Right to LifeBoard

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,2482,2492,2502,2512,2522,2532,254. . .2,5072,508»
LodgedFromMessages


The Republic of Phydios

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:-snip-

I understand and respect that, but as I said, I feel no conviction to agree. The Nazis did horrific experiments on unwilling victims- if you could save lives with information derived from those torture sessions decades ago, would you?

Etowah union of tribes

Phydios wrote:I understand and respect that, but as I said, I feel no conviction to agree. The Nazis did horrific experiments on unwilling victims- if you could save lives with information derived from those torture sessions decades ago, would you?

Not knowingly

The Federation of Roborian

Phydios wrote:I understand and respect that, but as I said, I feel no conviction to agree. The Nazis did horrific experiments on unwilling victims- if you could save lives with information derived from those torture sessions decades ago, would you?

That's what makes this so hard, and is why I have not been able to get myself to a clear position. I think that I hesitantly would use that information, but hesitantly not the vaccine, off the idea that it's more about incentivization than the 'purity' of the information. What was done in both cases would be evil, but the Nazi experiment evil is one which there is both near-universal agreement that such behavior is wrong, and such behavior is not going on today and is very unlikely to occur again, at least in the Western world, therefore there's little perceived sanction given by using that data. For abortion harvesting, that is something that is still going on today and which many consider acceptable, so there's significantly more sanction/encouragement given by using such.

To put it another way (though the metaphor is imperfect), I don't really have moral qualms about buying from Nazi-founded Volkswagen today, but I would have significantly more buying from a car company that was actively promoting and/or funding abortion. If we had a situation where Nazi experimentation was being practiced and defended by corporations in the modern day, then my answer would change, I think there's some weight that should be put on whether what is being discussed is ongoing or functionally dead-and-gone, and thus whether one's choices are likely to have any impact on the future or not. If Christians en masse refused to use products created with data from Nazi experiments, society would just keep not doing Nazi experiments, but if Christians did the same for abortion-derived products, then there's a solid chance that they would back away.

Or at least that's my rough take on it, I'm still sitting at least partially on the fence about this.

via Cape of Good Hope

The Kitten Loving Monarchy of Super Duper Nice People

Omg hiiiiiii
We have an embassy with you 🙃
I'm Bella
Anyway y'all are cool byeeeeee



The First of First And Only Archive

Phydios wrote:I understand and respect that, but as I said, I feel no conviction to agree. The Nazis did horrific experiments on unwilling victims- if you could save lives with information derived from those torture sessions decades ago, would you?

This isn't even theoretical, of course.

For example we know that paracetamol and penicillin are very safe in pregnancy. We know this because the nazis were evil enough to do tests.

Most medicines we have now we don't know for sure that they're safe in pregnancy as we can no longer ethically do those trials.

Knowing that we only know paracetamol and penicillin to be pregnancy safe because of unethical moral experiments, is it okay to use that knowledge as doctors? Or should that knowledge be suppressed because it was derived unethically?

Indeed, should we refuse to act on that knowledge if we already know it?

To swing this back to the vaccine, is it immoral to use a vaccine which uses a process that involves HEK293 cells? These cells are descendants of kidney cells from an aborted foetus but they are not the actual cells.

As a thought experiment replace abortion with adult murder victim. If in the 1970s we had harvested the cells of a murder victim (who was killed, but not killed FOR those cells) would it be immoral to use those cell's descendants?

The Federation of Roborian

First And Only Archive wrote:This isn't even theoretical, of course.

For example we know that paracetamol and penicillin are very safe in pregnancy. We know this because the nazis were evil enough to do tests.

Most medicines we have now we don't know for sure that they're safe in pregnancy as we can no longer ethically do those trials.

Knowing that we only know paracetamol and penicillin to be pregnancy safe because of unethical moral experiments, is it okay to use that knowledge as doctors? Or should that knowledge be suppressed because it was derived unethically?

Indeed, should we refuse to act on that knowledge if we already know it?

To swing this back to the vaccine, is it immoral to use a vaccine which uses a process that involves HEK293 cells? These cells are descendants of kidney cells from an aborted foetus but they are not the actual cells.

As a thought experiment replace abortion with adult murder victim. If in the 1970s we had harvested the cells of a murder victim (who was killed, but not killed FOR those cells) would it be immoral to use those cell's descendants?

I think, continuing with the rough thoughts I had above, that the important point is that adult murder was and is illegal, so there's no perceived aid lent to something that is still being carried out in the present without sanction.

