Chin up, Jason. Not just old white men.

My side? You mean the part of the populace that isn't white men? They may never win an election again? By gosh and by golly you may have just stumbled across the terrible reality that is our intentionally broken system. Blind squirrels CAN find nuts.

Identity politics. The politics that is based off of ones identity. How truly frightening. You'd think someone so invested in community rights would cherish identity in politics.

I do recognize where some of the politicized aspect behind reversing Roe vs. Wade, is driven by some men that wants to punish women and degrade them. My position, even though I am male, does not align with that position. I take a more central and in the middle position but I am a little more toward supporting abortion because I recognize the needs and realities of abortion as a valid option when it comes to matters. I also don't support irresponsible decisions made by to have abortion but just because I don't support the decision does not mean abortion should be banned or denied. I think people should be responsible and valid procedures should not be abused.

What is an extreme supporter of abortion? Smells like waffling to me.

Perhaps a fair question, but everything political or a matter of values there are people on extreme ends and in between. I am not interested in arguing over semantics and such that simply we don't need to waste each other's valuable time when in fact we might actually be more in agreement than disagreement. I'm voicing my opinion and I have frustration and am bothered by the SCOTUS decision on the matter.

There's no avenue for abortion to be gatekept by the government. If the states insist, then the feds need to disallow it. Women have full autonomy over their bodies. Period.

Therefore, my suggestion might be in order to override the actions of SCOTUS to make an amendment to the U.S. Constitution with regards to woman's rights regarding their bodies and reproductive rights. The controversy is the issue relating to the rights of the woman vs the rights of the fetus which may be considered living at a certain point in the pregnancy process. That is the controversy. Now, I agree with you while at the same time, understand why the controversy is what it is. We need to also consider the rights of the fetus at a certain point. This is why it isn't a fun topic.

Women are alive. Fetuses may be alive. Seems different.

Also we are men talking about this. Seems wrong.

I agree. Like you said, fetuses may be alive depending on the stage but it comes to the issue of how we define alive. If we keep it scientifically grounded then I think a definition and a point in development can be deemed a point where there is a 'deadline' to make such decisions. I am not well-versed enough on the particular term and precise medical science on when a fetus is 'alive' in having say, its own heart beat and such. The issue is SCOTUS recent decision basically says abortion is not a right under the U.S. Constitution. I really would love for women here to speak and voice out on this issue. I don't think it is wrong for men to discuss this topic. It is wrong and would be if ONLY men discuss this topic. With that, you and I had spoken on this so it's time we both sit back now and listen & hear what women have to say on this issue.

You're not a scientist. I am not asking for your sources. You're a bigot, a liar, and a disingenuous enabler of tyrants. Begone.

I'm not following you down your idiotic rabbit hole.

x-jla,

Sure, at what point are they alive as their own distinct living being which can mean 'viable'. If you talk about it from merely having living cells, that can basically mean from conception/fertilization... being literally a window of possibly only hours to be on the safeside... yet they wouldn't necessarily be consider alive and viable outside the womb at that point and being basically its own complete self-autonomous life other than being attached by umbilical cord. This is why it is a bit more of a complicated issue and abortion is sometimes appropriate for a number of situations. Anyway, I think we should sit back and listen to women speak on the issue without interrupting. This issue is much more effecting them than you or me. If I remember, you are male.

It's darkly hilarious that the side with no qualms about violence also managed to hijack democracy in a way that seems to suggest violence might be the only way to fix it.

Well, but then again, the only thing us non-republicans (note I am not saying Dems, cuz I am obviously infuriated with them) can do is have peaceful marches and listen to NPR.

I knew we were only slightly delaying what seems to be inevitable, it's just happening a bit faster than I imagined. But I got my guns out of storage after Trump was elected, so in some ways it's happening more slowly than I expected.

I won't buy a gun. I'm anti-gun. I don't like that so many of my friends and family own murder toys.

You were right when you said violence may be the only way to fix this. Voting, protesting, compromising, and every other strategy employed by the left has only let us step incrementally toward the right, following Republicans. Doing more of the same will only keep moving us in their direction. What avenues do you see to preserving the union, and indeed, the planet?

And the guns aren't toys, they are killing tools. I hope I don't need to use them, for either war or hunting, but I am prepared to if necessary.

If it comes to that it won't matter if we have guns or not. God will be doing the sorting.

Fuck guns, Wood Guy. This is the exact cycle of violence that the republicans love to perpetuate. There are other forms of civil unrest that do not involve guns. But as an American you probably do not understand that.

Discussing whether a fetus is a baby is a distraction. Women exist. Women are alive. They have a body. That body is theirs. Without their body there is no fetus. Period.

You think women must be compelled. Got it. Your vaunted anti-federalism is no match for your frothing chauvinism.

