Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Protests gather as Supreme Court considers historic abortion case" video.

Okay, let's keep it scientific. Please point to the consensus regarding when life begins. We can start with legislation around that. Oh, there is no consensus? In that case we have to go by whatever will be the least possible cause of death. That means suspending abortions until such time as the scientific community has pinpointed the beginning of life, so that legislation can be formed around that. There. No religion. Just science and preexisting legal precedence.
2
@jammer6524 I lived in poverty. Now I don't. I'm not rich by any stretch but I have a good life of modest means. Should I not have had that chance? Should I have been denied that because people on the Internet like to pretend that starting out bad is worse than not starting out at all? Should my children have never been born (since I wouldn't be here to father them)? They're both good kids with promising futures but since they're a product of one of those "poverty cases," you would have them cease to exist? What of my wife? I love her with all my heart and she loves me the same. She is my best friend. We grew up together. Should she be alone? Should she be with someone who isn't as right for her? Maybe you think she shouldn't have been born, either? After all, she came from the same neighborhood I did. I guess that means she's just as disposable oops! I mean...no, I meant disposable, because that's what you mean. You don't value our lives because our parents weren't well off. I've got news for you: You're not actually on the moral high ground when you say that poor people are better off dead. If you actually cared, you'd be advocating for more charitable giving, not more abortions. If all of the so-called "caring" people in this world gave even a small portion towards organizations that help those in poverty...you wouldn't have a statistic to quote to support your views on abortion. Well, that explains that.
1
What if I someone chooses to kill you? That's a choice and you want freedom of choice on everything. What if they also want to, say, drive to a parade route and mow down 48 people? Totally fine? I mean, that's a choice and we should have freedom of choice on everything, right? Rape is a choice. Torture is a choice. Drunk driving is a choice. So many choices. Let's legalize them all, right?
1
@butchdeadlift10 The right to kill someone who is attacking you is not at all comparable to the "right" to kill your own child. Life is hard even after babies are born. In fact, it's even harder. Your justification for abortion actually creates the argument that it's okay to kill an infant, toddler, etc, if life gets tough enough.
1
@butchdeadlift10 Your premise is completely flawed. A baby can't attack you. A baby doesn't have malice intent for their mother. A baby is not an assailant, therefore, it shouldn't be treated as such. Do you see how much mental gymnastics you have to do to compare the two? It's ridiculous. You trust people to defend themselves from attackers, therefore you trust them to kill their offspring? That's asinine.
1
Now do the same poll but ask them if they even know what Roe v. Wade decided and what the prevailing law of the land on the subject of abortion is (hint: it's not Roe v. Wade). Most Americans who are asked that question think Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. It's not. It declares a woman's right to privacy over her medical records. That, of course, is a ridiculous premise, given that you can't legally have doctor assisted suicide in most of the US, even thought that, too, is a medical procedure. It's made more moot by the current trend of requiring people to prove vaccination status (medical information) to non-government and non-medical personnel. A majority don't want Roe v. Wade overturned because they have been convinced by the media and the talking heads on the Left that doing so would make abortion illegal in the US. It wouldn't. It would simply return the right to make legislation about abortions to the individual States. Then, just like with anything States have authority over, they would create different laws for each State. The blue States would still have blue abortion laws, the red States would have red abortion laws and, as always, the purple States would have a lot of debate on the subject. Those who don't support their State laws would mostly move to other States, just like they do now. Life would go on. P.S. The Supreme Court Justices are not Party affiliates. Not sure why you're talking about the GOP.
