sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

In my book a dead 4 week old fetus is preferable to a newborn unwanted child.

Key Metrics for COVID Suppression

Researchers and Public Health Experts unite to bring clarity to key metrics guiding coronavirus response


https://globalepidemics.org/key-metrics-for-covid-suppression/

AunBear89 said:

---

I'm not stupid, YOU'RE stupid!

Did I get that right? That's how you 'cons argue, right? Because you really can't refute what I actually said. What was incorrect about my statement?

---

Calling you stupid is too generous. You are vapid. Take out "con," "RWNJ", and "MAGAt" and you would have nothing to write and your posts would be as empty as your head.

Still can't refute what I said, junior? Just name calling and insults. Straight out of the GOP Playbook. You are such a good little lockstep Republicon.

Run along: I think there are some more statues of confederate traitors to defend. Or maybe more cities are being burned to the ground by millions of looters and thugs, and you need to stand in front of your house with your gun to prove what a man you are.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

If it was a choice between killing a child and allowing for those inconvenience (especially if resulting from failure to use proper birth control), would you still think those are compelling enough inconveniences to justify killing a child?

So, does it not all come down to whether a fetus is alive and how we define life? Because we can talk about freedom, gender equality, and inconveniences all we want, but if the fetus is alive, none of that really matters, right?

AunBear89 said:

---

Still can't refute what I said, junior? Just name calling and insults. Straight out of the GOP Playbook. You are such a good little lockstep Republicon.

Run along: I think there are some more statues of confederate traitors to defend. Or maybe more cities are being burned to the ground by millions of looters and thugs, and you need to stand in front of your house with your gun to prove what a man you are.

---

Sure, Skippy. Your brilliance comes out in every post. Again, **** off.

Just curious: How outraged were you when a 12 year old child (not an unborn fetus) was shot and killed immediately by a police officer? Or did Tamir Rice have it coming? He should have complied even before the officer arrived. And he shouldn't have been playing with a toy.

AunBear89 said:

---

Just curious: How outraged were you when a 12 year old child (not an unborn fetus) was shot and killed immediately by a police officer? Or did Tamir Rice have it coming? He should have complied even before the officer arrived. And he shouldn't have been playing with a toy.

---

What part of **** you do you not understand? Do you think I have any interest in engaging in civil discourse with you after the troll you have proven yourself to be?

That's certainly one way to avoid an uncomfortable conversation: anyone that asks you a hard question or challenges you on your bullshyte is a troll.

What are you? A 17 year old? Try to act like more than the pinhead jackhole we all know you to be.

Self examine for the latest Covid 19 symptom.

Covid patient suffers four-hour erection after coronavirus 'triggered priapism and blood clots'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12002080/coronavirus-patient-suffers-4-hour-erection-priapism-blood-clots/

AunBear89 said:

---

That's certainly one way to avoid an uncomfortable conversation: anyone that asks you a hard question or challenges you on your bullshyte is a troll.

What are you? A 17 year old? Try to act like more than the pinhead jackhole we all know you to be.

---

Yes, you ask the most thought provoking and original questions that make me challenge my beliefs. You nailed it, Skippy.

To provoke thought and challenge your beliefs would require you to have a shred of self awareness and a bit of intelligence. You are completely lacking in both.

But you have lots of cool insults. And you're a real internet tough guy.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

If it was a choice between killing a child and allowing for those inconvenience (especially if resulting from failure to use proper birth control), would you still think those are compelling enough inconveniences to justify killing a child?

So, does it not all come down to whether a fetus is alive and how we define life? Because we can talk about freedom, gender equality, and inconveniences all we want, but if the fetus is alive, none of that really matters, right?

---

If I actually believed a fetus deserved the same rights as a child, then no I probably would not think that way.

I do not think fetus = child.

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

If it was a choice between killing a child and allowing for those inconvenience (especially if resulting from failure to use proper birth control), would you still think those are compelling enough inconveniences to justify killing a child?

So, does it not all come down to whether a fetus is alive and how we define life? Because we can talk about freedom, gender equality, and inconveniences all we want, but if the fetus is alive, none of that really matters, right?