Disingenuous. Deflection. Obfuscation. False equivalence. Keep trotting out the classic rhetorical diarrhea, x-lax.

It's not a human until it exists outside the uterus.

b3tadine, it's definitely a human when it is viable. There is actual science behind determining that but I am not defining it. You can look it up.

Nope. Not at all. If you can't claim it as a dependent, it is a clump.

It's kind of funny how xlax is so oblivious as to not understand just how Marxist this thought is;

What do you think should happen to a parent that neglects to feed a baby leading to its death?

Given the fact that the state is the defacto Parent.

You're right, we should indict the State for failing to care for babies, after they're born.

b3tadine, lets not mix tax law into this issue. Not scientifically sound. Lets at least keep arguments against x-jla to be scientifically sound.

It takes a lot of temerity for a member of sociopathic cult that wouldn't extend the child tax credit that reduced childhood poverty by 40% to be acting like they give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about the welfare of children.

The women is compelled to care for her offspring because the offspring are dependent on her for survival. So men aren't responsible? the state protects a persons rights? Except a woman's rights?

Bullied? You guys were the ones with the baseball bats. Again confession and projection.

Is a person a person when they're dead?

x-jla, you just demonstrated that you don't know what I am talking about by viable. When I am talking about viable, it means that they can be removed from the womb and not be connected by the umbilical cord to the mother which is about 24-26 weeks after gestation at the earliest to any point before natural birth. Of course, after a child is born they are living outside the womb. Sure, a parent is still needing to care for them and has that responsibility until they reach 18. At this point a human and person can be considered interchangeable for the point of discussion since there is general legal consensus that human laws applies to humans and animals are well... another topic. Then that's the human mindset seeing themselves apart from the animals. I know things are complicated and I don't even think the justices are properly equipped to address questions like "what is life" or living and some that are much beyond mere legal questions and even the Constitution was drafted by people all of whom had intermittent moments of arrogance that they can rightly draft up such a thing and impose it like they had a mindset of arrogance that they had any right to claim this land at all let alone impose laws. It takes a certain degree of arrogance to impose laws on others.

And therefore confers rights.

Because an absence of a thing proves what, exactly?

It's z1111 to you. Sure the trigger laws that restrict the access to abortion.

I was

I was quoting you.

x-jla, wake up to reality not the b.s. story. First, there's no "God" given right to anything. So those are just privileges masquerading as some right. The Constitution is just a setting constrainsts of the government. There is no god given anything. Life itself is a privilege that can be taken away because its people acting as gods/kings that created the Constitution but it can be taken away because it can be altered, abolished, etc. but there's nothing divine or something you have just because you are born. This country's founders devised it so white wealthy men are royalties but that no one singular white male prick is a dictator. Over time, we the people expanded that to mean anyone regardless of race/ethnicity and gender. We devised the Constitution so it can be amended in order to "make a more perfect union". This is because rights are a human invention. While our founding fathers in the political offices of our country when it was founded were mostly christians, and they attribute the rights as God given.... as everything justified in the name of God.... just have to say it is "in the name of God" and its perceived justified. Of course, we can say bullshit to that but that was how they believed or made it out to be.... the public image. The rights are that which we defined and institute otherwise it doesn't exist. We can make it a right or we can prohibit. Governments always determines the rights (really they are privileges) and also what to restrict. Rights are simply privileges that you are permitted to have without government sanctioning against you for exercising them unless they revoke them. After all, even Amendments to the Constitution including the Constitution itself is able to be repealed. Not easy to muster but can be repealed. The government can also define what is not allowed. Everything else is merely privileges unless the government through its legal devices, imposes a restriction of some kind or elevates it to the status of a "right" which just a special privilege of elevated status. At the end of the day, no one is a king or queen or a chiefdom of their own. The government is always above an individual. While in the U.S., the people collectively may be above the government but yet the government is above the individuals. We can vote and it may make some change even small but it is the collective power of the people and through their elected representives in each House of Congress, the office of President, etc. but each of us are individually under the government authority. Rich white male pricks have a history of dodging and playing by different rules than the rest of us not so privileged. This is a sad aspect and inconvenient truth about the United States.

Every nation falls short of the hype. U.S. hyping about the rights and all is a fairy tale like it is so great. Perhaps it is better than some countries and from various points in time in history, it might have been better but in the end like all fairy tales like all scams, if it sounds too good to be true.... it is bullshit. Rights are really just a privilege but one that is elevated and more protected and defended by the government institution but at then end of the day, if they feel compelled to strip it, they will do so without your individual permission. The government institution isn't just its employees but the elected representatives. The latter will do whatever those that bankrolls them wants.

Trans kids, gay kids, conversion therapy, assaults on public libraries by thugs when the books they read are ones they diagree with.

Read my comments above.

