My body my choice , abortions , vaccines, end of life?

[tankasnowgod]

IM for a law if you were pro-vax you lose your right to abortion, and if you were pro-life you must take every vaccine. If It’s all about saving lives.

Then you have to what the government says

Ridiculous. With everything you post, you just expose how ignorant you are.

Even ignoring how this "law" could never be enforced in any way, shape, or form, it shows your even ignorant of how politicians ideas line up. Democrat Politicians have shown themselves to both be VERY pro vaccine (and mandate and restriction), and VERY pro abortion. So, no democrat would ever go for this law. And since Republicans tend to be anti-mandate, they wouldn't support this law either. So, congratulations on getting Bipartisan support...... united AGAINST your law.

Also, even under Roe, no one was ever FORCED to have an abortion. Like, every pregnant woman in 1974 wasn't FORCED to abort. The only "right" it conferred was access to a medical procedure.

If you understand how the Government gets its powers in the US, you would realize they can't FORCE you to do anything, unless you contract with them in some way. Some of the contracts are tricky and people often don't realize that they did contract, but that is the only way the Government can compel performance.

 

[area51puy]

Ridiculous. With everything you post, you just expose how ignorant you are.

Even ignoring how this "law" could never be enforced in any way, shape, or form, it shows your even ignorant of how politicians ideas line up. Democrat Politicians have shown themselves to both be VERY pro vaccine (and mandate and restriction), and VERY pro abortion. So, no democrat would ever go for this law. And since Republicans tend to be anti-mandate, they wouldn't support this law either. So, congratulations on getting Bipartisan support...... united AGAINST your law.

Also, even under Roe, no one was ever FORCED to have an abortion. Like, every pregnant woman in 1974 wasn't FORCED to abort. The only "right" it conferred was access to a medical procedure.

If you understand how the Government gets its powers in the US, you would realize they can't FORCE you to do anything, unless you contract with them in some way. Some of the contracts are tricky and people often don't realize that they did contract, but that is the only way the Government can compel performance.

That’s my point, both parties are for the government telling you what to do with your body.

 

[area51puy]

If believe the government about banning abortions is about saving lives then go get the vaccine. And if you believe the government about vaccine mandates then shut up about abortion rights.

 

[tankasnowgod]

If believe the government about banning abortions is about saving lives then go get the vaccine. And if you believe the government about vaccine mandates then shut up about abortion rights.

Ridiculous, again. Every successful abortion results in the termination of a developing baby. If there were fewer abortions, there would be more babies. It's undeniable. On the flip side, the vaccines were never tested to save lives, there is no proof they do, and there is no official claim they do. It's silly. Just because someone would like to stop the killing of babies/fetuses does NOT mean they should subject themselves to a dangerous and ineffective drug.

By the way..... I noticed you never gave your stance on if 9 month pregnant women, just days/hours/minutes from going into labor, should be allowed to have an abortion. Do you think they should be able to get one, even at that late stage? This has been seriously discussed by politicians, like former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, so don't try and weasel out of taking a stand here.

 

[BRBsavinWorld]

That’s my point, both parties are for the government telling you what to do with your body.

Baby: “my body my choice.”

 

[Perry Staltic]

Baby: “my body my choice.”

Baby: “my body my choice, not my mom's”

 

[BRBsavinWorld]

Baby: “my body my choice, not my mom's”

?

 

[area51puy]

Ridiculous, again. Every successful abortion results in the termination of a developing baby. If there were fewer abortions, there would be more babies. It's undeniable. On the flip side, the vaccines were never tested to save lives, there is no proof they do, and there is no official claim they do. It's silly. Just because someone would like to stop the killing of babies/fetuses does NOT mean they should subject themselves to a dangerous and ineffective drug.

By the way..... I noticed you never gave your stance on if 9 month pregnant women, just days/hours/minutes from going into labor, should be allowed to have an abortion. Do you think they should be able to get one, even at that late stage? This has been seriously discussed by politicians, like former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, so don't try and weasel out of taking a stand here.

16 weeks unless the mother life is in danger or circumstances like rape and especially incest of a minor then maybe around 20-24 weeks.

 

[Runenight201]

Are there any atheistic pro-lifers? Genuinely curious, it seems as if the entire movement is steeped inside a religious indoctrination of beings having eternal souls.

