Nice trick with the link. There are things called facts and things called beliefs. They are different and not the same. You would have them be the same. I ask you now for the third or fourth time, how does that work?

You're claiming the position of a man who cannot tell the difference between being punched in the nose and believing he will be punched in the nose, and I assure you those are two wa-ay different things.

And a good thought it is. I reckon it's a question of the status, or kind, of life. And the language most often used is better for heat than light. Imo, it's not a question of right and wrong, but a question of a conflict of rights where they overlap. The concept is "perfection" of rights. I express it this way. Both mother and fetus have rights, the mother's absolute, or perfected, the fetus's imperfect, or potential. Rights are often in conflict where they compete or collide or overlap and resolution not always easy. Question: I infer you're female. In trust that you never become pregnant unless you want to be, but if you did have an unwanted pregnancy, would you accept being condemned to come to term?

All forms of life do not have the necessary attributes to form the necessary substances. In the case of abortion, you are comparing a human fetus with that of all forms of life to where there exists no attributes in comparison to say they are similar in substance. There are no factual correspondents that can be demonstrated in any actuality. To otherwise is almost solipsistic in nature. — Cobra

My god.

Hi Tim, yes I see where you are coming from in that both Mother and Feteus have their own Human Rights, kind regards, Corinne

Apologies for send/send - I'm a newbie :)

Pornography is demeaning to women many pro-choice women say. I agree that all sex work hurts females. Even watching porn is problematic because it's someone's daughter involved. I know I eat meat even though I know some jerk is going going to kill an animal to feed me. If I put the temptation before someone to kill an animal and an animal loses his life, that's something I have come to terms with. I am an animal too and like meat. I would not kill an animal unless a life depended on it. I also support the dropping of bombs in Japan because it saved more lives. If someone is in great pain I think we can put them out and end the suffering. I don't subscribe to Catholic teachings on these. Killing a fetus to me is like killing a silverback gorilla however. You just don't do that shit unless a life depends on it. If people want to be assholes and have abortions or kill elephants, I do judge them because they are not in the right path. There could be creatures inbetween a bug and amphibian that I would not know whether it is right to kill just as science could make some bionic life which you wouldn't know how to deal with. To get lost in the continuum is to forget about responsibility which we have to life in general

People say "females have freedom to do porn or not". But many argue that females are different from men and will have sex when the really don't want to at all. So pornography seems to be an avenue open for the abuse of women. Maybe it's ok for some of them. The thing is, if women are often pressured to a situation into doing what they don't want, it can be asked if abortion puts a pressure on a woman to do something she will regret. The spiritual ideal is to respect life. Speaking of freedom gives the temptation to the pregnant women

Also, in New York now for partial birth abortions they have a doctor there ready to kill the organism before it fully births and one to keep it alive in case it fully comes out. What if a new movement starts in philosophy that says you become of person when you reach the Mirror Phase and if a baby can't recognize itself yet you can put it to death. It's a scary escalation when you stop and think that they are killing these beings while they are being born

I wanted to add that my choice to eat beef does allow someone to kill a beautiful innocent animal. But I see it like this. We pay taxes even though they are sometimes used for Planned Parenthood. Meat helps my life be better and paying taxes keeps me out of jail. I don't choose to kill any creatures except bugs. If others use what I do as an opportunity to kill, that isn't my responsibility. I just eat the left overs. If someone is overly scrupulous.and won't eat meat, and are against abortion, they should in principle stop paying taxes too. Thanks

What extraordinarily convolute self-justification.

In my life I can't worry about how my taxes are used or how my food choices effect others. People have vital space they need to live in. What I do is totally different from a women going to get an abortion and the doctor doing it. Those two people in that situation I do blame. Me giving my taxes instead of worrying that one fetus might be killed because it is not like doing the act of abortion. This seems clear to me. You've probably paid for an abortion yourself

I mean by your taxes of course

Here, medical abortions are done by prescription from a GP, basically for free. Surgical abortions are on Medicare, but there is often a co-payment of about $250. My tax dollars at work.

It's not an issue, politically.

Sex work is legal. I've had something to do with arguing that the Disability Insurance Scheme here, which funds support for those with a disability, should cover the hire of a sex worker. My tax dollars at work.

Hi Gregory, if you put it that way our Taxes may have been indeed contributed to this type of procedure! The Doctors involved are faced with impossible dilemma as they had chosen their vocation with the view of sustaining and saving lives... kind regards, Corinne

What i was saying is that I don't think I have to stop eating animals even though i am against killing them (a fetus to me is a very noble animal)

"If I kill this cow will you eat it" asks the cow-killer

"Yes but you shouldn't kill it" I respond

"Would you buy the meat" he asks

"Yes but I tell people I think it's wrong to kill the cow and I tell you that. I don't wish to put a temptation on you but if that happens so be it. It's your responsibility not to kill the cow, but if you do we can eat and talk more about how you shouldn't kill another one. I will continue to try to convince you."

I never said killing a cow is murder. I think it's wrong, but killing a fetus might be murder. They might be a full member of our species

And you are happy with that self-serving argument? You receive the benefit of the slaughter and yet claim not to partake in its turpitude?