You are the one confessing and projecting.

I figured you would show up after that testimony Tuesday to try and do some pathetic spin doctoring.

Go join the proud boys, fool.

This is why a woman's health decisions should be made by her and her health care provider(s).

You need to see a chiropractor. You've tied yourself in a knot with that shitty "logic."

Shouldn't you say something about identifying as an attack helicopter sometime soon?

No doctor would think your example was a necessary procedure, you chucklefuck.

Comparing a medically necessary and familiarly and societally beneficial procedure to chimpanzee arms! Fucking hilarious! See, guys? He's smart AND funny.

Solution to this to end this debate are a couple: 1. Adopting an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 2. Adopting an Amendment in the State Constitutions. This latter might be easier to secure abortion as a right but states can adopt them as rights. However, adopting it as an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would overide any state constitution that is not in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and ultimately makes the individual state constitution unenforceable. Of course, that would lead to legal battles. The negative situation is if there is an amendment like an Abortion Prohibition.

x-jla, so you believe non-consensual sex (also called RAPE) is OK? That is what you mean by your lame talking points.

Donna, thank you for sharing your voice in this. It would benefit the discussion more if more women speak about this important issue. I find the x-jla noise distracting, exhausting, etc. Now, I think there is a certain degree and valid point to bodily autonomy but not necessarily an absolute justification for abortion which I think one can understand has valid points. This is not to criticize you. I am against banning abortion. I can understand restricting abuse of such procedures but on the other hand, I'm concerned about government policing such. I also support the medical procedure as a valid medical choice for various justifiable reasons. I think there is a certain time and point where abortion is probably within the individual right of the woman but at some point the right of the fetus, a pre-born child, comes into play. So it can be a feeling of between torn between the issue. No rational woman wants to feel "guilty of murder" of the child even if it is pre-born. That is why it is not an easy decision to make at any point but harder the more developed and viable the pre-born child is. Therefore, its why it seems to me that the SCOTUS seems kind of cold and heartless to the women who do have abortion as if they all being "murderers" which isn't really the case except maybe some percentage of abortion cases but I don't think in your case that they were anything like that portrayed by some anti-abortionists.

Its telling that you talk a lot about the fetus and the "father" (it's spelled r-a-p-i-s-t) but conveniently avoid talking about the woman. Also that you tell other people to look shit up that you obviously haven't.

You say that its easy to give the child up to adoption. Are you really sure about that being the case everywhere in the U.S.? I do agree with you about making fathers accountable and not all fall on the woman. However, there isn't enough people pre-qualified to adopt or part of the qualified persons to be foster parents. It isn't like anyone can adopt or be a foster parent. There's standards to that in many states. Now, the best thing to do is to not have sex until you're ready as a couple to raise the child. This actually would prevent SOME of the abortion cases on the onset. 

There is rape and such. The problem is states CAN and some WILL ban abortion to an absolute and may even make it a murder level felony to have an abortion and adopt such laws. This then would make a person subject to murder charges if they ever had abortion in the state or were to have an abortion in another state while being a resident in the state because there are no statutes of limitation on murder in most states as it is. 

So a woman raped and then get an abortion in a state where it's legal while being a resident in a state that criminalizes it as murder would get a murder conviction while the rapist only gets charged for rape. The rapist might get out of prison but the rape victim gets lethal injection. Wow... how f---ed up would that be? 

That is how bad it can get and the SCOTUS just opened the door for that to happen. 

How about a 16 year old teen getting raped and then when she and her family sought out abortion and under go the procedure in another state, she now gets to face lethal injection or life in prison. Now, I'm presenting a situation that can very much become real and would be sick and atrocious. 

Adoption and foster care isn't necessarily abundant everywhere and necessarily easy. This is reality check. If it is an option, that may be appropriate but that isn't always the case at the moment. Try to consider that a bit more before making judgment that you can go to just any local agency to find adoption or foster care for the child and get the child adopted or into foster care and lined up BEFORE the child is born. 

Should the mother who been raped be punished by having to care for this child for an indefinite amount of time (which can mean up to 18 years) where every moment looking at the child is going to remind her of that horrible rape? I think no but the SCOTUS opened the door for states to make such option unavailable with extreme criminal penalty. The anti-abortionists are also the ones defunding foster care, child adoption programs, etc. You're not going to entice people to adopt children without adequate financial assistance programs. 

To you, every woman who has an abortion, you tend to write it off as if they all choose to do it because raising the child is inconvenient. I doubt that's the case. Don't try to spout percentages. A lot of that coming from the sources you tend to use to support your claim is total b.s. because they don't even do any research because they don't even know how to do research. Most of them are uneducated dipshits that don't have education in researching and professional experience doing so. Most people don't even discuss their reasons for having abortion because it isn't something they talk about to strangers especially online dipshits.

