Leftist and Abortion Soap Box

[Mike]

12 hours ago, Fether said:

A few thoughts I had recently.

generally speaking, the millennial generation (my generation ✌️) is very left winged. We (not I) are all about saving the environment, organic, gmo friendly, all natural, etc. We just LOVE natural for some reason.

At the same time, we (again... not I) LOVE abortion. We crave for contraceptives and funded abortion so we can go out have do what we want and not face the NATURAL consequence. I thought this was rather ironic.

You cannot claim to be for all natural and organic and support abortion... it's just selfish and your putting up a false front of self righteousness when in reality you want things only your way.

I'm not seeing the relationship between natural and selfish, or between natural and putting up a false front of self-righteousness. 

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

So essentially the conservative section of the millennial generation does not suffer nearly as badly, if at all, from the cultural entitlement mentality, etc., but their voices are being drowned out by a very assertive and very vocal liberal section?

I personally believe that conservative  millennials are much more similar to conservative boomers than they are to liberal millennials.

Completely drowned out.  Millennial mass media is liberal.  Even internet.  Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. etc. are liberal outlets actively suppressing conservative voices.

And that's why GenZ'ers and conservative Millenials like to say  - Millennials used the internet, GenZ'ers live in the internet (think Neo of the Matrix).  So, Millennials consumed online content whereas GenZ'ers analyze online content and bends it.  The internet is nothing new to GenZ'ers anymore so they're not as impressed by it.  For example, Millennials are big fans of online shopping.  GenZ's... not so much.  They buy online if it suits their purpose, they go brick and mortal if it suits their purpose.  So, it's not as easy to use mass media propaganda to drown out GenZ voices.

And here's the thing, GenZ'ers have mobilized themselves on the internet just stomping all over pre-Millennial and Millennial paradigms to turn it over its head.  For example, the Alt-Right... the political class uses their age-old paradigm to character-assassinate conservatives by labeling the Alt-Right Fascists and White Supremacists... so what do GenZ'ers do... they mass post satirical white supremacist content all over social media and declare themselves Alt-Right.  If you're one of these people they call "normies" you won't be able to differentiate what is true white supremacists and what is GenZ satire in social media.  You kinda just have to ask one of these GenZ'ers to tell you.

Of course, Gen Z's parents are late GenX or Millenials... so it will take a few more years for the cycle to swing to equilibrium.  But one thing is certain... this coming generation are a whole lot more analytical and distrustful of The Man, so they are quick to reject stupid stuff like "Poverty Appropriation of Little Houses", et. al.  You should see the roasting they are doing to Bill Nye the Science Guy.  Whew!  Hope Bill Nye doesn't go the route of Shia LaBeouf!

Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm not seeing the relationship between natural and selfish, or between natural and putting up a false front of self-righteousness. 

Let me see if I can help:

Supporters of natural = protect the natural environment, no pesticides, no artificial chems, support life... then support abortion.  It seems highly incongruous.

So, Fether concluded that they're not really supporters of nature... they're just selfish.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

To be more to the point, I think the media has focused on the 55% of liberal millennials and have stereotyped an entire generation.  I will admit, from the Trump protests to the Occupy Wall Street movement, that these millennials are indeed acting like entitled, spoiled brats.

But what about the 45% of millennials who swing conservative?  I don't think their story gets told.

This is the thing... the 45% conservative is taken from a measure with 1980 as the divide for GenY.  Whereas, the GenZ'ers take 1995 as the divide (which puts GenY at 1975).

In the US, you may find a higher number of conservative millennials.  But if you take the entire free world, you'll see - especially in Western Europe - a very high number of liberal millennials.

I need to find that Swedish video... I'll edit this if I find it so I can put it here.

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2

[person0]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The question you create, though, is who pays to transplant these embryos from their mothers' wombs into these lab-wombs.  Adoption is already prohibitively expensive; and I imagine this procedure could easily consume another $50K or more.  If government steps in and spends that amount to save embryos, why shouldn't they also spend that amount to save ill full-grown persons via a single-payer national health care system?

You are correct, and that would be another problem which is spawned by this issue.  Sadly, I have 0 expectation that, even if this technology is mastered to a 100% success rate, we would be successfully able to right the wrongs of current abortion law.  The intent, however, is merely to further prove that the current pro-abortion rhetoric is illegitimate and flawed.  The fact that this procedure would be available, would make it so that we could more easily establish that an individual could choose to find a way to pay for the artificial womb service, or carry the child to term.  We could, however, offer the service for 'free' only to those who were the victims of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was at stake. Since those occurrences are rare anyway, the high cost would be justifiable in exchange that elective abortion would be outlawed in general.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the thing... the 45% conservative is taken from a measure with 1980 as the divide for GenY.  Whereas, the GenZ'ers take 1995 as the divide (which puts GenY at 1975).

