10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in OH

[*Nately120*]

(07-06-2022, 03:19 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You may be right, but the point remains - no woman should need spousal consent to do with their organs what they will.

We give more autonomy to corpses than women.

Decisions should be up to her husband, her father, or nearest male family member.  Also, I love freedom and i think Muslims are nuts.  

[Lucidus]

"I agree, and I'll be introducing legislation next session to ban minors from using social media. t's long past time to recognize the incredible harm social media is doing to the mental health of young Texans. Next session, we put an end to it." --- Rep. Jared Patterson, in support of a recommendation from the conservative Texas think tank, TPPF.

Yet, Texas has no abortion exception for rape and incest - even for minors, and hasn't had for almost two decades. They seemingly have no issue with all the potential harm done by forcing a minor to be violated by the state after being violated by the criminal.

[basballguy]

(07-06-2022, 03:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: "I agree, and I'll be introducing legislation next session to ban minors from using social media. t's long past time to recognize the incredible harm social media is doing to the mental health of young Texans. Next session, we put an end to it." --- Rep. Jared Patterson, in support of a recommendation from the conservative Texas think tank, TPPF.

Yet, Texas has no abortion exception for rape and incest - even for minors, and hasn't had for almost two decades. They seemingly have no issue with all the potential harm done by forcing a minor to be violated by the state after being violated by the criminal.

What exception should they make?  If you were the one writing laws....what would you have them do?  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-04-2022, 11:36 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Yes, I'm opposed to any scenario where the pregnant individual's autonomy is violated. I'll post my previous response again:

(07-06-2022, 05:07 PM)basballguy Wrote: What exception should they make?  If you were the one writing laws....what would you have them do?  

He's already told you. No need to ask again. He's 100% not willing to compromise on anything for anyone and especially religious people.
Sounds an awful lot like the definition of a bigot if you ask me.

[basballguy]

(07-06-2022, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He's already told you. No need to ask again. He's 100% not willing to compromise on anything for anyone and especially religious people.
Sounds an awful lot like the definition of a bigot if you ask me.

100% no compromise could be interpreted as extremism.  

[Lucidus]

(07-06-2022, 05:07 PM)basballguy Wrote: What exception should they make?  If you were the one writing laws....what would you have them do?  

The absolute bare minimum should be to exclude all underage victims of rape and incest from abortion bans. They are child victims that became impregnated against their will; without their consent. They should not be obligated to bear any responsibility for a situation forced upon by a criminal act, or be denied access to a medical remedy for said situation.

(07-06-2022, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He's already told you. No need to ask again. He's 100% not willing to compromise on anything for anyone and especially religious people.
Sounds an awful lot like the definition of a bigot if you ask me.

If your idea of compromise involves giving serious consideration to people's assertions, assumptions or interpretations of what a god or ancient religious book has to say on the subject, then yes, I'm opposed to that. Any compromise should be the result of well-supported scientific evidence and reality-based moral evaluations. 

[basballguy]

(07-06-2022, 08:42 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The absolute bare minimum should be to exclude all underage victims of rape and incest from abortion bans. They are child victims that became impregnated against their will; without their consent. They should not be obligated to bear any responsibility for a situation forced upon by a criminal act, or be denied access to a medical remedy for said situation.


If your idea of compromise involves giving serious consideration to people's assertions, assumptions or interpretations of what a god or ancient religious book has to say on the subject, then yes, I'm opposed to that. Any compromise should be the result of well-supported scientific evidence and reality-based moral evaluations. 

No problem with your first point, was just curious.  Thanks for clarifying.

Now with your second point...whether you believe in a higher power or not (it's pretty clear you don't), that doesn't mean everyone else that does is immediately an inferior perspective.  If science supported a higher power then 100% of the population would probably believe :)  

You come off as a little obnoxious by saying "If you can't prove your god exists then you don't get to make decisions based upon your faith." A person's faith drives them to do many different things.  Should they stop doing mission trips to countries in need because they can't scientifically prove their higher power?  