Just want to remind you all that I have j-lax on mute so I won’t be responding to any of his slobbering frothing brainless nonsense. Hi j-lax! If you die I won’t mourn!

You know laxative, even if you had chimpanzee arms, you'd still be a useless tool.

This.

Anti abortion with no exceptions. F.u.c.k. Y.o.u.

So do rapists have parental visitation rights? What do you tell the child when they want to know about their father? So forcing a woman to carry a rapists baby to term is "tough"? It is inhuman. The fact you don't know this speaks directly to what a sociopath you are.

None of this stuff about rapists and adoption and failed contraception matters in this discussion. I don’t have to allow another human to use my body without my consent, full stop. If the State has a compelling interest in the rights of the human being inside my body once it’s viable, then the State can make available a C-section, follow up care for my body, and whatever care the viable human needs. If the State won’t supply that, then I have the right to take care of my body in the way I see fit.

Also, I just can’t let this slide by without a response. I usually skim Rick’s comments but this is just unhinged:

Rick, women have been *screaming* our warnings about Roe being overturned since summer of 2016 when McConnell made clear he was not going to review Merrick Garlands nomination. We KNEW the end goal was overturning Roe. We’ve *been warning* of the societal destabilization that would happen. If you haven’t heard those warnings it’s because you along with so many men haven’t bothered listening. 

"If the State has a compelling interest in the rights of the human being inside my body once it’s viable, then the State can make available a C-section, follow up care for my body, and whatever care the viable human needs. If the State won’t supply that, then I have the right to take care of my body in the way I see fit." I haven't heard it stated like that before but it's brilliant.

To get to the basics, I consider any forcible penetration as RAPE. When you, jla-x, say that abortion is illegal (like our Supreme Court is saying), you are in favor of RAPE and what comes out of it. If you do not understand this simple fact, you should be on mute as many on this forum have done with you.

“ So do rapists have parental visitation rights? ”. Again, this is why the left is collapsing on its own bs. You are so dishonest and foolish. Actually I think that's a very fair and reasonable question. What is the answer?

The only reason I give you a thumb down is the last three words. Please, don't compare me with that. Other than that, it would be a thumbs up. That's a beautifully well done thumbs up moment that you get a thumbs down.

If I could, I give you both a thumbs up and down.

Nah. Try again simp.

You're either born, or not.

Just say you're a Theocrat and we can dispense with the gloves.

x-jla wrote: 

“Born” not meant to be taken literally. I know you all are slow so should have quoted it directly.

Then what dose born mean in your quote?  Please be specific.  

Men, are not fetuses. Men, at the time of the writing meant White Slave Owning Men. Oops. Back to the drawing board. Theocrat.

x-jla - you haven't answered my question. What dose 'born' mean to you?

Are you trying to say that everyone has rights and that these rights are granted by whatever deity a person believes in? 

Zero limits.

We've made tiny steps since the clean air act. That will all be dwarfed by the bad actions of evil actions enabled by wealth seeking behavior.

In an effort to meet on common ground where possible, I would like more information if you have it.

x-jla, the "pursuit of happiness" part is not in the U.S. Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence (DOI). The DOI is not law in the U.S. It's a legal document (resolution) of the colonies declaring its independence from the British empire but it is not the law or part of the laws of the U.S. It's an important historical legal document but does not have legal status as law. The Constitution is law. It was with the Constitution that rights are defined. The inalienable rights in the Constitution is life, liberty, and property. The "pursuit of happiness" is not a right in the Constitution because it was deemed something that can't be enforced and enshrining it in the Constitution would be too problematic. Considering what would make happiness for one person can be totally the opposite of the other and could result in every law being adopted be claimed unconstitutional because it would infringe the right of a person to pursue happiness. What if murder makes a person happy or raping like the rapist? It would mean you can't adopt laws against raping because it would and could be argued by the lawyers representing the rapist that such laws would interfere with and impede the rapist's pursuit of happiness. This is the ugly aspect that arguments were made that it would be problematic. In the arguments, murdering being likely an example used instead of rape but it's just as valid at showing that would have been too problematic. Ultimately, it was decided inalienable right of property was better.

That may be how they wrote the decision, but not how it would work in practice.

WG a clearer example was the decision on the school coach leading his team in prayer. The court made the argument that it was quiet and private. A video showed it was anything but quiet and private.

Yeah I played sports until mid-high school and have a lot of athletes in my family. There is no way anyone with a brain, or experience on a ball field, can say that coach-led prayer isn't coercive. Or that if it was a representative of another religion brining the suit that they would have won.

X-jla, I'm glad you can at least see the reasoning behind separation of church and state. If the science was clear on when a fetus should be considered a human was 100% clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason it's religious is that it's almost exclusively christians who believe that we (and fetuses) have souls who are pushing for it.