It's difficult to come up with another example since killing has been at least de jure illegal through American history, but perhaps something like imagining that we are in an extraordinarily racist society where lynching an adult black person was and is legally permitted, and the cells were taken from that victim. That such evil acts were still occurring and could occur again for such reasons would make me hesitant to use a product derived from such.



The Federation of Roborian

Rep. Ro Khanna, who graduated from Yale, has a net worth of 27 million dollars and has never run a business in his life, has said that "we don't want" small businesses that cannot afford to pay $15/hour, and has since doubled down on the comments.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ro-khanna-defends-small-business-comments-after-gop-targets-minimum-wage-remarks/ar-BB1dTRkk

(As per standard operating procedure, because a Democrat said something controversial, the headline is "Republicans pounce", the GOP 'targeted' and 'seized on' the remarks. That trend to make every Democrat misstep headlined as a Republican pouncing and every Republican misstep just be a straight headline focused on the GOP has gone from a somewhat amusing 'hey, look at that' to a constant ridiculous display of media partisanship, but that's beside the point.)

I mentioned this earlier when the proposed wage increase was brought up, but this just hammers it home: the issue has gone from one of debating economic efficiency to one of apparent open disdain and scorn for small business owners. Khanna, a multi-multi-millionaire who lives in a city with a median income over $100,000, has assured everyone that small businesses even in rural areas can "thrive" paying the wage, which he knows because of his extensive hands-on experience in small-town America from his career as a Yale-educated lawyer who married the daughter of a investment firm tycoon. As earlier mentioned, $15/hour is higher than the median income in the state of Mississippi. The wage in Mississippi is the equivalent of requiring a minimum wage of nearly $40/hour for 7-11 workers by Khanna in San Jose.

There is out-of-touch, and there is actively spiteful, and I think that boundary has been crossed. A man luxuriating in the top 1% with his elite education in one of the wealthiest cities in the country declaring that Bill's Bait and Tackle should be boarded up and cast aside because does not meet his exacting standards-after arguably the single worst year for small business in the history of the United States-is a microcosm of this ugly new political elitism.

The Federation of Roborian

I do not have a great deal of love lost for Jen Psaski, but I'm almost sympathetic to the bind she's now in now that 'kids in cages' has reared its head once again and the Biden administration is reopening a 'concentration camp'.

She went on about how they only have a few options when dealing with such issues, and the thing is, she's actually more or less right on the actual facts and how things go when you have a mix of minors with parents, unaccompanied minors, and minors with questionable 'guardians' all the be processed, along with such issues as a potentially dangerous return journey. The problem is not so much the actual policy, which seems nuanced enough, it's that the insanity with which Trump was attacked for 'children in cages', 'concentration camps', 'taking children from their parents' (often with Obama photos used) makes it impossible for the new administration to justify even calibrated policy, the calibrations got thrown out a long time ago in exchange for extreme rhetoric for perceived political advantage.

I think that culminated in the hearing with the Homan v. AOC hearing. I'm generally rather liberal on border issues, but that was a great example of how rhetoric designed for headlines and political use could not withstand even a minimum level of scrutiny: AOC leveled the rhetorical accusation of 'separating children from their parents', and Homan replied that children were separated from their parents every time a U.S. citizen was arrested for drunk driving or any other crime, it's just that the rhetorical cannon never gets turned that way on every arrest in America. It was politically useful for Biden's allies to push the rhetoric regardless because of how few read past a headline, but now it's coming back to bite them when you actually have to create policy to attempt solutions-though at least now they have the Washington Post is getting on its white charger to contradict everything they said in the past in order to better serve their beloved Lord.

I would be curious where others in the region fall on the issue, because it is one that, in my mind, is far more nuanced that coverage would have one believe. What is the solution when dealing with minors at the border, accompanied, unaccompanied, apprehended in one way or another, etc.?

The Social Democracy of Horatius Cocles

Roborian wrote:You just gotta love the reasoning behind the second choice (which apparently is the most popular one), "Trump did untold damage to our democracy, so we must therefore in response make it illegal for the people to choose their preferred leader via vote."

'We must protect our democracy by destroying our democracy.'

That seems specious and hyperbolic. The Founders didn't see a problem with holding votes to disqualify officials (incumbent or former) from holding office after an extremely bad event/behavior. As the impeachment managers demonstrated with the Belknap case, the Founders did intend to use the clause in that way. Since it was written into the Constitution itself, it seems that you have a problem with the Founders having this provision to begin with.