 

[tankasnowgod]

16 weeks unless the mother life is in danger or circumstances like rape and especially incest of a minor then maybe around 20-24 weeks.

Oh! So at 25 weeks, the "My Body, My Choice" slogan stops being law?

Oddly enough, you basically agree with the Mississippi law that was at the heart of the Dobbs case. I think it basically limited abortions to 15 weeks, with exceptions for health reasons, and exceptions for rape.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Are there any atheistic pro-lifers? Genuinely curious, it seems as if the entire movement is steeped inside a religious indoctrination of beings having eternal souls.

Wouldn't think so. But then again, atheists seem pretty radical in their religious beliefs (they are just religious beliefs in nothing).

Even Peat, who doesn't seem "religious," appears to believe in the soul and life after death. When Georgi asked him if what we think of as a soul is a standing wave in the neutrino sea, Peat responded "exactly." In the same clip, he is talking about the living communicating with the dead-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdb_xOl3GJY&t=4103s

 

[Runenight201]

Wouldn't think so. But then again, atheists seem pretty radical in their religious beliefs (they are just religious beliefs in nothing).

Even Peat, who doesn't seem "religious," appears to believe in the soul and life after death. When Georgi asked him if what we think of as a soul is a standing wave in the neutrino sea, Peat responded "exactly." In the same clip, he is talking about the living communicating with the dead-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdb_xOl3GJY&t=4103s

Depends on the atheist you are talking to. Many are just highly skeptical people who won’t entertain any ideas unless there is objective evidence to back it up, which in my opinion is a fairly reasonable approach to take. Lots of bs floating around in this world.

Im not sure that being a part of the neutrino sea is akin to having a conscious afterlife, which is what most religious folk believe of when speaking about life after death. I don’t think it’s that difficult to understand how our energy is decomposed and then integrated into the larger universal energy, or I guess neutrino sea, although I will be honest I’ve never heard of or studied this neutrino sea, but the idea of integrating your energy to the surrounding environment sits well with me. I am highly skeptical that this would mean that I would have a conscious experience that is anyway similar to what I am experiencing right now, and I more likely believe that it wouldn’t be a conscious experience, but rather a disintegration of my being into the surrounding “neutrino sea”, but it’s still going to be an eternal lights out for me.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Depends on the atheist you are talking to. Many are just highly skeptical people who won’t entertain any ideas unless there is objective evidence to back it up, which in my opinion is a fairly reasonable approach to take.

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic.

Im not sure that being a part of the neutrino sea is akin to having a conscious afterlife, which is what most religious folk believe of when speaking about life after death. I don’t think it’s that difficult to understand how our energy is decomposed and then integrated into the larger universal energy, or I guess neutrino sea, although I will be honest I’ve never heard of or studied this neutrino sea, but the idea of integrating your energy to the surrounding environment sits well with me. I am highly skeptical that this would mean that I would have a conscious experience that is anyway similar to what I am experiencing right now, and I more likely believe that it wouldn’t be a conscious experience, but rather a disintegration of my being into the surrounding “neutrino sea”, but it’s still going to be an eternal lights out for me.

Well, Peat in the same part talks about the dead communicating with the living. How would that not be consciousness after death, or death of the body at least?

 

[Runenight201]

That's not an atheist. That's an agnostic.

Well, Peat in the same part talks about the dead communicating with the living. How would that not be consciousness after death, or death of the body at least?

Sure, but at a certain point when the probability of there being anything like an Abrahamic god becomes 1/10^whatever, an agnostic becomes much closer to an atheist than a theist. Call it what you want, but based on any objective evidence it’s much more realistic to operate under the framework that there isn’t rather than there is, and calling someone agnostic because, “well maybe there could potentially be a chance” is just being nice to the religious folk, I’d consider them atheist because for all intents and purposes they are operating as if there isn’t.

He mentions transgenerational communication in the same sentence as cold fusion, so already my woo woo meters are going off. If there’s a passing of information, it’s likely being done on a very passive, low energy frequency from the decaying body radiating out to the surrounding fields and then being processed by the proximal human beings, but again I am highly skeptical of there being any sort of conscious agent post-Mortem communicating *language* to the living. He also seems much more set on this neutrino sea idea, which he himself says there’s solid evidence for, but never states that being a part of this sea would be a conscious experience that is anything like our current conscious experience, and was never asked that either. He’d have to be asked that to get his belief on that. I’ll tell you what I believe tho, which is that it’s most likely not a conscious experience at all but rather an experience-less re-integration of all of my bits and bops with the universal energy field.