Morality is so hard in our biology that murder toys are a god given right just like free speech and freedom to force you to let me be religious all up in your shit.

This isn't chastising Chad, b3tadine, SP, etc. The point I am making, they understand that the noise is distracting and kind of flooding the dialog and not the particular issues such as abortion issue.

I don't recall writing such an essay as you described. There are some key false elements that I never wrote. However, that can be exhausting. Yes, many of my posts are verbose but as you can see, sometimes, however, you should have realized this discussion and topics and importance is not for you to troll and flood it with your anti-abortion propaganda. It's one thing to state your opinion but also be empathetic because of the concerns about how some states will and already said they will, begin adopting laws to make abortion a felony for any citizen in their state potentially even if they undergo outside the state. Much like you can be charged with rape if you had sex with a 17-year-old in a state where age of consent was legal at 16 or 17 years of age but you live in a state where it 18. They can use that precedent as a basis to frame laws so even if you had abortion in a state that it is legal but it is a felony in your state of residence that you get to come back to your state with the possibility that your local DA files criminal charge against you. Of course, that isn't your concern. You are male so its a non-issue to you. Male can't have abortions because they don't bear children.... well... generally except maybe some weird fluke in genetics.

I would accept some of my posts, mainly the ones responding to x-jla and the associated dumpster fire to be purged. Some of my posts, that were civil exchange before responding to x-jla is fair to remain as fair expression.

No, a dumpster fire is a thread full of people yelling at each other without any actual discussion. Like I said, I knew better.

Such a victim you are.

x-jla, you can talk about landscape design and such and have potential credibility in that topic but you really don't have credibility in a lot of other topics. If you simply posted your view as your opinion and leave it at that, without exerting effort to responding to dissenting responses. My suggestion, don't get into arguing. Let people dissent. FYI: This is a privately owned web forum. So in all sense, you are in Paul's house. His rules not yours. You don't make rules here. You are not Paul Petrunia or his appointed moderators. He chose his moderators so that defines a bit on what is permitted/allowed and what isn't. You are in his house. He has every right to kick you out. This isn't a government-operated web forum. This is not a democracy. The United States is (more or less). You are for all intent, a guest here in someone's digital residence. Keep that in mind here. Personal opinions are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.

I didn't realize/notice there was a Politics folder. Good call.

Freedom, is not given to me by an invisible deity, constructed by fallible men, that have zero proof of the existence of their supposed invisible man in the sky.

I don't believe in Natural Law, it's a flawed construct.

"PROBLEMS FOR NATURAL LAW THEORY 

1. One of the difficulties for natural law theory is that people have interpreted nature differently? Should this be the case if as asserted by natural law theory, the moral law of human nature is knowable by natural human reason? 

2.How do we determine the essential or morally praiseworthy traits of human nature? Traditional natural law theory has picked out very positive traits, such as "the desire to know the truth, to choose the good, and to develop as healthy mature human beings”. But some philosophers, such as Hobbes, have found human beings to be essentially selfish. It is questionable that behavior in accordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accord with human nature is morally wrong. For instance, if it turns out that human beings (at least the males) are naturally aggressive, should we infer that war and fighting are morally right? 

3. Even if we have certain natural propensities, are we justified in claiming that those propensities or tendencies should be developed? On what grounds do we justify, for example, that we ought to choose the good? 

4. For Aquinas, the reason why nature had the order it did was because God had put it there. Other thinkers, such as Aristotle, did not believe that this order was divinely inspired. Does this alleged natural moral order require that we believe that there is a God that has produced this natural moral order? Evolutionary theory has challenged much of the basis of thinking that there is a moral natural order, since on evolutionary theory species has developed they way they have out of survival needs. 

5 It is doubtful that one can infer moral principles forbidding adultery, rape, homosexuality, and so forth, either from biological facts about human nature or from facts about the inherent nature of Homo sapiens. 

6. Critics of natural law theory say that it is doubtful, however, that the inherent nature of Homo sapiens establishes laws of behavior for human beings in the same way as it may establish laws of behavior for cats, lions, and polar bears. It is especially difficult because so much of human behavior is shaped by the environment, that is, by deliberate and nondeliberate conditioning, training, and education. 

7. Two philosophers (Aquinas and Aristotle) integral to the theory have different views about god’s role in nature, which confuses the issue, especially when trying to decipher if the theory relies on the existence of god. 

8. The intrinsic nature of humans as it pertains to establishing laws of behavior may not be the same for animals, which presents difficulties within the theory. 

9.. Human behavior may be solely reliant upon the environment that one is exposed to, which includes social classes, education and upbringing, this opposes the theory."

