Cease FE face to face selling

[DayTimer]

It's certainly the most contentious issue. But for those of us that really believe that life begins at conception, then it's very much the easiest issue.

No doubt. But because it is the most contentious it will continue to be the most difficult to resolve. Given the history of discrimination against women in the workplace I do understand why, for many women, this "right to choose" is very important to them as they feel it helps level the playing field between them and men in the workplace. An unwanted pregnancy would not typically cost a ma his job but it often did result in the woman losing hers.

At the same time, to argue that an egg, once fertile, is anything less than a new human life strains all logic to the breaking point.

Again, I am not at all supporting abortion. But I do try to see both sides and understand why it is such a high-stakes issue for both sides, not just the pro-life advocates.

 

[DayTimer]

7 states already allow abortion up to birth — not just New York

"Abortions are not performed at 40 weeks on healthy, viable pregnancies," she said. "Overwhelmingly, abortions that occur at this point in pregnancy are pregnancies where lethal fetal anomalies have been diagnosed."

A still born baby removed from the womb at 40 weeks is still called an abortion, because the pregnancy was aborted prior to natural child birth.

Everyone of these laws is basically to prevent a woman from being forced to carry a deceased infant to term.

It is common for a woman to miscarry and not give birth to the deceased infant.

I am not pro-choice. But I am reasonable, I believe, in what I find common sense. If the mother's life is in danger, if the child is deceased, I really think it is no one's business other than the woman to make that choice. You have to remember, these are women who wanted that child, monkey. No one decides at 40 weeks that having a baby is going to be too inconvenient after all.

 

[WinoBlues]

 

[suranceman]

No doubt. But because it is the most contentious it will continue to be the most difficult to resolve. Given the history of discrimination against women in the workplace I do understand why, for many women, this "right to choose" is very important to them as they feel it helps level the playing field between them and men in the workplace. An unwanted pregnancy would not typically cost a ma his job but it often did result in the woman losing hers.

At the same time, to argue that an egg, once fertile, is anything less than a new human life strains all logic to the breaking point.

Again, I am not at all supporting abortion. But I do try to see both sides and understand why it is such a high-stakes issue for both sides, not just the pro-life advocates.

Just curious, but when does a fertilized egg become a human?

 

[DayTimer]

Just curious, but when does a fertilized egg become a human?

At the same time, to argue that an egg, once fertile, is anything less than a new human life strains all logic to the breaking point.

Well, it's never a dog. Or an eggplant. So it would have to be human from jump street, right?

 

[shonceman]

Just curious, but when does a fertilized egg become a human?

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

 

[Life Hawk]

Just curious, but when does a fertilized egg become a human?

...or male or female... or ????

Stirring now... but isn't that what happens when you begin throwing absolutes out the window.

I mean, containment during this pandemic might be right for you, but for me...

Actions have consequences... and just because we don't like them, eventually we can't ignore them.

We often focus too much attention on the issues, and forget the larger picture is how our philosophies drive the issues we own.

And right about here... most people just shut down.

 

[DayTimer]

I mean, containment during this pandemic might be right for you, but for me...

This not about individual rights. This is about the common good. And unless you want to go back to whatever country your ancestors came from you got to play be the rules, right?

Look at it this way:

COVID-19, the illness caused by coronavirus, proves deadly in around 3.5 percent of confirmed cases.

While this is not the same as its mortality rate, given many people may be infected but not realize it, it is significantly higher than seasonal flu, which typically kills 0.1 percent of patients.

This is why comparisons to flu and its 12,000 deaths this year fail: COVID-19 is 3500% more deadly than flu. This is why we must not allow it to spread the same way we can "safely" allow the flu to spread.

The CDC estimates that the flu causes between 9 million and 45 million illnesses each year.

Let's suppose we limit COVID-19 to 9 million cases with a 3.5% mortality. That would be 315,000 deaths vs an expected 9000 for the flu.

Get it?

But I still see people going on about how this is a hoax and that this is all media hype.

This is important because we must stop the spread. We simply cannot allow 9,000,000 to 45,000,000 cases of COVID-19. The human cost to this country, to our families, would be incalculable.

So it isn't about you. It's about us. Now stop your whining and man up.

 

[somarco]

Where are they aborting after the baby is born?

"The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Fury at US 'infanticide' abortion bill

Technically not abortion but lumped into the late term abortion bills where a baby could be aborted right up to the point of delivery.

 

[shonceman]

This not about individual rights. This is about the common good. And unless you want to go back to whatever country your ancestors came from you got to play be the rules, right?

Look at it this way:

COVID-19, the illness caused by coronavirus, proves deadly in around 3.5 percent of confirmed cases.

While this is not the same as its mortality rate, given many people may be infected but not realize it, it is significantly higher than seasonal flu, which typically kills 0.1 percent of patients.

This is why comparisons to flu and its 12,000 deaths this year fail: COVID-19 is 3500% more deadly than flu. This is why we must not allow it to spread the same way we can "safely" allow the flu to spread.

The CDC estimates that the flu causes between 9 million and 45 million illnesses each year.

Let's suppose we limit COVID-19 to 9 million cases with a 3.5% mortality. That would be 315,000 deaths vs an expected 9000 for the flu.

Get it?

But I still see people going on about how this is a hoax and that this is all media hype.

This is important because we must stop the spread. We simply cannot allow 9,000,000 to 45,000,000 cases of COVID-19. The human cost to this country, to our families, would be incalculable.

So it isn't about you. It's about us. Now stop your whining and man up.

I think you missed his point altogether! He's addressing the false idea that there is no absolute, objective truth. He's using this pandemic as an example. It's absolutely true that we should be doing everything we can toward containment. Yet some people have a different opinion, that somehow they're the exception. (A few guys on this forum have said as much.) But their opinion, as strongly as they believe it, doesn't change what is actually true!

So, in our current culture there's an idea that I can have "my truth" and you can have "your truth". But shouldn't we both want to discover THE Truth? When we abandon the reality that there is no such thing as absolute, objective truth we find ourselves in the chaotic world of NO truth. That leads us to wonder whether life really does begin at conception, whether Bruce is really Caitlin, or whether I should risk infecting an older population because I just had to go knock doors today.

("There is no absolute truth" one philosopher quipped.
Another philosopher standing nearby quizzed, "Is that absolutely true?")