You tend to focus on the negatives of a persons faith, which is really unfortunate.  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2022, 08:59 PM)basballguy Wrote: No problem with your first point, was just curious.  Thanks for clarifying.

Now with your second point...whether you believe in a higher power or not (it's pretty clear you don't), that doesn't mean everyone else that does is immediately an inferior perspective.  If science supported a higher power then 100% of the population would probably believe :)  

You come off as a little obnoxious by saying "If you can't prove your god exists then you don't get to make decisions based upon your faith." A person's faith drives them to do many different things.  Should they stop doing mission trips to countries in need because they can't scientifically prove their higher power?  

You tend to focus on the negatives of a persons faith, which is really unfortunate.  

I would say laws shouldn’t be based on religious faith, but I can certainly vote for who and what I want based on religious faith if I choose to.

[basballguy]

(07-06-2022, 09:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say laws shouldn’t be based on religious faith, but I can certainly vote for who and what I want based on religious faith if I choose to.

Can you provide an example of a law where it's documented that its based upon religious faith.  Especially when we are supposed to have separation of church and state?

[BigPapaKain]

(07-06-2022, 08:59 PM)basballguy Wrote: You tend to focus on the negatives of a persons faith, which is really unfortunate.  

Yeah wouldn't wanna do that would we? 

*cough*AmericatowardsMuslimssince9/11*cough*

*cough*Christianstowardseveryotherreligionsincethecrucifixtion*cough*

*cough*GermansusingChristianityasanexcusetomurder3millionpeople*cough*

Allergies.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2022, 09:21 PM)basballguy Wrote: Can you provide an example of a law where it's documented that its based upon religious faith.  Especially when we are supposed to have separation of church and state?

I was just saying what I’d be for and against.

[basballguy]

(07-06-2022, 09:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I was just saying what I’d be for and against.

oh fair enough.  I wouldn't support it either and I think most reasonable people feel the same way.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2022, 09:34 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Yeah wouldn't wanna do that would we? 

*cough*AmericatowardsMuslimssince9/11*cough*

*cough*Christianstowardseveryotherreligionsincethecrucifixtion*cough*

*cough*GermansusingChristianityasanexcusetomurder3millionpeople*cough*

Allergies.

I wonder why our anti-religion folks avoid using any religion but Christianity for their examples.

Edit: And when I say anti-religion, I don’t mean every atheist is anti-religion.

[Lucidus]

(07-06-2022, 08:59 PM)basballguy Wrote: No problem with your first point, was just curious.  Thanks for clarifying.

Now with your second point...whether you believe in a higher power or not (it's pretty clear you don't), that doesn't mean everyone else that does is immediately an inferior perspective.  If science supported a higher power then 100% of the population would probably believe :)  

You come off as a little obnoxious by saying "If you can't prove your god exists then you don't get to make decisions based upon your faith." A person's faith drives them to do many different things.  Should they stop doing mission trips to countries in need because they can't scientifically prove their higher power?  

You tend to focus on the negatives of a persons faith, which is really unfortunate.  

I agree; it doesn't mean anyone is inferior to another.

As to the bold; I was speaking more in terms of legislation, as we're discussing abortion. With that in mind, should any group of people who possess a set of beliefs be given serious consideration and allowed substantial influence in the legislative process as long they have faith their beliefs are true?

[BigPapaKain]

(07-06-2022, 09:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I wonder why our anti-religion folks avoid using any religion but Christianity for their examples.

Edit: And when I say anti-religion, I don’t mean every atheist is anti-religion.

I wonder if it has to do with fanatical Christians ramming their beliefs down everyone's throat in the US, so people get fed up with them?

Point of case - I've never had a Jewish person or a Muslim come knocking on my door spewing their bullshit to get me to come to their place of worship. I've never been told I'm going to Hell by a Buddhist or a Hindi. I've never been harassed on the streets by a pagan or fellow Satanist.