We have rights because we agreed as a society that we have rights & we bothered to write them down because we came from a country where those rights were not articulated as such. We agree as a society to abide by those rules. They are not "natural" or "god given" despite what many say (historically & currently). And as demonstrated by other societies around the world that do things differently (historically & currently). [ie, US Bill of Rights, UN Human Rights doc]

freedom is a word and a concept created by human beings.

SneakyPete or whoever, let me know when x-jla has finally shutup and we get some more input and thoughts from women discussing the issue of abortion. I already spoke my thoughts on it so I'm more interested in hearing/reading their thoughts... (listening mode). I'll settle for if only the latter occured because I doubt x-jla will shutup long enough for others to have a meaning discussion.

x-jla, shut up. There's no 'laws' or freedoms or rights when it comes to natural matter. So freedom is bestowed by who? Not by any god/God. Don't exist or there never been a human conversing with God. Your conservation to God is like talking to rock. You don't get any verbal replies. At the end, every human concept or rights, freedoms, laws, etc. is human invention fabricated as a human instituted system to establish control, order, etc. Everything to form civilizations as a social contract of sorts and in cases for a subset of the population to control the masses.

Ultimately, human egotistical arrogance established any of the laws, freedoms, rights, etc. They were humans institutions created to solve or address human interests, needs, concerns, etc. over time throughout human history.

The only "God" is human lust and desire personified by the human imposer. Humans never met or experienced the divine. Some experiences is simply not understood by those that experienced whatever they experienced. God is a fictional "thunder stick" that if you disobey you will be punished. It's a human invention for controlling people. The controllers knows its bullshit. The controllers are merely humans. In the past, a god was merely a human idolized on a pedistal. Its now a metaphorical "person of almighty power" and it used as a psychological device to control people. That is how it has been used throughout history.

As proto said, WE the humans with our own collective arrogance as you may created the institutions even the word and concept of right. At a certain point, WE, humans, created the rights enshrined in the legal document of the Constitution. A social contract so to speak between a governing institution be established by the people to govern the people for no civilization can exist without law and order, rules, yet to counterbalance the restrictive we established rights to protect certain liberties... the freedom as people free to determine our own destiny versus being merely slaves of a singular person but yet we can't be so free that any one of the people can not just do whatever he or she wants especially if it were to harm the people as a larger collective so there's the rights of the collective to be protected from harm and that right being the right to levy laws. Yet, an individual has certain individual rights that are not to be infringed by the government instituted so you don't go to prison or be sent to the guillitine and beheaded or shot just because you spoke against the agenda of the government.

It is unclear if God has ever communicated to us in the avatar of a human form but while that is impossible to know for sure. It is also sound very convenient like establishing a pope as a mediator (a conduit) to speaking to "God" but certainly if God spoke audibly, I would reason that it would be surely heard and felt throughout the entire cosmos. Of course, I would argue that would be a matter of how much or likely a being so massive to span the cosmos or beyond so much so that an entire universe is like a singular biological cell of this God's body, would this God give a damn about you or me or our individual insignificant and incalculably small scale of importance to the God Almighty of all. Why such a personal interest for such a being?

I believe we simply choose to take our own destiny in our own hand than to wait for God to respond and tell us. We choose to make unilateral decision and use the fiction we build up to get people to do something. Shepherd to a flock of sheep/cattle. What does that really say.... about us... about "God". I'd say, people for good and for bad, took it upon themselves to decide what to do and every decision humans have made since the beginning.

It can be simple, we function without concern if there is a divine god and recognize its all human made up and that for people to coexist in a manner that we can live together without harming each other and if what a person does harms others, then we are empowered to have laws to prohibit such. Don't harm others in serious way be the people are in charge of their collective destiny as much as an individual but ultimately, because there's no god/God or whatever that is going to tell us what to do. No handholding by some divine adult / parent. We make the social contract with each other through legal processes and a government institution so that we as people determine how we want to govern and how to be govern and what the rights are and what is not, what is allowed or not allowed, etc. If what is currently set is not working, we amend it. Now, wrongs can and do happen but in this particular institution of the United States, the people collectively have some voice but certainly those with money financing is more likely to be naturally more compelling to elected people than some loud mouths. Only during election time does politicians really do anything to get votes, pay lipservice, sometimes do some things to get votes but outside of election time, the elected tend to be less concerned with the voters and more concerned about the people money towards them because ultimately, money is the currency to get elected officials and those running for office to give a shit. The simple truth is there's nothing divine about the Constitution but that is not to say the Constitution regardless of the divine bullshit line is that rights are established by the people but the whole damn thing can be voted out much like we do an amendment to the Constitution. After all, it isn't the first "constitution". So, its ultimately up to the people. If we belief we want certain rights protected, we protect them. If not, they go away but only three rights are inalienable so called natural rights but really, it's just rights we hold to be so profound and important that we should guard and protect it because a taking of those rights is death, imprisonment, loss of property so they are protected to a degree by due process. The Bill of Rights are amendments to begin with and those rights are subject to being repealed as any other amendment but we don't try to take them away because that sets a concerning precedent. One nuclear act is the complete repeal of the entire U.S. Constitution and it being replaced. That can be good and it can be horrible. It depends on how it is done but that is entirely by people and up to the people The only faith you can have is faith that we will not do such a thing on a whim. The only hope you have is the people because that is what matters. Don't bother wasting breath in prayer to some so called "God" you read in a book. To many horrible things happen and this "God" isn't doing anything to stop it. The only people that matters in protecting or defending the laws, the rights, etc. is the living human beings of this country. The dead don't matter nor does the fictional characters.