Ultimately proving a conscious after-life is an impossible task because there’s no way to objectively verify it. And if anyone is claiming that they are communicating with the dead, they are more than likely a charlatan trying to take your money, which this world has no shortage of, and these people prey exactly on folk who want to believe in an after-life and who don’t go around basing their beliefs on any grounded objective based reality.

 

[Jonk]

Sure, but at a certain point when the probability of there being anything like an Abrahamic god becomes 1/10^whatever

I'm not a theologian or academic but I don't get why people assume that because you can't prove something with purely empirical means it can't be rationally justified. There's lots of things you take for granted to be true that you can't empirically prove. Mathematics, logic, the self etc. Sure you can say that it's only abstractions of the real physical world but you can't justify truth of e.g. logic by logic itself or it would be a circular argument. Again, this is beyond my area of knowledge but you can easily make yourself decently aware that the belief in a monotheistic God has some good, well fleshed out, arguments for it being true.

 

[Runenight201]

I'm not a theologian or academic but I don't get why people assume that because you can't prove something with purely empirical means it can't be rationally justified. There's lots of things you take for granted to be true that you can't empirically prove. Mathematics, logic, the self etc. Sure you can say that it's only abstractions of the real physical world but you can't justify truth of e.g. logic by logic itself or it would be a circular argument. Again, this is beyond my area of knowledge but you can easily make yourself decently aware that the belief in a monotheistic God has some good, well fleshed out, arguments for it being true.

Christian apologetics is not really that convincing to me tbh. Most of it is just mental gymnastics imo desperately trying to justify a deity. And it’s still sketchy to me how even if I were to accept a first cause as being god that suddenly it’s anything like the Abrahmic god that is popularly believed.

 

[Jonk]

Christian apologetics is not really that convincing to me tbh. Most of it is just mental gymnastics imo desperately trying to justify a deity. And it’s still sketchy to me how even if I were to accept a first cause as being god that suddenly it’s anything like the Abrahmic god that is popularly believed.

It's fine if you don't agree with the arguments that's put forth, but calling it mental gymnastics is a stretch to say the least.

 

[Runenight201]

It's fine if you don't agree with the arguments that's put forth, but calling it mental gymnastics is a stretch to say the least.

Lol I looked up some examples of mental gymnastics and one of them happened to be about god

 

[Perry Staltic]

Depends on the atheist you are talking to. Many are just highly skeptical people who won’t entertain any ideas unless there is objective evidence to back it up, which in my opinion is a fairly reasonable approach to take. Lots of bs floating around in this world.

The sword cuts both ways. They have zero evidence that the soul isn't immortal. It's a matter of faith both ways because it's not something that can be known via physical evidence. I suspect those kinds of people hold to all kinds of beliefs/ideas they have no evidence for.

And I question if the immortal soul framing is always accurate. For me it's a matter of personal boundaries. No one has the right to take another person's life without a justifiable reason, eg self defense or execution of justice. Self-inflicted damage to one's own lifestyle does not justify taking another human's life.

 

[Runenight201]

The sword cuts both ways. They have zero evidence that the soul isn't immortal. It's a matter of faith both ways because it's not something that can be known via physical evidence. I suspect those kinds of people hold to all kinds of beliefs/ideas they have no evidence for.

And I question if the immortal soul framing is always accurate. For me it's a matter of personal boundaries. No one has the right to take another person's life without a justifiable reason, eg self defense or execution of justice. Self-inflicted damage to one's own lifestyle does not justify taking another human's life.

Im not sure there’s even any evidence for there being a soul tbh they’d prolly start there. I myself see a soul as a good word to describe someone’s emotional/mental state.

I feel like most of the controversy surrounding abortion is in definitions of personhood. Pro-lifers believe it’s right at the moment of conception, whereas pro-choicers will have various lines at which point they see the immature life form having personhood. The problem is even if it were codified into law saying that say abortions before 16/24 weeks are ok because the developing life is not a person yet a pro-lifer won’t be happy because of the idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception.