Pro-Life by most really mean Pro-Birth

[Revoltingest]

So did lynching black people.
Tom

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[PureX]

I'm pretty well convinced that what the whole "pro-life" movement is really all about is resenting other people, especially women, for having sex 'without permission', and then not wanting to pay (suffer) the 'just consequence' of their defiance. I think it's really about making those hussies pay for their sex-sin.

 

[Terry Sampson]

No,that is a phony question.

See my last two messages to The Reverend Bob.
Or don't.

 

[dybmh]

@Amanaki ,

FYI. The anti-abortion measures that have passed in America recently do not allow for exceptions in the cases of Rape and Incest.

I don't think rape and incest follow the dhamma. What to do about the resulting pregnancy is a spiritual problem that i do not know how to solve.

Also, in this thread I have not seen much conversation considering the life of the Mother. Her life matters. I think it's important to keep that in mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

Definitions include that a person can be dead
and come back to life, and, you know, that thing about
corporations as persons.

Corporate personhood is a very different thing because it's limited,
eg, representation in court, political speech.
Corporations are not people, despite the fact that ultimately they're owned
& run by people. They cannot marry, cannot vote, etc.
(Liberals & their media have aggressively misunderstood that one.)
The personhood difference between a fetus & a baby does exist in law.

 

[dybmh]

Corporations are not people, despite the fact that ultimately they're owned
& run by people. They cannot marry, cannot vote, etc.
(Liberals & their media have aggressively misunderstood that one.)

Most Honorable Revoltingest: Conservatives use corporate person-hood to argue in favor of unlimited and private political donations. They claim it is freedom of speech guaranteed to corporations because they are owned by people.

So... ya know, it's not just lib's and their media.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Corporate personhood is a very different thing because it's very limited,
eg, representation in court, political speech.

Not limited enough, IMHO. (cf. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310)

 

[Revoltingest]

Most Honorable Revoltingest: Conservatives use corporate person-hood to argue in favor of unlimited and private political donations. They claim it is freedom of speech guaranteed to corporations because they are owned by people.

So... ya know, it's not just lib's and their media.

Corporate personhood goes back centuries.
But liberals & their media have fostered the misunderstanding
that corporate personhood is something new & evil. Note also
that liberals take advantage of this too. Did you know that the
DNC is a corporation? Their objections are based upon the
donations not favoring their side.....& the need to continually
demonize for-profit corporations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not limited enough, IMHO. (cf. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310)

I say Citizens United was a good decision.
It simply gives people the right to freely associate for some
aggregate action, in this case political influence. Without that
right, the Democratic National Committee would lose power.
IOW....
The ability of people to come together to pool their resources
to pursue a common goal is useful....except to those who
would disagree.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I pulled 'em outta my arse. Want to bet on it? I've got $50.00 that says my prediction of what you'll find, if you bother to survey your challengers, will prove to be true. Are you game for it?

I don't want to take your money like that because the opinions about this subject are widely diverse. I know atheists who are deadset against abortion they tend to be misogynists but they are deadset against it

 

[Audie]

Corporate personhood is a very different thing because it's very limited,
eg, representation in court, political speech.
Corporations are not people, despite the fact that ultimately they're owned
& run by people. They cannot marry, cannot vote, etc.
(Liberals & their media have aggressively misunderstood that one.)
The personhood difference between a fetus & a baby does exist in law.

I know. Just say-ying that it is an arbitrary one.

 

[Audie]

I don't want to take your money like that because the opinions about this subject are widely diverse. I know atheists who are deadset against abortion they tend to be misogynists but they are deadset against it

Like me for example. Misogynist to the core.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Like me for example. Misogynist to the core.

I don't know you so I can't say if you are.

 

[Audie]

Most Honorable Revoltingest: Conservatives use corporate person-hood to argue in favor of unlimited and private political donations. They claim it is freedom of speech guaranteed to corporations because they are owned by people.

So... ya know, it's not just lib's and their media.

and what do the supremes say about it?

 

[Audie]

I don't know you so I can't say if you are.

I dont think you know these atheist misogynists, either.

But no, I do not hate myself, or other women.

 

[Spirit of Light]

@Amanaki ,

FYI. The anti-abortion measures that have passed in America recently do not allow for exceptions in the cases of Rape and Incest.

I don't think rape and incest follow the dhamma. What to do about the resulting pregnancy is a spiritual problem that i do not know how to solve.

Also, in this thread I have not seen much conversation considering the life of the Mother. Her life matters. I think it's important to keep that in mind.

The dhamma do not speak of rape directly as far i know, so that part i can not say to much about. But the precepts do say. One should not kill.
As i stated in a earlier answer. Og mother can die raring pregnancy i do understand their choice of abortion

 

[Revoltingest]

I know. Just say-ying that it is an arbitrary one.

It isn't entirely arbitrary, given fundamental functional differences between
a fetus & a baby. Where arbitrariness comes into play is deciding at which
point the life of the fetus supersedes the wishes of the mother.

 

[Audie]

I'm pretty well convinced that what the whole "pro-life" movement is really all about is resenting other people, especially women, for having sex 'without permission', and then not wanting to pay (suffer) the 'just consequence' of their defiance. I think it's really about making those hussies pay for their sex-sin.

Absolutely! I just cannot stand it when i presume
to have sex without, ah, permission.

You sure like to think the worst of other people, dont you?

 

[Audie]

It isn't entirely arbitrary, given fundamental functional differences between
a fetus & a baby. Where arbitrariness comes into play is deciding at which
point the life of the fetus supersedes the wishes of the mother.

Like the point at which it is not a fetus but actually
a little human being with the right to live?

 

[dybmh]

and what do the supremes say about it?

If i remember, they said it was indeed free-speech.