In the US, you may find a higher number of conservative millennials.  But if you take the entire free world, you'll see - especially in Western Europe - a very high number of liberal millennials.

I need to find that Swedish video... I'll edit this if I find it so I can put it here.

 

Yeah, my cited statistics do not take Europe and other countries into account.  There, conservatives are really liberal (often) and liberals are basically communists...

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Yeah, my cited statistics do not take Europe and other countries into account.  There, conservatives are really liberal (often) and liberals are basically communists...

I found the video but it's not a video... it's a gif.  It's from a Swedish kids game show.  It's indicative of the emasculation of males in European society that the GenZ'ers worldwide are now realizing and fighting tooth and nail against.

 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Slight technical difference - you can repent of abortion and still return to the Church and go to the Celestial Kingdom.   If you commit full-blown murder, it is generally "game over" for you.

This is the common understanding of LDS doctrine. I don't buy it. That is, I don't think it's this facile. Consider: The people of Ammon were repentant murderers, by their own admission.

I suspect there is something deeper, more organic and fundamental, going on here. In the final analysis, I think that God is no rulemaster who checks your performance against the written standard and then grades you. "Oh, darn! You just barely missed an A-! Sorry, no curve here, but it's a high B+. Nothing to be ashamed of. Congratulations on being a really strong Terrestrial!"

Those who love things celestial and who ache to live and give as the Godly will find themselves surrounded by others like them -- that is, they will gain exaltation. A murderer cannot abide such company. But a repentant murderer is no longer a murderer. I suspect that a large part of the conundrum is that murder so badly damages the soul of the murderer that it fundamentally changes who and what he is. I believe that some types of murder are impossible to repent of because when you get a taste for blood, you lose desire for good. A few years ago, a General Authority (Elder Scott, maybe?) gave a General Conference address in which he taught that the people of Ammon took the oath of non-aggression and were forced to keep it for exactly t his reason.

[person0]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

This is the common understanding of LDS doctrine. . .

I agree that this is the common understanding. I also think many may be incorrectly interpreting scriptures that lead them to conclude this is the official doctrine.  So I will add my thoughts which I feel are in agreement with yours.

On the one hand we read:

Quote

In LDS doctrine, murder is second in seriousness only to the unpardonable sin . . .obtaining forgiveness for murder is impossible. (EOM)

Through the Atonement of Christ, forgiveness of sins is available to all who repent, except those guilty of murder or the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. (lds.org)

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.   And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. . . If any persons among you shall kill they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness. . .  (D&C 42:18-19, 79) emphasis added

On the other hand we read:

Quote

We know that the Atonement is efficacious for all except those committing the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost (see Matt. 12:31). However, in our associations with each other on earth, violation of the sixth commandment represents the most heinous crime that can be perpetrated. . . Murderers place themselves in a position where it is impossible to ask forgiveness of the one sinned against or to make restitution—at least in this life. So grievous is the act that the Prophet Joseph Smith said murderers “cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing.”

(Thou Shalt Not Kill - Ensign Aug. 1994)

Even the murderer is justified in repenting and mending his ways and building up a credit balance in his favor. (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 131)

Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. (3 Ne. 30:2) emphasis added

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;  Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— D&C 19

Murder is terrible, as well as the things that are like unto murder such as abortion.  I would consider the notion that murderers will suffer for their own sins, and as a result are not forgiven via the normal process the atonement makes possible.  D&C 19 Shows that those who do not repent (clearly murderers can not fully repent) will suffer as did Christ.  However, my personal understanding of the doctrine is that while murderers may not be able to receive exaltation, they will eventually be saved in the Telestial Kingdom after suffering for their sins prior to being resurrected.  King David wrote, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".  I believe D&C 42, as quoted above, applies especially to those who have received the applicable light and knowledge as it states the Lord is speaking unto the Church.

Nephi also appears to have proclaimed that the murderous gentiles of our day could receive a remission of their sins and commanded them to repent.  There is no kingdom designated specifically for murderers, they are not listed among those who will receive the punishment for perdition, and their sin is clearly equated lower than the unpardonable sin.

Therefore, I think it reasonable, amidst all the evidence to conclude that people without sufficient light and knowledge from God, who commit a true act of murder, may receive their punishment and subsequently a place in at least the Telestial Kingdom, with the possibility that some, who were in complete ignorance (without law) may possibly have a greater reward still within reach (i.e. King Lamoni, his father, etc).