[basballguy]

(07-06-2022, 09:41 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I agree; it doesn't mean anyone is inferior to another.

As to the bold; I was speaking more in terms of legislation, as we're discussing abortion. With that in mind, should any group of people who possess a set of beliefs be given serious consideration and allowed substantial influence in the legislative process as long they have faith their beliefs are true?

I understand.  You're implying individuals with faith can't legislate without taking their faith into consideration.  If that were the case then abortion would be completely illegal in Texas, wouldn't it?  I believe, whether you agree or not, our leaders have been pretty good about not leveraging their faith when writing legislation.  That may not stop them from sharing their beliefs but I haven't seen any example (though I haven't really looked) that is on the lines of "I wrote this law because it aligns with my religious faith."

There are plenty of people against abortion for religious reasons but I haven't seen any law that plays off those religious beliefs.  It's easy to say "Well that's what he/she believes so it clearly means they are writing legislation influenced by faith" but really you're just guessing and making assumptions at that point.   

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2022, 09:49 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I wonder if it has to do with fanatical Christians ramming their beliefs down everyone's throat in the US, so people get fed up with them?

Point of case - I've never had a Jewish person or a Muslim come knocking on my door spewing their bullshit to get me to come to their place of worship. I've never been told I'm going to Hell by a Buddhist or a Hindi. I've never been harassed on the streets by a pagan or fellow Satanist.

But your examples weren’t just American Christians. How do you think Islam became the predominant religion across Northern Africa and the Middle East?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2022, 09:41 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I agree; it doesn't mean anyone is inferior to another.

As to the bold; I was speaking more in terms of legislation, as we're discussing abortion. With that in mind, should any group of people who possess a set of beliefs be given serious consideration and allowed substantial influence in the legislative process as long they have faith their beliefs are true?

For realz? Hate to break it to you but the vast majority of people making laws has a set of beliefs and faith that they are true.

[Lucidus]

(07-06-2022, 10:01 PM)basballguy Wrote: I understand.  You're implying individuals with faith can't legislate without taking their faith into consideration.  If that were the case then abortion would be completely illegal in Texas, wouldn't it?  I believe, whether you agree or not, our leaders have been pretty good about not leveraging their faith when writing legislation.  That may not stop them from sharing their beliefs but I haven't seen any example (though I haven't really looked) that is on the lines of "I wrote this law because it aligns with my religious faith."

There are plenty of people against abortion for religious reasons but I haven't seen any law that plays off those religious beliefs.  It's easy to say "Well that's what he/she believes so it clearly means they are writing legislation influenced by faith" but really you're just guessing and making assumptions at that point.   

No sir. I'm not implying they can't legislate without taking their faith into consideration. Of course they could if they wanted to, but far too many choose not to and are pretty vocal about it; taking to social media, the floors of state and federal Congress, at rallies and fundraisers, and on conservative outlets --- stating in no uncertain terms that their faith not only informs their decisions, but that their particular interpretations of morality - as derived from their faith - should serve as the foundation of American legislation. Many of these same people think the Constitution is divinely inspired, that school prayer should be mandated and that being anything other than straight and binary is a sin. 

These are people in power. They exist within every facet of American politics. They are involved with legislative decisions. They also aren't shy about what they think or want in terms of making the country more Christian. You don't have to take my word for it. You can simply listen to them tell you on almost a daily basis, in almost every social / political arena; from names that everyone recognizes to names that most haven't heard of, yet.

[Lucidus]

(07-06-2022, 10:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For realz?  Hate to break it to you but the vast  majority of people making laws has a set of beliefs and faith that they are true.

You didn't address the actual question.

Should any group of people who possess a set of beliefs be given serious consideration and allowed substantial influence in the legislative process as long they have faith their beliefs are true?