Faith

Post Reply New Topic

USA Today: Pence vouches for Trump's anti-abortion views

Why does an other's faith in the importance of human life Trump (intended) my right to the control of my physical experience?

If I remember correctly he has made pro-choice noises in the past.

He will do anything to get elected. I doubt it is an issue that gives him sleepless nights.

Roe v. Wade is stronger than it has been for more than 20 years with the recent Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision...

It will easily outlive the dying ideology known as US conservatism...

Republican presidents have appointed 8 of the 12 new Supreme Court justices since Roe v. Wade in 1973... and it still stands... It's not going anywhere...

The right needs a bogeyman to get people to vote for them, whether that bogeyman is abortion, gay rights/marriage, trans people using the public restroom, Muslims, brown illegal immigrants, blacks "committing voter fraud," etc. Otherwise, why would people vote against their own social or economic interests, except out of fear of "the other," or the "abnormal or indecent?"

These evangelical Christian a**holes only care about life while it's in the womb. After you're born, you're on your own. They certainly don't care how many lives are lost in unnecessary wars fought for BS Geo-political ends.

"Sanctity of life" my ass! f**k Mike Pence, f**k Donald Trump, and f**k all of these hypocritical evangelical Christians! May they all get an aggressive, inoperable tumor!

Hypocrisy and Sanctimony are popular hobbies among humans...

Trump himself probably never thought about abortion in his life (one way or the other) until the moment that that reporter button holed him with that question that got him embarrassed with both right to lifers and with pro choicers.

Since Trump choose to run on the GOP ticket he has to appease the religious right by having a running mate from that faction of the party.


As someone above said rolling back Roe vs Wade is impossible. And even if it were possible I doubt that a president Trump would lift a finger to achieve that end. Even if Trump were elected the religious right would have to assassinate Trump (making Pence the president) to get a true right to lifer into the oval office.

Ding ding ding! You got it. You have the right to control your physical experience, but not anyone else's. While your baby might be inside your body, it is separate from it. Before birth we have our own DNA, body systems, heartbeat and (after a while) brain waves. Your rights over yourself are vast, but they end where mine begin.

They'll defend the unborn, but once born....their life is meaningless in their eyes, just another waste of resources.

You do realize it takes a long time for the fertilized egg to actually become a 'baby' correct? I certainly don't think you should be able to have an abortion like 1 week before birth as by then it is a baby just waiting to pop out, but yeah in the window of time before it actually develops into a baby its not a person...its bunch of cells, genetic and biological material that is not self aware.

The problem with development theory is that it's unclear where the line is. If you draw the line at the first heartbeat, then we don't have a duty to revive people who have gone into cardiac arrest, because they're not alive. If you draw it at the first brain waves, that makes coma patients not alive. If you draw it at viability, then the line is being pushed back all the time because of medical advances, so it's pretty meaningless. If you avoid that problem by drawing it at viability *without assistance*, then newborns do not have a right to life, because they depend on their mothers for warmth and breast milk. And we all know that it's wrong to kill newborns.

Drawing the line at whether the baby is "self aware" is even worse, because we aren't self aware until 18 months of age: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201211/self-awareness. Again, we don't go around killing infants and young toddlers, because we all intuitively understand it to be wrong.

My point is that development into a newborn is a process, not a one-time event. It's impossible to draw a line during that development because it's a continuous process. Conception, on the other hand, is a clear, one-time event that changes the essence of what is. Two--sperm and egg--become one. Nonviable becomes viable (as in able to grow and develop). A unique human organism is created. It has its own DNA, not the mother's or father's alone (as a tumor would). This is why the scientific study of embryology says that life begins at conception. If a human life is present, we have no right to kill it.

Maybe they just don't like the idea of infant human beings being chopped up and tossed in the garbage wholesale.