). If a pregnancy needs to be safely ended after this point a C-section will usually be performed and doctors will attempt to save both patients.

So I refute the term 'baby killers' in the strongest of terms.

Second, a narrative about hating women. I live in Ireland and we have had a long history of religious persecution. The last 20 years has seen the growth or a progressive secular Ireland, but during the 400 years before that we had no freedom of/from religion. The protestant ascendancy were the ruling class (aligned with the Church of England) and catholics were persecuted, poverty was a political tool used to try to force the Irish to convert and Protestants were seen as loyal to the British Crown (and their king was also the head of church); since 1923 and Irish independence we replaced British influence with the pope's influence from Rome. Catholics no longer persecuted instead began forcing their views on others. And it is very clear from the outcomes what this amounted to.

In 1983, the year is was born, we added the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution. The laws at the time paint a stark picture of Catholicism. Sex was seen as purely for reproduction, and not for fun. Thus all forms of contraception were banned, as was gay sex. Women's place in society was to make babies. Thus abortion was illegal, but more horrifyingly 'marital rape' was not a crime, and divorce was illegal - basically the Church, perhaps in a desire to make more catholics had come up with a system where women became property of their husband upon marriage. Sex was mandatory, contraception illegal, and abortion unthinkable.

It is worth noting that sex outside of marriage was frowned upon, and women/teenage girls found pregnant outside of marriage were consider fallen women. There were regularly shipped of to 'mother and baby' home and then confined in 'magdallen laundries', a kind of prison/slavery system where women worked for no pay and suffered physical and mental abuse from the nuns who ran the places (while the state benefitted from the services of these laundries). The police would return run aways despite the fact that they had committed no crime, and had no opportunity to have a fair trial... Mother and baby homes have been revealed in recent years to have sold children to American families aka illegal adoptions, forcing women to give up their wanted children, and significantly to have allowed hundred to die of malnourishment which were (in at least one case) dumped in septic tanks instead of being offered a 'proper Catholic burial'.

The Church and State were both complicit in these actions and it is clear that this was not purely 'pro-life'. It was all about controlling sex, making women subservient to men (their husband's property) and punishing any woman who refused to get married (even if their partner was an abusive drunk, being married to him would be seen as better than being a broken women). Not many came from families with strong matriarchal figures who would have told the nuns to fuck off. But teenage girls died due to lack of access to abortion.

Many of these laws were target of the progressive left, abortion was not one of them. In 1983, there was no hope to overturn the abortion law, and an amendment to 'protect the life of the unborn' was introduced to our constitution. It wasn't about stopping the killing of babies, this was happening in Mother and Baby homes all over the country. It was about maintaining control over women. Not just their bodily autonomy, but their sex lives in general.

I am thankful to say that the only law remaining from that era is the one prohibiting the sale of sex (logically, you can't have women making a profit from sex, as that could give them power - over men - and money to control their own lives). This is the last piece to undo. But it is completely clear that the church cared more about control of women than about the lives of babies. They had hundreds of babies die in their care, they had money from the state to feed and protect them, and they let those babies die. Because those particular babies were born of sin, and thus the church didn't value them.

This is the kind of narrative which easily leads on to see the 'pro-life' movement as anti-woman. The church in Ireland used the 'every life is sacred' idea as a tool in their oppression of women, while treating certain lives as far less sacred (ie dumped in a septic tank not sacred).

There are many women in the pro-life movement who will tell you they don't hate women, and don't hate themselves. And look, it is entirely possible that they are happy to be part of a family, to stay at home making babies, and to love that life. But when you have a society where that is not a choice freely made by the women who feel it suits them... The is oppression, that is hatred of women. And enforcing this on anyone is disgusting.

[flash2015]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't think of myself as a Catholic anymore...

Mother and baby homes weren't unique to Ireland. They happened in Australia too. PM Gillard a few years ago apologized for all the forced adoptions which came out of the mother and baby homes:

http://forcedadoptions.naa.gov.au/resou ... stitutions

To be fair to the Church, as it says in the report, for a long time the Church was often the only organization which did anything to help unwed mothers. But as a society I think we should have grown past that, that we now know it is wrong to force largely poor single mothers into these sorts of institutions.

Of course, if you have ever watched "The Ben Shapiro show" Ben (who is strongly against abortion) talks about how welfare should only be provided at the local level and how religious institutions should be the primary providers of welfare...which effectively will take us back to things like this.