1
Your implication seems to be that one must care about all life equally in order to be "Pro-Life." I would argue that is untrue. For instance, I feel that a person's life is valuable. I care about that life insofar as I feel they have a right to live their life. However, if said person does something directly opposed to maintaining their life, that does decrease its value in my eyes, as it clearly does not mean that much to them (and since one's own life should matter most to one's self, I have no reason to hold it in higher esteem). Non-human lives hold varying degrees of value to me. Granted, all living things presumably care about their own existence. I just don't happen to hold them on the same plane as human life. I consider that fair, since most species on earth hold their own species' existence higher than that of other species. I have empathy for lesser lives, in that I don't believe in torture or inhumanity of lesser creatures, if it can reduced or avoided. Yes, I do eat meat and feel that it is necessary. Yes, I do prefer to eat meat I have harvested myself from wild game. Why? Because I feel that a good life followed by a quick death is better than a miserable life followed by any type of death. Furthermore, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a well placed bullet is somehow a worse death than disease, starvation, or being torn apart by coyotes (which are the leading causes of death in most game animals). Now, on to the issue at hand: Abortion. The way I see it, at some point between fertilization and birth, an egg becomes a person. We quibble back and forth about when that being becomes a being, mainly because there is not a definitive answer. Oh, people claim to know the answer but really, they're going with the opinion that best fits their position. There is no scientific consensus on the beginning of life. There really isn't even consensus on viability, since that is a moving target. As technology gets better, viability becomes possible earlier. There is no easy answer to when a person becomes a person. That leads to my philosophy on the subject (which is just one more voice in a sea of voices, all shouting out on the subject). If a person's life is valuable (which, I feel it is) and we can't determine when that life begins, then we simply shouldn't...for now. Why risk making the mistake of ending human life when we don't have to? Why not allow them to become people, with their own will, who can then determine for themselves the value of their lives? Why not give them the choice? Their mother and father had choices? They had four of them: Abstinence, contraception, adoption, and parenthood. Are four choices not enough for the 99%+ who are having abortions after consensual sex with non-family members? Why do they get five and the other person involved doesn't get any? That seems incredibly imbalanced to me. Now, if at some point down the road, they come up with the answer to when life begins, we could definitely revisit the subject. In fact, at that point, I would happily back legislation that allows abortions before the point of life. I believe that all rights belong to the people, except in the case that said rights interfere with those of others (the "Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins" philosophy). The problem here is that with abortions, they're indiscriminately swinging their arms and not even concerning themselves with whether they're hitting someone else's face. Sorry for the lengthy reply but I felt your comment deserved a thoughtful response.
1
@axiomhi8549 My only thought is that I feel like I've seen a different cross-section of pro-lifers than you have. I would say that all encompass some of the ideals you mentioned but that very few encompass all of them. I would also contend that many wouldn't see their positions on those subjects to be anti-life (for lack of a better word). The real disconnect occurs when you get to the root of the two, competing philosophies. Those of whom you speak are largely in the camp of individualism, whereas those opposed are typically collectivists. A collectivist feels everyone is everyone's responsibility. An individualist feels that everyone is responsible for themselves. When two positions are diametrically opposed, there is no way for them to find common ground, really. The collectivists will always feel that individualists are wrong for not wanting to be made to pay for others. Individualists will always think collectivists are wrong for wanting to force them to pay for others. More people need to realize this fundamental difference and more importantly, not dismiss the other out of hand. Neither is an objectively incorrect philosophy. They are two different ways of looking at the world. The vast majority of people don't even fit completely into the two. Most people believe in some collectivist structure and some individual freedom. The amount of each varies greatly from person to person but most people lean at least a touch more towards one. Understanding is our only way forward. We've tried the whole "picking teams" nonsense and it has gotten us nowhere. We're more divided than ever before. If we keep this up, it's not going to matter who is pro-this or pro-that, because we're going to be killing each other in the streets. Just my $0.02.
1
You know, I've been hearing this argument since the 80s. "More Sex Ed and contraception means fewer teen pregnancies." Why, then hasn't that been true? Sex Ed has expanded beyond high school and into middle school. Contraception is available all over the place and is free at any women's clinic. Yet somehow, teens are still getting pregnant. In fact, it has been happening more and more. Most of the schools in the seven different districts I went to were installing or had installed day cares to keep teen moms in school. Now, they're talking about putting one in my son's old middle school. MIDDLE SCHOOL. Twelve and thirteen year olds having kids at a high enough rate to necessitate day cares specifically for them at schools. Meanwhile, abortions have been readily available and are being performed by bus load every day. Somehow, it doesn't seem like Sex Ed is working. Maybe the idea of telling kids "We know you're going to have sex and lots of it, so go ahead and put on this rubber sensation stopper before you do!" is the wrong tact. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to do more than just pass out balloons and hope for the best. Perhaps even focus on responsibility, reality, and expected behavior, rather than pretending that every teen is going to be rebellious. Will it stop all teen pregnancies? Of course not. Can it possibly be any worse than what we're doing now? I highly doubt it.
1
@galavillanueva6253 Do you know how many babies and kids who don't get adopted, still get to grow up to live their lives, rather than being given no option at all? One of my best friends grew up a ward of the State. He spent his childhood being bounced around from foster home to group home to foster home. He aged out. He met a wonderful woman and is now an incredible father of two. To your mind, he should have been vacuumed out of his mother, his wife should be alone, and his kids shouldn't exist. Why? Because it would have been easier for the mother he never knew, who went on to live her life without him. You claim to be pro choice but you're really just advocating for giving women a FIFTH choice while taking away all choices from the child. Please, follow your own advise and stfu.
1