skirtcafe.org

Sinned wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:02 pm r_k, actually we can be forced to donate organs. Increasingly there is a move towards positive permission - it is assumed that you consent to donations of organs on death unless you have consciously opted out previously.

The option is still there to refuse to donate, it is only the default that has changed.

Seconded. A masterful analysis and summary of the inherent conflicts in such a subject.

moonshadow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:29 pm Let's break it down simply:

Conservative, pro-life members of skirt cafe, YES OR NO:

Do you believe life saving medical treatment should depend solely on the patient's ability to pay?

The two notions are in conflict. As far as I'm concerned the GOP can't talk to me about the sanctity of life. They currently have two blazing back eyes right now with their positions on healthcare and covid.

I think that people in need should be helped medically. I simply think it should be done through voluntary charity, not government coercion. It ceases to be charity (from the Latin word for love) if it is not voluntary. A thing can be the right thing to do, without it being the right thing for government to do.

Conservatives do in fact tend to put their money where their mouth is in this as well, with greater charitable donations from conservatives than folks on the left.

rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:44 pm

Dust wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:15 am A cat is not human. Cows are not human. An unborn child, foetus, zygote, etc. is a human being. An extremely young, extremely vulnerable, and completely innocent human being. This is not conjecture, religious belief, or speculation. It is a scientific fact. It is a separate living human, with his or her own DNA, that happens to be dependent (for the time being) on the mother. Nothing suddenly changes at 24 weeks, or birth for that matter. The child is not self-sufficient for a long time after birth, and has been a unique human being since conception.

All true. And yet, I don't believe that human beings are deserving of special privileges. I don't believe that human lives are intrinsically more valuable than animals. That it would be acceptable to wipe out all other life on earth to save one human.

Is there not a hierarchy of life? Even vegans place animals over vegetables. Is a dog not more valuable than an earthworm? Why then is it so hard to consider humans above all (other) animals?

rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:44 pm Incidentally, the use of the word "innocent" is a religious belief IMO.

I'm not sure I follow how. Courts find people "not guilty" all the time. You are not saying the criminal courts are religious institutions, are you?

rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:44 pm We are all part of a big web of life and living and dying is all part of the process. As a society we get to decide what we consider as acceptable and not. And we have decided that 24 weeks is a good compromise between the viability of the foetus and that the bearer of the foetus having a reasonable chance to come to a considered decision.

I guess this would come over as fairly areligous and that'd be right. Lots of people think differently, and that's fine.

But on even an international level, humanity has come to the conclusion that some things no society should be allowed to do. War crimes, genocide, human sacrifice, etc. Without some foundational, absolute morality, we couldn't say these things are wrong if done by another government or society.

rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:44 pm

Dust wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:15 am And if you get pregnant and can't care for the child, there are couples ready to take that child in, waiting in line for the chance to adopt. There are charities dedicated to helping you, whether you wish to keep and raise the child yourself or find them another loving home.

I dislike this argument because bearing a child is hardly a risk-free endeavour. It's one of the most dangerous things a women can do before the age of 40, it might not kill you but it can leave a lot of scars (physically and mentally). That argument almost turns the woman into an involuntary baby incubator. If you could extract the foetus at 24 weeks and stick it in a tank to grow, I'd be all for it. That would actually be a win-win situation.

Nothing is risk free. An abortion has risk. A c-section is major abdominal surgery, i.e. risky. And incubators are not perfect. Babies have made it from 21 weeks, but anything less than about 38 weeks is considered high risk.

rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:44 pm There's is only one person in the whole process who we can ask their opinion, and that's the bearer. As far as I'm concerned she has the full legal right to body autonomy and the exclusive right to choose to do with her body as she sees fit. We don't force people to give blood or donate organs, I don't see how this is any different. The women gets a clear legally defined waiting period where she gets to make a choice and that's it.

Why can't that period be when she chooses whether to spread her legs? That's when a man's choice of whether to become a father ends. And he can't put the kid up for adoption either, if the mother doesn't want to. He either stays in their life, or pays mother child support. And all too often he wants to stay, but gets kicked out and robbed by the mother and the courts anyway.

BTW, I'm all for donating blood and have gladly done so many times. But organ harvesting is wrong. The person "donating" must still be alive for their organs to help anyone. With of course the exception of kidney and liver where the donor generally recovers, or cadaver tissue items like tendons and such. But the idea of "brain death" was invented to create a supply of transplant organs, not because it's scientific. You can't take a truly dead person's heart and do much of anything with it to save someone's life.

rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:44 pm And that choice is at the expense of something else, difficult choices generally are. Let's not pretend that abortion is an easy choice, it's often a choice that haunts them for the rest of their lives. And yet, I support their right to make that choice. Because who am I to make that choice for them.

