Liberalism ruins everything it touches.
- Thread starter BooRad
- Start date
- Location
- Lancaster, PA
Everybody get back to work
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
You disagree that murdering an innocent human being is wrong?!?
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
- Location
- Lancaster, PA
I know me too. I think CHT and OA are neighbors
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
I'm actually in your neck of the woods right now picking up more beekeeping supplies to extract honey this morning.
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
All three - a human, child, and an individual that has rights, including the right to life.
Incorrect answer. The blastocyst is cow, the embryo is dog.
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
Okay, I'll give you your trick. Both are individuals and alive.
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Ever cut down a tree that was alive? Eat a steak? Have a dog euthanized?
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
A tree, cow, and dog are not covered as having rights under the U.S. Constitution.
As to answering your question, yes, I have removed live trees. However, if the live tree is not a safety concern we often give other viable alternatives to try to meet the customer's objective. We have walked away from removal jobs where, in our minds, a "good" reason was not presented as to why the tree should be removed.
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Stumpsprouts
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Asheville
I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot in the last few days, especially since I’m taking the week off of work to recover from a vasectomy. (And thusly reproductive issues are at the forefront of my mind!)
And disclaimer, I would never try to change the mind of an ovarian-systemed person (the most ultra PC term ever lol) and hesitate to share my personal beliefs at all, but I dunno, I guess I’m bored and felt I had something to share.
What I appreciate about Jules’ argument is that it gets to the heart of the moral, philosophical question- when does a person become a person? Jules believes (along with most in the pro-life movement) that it begins at conception.
I don’t share that belief. What I have seen in pregnant peoples journies is that there is a huge energetic shift sometime between the first and second trimester. For starters, it’s clear at that point there likely won’t be a miscarriage, and it’s a safe bet to tell friends and family your news. And this is impossible to back with empirical evidence, but I believe that it is sometime in that period that a soul enters this embryo and, yea, I would say at that point there is a person there, a fetus. Before that, no, I don’t believe there is a person, it is still just the possibility of a human.
That philosophical/spiritual question aside, because, how the hell can I prove that, there’s a huge moral argument for allowing a mother to choose in this first trimester whether to take the pregnancy to term. Do they live in a 16’ trailer in an unstable rental agreement? Do they have an addiction problem? Do they not have enough income? Is the father unfit to be a partner?
Very often the questions, when answered, reveal a totally untenable, unnurturing upbringing for that potential human. And I trust that a pregnant person can make a responsible choice as to whether or not they are fit to raise a child at that time and should have a chance to abort the pregnancy. I feel like this is compassionate to the mother, to society at large, and also to the person who would have been raised in a potentially terrible situation. But my comfort with that really hinges on my belief of when an embryo becomes a person.
And disclaimer, I would never try to change the mind of an ovarian-systemed person (the most ultra PC term ever lol) and hesitate to share my personal beliefs at all, but I dunno, I guess I’m bored and felt I had something to share.
What I appreciate about Jules’ argument is that it gets to the heart of the moral, philosophical question- when does a person become a person? Jules believes (along with most in the pro-life movement) that it begins at conception.
I don’t share that belief. What I have seen in pregnant peoples journies is that there is a huge energetic shift sometime between the first and second trimester. For starters, it’s clear at that point there likely won’t be a miscarriage, and it’s a safe bet to tell friends and family your news. And this is impossible to back with empirical evidence, but I believe that it is sometime in that period that a soul enters this embryo and, yea, I would say at that point there is a person there, a fetus. Before that, no, I don’t believe there is a person, it is still just the possibility of a human.
That philosophical/spiritual question aside, because, how the hell can I prove that, there’s a huge moral argument for allowing a mother to choose in this first trimester whether to take the pregnancy to term. Do they live in a 16’ trailer in an unstable rental agreement? Do they have an addiction problem? Do they not have enough income? Is the father unfit to be a partner?
Very often the questions, when answered, reveal a totally untenable, unnurturing upbringing for that potential human. And I trust that a pregnant person can make a responsible choice as to whether or not they are fit to raise a child at that time and should have a chance to abort the pregnancy. I feel like this is compassionate to the mother, to society at large, and also to the person who would have been raised in a potentially terrible situation. But my comfort with that really hinges on my belief of when an embryo becomes a person.
I can't find one instance of "zygote," "blastocyst," "embryo," or "fetus" in the Constitution. You're applying your definitions to something the Framers did not address.
And don't worry about murdering trees. Eating a pecan is the same as felling a sequoia.
And don't worry about murdering trees. Eating a pecan is the same as felling a sequoia.
Last edited:
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
Zygote, toddler, blastocyst, infant, embryo, adult, fetus, adolescent, adult, etc. are all developmental terms to describe how developed a living organism is.
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Good debate arguments now. But I go back the the choice goes back to having sex (to say in a less shocking way then before). You have sex you take that risk, and you can't shirk it after the fact by killing an innocent life. You choose to drink and drive, you made that choice and may end up getting a ticket or killing an innocent person....it all starts from that initial choice.
I realize the drinking to sex is not the perfect analogy, but using it to show how an initial choice leads to other consequences or results you may not be ready for. It really isn't that hard to keep from getting pregnant.
I realize the drinking to sex is not the perfect analogy, but using it to show how an initial choice leads to other consequences or results you may not be ready for. It really isn't that hard to keep from getting pregnant.
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
I can understand and appreciate where your views are coming from. I would suggest there are better alternatives than abortion, especially if someone is unsure when life begins and a person becomes a person who has rights. If someone states life (a person bcomes a person who has rights) begins at 20 weeks in utero, then why at that point but not 19 weeks and 6 days? Those are all very arbitrary points.
If a teenager (or anyone, for that matter) chooses to have consensual sex they are choosing a potential pregnancy...simple biology. Anyone choosing to have sex should be prepared to be responsible for the human life that may result from that choice. There are other options once the baby is born such as adoption, or even dropping the baby at a safe haven with no questions asked. There are pro-life pregnancy centers waiting to help those who have found themselves needing to work through difficult situations and decisions while pregnant and maybe not in the best spot in life.
In cases of rape, they account for approximately 1% of abortions, and we can have that discussion if you'd like. We can also debate if abortion is necessary for cases of the mother's health/life.
Thank you for your well-thought out and respectful words.
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
What seems abundantly clear from this thread (and almost all discussions of abortion) is that people on both sides have deeply rooted opinions. Many of us will never agree on when life begins.
So I ask again- what do we typically do in situations like this? Where the electorate disagrees deeply on any issue, what is the better solution:
1. Simply accept the edict of a panel of lawyers that almost none of us have ever known and literally none of us has ever voted for
2. Vote
This argument applies nearly across-the-board. For example, I am a conservative. I believe liberalism as a political philosophy is tragically flawed. I realize millions disagree with me. So how do we resolve this conundrum? Do we beg some government official or court to answer this important question on our behalf? Or do we elect people who represent our values to express them in the halls of power?
We can’t make everyone happy all of the time. But at least when there is a vote on the matter both sides can say they had a shot and their voice was heard. This is a crucial “pressure relief valve” in a well functioning civilization. Often the buildup of pressure from not having your voice heard is what leads to violence. And it is certainly what led to Roe never being accepted by half of the country.
Let’s just vote. I hate lawyers.
So I ask again- what do we typically do in situations like this? Where the electorate disagrees deeply on any issue, what is the better solution:
1. Simply accept the edict of a panel of lawyers that almost none of us have ever known and literally none of us has ever voted for
2. Vote
This argument applies nearly across-the-board. For example, I am a conservative. I believe liberalism as a political philosophy is tragically flawed. I realize millions disagree with me. So how do we resolve this conundrum? Do we beg some government official or court to answer this important question on our behalf? Or do we elect people who represent our values to express them in the halls of power?
We can’t make everyone happy all of the time. But at least when there is a vote on the matter both sides can say they had a shot and their voice was heard. This is a crucial “pressure relief valve” in a well functioning civilization. Often the buildup of pressure from not having your voice heard is what leads to violence. And it is certainly what led to Roe never being accepted by half of the country.
Let’s just vote. I hate lawyers.
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
When a miscarriage occurs, when "it is still just the possiblity of a human", can you define what you believe a miscarriage is at that point, then?
Last edited:
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
If I understand what would occur if Roe is overturned is that the decision of abortion would go back to the individual 50 states, and each state (other than those that have trigger laws currently in effect...which, I am guessing could be changed through legislative action) would then vote or it would it be up to the legislative and executive branches of each state (which, in essence, is still the result of the people of the state voting in their state's governor, senators, and representatives). Is that correct?