The Federation of Roborian

Horatius Cocles wrote:That seems specious and hyperbolic. The Founders didn't see a problem with holding votes to disqualify officials (incumbent or former) from holding office after an extremely bad event/behavior. As the impeachment managers demonstrated with the Belknap case, the Founders did intend to use the clause in that way. Since it was written into the Constitution itself, it seems that you have a problem with the Founders having this provision to begin with.

That's the thing-I absolutely don't have a problem with the Founders having that position and I don't have a problem with that sort of thing consistently. The overwhelming majority of Republicans can support such a prohibition without being hypocritical, but the Democrats are not in such a position. Republicans, not entirely surprisingly, defend the U.S. as a Constitutional "Republic", defend institutions like the Senate, institutions like the electoral college-institutions that Democrats have heatedly criticized as 'anti-democratic' and seek to do away with.

Impeachment is one of a number of parts of the Constitution that pulls back from direct democracy. I, and most Republicans, don't agitate for a directly democratic system and thus do not have an issue with it, but the party that uses 'democracy' as its buzzword and seeks to strike down such small-r republican Constitutional elements is then turning on its heel and looking to block out the direct vote of the people, a clearly anti small-d democratic move, when there is a clear partisan advantage to doing so.

It's not that the position of barring future runs for office is inherently a bad one, it is that it is entirely at odds with claimed values for a huge percentage of those pushing for it. (I have no issue at all with moderate Democrats who consistently stand by the Constitutional structure on such issues, but they seem to be a distinct minority.)

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

Today's Tangle was one of his worst: Issac Saul has no concept of what religious liberty is or, for that matter, what religion is.



The Federation of Roborian

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Today's Tangle was one of his worst: Issac Saul has no concept of what religious liberty is or, for that matter, what religion is.

"This argument seems to most often come from the religious right, where the greatest threat to women or young boys and girls is not trans people but straight, cisgender men, specifically religious leaders, who have a long and storied history of sexual assault."

A quote I pulled from it-and just a ridiculous one. There is no 'storied' history of sexual assault on the religious right, even the scandals of the Catholic church at their peak show lower rates of sexual assault than for public schoolteachers. Even if one did not know those statistics, though (and one really should not be getting on their high horse if they do not know the numbers), the Catholic scandal does not even conform to that line of attack: The priests in question were not being accused of sexually assaulting females.

Then we get the typical line: "t we live in a country that is not just built on freedom of religion but freedom from religion — the distinct separation of God’s law from America’s law. We need to walk a line between not forcing religious institutions into violating their own faiths and not allowing the same institutions to force their faith-based beliefs onto the public at large." I still have yet to see someone explain to me how operating your own bakery, on your own property, that people voluntarily can come to or not come to, is forcing one's beliefs on 'the public at large.' There are no Republicans writing legislation to mandate discrimination.

I am very much of the opinion that religious liberty is a dead letter, it is only going to further sink, primarily from the teachings of today that are pushed on every kid going through the education system, but also because they are not really defensible: I'd actually make the case that it is extraordinarily difficult to make a convincing case for religious liberty as a standalone value outside of churches, because the argument always starts with conceding ground: the anti-religious liberty argument is something like a reductio ad absurdum "Well you wouldn't give people religious liberty to [commit X crime], and the defender then agrees, and is subsequently at a severe disadvantage in trying to then explain why religious liberty does not apply there, but should apply in whatever other issue is being debated.

The only effective defense that can really be raised is freedom of association, which, at least in most of these cases, covers for religious liberty as well. Arguments for that have a significantly stronger foundation, because it is not sort of a wishy-washy "Religious people should be exempted from X law, but not from Y", but rather "You have the right, with and on your own property, to contract or not contract with anyone."

I think we're all screwed either way, more or less every institution of power is now aligned behind the notion of legally enforcing a certain view of morality (actual ACLU liberalism is all but dead), but freedom of association at least has better odds in a world where people are increasingly taught, and teach, that religious views are fundamentally hateful and thus that one should not tolerate the intolerant.

I wonder if it ever will occur to the people saying that "We need freedom from religion" that they are seeking to legally mandate a certain dogma of subjective morality. I doubt it.

The Theocracy of Aawia

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/new-york-times-article-says-atlantic-canada-is-ripe-for-pandemic-stigma-1.5319847?fbclid=IwAR3eHfq3W3hSqSszWY9Kr9-jnvEaweIraxiEbdr9DkJELmut4BrI2chrBrQ

Guess it swings both ways. I will admit there is some fear here that if you go out without symptoms, not knowing you have covid, and then later test positive you'd feel like a murderer and might be treated like one. The NS premier today even attacked people who had been socializing with covid basically saying people are going out too much even with the looser restrictions. There's a balance and I know we're not balancing it well yet. I have been hearing from more and more profs though that Canada is becoming more of honour-shame focused culturally, and that this might be another sign of the changing times.

The Republic of Phydios

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Today's Tangle was one of his worst: Issac Saul has no concept of what religious liberty is or, for that matter, what religion is.

You are right. I haven't had the time to write out a well-thought-out email in response, but I want to. I know that even though he often leans left, he will receive it graciously.

But this is one issue that he will fail to find common ground on- because there is none. Either you accommodate the people who say "biology is irrelevant" or you do not. Either you accommodate the people who say "businesses should not have the right to refuse service to us", or you do not. Either you disenfranchise those biologically male athletes who identify as female, or you disenfranchise the biologically female athletes who identify as female. There is no compromise. Someone will always be disenfranchised. And we are supposed to accommodate 1.5 million people at the expense of 328.5 million?

No. Just no. This is one matter that I will not budge an inch on. Either 2 + 2 = 4, or 2 + 2 = 5. There is no middle ground with this "Equality" Act.

The Federation of Roborian

Phydios wrote:You are right. I haven't had the time to write out a well-thought-out email in response, but I want to. I know that even though he often leans left, he will receive it graciously.

But this is one issue that he will fail to find common ground on- because there is none. Either you accommodate the people who say "biology is irrelevant" or you do not. Either you accommodate the people who say "businesses should not have the right to refuse service to us", or you do not. Either you disenfranchise those biologically male athletes who identify as female, or you disenfranchise the biologically female athletes who identify as female. There is no compromise. Someone will always be disenfranchised. And we are supposed to accommodate 1.5 million people at the expense of 328.5 million?

No. Just no. This is one matter that I will not budge an inch on. Either 2 + 2 = 4, or 2 + 2 = 5. There is no middle ground with this "Equality" Act.

Sen./Dr. Paul confronted Dr. Levine in his confirmation hearing to directly ask whether he supports "The government intervening to override the parents' consent to give a child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and or amputation surgery of breasts and genitalia", and Levine, twice, directly refused to answer, giving this empty nonsense:

“Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field, and if confirmed to the position of assistant secretary of health, I would certainly be pleased to come to your office and talk with you and your staff about the standards of care and the complexity of this field.”

(I also just searched to get the exact quote, and the first five articles that come up on it are headlined "Patty Murray rebuked Rand Paul for 'harmful misrepresentation' at historic confirmation", "Sen. Paul criticized for comments during hearing for Rachel Levine's confirmation", "Sen. Rand Paul slammed for transphobic questioning", "Rachel Levine elegantly bats back Rand Paul's loaded trans questions" and "Rand Paul tried to derail Rachel Levine's confirmation with transphobic disinformation." All for the entirely neutral search term "Rand Paul Dr. Levine confirmation hearing", on DuckDuckGo, which is usually less ideologically slanted than Google.)

There was no possible misinterpretation here, Paul directly brough up Levine's record (“Dr. Levine, you have supported both allowing minors to be given hormone blockers to prevent them from going through puberty, as well as surgical destruction of a minor's genitalia.”) and directly asked the question multiple times ("Dr. Levine, do you believe minors are capable of making such a life-changing decision of changing one's sex?”, "Will you make a more firm decision on whether minors should be involved in these decisions?”), and there was no answer, but the resounding answer from the coverage of the hearing that children who are not of age to consent to use their sexual organs in intercourse can have such mutilated irreversibly.

I'm with you entirely on this, this is an absolutely central issue, and we're at the tipping point, past it, probably. I'm happy to have all manner of discussions on taxes, healthcare, immigration, even to say that an adult who wants to do certain things to their body can do so, but when we're talking about performing operations with lifelong consequences on children under the age of consent, from the backing of an ideology that rejects the basic fundamentals of biology, and with support that now goes so far that just yesterday or today Amazon has banned and removed books by medical doctors raising scientific concerns on transgender issues, there is a line in the sand, a hill to die on. I think it's too late, the reaction to this hearing being "Transphobic Senator Paul" and not "Nominee refuses to condemn genital mutilation of children" only proves that, but if we cannot stand here, we have neither the strength nor the right to stand anywhere.

The Federation of Roborian

It's all very blackpill or doomposting or whatever the catchy term is, but the societal state on the transgender issue is what ultimately got me deciding against having children. It's not a sole factor, there's a whole lot of other stuff going on, but we're already at a point where, in my state, children can be taken from foster parents if said parents do not actively support a below-consenting-age child transitioning. I have little doubt that that will come to be applied for biological parents as well. The notion of having your child taken from you for a 'transition', drugging, and possible mutilation that they don't understand because they once told a teacher that they liked the color pink is horrific, and I wish I could say it was far-fetched, but the Younger case in Texas and the currently name-redacted one in Canada show we're already all but there. I don't know if I could justify bringing a child into a world where such a spectre stands as possibility.

Phydios, New Kiwis, and Semple

The Republic of Phydios

Roborian wrote:It's all very blackpill or doomposting or whatever the catchy term is, but the societal state on the transgender issue is what ultimately got me deciding against having children. It's not a sole factor, there's a whole lot of other stuff going on, but we're already at a point where, in my state, children can be taken from foster parents if said parents do not actively support a below-consenting-age child transitioning. I have little doubt that that will come to be applied for biological parents as well. The notion of having your child taken from you for a 'transition', drugging, and possible mutilation that they don't understand because they once told a teacher that they liked the color pink is horrific, and I wish I could say it was far-fetched, but the Younger case in Texas and the currently name-redacted one in Canada show we're already all but there. I don't know if I could justify bringing a child into a world where such a spectre stands as possibility.

I understand, but take note of the fact that God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" does not have conditions attached, and that God is still in complete control of of the universe. Not everything comes from him, but nothing happens without His explicit permission.

The Federation of Roborian

Phydios wrote:I understand, but take note of the fact that God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" does not have conditions attached, and that God is still in complete control of of the universe. Not everything comes from him, but nothing happens without His explicit permission.

I think that the applicability of that command is not necessarily universal, particularly given Paul's writing. The contrast between some of the verses in Proverbs and Psalms extolling childbearing and Paul in Corinthians saying that it is better to remain unmarried as he did is interesting and there's plenty of discussion on the balance, but at the least it seems to debunk the idea that marriage and fathering children is a necessity-I don't think Paul was denying God by not following the order to Adam and Eve.

I've felt this way in other contexts as well, but this is where being an Arminian is a great deal more neurotic than being a Calvinist, I wish I could be convinced enough to 'convert', but it leaves one in a standing where the end of history is known, but the interim, as Scripture indicates, is in a world that Satan is the prince of.

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

I also thought this was a weird line: "some people’s observance boxes them into opposing things"

Who uses such bizarre, imprecise terminology as "people's observance"?

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

Phydios wrote:You are right. I haven't had the time to write out a well-thought-out email in response, but I want to. I know that even though he often leans left, he will receive it graciously.

I just sent him a doozy, I'll wait and see if he takes any of it or responds (he usually does) and, if not, I'll post it here.

Israeli gamers

Hey, I know this topic is controversial and I want to get some feedback if possible and views on questions if that’s alright for those who consider themselves pro life because I do want to be open to other forms of views
1. If a abortion law was passed, ideally would you have it have no exceptions, up to a certain week, or would you like the procedure not carried out at all?
2. Do you oppose things such as Euthanasia, death penalty, unjust war because they arguably can take away a innocent life?
3. Do you consider Women’s rights a important modern day issue?
4. Would you favour more programs to prevent abortion? (Things like sex ed, access to contraceptives, and better welfare programs like expanded adoption programs)
5. Would you say this issue is important to you because religion or other values?

The Friendly Republic of New Dolgaria

Israeli gamers wrote:Hey, I know this topic is controversial and I want to get some feedback if possible and views on questions if that’s alright for those who consider themselves pro life because I do want to be open to other forms of views
1. If a abortion law was passed, ideally would you have it have no exceptions, up to a certain week, or would you like the procedure not carried out at all?
2. Do you oppose things such as Euthanasia, death penalty, unjust war because they arguably can take away a innocent life?
3. Do you consider Women’s rights a important modern day issue?
4. Would you favour more programs to prevent abortion? (Things like sex ed, access to contraceptives, and better welfare programs like expanded adoption programs)
5. Would you say this issue is important to you because religion or other values?

1. Personally I would favor exceptions in rare circumstances (rape, danger to mother, etc.)
2. Yes.
3. Absolutely.
4. Absolutely! And this is something where I feel the mainstream pro-life movement is sorely lacking.
5. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my position on abortion.

The Federation of Roborian

Israeli gamers wrote:Hey, I know this topic is controversial and I want to get some feedback if possible and views on questions if that’s alright for those who consider themselves pro life because I do want to be open to other forms of views
1. If a abortion law was passed, ideally would you have it have no exceptions, up to a certain week, or would you like the procedure not carried out at all?
2. Do you oppose things such as Euthanasia, death penalty, unjust war because they arguably can take away a innocent life?
3. Do you consider Women’s rights a important modern day issue?
4. Would you favour more programs to prevent abortion? (Things like sex ed, access to contraceptives, and better welfare programs like expanded adoption programs)
5. Would you say this issue is important to you because religion or other values?

Happy to answer any questions, and happy to have someone stop by who is interested in listening. If you have anything else you want to ask about, feel free!

1. I wrote a brief bit on this a little while ago, I can explain it in a little more length if you are interested, but my stance on exceptions is that there should be no exceptions for abortion, defined as the intentional killing of the child, but that a procedure that results in the death of the child if attempting to save the mother's life should not be considered abortion, as both would be saved if it were possible with our current medical technology. It's a pedantic difference but an important one, but in practice it's functionally a sole exception for the life of the mother.

2. I oppose the death penalty and basically all war (I'm of the mind that a truly 'just' war is functionally impossible in the modern age and only really exists in theory), euthanasia depends heavily on context, I'm generally open to end-of-life decisions being made by the individual ('shut off the machines' sort of thing), but (as there is some issue with in the Netherlands and elsewhere), the letter of the law needs to be carefully tailored to avoid doctors making decisions to end their patients' lives even if the patient wishes to live.

3. I consider human rights to be an important modern day issue, applied to both women and men. One can certainly focus on areas in which women receive unequal treatment by governments, laws in most of the Middle East, for example, but I do not think a woman should have any special rights not also afforded to men, and vice-versa.

4. Depends on the program. The answer is yes that I support more programs to prevent abortion, but not necessarily every program. I think cracking down on deadbeat fathers who run out on the mother of their child, for example, would be of great help in reducing abortions when would-be single mothers think themselves unable to care for the child, but that's not generally what is thought of when referencing such programs. I'd be more in favor of that sort of thing, and efforts to push back against hookup culture, than something like graphic sexual teachings in school for prepubescent children, or poorly-designed welfare programs that have proven more effective in dramatically increasing the single motherhood rate than reducing poverty.

5. Not specifically. I consider murder wrong in general from a religious perspective, but almost everyone tends to oppose that for one reason or another, religious or secular. Applying it to children in the womb is based off the science that identifies them as a human being with a unique DNA rather than religious teaching.

Tudor Azarath, New Kiwis, Caterama, and West bethel

The Theocracy of Aawia

Israeli gamers wrote:Hey, I know this topic is controversial and I want to get some feedback if possible and views on questions if that’s alright for those who consider themselves pro life because I do want to be open to other forms of views
1. If a abortion law was passed, ideally would you have it have no exceptions, up to a certain week, or would you like the procedure not carried out at all?
2. Do you oppose things such as Euthanasia, death penalty, unjust war because they arguably can take away a innocent life?
3. Do you consider Women’s rights a important modern day issue?
4. Would you favour more programs to prevent abortion? (Things like sex ed, access to contraceptives, and better welfare programs like expanded adoption programs)
5. Would you say this issue is important to you because religion or other values?

1. A few exceptions, primarily centered around situations that involve the mother's life.
2. For the most part, yes. Though "unjust war" is sometimes poorly defined.
3. Yes, though I support equal rights not equal outcomes.
4. Yes
5. I think I would oppose abortion regardless of what religion I was or even if I had no religion. However, my faith definitely affects how I approach the issue and the worldview underlining my opposition to it.

New Kiwis, Caterama, and West bethel



The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:I just sent him a doozy, I'll wait and see if he takes any of it or responds (he usually does) and, if not, I'll post it here.

Well I did get in the newsletter, pg 5 on the Equality Act feedback: anonymous reader from Fort Worth (I'm not from Fort Worth actually). He pasted the whole thing except the last paragraph where I challenged the idea that religion is just another perspective (I basically said: if you believe, it is the truth, not an opinion that puts you in a box).

https://www.readtangle.com/p/jamal-khashoggi-murder-biden

«12. . .2,2482,2492,2502,2512,2522,2532,254. . .2,5072,508»