If the Biblical God exists as the God in the Bible, Torah, and even the Qu'ran ( I apologized if I misspelled it), then the moral authority of God is pretty darn dubious. One shall not tempt the Lord. It's not a matter of tempting the Lord. It's a question of responsibility as a leader and authority figure. Like a parent. He seems pretty much like an absentee (some might describe as deadbeat) parent. So these children, humans... well children to a divine God, surely. Where's the leadership. Why never around? Why never talking and responding back in a manner that we can even possibly hear or read because we are not psychics. We don't hear thoughts from others talking to us telepathically. Humans are like a rock and can't hear telepathic thoughts. Only our own thoughts. We listen through our ears and read through our eyes. God should surely already know that so it is not a temptation for God to do my personal will or serving me but to be responsible as a parent is in raising children. Humans are still children and incapable of evolving without that very clear and present presence of God with the people like a father or mother with the children, raising them, guiding them, leading them, etc.

“Men giving other men rights. Fuck that“ What fantasy world are you living in? Despite your energetic response, that’s exactly how it functions. We agree to live together with certain rules; we choose to abide by those rules. It doesn’t work otherwise. Examples: 2A in the US, but not the rest of the world. Right to health care in the rest of the developed world, but not the US.

Or, consider how we drive on the right side of the road. We all agree that we will drive to the right. There is no physical restraint to doing so. We assume that others will abide that rule so that we can pass at 55mph on a 2-lane road without dying or even raising our anxiety. It only works because we agree. In UK & Japan, they agree to drive on the left.

Same thing for “rights”; they are just articulated rules. And they are not universal. And the fact that historical figures wrote that they are god given is irrelevant because no deity enforces these written rules. Do we deserve certain rights? Yes, that’s why they make sense. Health, happiness, freedom? Absolutely. Guns? Not so much.

As an aside, I think that we should be able to describe why the Bill of Rights is still relevant today. “Cuz it’s my right” isn’t good enough. A right should be justifiable and defensible. I think that the Bill of Rights suffers in two areas that don’t hold up to modern societal scrutiny: 1) people of all genders & sexual orientations should be treated equally; and 2) Guns are a public health hazard and should be regulated heavily & removed from right status. A strong, but more distant, #3 is a right to health care. Those are the amendments I’d propose.

First, Declaration of Independence is not law. It's just a historic legal device but has no legal authority as law for the United States once it adopted the its first Constitution and subsequently to this one that is the Constitution... the constitutional law of the country. Prior constitutions were devised to create a operational constitution during the pro tem time until they worked out and adopted *THE* Constitution that would be intended to be of relative permanence with amendability and ability to be repealed if the will of people through election on the directive of repealing the Constitution as a whole and replacing or when amending to repeal amendments and replacing them or to add new amendments as the will of the people driving the process. This does not mean whatever an elected official or an appointed public official such as a SCOTUS justice does or decision made is the will of the people. Sometimes, individuals in positions of privilege works against the best interest of the people to serve their own personal interests.

“You people” meaning Dems…not you 

x-jla.... ok..... whatever you say. Sounds rather stupid to use a phrase that is associated with racism and racist denigration. Maybe you should use proper English grammar more.

“Those rights are above the state.“

[Not sure if I should laugh or cry at that.]

Our laws, including the ones that establish rights, are the basis of the state. There are rules for how rights can change, indicating that they can change & were expected to adjust as society adjusted. We have amended the Amendments before.

None of it is above reach because all governments is a person or a people in privilege and control. Therefore, if we want it to go away, we just amend the rule... in this case the Constitution. We can even replace it, entirely.

Relentless pursuit of the green new deal, eh bud? Tell me you came here to argue in bad faith without telling me you came here to argue in bad faith.

The big lie? Restricting voting rights? Appointing fake electors? Attempting a violent coup? Identity politics from a fascist cult? Intimidating witnesses? Pressuring officials to find votes? Destroying evidence? Cover-up? Committing crimes and then asking for pardons? Taking away rights? Trying to establish a state religion? A radical court trying to establish a facist theocracy? And you are worried about the green new deal?