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Armin said:

Great statement. Don't proclaim it here in Germany - you might be called a "Nazi".

We get called fascists here in the US

[Blackmarch]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Actually, the ONLY argument that is valid on the matter is a majority agreement to the question of, When does something BECOME a person?

Note:  There is nothing about a birth canal that grants a fetus personhood.  There is nothing about breathing air that grants a fetus personhood, etc.  So WHAT grants a fetus personhood?

When you get a concensus on the answer to that question, the rest is covered by the Constitution... inalienable rights and all that...

Which is so annoying, because there is no solid line for defining what a person is, or what it takes to be human.... (of course if one argues dna, then soon as you have two gametes fuse and start cellular replication you have a human)

[Rob Osborn]

11 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

Which is so annoying, because there is no solid line for defining what a person is, or what it takes to be human.... (of course if one argues dna, then soon as you have two gametes fuse and start cellular replication you have a human)

My wife, with our first child, felt a special light early on enter her body during pregnancy. She belueved it was the spirit of our son entering into its newly yet unfinished body in the womb.

[wenglund]

On 4/25/2017 at 9:14 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think there's any "debate" to be had concerning the matter. If you think an unborn baby is a life then it's murder. If you do not then it isn't. It's a simple as that. Arguing about whether an unborn baby counts as a life isn't likely to get anywhere.

Are you seriously suggesting that pro abortionists believe that life begins after birth?

Try aborting a whale baby, or a spotted owl baby, and see how the Left reacts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Are you seriously suggesting that pro abortionists believe that life begins after birth?

Many pro-choicers do believe that, since they think a  fetus can't survive on it's own. 

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Are you seriously suggesting that pro abortionists believe that life begins after birth?

I know I'm an anonymous poster on the internet, but I am a real person.  And once, 25-ish years ago, I stood next to another real person.  She told me, and she was being serious, that she believed a woman's right to have an abortion should extend until the kid is one year old.  One year.  That's what she said.

Even a quarter of a century later, my jaw still drops a bit in disbelief, but yes, she said it, yes, she knew what she was saying, and yes, I heard her correctly.

She didn't really tie her opinion in to when she thought life began, so I can't speak to that part. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Are you seriously suggesting that pro abortionists believe that life begins after birth?

Try aborting a whale baby, or a spotted owl baby, and see how the Left reacts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You seem surprised.  Yes, many have come out and declared it publicly.  They claim their brains haven't sufficiently developed to call them alive yet.  Make no mistake that those who push the agenda in such a militant way are not about "women's health" or "women's rights" or "woman's right to choose."  They are about population control -- any way they can justify it to themselves.  That is why some have come out and called for the execution of Christians because they deny a woman the right to have a tax payer funded abortion.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

24 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Are you seriously suggesting that pro abortionists believe that life begins after birth?

Try aborting a whale baby, or a spotted owl baby, and see how the Left reacts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bodily autonomy begins at birth. The argument on the left is that a fetus is an extension of a woman's body until it is born. The point at which a fetus goes from a fertilized egg/embryo to being a human person is the subject of rigorous debate. I won't sit here and pretend that all of the pro-choice arguments are reasonable and logical, because they aren't. I will, however, point out what I perceive to be the two biggest flaws in the pro-life argument. 

1. Abortionists are killing fully-formed babies. False. A majority of elective abortions (including those done in cases of rape and incest) are performed within the first 8 weeks, which is why the on-going "start of life" debate is so pivotal to the broader abortion debate. You can make a strong argument for an 8 week-old fetus still being an embryo with no developed cognitive capabilities. On the other side, you have (mainly religious) people claiming that a fetus has a soul within days of conception. That's a compelling personal argument against abortion, but the presence of a soul has no real use in the public discourse over national policy. 

2. Late-term abortions. Yes, these are fully-formed human fetuses that very likely have considerable cognitive development. That is why late-term abortions are pretty much exclusively done out of medical necessity, and also at a considerable emotional cost to the mother. There is simply no such thing as an elective late-term abortion. No one gets that far into their pregnancy and changes their mind. And if they do, most state laws prevent them from having abortions (and rightly so, imo). To have a medical abortion is one of the hardest decisions a person can make, because it's almost always made by mothers who want to have the baby. My own mother was put in that situation. She chose to to continue the pregnancy, and it came very close to ending her life (and my brother's). That was her choice to make. We were unbelievably fortunate that both my mother and my brother survived. Given the circumstances, I can't say that I would have begrudged her decision to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of her husband and her four healthy children. It would have been hard for all of us, but losing her would have been so much harder. That is why I am so passionate about this issue, arguably more so than early-term abortions. Because some mothers roll the dice and lose. Because some mothers don't roll the dice and in their grief are demonized for it. 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Godless said:

1. That is why late-term abortions are pretty much exclusively done out of medical necessity, and also at a considerable emotional cost to the mother.
2. There is simply no such thing as an elective late-term abortion. No one gets that far into their pregnancy and changes their mind.
3. And if they do, most state laws prevent them from having abortions (and rightly so, imo).
4. To have a medical abortion is one of the hardest decisions a person can make, because it's almost always made by mothers who want to have the baby. 

http://www.liveaction.org/news/there-is-no-federal-law-protecting-the-preborn-from-abortion-at-any-time/

I've personally know individuals that think of abortion as "just another means of birth control".  One was a classmate in high school.  She had three abortions by the time she was 15.  And she continued to be promiscuous.  So, don't try to sell the idea that all women fret and consider for days or weeks about this.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

1. Abortionists are killing fully-formed babies.

I've never known anyone who claims this.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

http://www.liveaction.org/news/there-is-no-federal-law-protecting-the-preborn-from-abortion-at-any-time/

I've personally know individuals that think of abortion as "just another means of birth control".  One was a classmate in high school.  She had three abortions by the time she was 15.  And she continued to be promiscuous.  So, don't try to sell the idea that all women fret and consider for days or weeks about this.

 I'm more sympathetic to the pro-choice side than the  pro-life, upfront.  Women DO struggle with getting an abortion. It's not like they wake up and say "Yay! Abortion day!" Many, many women struggle with it. 

BUT 

We agree that using it as a form of birth control is incredibly disturbing. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I'm more sympathetic to the pro-choice side than the  pro-life, upfront.  Women DO struggle with getting an abortion. It's not like they wake up and say "Yay! Abortion day!" Many, many women struggle with it. 

I never said ALL women think nothing of it.  I was simply disagreeing with the opposite: that ALL women stress and have a very difficult time making such a decision.  But I would definitely say that a larger percentage of women who use it as a contraceptive have little to no struggle with making such a decision.  They may not like the prospect of such a major medical procedure.  But the trepidation is one of physical discomfort rather than any moral ambiguity. 

I even recently read an article about some Hollywood woman who felt "guilty" for NOT having one.  And many agreed with her.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I never said ALL women think nothing of it.  I was simply disagreeing with the opposite: that ALL women stress and have a very difficult time making such a decision.  But I would definitely say that a larger percentage of women who use it as a contraceptive have little to no struggle with making such a decision.  They may not like the prospect of such a major medical procedure.  But the trepidation is one of physical discomfort rather than any moral ambiguity. 

I even recently read an article about some Hollywood woman who felt "guilty" for NOT having one.  And many agreed with her.

Ahh. 

Those women in Hollywood do one thing: they preach to the choir and already converted. 99.9% don't listen or care what they say. Even liberals don't care. 

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've personally know individuals that think of abortion as "just another means of birth control".  One was a classmate in high school.  She had three abortions by the time she was 15.  And she continued to be promiscuous.  So, don't try to sell the idea that all women fret and consider for days or weeks about this.

I'm confused. You seem to be talking about elective abortion (birth control), but the quote from me that you were responding to was about medical abortion (medical necessity). I never tried to claim that elective abortions are always a hard decision. I know that they can be, but I also know that plenty of women don't think much of it. Medical abortions, on the other hand, aren't done for reasons of convenience or to "fix a mistake". It's a life-saving procedure that's performed on a woman who more than likely wants desperately to keep the baby but is making a gut-wrenching decision to save her own life. That's what the portion of my post that you quoted was referring to. And yes, it's a horrible and extremely difficult decision that women sometimes have to make late in their pregnancy. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm confused. You seem to be talking about elective abortion (birth control), but the quote from me that you were responding to was about medical abortion (medical necessity). I never tried to claim that elective abortions are always a hard decision.

Then that was a semantic misunderstanding.  By "medical abortion" I thought you meant the medical procedure as opposed to a "spontaneous" or "natural" abortion.

[wenglund]

On 4/26/2017 at 10:29 AM, Godless said:

Bodily autonomy begins at birth. The argument on the left is that a fetus is an extension of a woman's body until it is born.

So, in the minds of these people, it may be said that pregnant women have more than one head, more than two legs, and in half the cases, both male and female genitalia. And, the mother isn't carrying a baby, she is carrying herself.

To me, these thoughts make reason stare.

Either way, my comments were regarding when life begins, rather than bodily autonomy. Do pro-abortionists equate the two?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-