My position may possibly be affected by someone close to me having been denied this choice, and that has left scars, mentally and physically, for the rest of their lives.

And there's the rub. We know people who are stuck with the choices they made in the past, and don't want to condemn the choice because it feels like condemning the person. The reality is that it is not a condemnation of the person. But to the person it may feel that way, because no one wants to say "I massively screwed up." Even forgiveness in these kinds of cases is tough, and the person most affected isn't there to forgive, making healing that much harder. I don't want to see anyone have to deal with that. But there are free programs to help people hurt by abortion.

https://hopeafterabortion.com/

crfriend wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:54 pm There is a reason why I specifically avoid using the term "moral" in conversations like these because "moral" has a lot of religious overload to it. Instead, I tend to focus on ethical which does not have that nuance. For instance, in some religious settings, it is possible to be both "pro-life" and support capital punishment. This sets up an inherent conflict which invariably turns the individual who so believes into a hypocrite. Pick one; you cannot be both in an ethical setting. Either human life is valued or it's not; setting and situation cannot define the way one goes.

I recall discussing this concept with a good pal of mine a number of years ago who, as a counsellor, has some training in the concept and he'd challenged me on my use of the term "ethical" instead of "moral", which is the more common term. I explained the difference and the nuance of the thing and he immediately understood it.

That nuance between moral and ethical is one I need to look into more. Thank you for pointing it out.

As to capital punishment, I think there is a massive difference between the just punishment fitting a capital crime that someone has been convicted of, and taking the life of one who has done nothing personally wrong. Not sure how people miss this, or what more I can do to explain it.

Some pro-life folks take the approach you suggest with a stand against capital punishment as well. I'm not sure we can get away from it, as I see life in prison (especially without the chance for parole) as another form of death sentence. Just a cowardly, slow one that we as a society won't admit to. We should use capital punishment sparingly, but it should be an option on the table.

Dust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:32 pm I think that people in need should be helped medically. I simply think it should be done through voluntary charity, not government coercion. It ceases to be charity (from the Latin word for love) if it is not voluntary. A thing can be the right thing to do, without it being the right thing for government to do.

So.... Yesno

I mean no disrespect, but the charity thing is just a cop-out. If charity actually solved problems we wouldn't have any because lord knows there are enough wealthy people with hoards of excess that could eliminate virtually all human suffering... if they wanted to....

...but they don't.

Another issue with charity is it discriminates. If you give to charity, you have the right to refuse to whom to give your donations to. Imagine a hospital that rejects a transgender woman who enters an emergency room for coughing up blood.... wait, you don't have to. Under government healthcare, nobody can be discriminated against in such a manner because it's a inclusionary rather than exclusionary system.

Conservatives do in fact tend to put their money where their mouth is in this as well, with greater charitable donations from conservatives than folks on the left.

I wonder how they track poor liberals like myself who give under the table and off the books?

I wonder how do they track people who follow the guidance of Matthew 6:3?

Also, some context may be in order for your claim.

Dust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:08 pm
As to capital punishment, I think there is a massive difference between the just punishment fitting a capital crime that someone has been convicted of, and taking the life of one who has done nothing personally wrong. Not sure how people miss this, or what more I can do to explain it.

Some pro-life folks take the approach you suggest with a stand against capital punishment as well. I'm not sure we can get away from it, as I see life in prison (especially without the chance for parole) as another form of death sentence. Just a cowardly, slow one that we as a society won't admit to. We should use capital punishment sparingly, but it should be an option on the table.

I'm not sure what the "right" answer is but as long as there is a possibility that someone may be wrongly convicted (and we have plenty of evidence that this happens) I don't see how capital punishment can be justified. How can the state put someone to death when there is a non-negligible possibility that the jury made a mistake or the authorities loaded the deck?

Dust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:32 pm

Conservatives do in fact tend to put their money where their mouth is in this as well, with greater charitable donations from conservatives than folks on the left.

Do you have some evidence to support that assertion?

alexthebird wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:17 pm

Dust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:32 pm

Conservatives do in fact tend to put their money where their mouth is in this as well, with greater charitable donations from conservatives than folks on the left.

Do you have some evidence to support that assertion?

The statement is likely true (see my response above).

However I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of those "charitable donations" are given to exclusionary religious institutions, private [religious] schools, overseas missions, etc.