There's something odd with your logic. Perhaps you should read more widely.

On a positive note, it is through this type of Forum members raise awareness on ethical issues and this is to be commended

All I am doing is giving a little money here and there which people make up their minds to use for bad purposes. My reasoning does satisfy me in this case. Being classified as scrupulous as a child by priests, I still see situations all over the place where things I do might lead others to do bad. I can't worry about all that. Giving money to McDonald's is different from going to get an abortion though

The

If you meant me as the OP, thank you. I am trying to learn through all this

As we all are Gregory

Another example on this question is using tabacoo products. People spending money on their vapes is giving those companies more money to hook people. But as I said that is on those companies and people who decide to smoke. I use tabacoo for the same reason I eat meat. It makes life a little better. I've spent lots of money in my life on both. I admit animals and humans may have died, but that is from other peoples' choices. I can't live worrying about how my actions put someone else in a position where they can use my money for things I find wrong. To think otherwise seems scrupulous to me, which priests told me as a child as a spiritual malady of mine. I care for morality, but I consider myself cured of that malady

..? Dumbass reply like most of the OP's/pro-lifers MRM shit.

Clearly I am a dumbass. What is MRM?

Apparently you are able to perceive the perceptions of others. Talk about a nice trick! Thing is, it is hard to reconcile that ability with your "individuality". If what we do creates impediments to the free access other's to their rights, then the public has a right to mitigate that activity, if not to thwart it altogether. And that's a fact. I think it was Locke who said "the freedom to swing your arm about stops at my nose.", or some such. As in so many other matters, he was wrong. It stops wherever it becomes an intimidating gesture. It's interesting how so many "individualists" rely so heavily upon the community respect of those they derive their livelihoods from!

How do you reconcile individual religious faith with institutional religious authority? Can the First Amendment protect both if they conflict?

Every word you have posted is a demonstration you are not an individualist. And every thought or perception you have is an engagement in the expression that you know you are part of a community, and that you impact it in ways that, however minuscule, are less limited of that impact than any system of preserving the general appreciation of terms. That is why dictionaries have to be revised pretty often, though there are so many words and the changes so subtle that you personally may never notice this. Besides this, we are more deeply steeped in that altering of terms than the process of preserving terms from that dynamic of them can suppress. This is how we know each other and share meaning far more fully than the lexicographers can regulate. An inside joke differs with every telling. The scribes can list and even explain the joke, but cannot stymie that difference. Because that difference, intimacy, is the engine of language and shared apperception.

I don't know what you did with the link in your post above, but if it was intended to link with a text somewhere else, on my side it didn't work. And it still doesn't.

What is your point in your first paragraph? I cannot find one.

How do you reconcile individual religious faith with institutional religious authority? Can the First Amendment protect both if they conflict? — Gary M Washburn

This sounds like a good question but it dissolves on contact. What is "individual religious faith"? Do you mean some sort of belief? And what would the establishment and free exercise clauses have to do with it?

Third paragraph. Is English your first language? And, what is your point?

Picked up the wrong URL, Try again:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/10/22/1986768/-10-Tragic-Consequences-of-Restrictive-Abortion-Laws


Is the "free exercise" of religion an individual right or an institutional right? F'r'instance, isn't enlisting government support for a prohibition against birth control establishing that religion, at least amongst that congregation and its non-member employees?

Your being deliberately obtuse. Or do you just not get the joke? That is, that you are just as human as are we all. And language, even the terms of symbolic logic and computer code, is a human artifact developed and sustained as a human dynamic. Did I use any words you can't find in your Webster's? Actually, with the exception of 'apperception' all the words in that paragraph can be found in a pretty skinny dictionary, and this one can be found in any philosophy dictionary.

Let me put that more strongly. Is a church a separate sovereign with sovereignty rights over its membership and employees the Constitution not only prohibits interfering in, but must protect the establishment of over that membership and those employees? How is that sovereignty over its membership and employees is not the establishment of a religion?

The wording of the establishment clause is clearly meant to prohibit establishing churches as sovereign over anyone, though its supporters may have been thinking negatively, only to prohibit any other church made sovereign over it. Remember, at the time the Baptists had no government support, and every state had its own church. It is hard to see how there could be one unifying law over thirteen separate states. And don't forget the fourteenth! without it there may not have been a US.

I give up. Too incoherent. Anyone else?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Make of it what you will, then maybe do some research. I do not see any connection (in law) between this and abortion.

There is a case still steaming in the record about a charity hospital waived the requirement to provide reproductive coverage on non-member employees. And since most Catholics believe in choice, and many get abortions when they feel needed, the judgment does not protect the rights of the congregation, but the authority of the shapers of doctrine over them. The Roman Catholic Church could not be more established, and hardly needs the Supreme court's further securing that establishment.

Present the argument that fetuses are for sure not humans. Since you cant, it's obvious that they might be human. Isn't it obvious that you don't kill something that might be human? Its called basic respect for (here comes that that word) life. forget about the killing animals thing. I brought that up as an example. You're ok with killing something that for all you know is a full human baby. That is disgusting