Unworthy of Life

I am sure I could think of worse examples, like for instance the example that wasting one's life in a prestigious, pointless little office job in a crummy city is something to aspire to. Anyway, while it may be true that abortion is a bad example given to others because it makes them careless, I would say that abortion is beneficial overall. Maybe people should just learn to think for themselves so that the rest of us don't have to worry about setting any bad examples.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know why. Why do so many people think that ignorance somehow makes people less rational? it needn't. Anyway, that is not propaganda as far as a know. It might come in the form of propaganda, but I honestly think that it is better for abortion to be legal, so that the population doesn't get too large and unwanted babies don't die horrible deaths and women's lives aren't ruined by said babies.

Why was the court case settled? I'm not saying that women's rights had anything to do with it. I don't care if they did. I care about results. Did you think that I thought it was about women's rights? I actually hadn't speculated about the reasoning behind it at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I try to stay on the objectively right path, as a libertarian. However, the best I can do is make estimations sometimes, which leaves me at risk of straying from said path. I don't think that ending a life is a cost if that life has never been self aware and nobody wants it around, unless you mean financial cost of course. Otherwise, ending life is probably quite a cost.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

social compliance & the over reach of moral authority
...
season 1

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

act 1
thou shalt do as i say because
act 2
thou shalt do as i say because because
act 3
what ever act 1 was
applies twice as much because i said it does

act 4
huh ? did someone say something ?

act 5
best examples are always best as long as you can tell others what to do


to those young women trying to think about their values around abortion
imagine that it is a life or death issue & you must defend yourself at all costs
even if that means lethal force against the attacker

that's the reality
men have no business in the debate of what YOU choose & there is no right or wrong answer
only what is best for you at the time
your taking on a risk
a risk men never have to face

 

Lol Rainbow I think you are pretty much just being a bully now.

 

LoLz !

bullying usually involves destroying someones self image

i am doing the reverse (or more soo neutral & egocentrics & narcissists hate that)

bullying involves denial of liberal freedoms & human rights

i am doing the opposite

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What may be problematic is if the state allows only 1 child per family and all other pregnancies must be aborted or surrendered to the state. This was China' s policy for awhile, because they have a terrible overpopulation problem.

One-child policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

 

Well, if the case is about making estimations, then those must start right before having sex without protection, it saves a lots of further consequences.

 

It must start in any case, since no birth control is 100%.

 

IMO, if the State flat out forbids abortion and forces you to bring every pregnancy to term, the State becomes responsible for all costs of bringing the fetus to term and for all expenses incurred after the child is born. If the State leaves no choice, the State becomes responsible for the consequences.

 

Nonsense! Texas will outlaw abortion then stick you with all the costs. And if you don't pay them, they will throw you in jail.

It's nice to be the king.

 

George Carlin was so right.

Warning crude language

 

both, india & china have poor history's with over population
Africa too
matched with under resourcing
but only china did something about it

hard to lay any blame on chinas door step when they are the only country who made a rule
i think the biggest thorn in their side would be lack of contraceptive medication distribution & combined sex education for children moving into sexual experimentation

yet both china AND india have thousands of years of history of using manual labour as a profit vehicle in a hard labour world
more workers = more profit = more better quality of life for everyone
and more security

not talking about you write4u
unfortunately a lot of ignorant people claim to think they have a valid opinion
but they lack such a vast amount of knowledge

india has issues with old world culture domination which will prevent contraceptives & science
china has its own ancient medicines & issues but is considerably more modern by its collective force of government & the peoples will

there is no use to have all things available to everyone if all things cost money & there is not an income for all people

& here we arrive at your point

investment security into a life
investing in the childs health & schooling
investing in contraceptives & medical services for women & girls

regardless of it being defined as socialism or capitalism
the leaders govern at the will of the people

both have their short comings

it is in this reality that it is complete insane irony that such western privilege & wealth would deny a women the right over her own body
it is morally outrageous

 

Sanctity of Life?"

Sanctity of life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life

Yes, and humans get to judge the degrees of sanctity that may be assigned to life

Life is Sacred?

Sacred
"Sanctity" redirects here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred

What are we, a secular Democracy or a Theocracy?

 

Theocracy? republicans as conservatives define the church as the highest power
all presidents must swear on a bible & go to a special baptism
"conservative" judges define themself as agents of the word of the bible through their interpretation
laid out in laws
democrats = modern Christianity & secular
republican = conservative Christianity & conventional Christianity(settler style liberal law conservative morals)

Democratic Theocracy

 

OK, what do we do with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Establishment Clause" that commands the "Separation of Church and State"?

 

who wrote it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(a boys club seeking to build an empire out of a common dream)
what did they write it for

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(to gain & ratify their own power with various sales points like seeking the will of the disaffected)
what does it achieve

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(an ability to remove power away from the church holding legal authority over the military)

the separation of church & state in the USA is probably more about dividing power away from the church to allow a different power system's outside the church
(note clubs & organizations which also hold more power than churches or states[there is nothing insidious about groups organizations or clubs holding more power than the church or state, it is a natural social construct of liberal social free will to democratically self define, however a lot of the conditioning of people has defined polar extremes of the moral value of those groups based on ignorant inept application of terms & meanings ])
the state operates as a church based on its self definition of express terms
it is inherently christian
that is neither good nor bad
because the real question should be
is the state empathic & accountable to the needs of its citizens which give it the authority & power & income that it uses relys on and demands of all others including its citizens.

my personal leaning is for a secular state which empowers all non abusive religions to be equally self representing

i don't think churches should be given power
they do not owe any accountability to the citizens like the state in theory has demands to comply with.

too much rainbow ?

you dont need to re-invent the wheel if you want to build a hover craft
you have to invent a hover craft

 

IMO, this clause is designed to protect both governing systems, in accordance with the freedom of religion.

Note that the Church used to be the exclusive governing system in most countries and still is in some.
But in modern secular societies that respect the freedom of all belief systems, this presents a dilemma.

It does not mean the establishment of Religion as the governing power, nor does it mean that the State has the right to restrict the practice of religion.
It is a two-way street, designed to act as a true separation of Church and State.

But of course, it has become corrupted by the Church, which has infiltrated the State and seeks to reestablish religion as governing law. Woe to atheists.

Point of interest. The official creed of the old Inquisition was;

And it was the Church that decided what was evil and what was piety. As they still do in Muslim theocracies.