And while missions (overseas and at home) do indeed do good for humanity, I am cynical about the true motives. Few would deny that the goal is to "win souls for the Lord", but what that really means is to place butts in church pews and get money flowing into that offering plate.

There aren't too many charitable organizations that do good solely for the purpose of the love of humanity in my observation.

This is not to say that I completely disapprove, but I do wish that more goodness was done in the world for the sake of love and compassion and not proselytizing purposes...

Consider the transgender woman turned away from a Christian homeless shelter... that's not a charity, that's a private club, and I'm sure they rake in plenty of GOP/conservative donation dollars.

I'd be willing to bet that that Christian mission prides itself on being "pro-life" too...

What if she died on the street that night?

What of "pro-life" now?

Dust? Anyone?

All lives matter? Only if you're straight, Christian, cis, and otherwise "normal". If only we had a crystal ball and could determine which fetuses would turn out to be transgender... I'm sure many on the far right religious wing would be fine to abort those!

alexthebird wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:15 pm

Dust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:08 pm
As to capital punishment, I think there is a massive difference between the just punishment fitting a capital crime that someone has been convicted of, and taking the life of one who has done nothing personally wrong. Not sure how people miss this, or what more I can do to explain it.

Some pro-life folks take the approach you suggest with a stand against capital punishment as well. I'm not sure we can get away from it, as I see life in prison (especially without the chance for parole) as another form of death sentence. Just a cowardly, slow one that we as a society won't admit to. We should use capital punishment sparingly, but it should be an option on the table.

I'm not sure what the "right" answer is but as long as there is a possibility that someone may be wrongly convicted (and we have plenty of evidence that this happens) I don't see how capital punishment can be justified. How can the state put someone to death when there is a non-negligible possibility that the jury made a mistake or the authorities loaded the deck?

How can we exact any punishment when this is the case? A guy spends a decade in prison, and the government basically just says "oops, sorry." He'll never get that back. Monetary compensation helps a little, but it's far from adequate. Nothing can right that wrong.

Capital cases spend longer in the courts than any other, with mandatory reviews and appeals. Then the person sis in prison a long time before the sentence is carried out. The system is far from perfect, but I fail to see a better solution.

moonshadow wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:35 pm

alexthebird wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:17 pm

Dust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:32 pm

Conservatives do in fact tend to put their money where their mouth is in this as well, with greater charitable donations from conservatives than folks on the left.

Do you have some evidence to support that assertion?

The statement is likely true (see my response above).

However I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of those "charitable donations" are given to exclusionary religious institutions, private [religious] schools, overseas missions, etc.

And while missions (overseas and at home) do indeed do good for humanity, I am cynical about the true motives. Few would deny that the goal is to "win souls for the Lord", but what that really means is to place butts in church pews and get money flowing into that offering plate.

There aren't too many charitable organizations that do good solely for the purpose of the love of humanity in my observation.

This is not to say that I completely disapprove, but I do wish that more goodness was done in the world for the sake of love and compassion and not proselytizing purposes...

Consider the transgender woman turned away from a Christian homeless shelter... that's not a charity, that's a private club, and I'm sure they rake in plenty of GOP/conservative donation dollars.

I'd be willing to bet that that Christian mission prides itself on being "pro-life" too...

What if she died on the street that night?

What of "pro-life" now?

Dust? Anyone?

All lives matter? Only if you're straight, Christian, cis, and otherwise "normal". If only we had a crystal ball and could determine which fetuses would turn out to be transgender... I'm sure many on the far right religious wing would be fine to abort those!

Thanks for finding that link, Moon. Even with the slant of the article, I appreciate it.

Okay, so we can agree that the numbers are there in charitable giving, but not on how the money is spent. How many "controversial" government programs are there? Places where the government spends money that some folks (on any side of some issue) disagree with...

Domestic violence shelters that only take women. Government money to abortion clinics. War efforts that aren't supported. Foreign aid to countries that openly kill homosexuals. Border policies in either direction. Regulatory efforts that are unnecessary. Government takes money from all, and puts it towards a few powerful and influential people's pet projects, or lobbyists interests. Bypass the corruption. Private charity.

If a private charitable organization is corrupt, people can stop giving, funding dries up, and it ceases to exist. Government just raises taxes and borrows more to cover for the waste, fraud, and abuse.

We have groups dedicated to helping LGBT folks, should they be required to help straight, cis, white men as well? I think not. But is that exclusionary? Sure. But that's fine. Other organizations exist, or at least could and ought to.

I think Christians have a decent history of helping everyone. Not perfect. But examples like you gave are the exception, not the rule. And while you can cynically attribute a selfish motive, in most cases, I don't buy it. In some cases, sure, but in many with people literally dedicating their entire lives to serving others, the idea that that's all it ever is falls short.

I'm curious if in the case cited, that was a women's shelter. That's an issue we've discussed here before...


As to aborting the LGBT, it will never happen. Many (if not most) on the right (or at least of those who oppose such things) believe that that stuff is a choice, or at least influenced by experiences, not something a person is born with, anyway. But even if they think it's genetic, I can't see pro-life folks suddenly turning 180 for a small subset of cases, when they already don't want an even smaller subset of abortions allowed in the cases of rape and incest. Or birth defects, even right up to the kind that tend to be fatal within the first few days or weeks of life.

Interesting article from 2016, short but to the point.

Curiously, I wonder if anyone has tried to contact the person since
the article was written, to get an update on their current situation

Uncle Al

Hello Dust,

Earlier in this thread you were specifically advocating for the latest Texas law regarding abortion. Do you realize that it makes no exception for rape, incest or age of the pregnant woman?

Have you considered that most pubescent girls who are raped by a family member— and at that age it is usually a family member— are so scared and confused it usually takes way more than 6 weeks for them to share the fact they were abused by that family member and certainly would have no idea they were pregnant until well past those 6 weeks?

What I’m getting at is that for you to support that law you had better be fully in favor of your real or hypothetical 12-year daughter carrying a child conceived by rape or incest to term. Before you say you’re still in favor of that abomination of a law, I suggest you bounce the hypothetical that I laid out off of a mature woman whose judgment you respect.

I also want to point out that in securing the right to religion, the First Amendment gives ALL citizens the right from religion. That is, one religious group can’t get the government to impose that group’s beliefs on the rest of us. Point of fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans, including the majority of practicing Roman Catholics, support a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

As to the 24-week limit enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court set that time limit because it was the earliest point at which a fetus is independently viable and therefore could legally be considered a person.

It is not universally true in the US that when a pregnant woman is murdered that it is considered a double homicide, that provision in the law varies by state.

Finally, if you recognize that everyone needs health care and therefore that it is a fundamental human right, then yes that makes it the duty of the government because no other mechanism has proven capable of providing adequate universal health care. I say it’s the duty of our federal government because the Preamble of the Constitution states that it was written and established to promote “the general welfare.” In other words, take care of those things that benefits everyone that can’t be or isn't being provided by private means.

Private means aren’t meeting the need and never has so that leaves it up to the federal government. In the long run it will not only provide better results, but at much less cost. Don’t believe me? Compare the percentages of the European Countries’ GDP going to health care vs. the US; they live longer and cover everyone for about half of the percentage of GDP. If they can do it, surely we can too.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:00 amI also want to point out that in securing the right to religion, the First Amendment gives ALL citizens the right from religion.

Nope. It guarantees freedom "of" religion, and prohibits the establishment of a State religion. Only one Constitution in the world has guaranteed a freedom from religion, and that was the one of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

So, whilst there is no established religion in the United States (as there is, say, in the UK with The Church of England), it's widely established that the US is a Christian nation with those mores and values, and if you don't happen to agree with the dogma then you have problems. I've fallen foul of those strictures in the past but have managed to talk my way out of them, and I assure you it wasn't fun.

So, yes, one particular cult can -- and does -- call the shots in the USA, whether we like it or not.

Finally, if you recognize that everyone needs health care and therefore that it is a fundamental human right, then yes that makes it the duty of the government because no other mechanism has proven capable of providing adequate universal health care. I say it’s the duty of our federal government because the Preamble of the Constitution states that it was written and established to promote “the general welfare.” In other words take care of those things that benefits everyone that can’t be provided by private means.

Then explain the overt mess that exists in the USA today where the entire "system" is more of a wealth-transfer mechanism than a provider of health care.

crfriend wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 12:29 am So, yes, one particular cult can -- and does -- call the shots in the USA, whether we like it or not.

Yep, some areas more than others... my region of Virginia and pretty much all of the state of Tennessee functions as a Christian theocracy, it is impossible to draw a line where the state government ends and evangelical Christianity begins.

Note I said "Christian", these areas are NOT CHRIST LIKE. The function at the polar opposite of Christ like virtue. The politicians that run this region are almost Satanic and pure concentrated evil to the core.

To be fair, I'd say most state and world governments are like this, but be that as it may, TN and VA are the two I deal with regularly.