Personally I am more worried about the green new deal, or more broadly, addressing climate change--or as I call it, catastrophic climate disruption. I know people don't want to think about it, and are tired of the many boys-who-cried-wolf alarms in the past, but suffice to say that this is the real deal and is going to completely fuck every living thing on the planet. Those in cities likely don't see it the way I do out here in the countryside. I can literally see insect populations crashing (except for invasives like Lyme-carrying ticks), bird populations have already crashed, weather patterns are unpredictable, growing food is increasingly challenging, etc.. And that's here in the northeast US which is one of the least-affected parts of the world when it comes to climate change.

I am worried about it too. It can't happen without getting people in office first.

None of which you will list, lest we point out they are from Fox news or worse.

It's z1111 and it's the democratic party. Cite examples and sources for your statement as SP said.

x-jla, here's a science report albeit not pertaining to the fertilization and determination of life.... but if we are going to be scientific about topics, here's one on climate change.... the current synthesis report from the IPCC not currently under development which we'll wait until 2023 sometime for. Here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

What is life? We can start with the semen and the unfertilized egg if we want to get nitty gritty. Anyway, from the biologists point of view, if it even a living cell, its life as in living as alive in that sense but that's not exactly what we are talking about because even an unfertilized egg is technically alive from that definition. The question is when is it its own lifeform distinct from the mother or father and viable to live outside the womb, has a heart beat of its own not merely operating off the heart of mother? When does it have lungs that are developed and operational? When does it have its own brain and have its own brain functions? When does it have all these things and potentially viable to live outside the womb. Lets us not conflate a situation where a person is on life support because the person was already a person. Sometimes organs are damaged or needs transplants or assisting support given a medically traumatic situation to the body. This doesn't mean they are no longer a person but this can be due to a lot of issues. Once you become a person is because you biologically developed into a person in the first place and you keep that status and may be deemed alive or deceased but a person. This is the element where the definition of being that distinct person is more than merely having a dna since it's just dna of two persons and the dna signatures of each of those person's family tree that makes the new person's dna. However, its more than just dna and merely having living cells that defines a person. Once we are down that road, then medicine for even the common cold would be illegal because on the logical extreme, killing any life is murder. Therefore, killing the viruses of the common cold is murder. Eating carrots, squash, cumcumber, etc. is murder.

Again: none of this matters. No other human has the right to use my body without my consent. It doesn’t matter if it’s “murdering a baby” to have an abortion because I have a right to self-defense and if a fetus or a baby or a teenager or an octogenarian is attacking my body without my consent I have a right to defend myself even if that means killing the attacker. This is my right.

While that would be a scary way to look at it but you definitely have a right to protect your life from harm whether that harm is by a fetus (obviously not an attacker in the conventional sense with intent to harm) so to that extent, I don't think the fetus is an attacker where "self-defense" analogy against a premeditated attacker with a knife or gun trying to harm you but you have what is more towards the same extent of trying to protect your life from harm much like you would say a disease or an ailment of some kind. In which case, you have a sound argument to protect yourself and your life so it comes down to the medical determination and consultation with the doctor. 

The best practice is, that if it is safe or feasible to save both lives that should be the decision to make. Sometimes situations in life are unfair where there may be a decision to choose one or the other... in which case, it's a difficult and controversial decision that is difficult. An argument where both have a 'right' to live and continue living but we just are not medically capable of doing both... who do you choose? Who lives and who dies? That's a morally tough situation. In an ideal world, we will never have to have abortions but this is not an ideal world but a real world that fails to meet the ideal. I don't think we are in a position medically where abortion no longer is needed. There's a valid need in an imperfect real world.

I do agree in an ideal world, there would also not be rape because no one would do that. In case of rape and such unconsented sex, I think abortion is that situation should be an option for women after all given the context. This is why I understand the terrible moral conflict and difficulty being what it is.

z1111are you talking about j-lax? Is he linking to hoax conspiracy sites? Because I don’t read his posts but I *can* mod those posts away if I know which ones to hide.

Yes, I should have flagged them. I didn't go to them. The first hate group site info was from Wikipedia. The second was from articles describing it. The publisher admitted publishing hoaxes and surfs the dark web for stories. Scared the fuck out of me. All from 30 seconds on Google no shit. Be careful.

It's the voice of the dark web. Fuck you goodbye

A conspiracy site that by their own admission publishes hoaxes.

f** n*** coverage of the Jan 6 hearings, the supreme court rulings, the voting laws of Georgia, Texas, Florida. Your turn.

From a conspiracy site that by their own admission publishes hoaxes.

Being able to distinguish quality research does. You keep pushing you idiot theories. All you do is make things worse for everyone else. Just the fact that a dumb useless empty fuck like you can own murder toys shows what’s wrong with your country.