SCOTUS okays funding Planned Parenthood

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

How do we know what is sacred and what is not...?

In India, the cow is sacred, here in the US and elsewhere, we EAT THEM...!

Could sacredness be a matter of personal preference...?

It is, a matter of personal preference based on the god(s) you worship. At a minimum the definition of "sacred" as anything worthy of respect especially because of a connection with a god, then yes it depends on the god(s).

Even with the above minimal definition, it is life, even the life of a cow is sacred because it is connected to god(s).

At the minimum, even according to personal preference, life is sacred.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It is, a matter of personal preference based on the god(s) you worship. At a minimum the definition of "sacred" as anything worthy of respect especially because of a connection with a god, then yes it depends on the god(s).

Even with the above minimal definition, it is life, even the life of a cow is sacred because it is connected to god(s).

At the minimum, even according to personal preference, life is sacred.

But if that connection to god(s) is not there in reality, because of the separation from god(s), or the non-existence of god(s)...What then...?

Surely, we must make our valuations of life apart from ideas/ ideals of sacredness only in connection to a presumed deity...

Life has value beyond our conceptions of the gods...btw, I am generally against abortion...but I am not the woman that carries the baby, either...so I don’t know how that child might effect HER life......

This topic is a difficult one...at some level we all must take a position on WHO WE ARE, as individuals....are we OUR OWN only...? Or are we just a speck in some larger entity, ie, the State, God, the gods...

Is our fetuse OUR OWN...is it part of MY OWN Sacredness ONLY, or is this fetus that I carry part of someone else’s SACREDNESS that I am forced to submit to...?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

But if that connection to god(s) is not there in reality, because of the separation from god(s), or the non-existence of god(s)...What then...?

Surely, we must make our valuations of life apart from ideas/ ideals of sacredness only in connection to a presumed deity...

Life has value beyond our conceptions of the gods...btw, I am generally against abortion...but I am not the woman that carries the baby, either...so I don’t know how that child might effect HER life......

This topic is a difficult one...at some level we all must take a position on WHO WE ARE, as individuals....are we OUR OWN only...? Or are we just a speck in some larger entity, ie, the State, God, the gods...

Is our fetuse OUR OWN...is it part of MY OWN Sacredness ONLY, or is this fetus that I carry part of someone else’s SACREDNESS that I am forced to submit to...?

The common understanding of "Sacredness" is based on the understanding of that something is treated differently due to its connection to a god(s).

If you use the word "sacred" you are by definition using it to objectively connect something to god(s).

If you want to make up your own definitions there is no basis for a logical discussion. A word has to have an objective meaning otherwise it is meaningless. Thus objectively your own "sacredness" results from being connected to god(s) and belongs to god(s).

[barahona44]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So now you're in favor of special K? Hi - lair - eee - us

How does one follow the other? If you were to simply observe that Trump was being criticized by some of his supporters then,using your logic, you must be in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Lighten up ,Francis.It was a joke from the get-go.

But it's good to see that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is alive 'n' kickin' and back in the Supreme Court saddle.

Which is not "hi- lair- eee- us" for "The Court is Saved" crowd.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Why is it that the same people who are in favor of preserving the lives of these unborn, unwanted fetuses...are also against the government programs which are meant to support these same lives after birth?

Having children is a responsibility of the parents. Not to kill them and to take care of them.
If the concern is that the mother can't raise them, and also to save money, then by all means, abort the MOTHER. SHE is the root cause of the problem. Can't keep her knees together and can't get off her ass to go to work. And a baby only adds one to the populations. The mother can add many more. Abort the mothers!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

Having children is a responsibility of the parents. Not to kill them and to take care of them.
If the concern is that the mother can't raise them, and also to save money, then by all means, abort the MOTHER. SHE is the root cause of the problem. Can't keep her knees together and can't get off her ass to go to work.

Hold on a minute, Tom. If the girl gets pregnant and doesn't want to give birth to her unborn child...what is the acceptable solution for this lamentable scenario?

[Tom]

It is not to reward the irresponsible woman.
Perhaps if we allow her to abort, we also mandate her to be sterilized.
SHE is the root cause - SHE is what needs to be fixed. Excuse the pun.

[Show Me the Wire]

If the body truly belongs to you, why does the government have the right to tell you what you can or cannot ingest? How can the government restrict you from ingesting certain drugs or restrict your consumption of some item.

Apparently a woman has a right to privacy to her body to expel, but not ingest? Something is off in this thinking.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The common understanding of "Sacredness" is based on the understanding of that something is treated differently due to its connection to a god(s).

If you use the word "sacred" you are by definition using it to objectively connect something to god(s).

If you want to make up your own definitions there is no basis for a logical discussion. A word has to have an objective meaning otherwise it is meaningless. Thus objectively your own "sacredness" results from being connected to god(s) and belongs to god(s).

You are right here, unless ONE IS A GOD, which I presume I am not...still there is a very real chance that terrestrial life is the only life in the universe, and that human beings are the highest evolving life forms ever to exist...THAT, if it is a fact, would make “the human” closer to the ideal of “sacredness” than any other know cosmic entity thus far identified.

That premise alone OUGHT to convince people that all human life is extraordinarily valuable and ought to be conserved, brought to fruition under most ordinary circumstances...

...as I said earlier, I am generally against the practice of abortion and believe that ALL life is precious and incredibly EXTRAORDINARY within the vastness of the cosmos.

To rely on “connectedness to deity” to SOLELY underpin the value of any new human life seems a different point than mine...

I do not believe that “the public” should be force to contribute funds to support this practice against their OWN WILLS...there ought to be an “opt-out” rebate of sorts to reimburse those people who object, which I think is a reasonable position to take...

By not having a provision like this for abortions’ detractors....the SCOTUS is clearly demonstrating that its citizens are THEIRS and not THEIR OWN.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If the body truly belongs to you, why does the government have the right to tell you what you can or cannot ingest? How can the government restrict you from ingesting certain drugs or restrict your consumption of some item.

Apparently a woman has a right to privacy to her body to expel, but not ingest? Something is off in this thinking.

Can't sell a kidney, can't rent your lady parts out for a party, lots of stuff you can't do with "your" body.

Liberal thinking - ignores most facts.

[reckless]

The same pro-abortion groups that regularly scream 'Stay out of my vagina' or 'Stay out of my bedroom' whenever conservative politicians wish to end taxpayer funding of their 'choice' are all too happy to expect the very same onerous government to pay for their 'choices'.

It's now OK for the abortion lobbies to stick their hand in the pocketbook of taxpayers -- and also preach, shut up and take that!

[reckless]

As for Brett Kavanaugh, watching him in those vulgar Senate hearings, he had all the attributes of a sissy and I figured it was just a matter of time before he 'proved' to his detractors that he wasn't a woman-hater or a lead conductor of a rape train.

I just didn't think he'd bend over oh so very soon into his new career.

Now, thanks to both the already-discredited John Roberts and rookie-fraud Kavanaugh, it doesn't really matter if Ruth Bader Ginsberg resigns or dies and Trump replaces her with a 'conservative' judge, does it?

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Clocker

I do. Where in the Constitution does it say that the feds can tell a state what kind of welfare programs it has to fund?

that is certainly true. and I totally agree with that.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by TJDave

So?

It saves me money.

exactly. Like having your tubes tied or getting a vasectomy.


elective surgery that saves us the taxpayers plenty.


The only difference is the moral implications.



Allan

[Tom]

Great way to justify the holocaust while you're at it.