---

If I actually believed a fetus deserved the same rights as a child, then no I probably would not think that way.

I do not think fetus = child.

---

I think we finally reached the core of our disagreement on abortion.

Why do you think a fetus does not have life, and what would be needed for life to exist? I don't think we will reach conclusive agreement on this, but I would like to understand your viewpoint. There won't be any objective fact we can point to that will resolve our disagreement, but I would like to understand your standard.

AunBear89 said:

---

To provoke thought and challenge your beliefs would require you to have a shred of self awareness and a bit of intelligence. You are completely lacking in both.

But you have lots of cool insults. And you're a real internet tough guy.

---

OK, if you believe that, stop asking for my response on your stupid questions. Why do you give a **** what I think? I honestly have no interest in your perspective on anything.

You have no interest in any opinion that does not match your own. The very thing you love to accuse Libs/lefties/Bolsheviks of.

Intellectual dishonesty.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

If it was a choice between killing a child and allowing for those inconvenience (especially if resulting from failure to use proper birth control), would you still think those are compelling enough inconveniences to justify killing a child?

So, does it not all come down to whether a fetus is alive and how we define life? Because we can talk about freedom, gender equality, and inconveniences all we want, but if the fetus is alive, none of that really matters, right?

---

If I actually believed a fetus deserved the same rights as a child, then no I probably would not think that way.

I do not think fetus = child.

---

I think we finally reached the core of our disagreement on abortion.

Why do you think a fetus does not have life, and what would be needed for life to exist? I don't think we will reach conclusive agreement on this, but I would like to understand your viewpoint. There won't be any objective fact we can point to that will resolve our disagreement, but I would like to understand your standard.

---

See, that's the thing. You're using "life" as your term and I am using "child." A fungus is alive. Houseflies are alive. COVID-19 could be considered to be "life." Most people don't have qualms about ending those lives.

That does not mean all of those things are valued the same way as a human life. Okay, so you'll say a fetus is actually "human" life since it develops into a baby (not always, but that's the idea). That's true, but you could say the same about an egg or a sperm. Am I destroying potential human life every time I jerk off? I think most people would say no.

So we have to decide: at what point in between the pieces of POTENTIAL human life (sperm/egg/fetus) and the birth of an ACTUAL new human do we grant the same rights we would give to a full human? My standard is basically when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Up until that point it is basically a parasite (that may sound harsh, but I'm using a technical term here -- it can only survive by remaining attached to the host body). Once we're at a point where the baby can viably survive away from its mother then we're past the point of abortions for the sake of convenience or desire. As I understand it, this is basically the default standard now, as doctors will typically not perform such abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. I am comfortable with that status quo.

Anarchistbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

---

Fresno and Kern County are included.

Edit: Notice also that Napa and Sonoma (location of most wineries) are not

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

If it was a choice between killing a child and allowing for those inconvenience (especially if resulting from failure to use proper birth control), would you still think those are compelling enough inconveniences to justify killing a child?

So, does it not all come down to whether a fetus is alive and how we define life? Because we can talk about freedom, gender equality, and inconveniences all we want, but if the fetus is alive, none of that really matters, right?

---

If I actually believed a fetus deserved the same rights as a child, then no I probably would not think that way.

I do not think fetus = child.

---

I think we finally reached the core of our disagreement on abortion.

Why do you think a fetus does not have life, and what would be needed for life to exist? I don't think we will reach conclusive agreement on this, but I would like to understand your viewpoint. There won't be any objective fact we can point to that will resolve our disagreement, but I would like to understand your standard.

---

See, that's the thing. You're using "life" as your term and I am using "child." A fungus is alive. Houseflies are alive. COVID-19 could be considered to be "life." Most people don't have qualms about ending those lives.

That does not mean all of those things are valued the same way as a human life. Okay, so you'll say a fetus is actually "human" life since it develops into a baby (not always, but that's the idea). That's true, but you could say the same about an egg or a sperm. Am I destroying potential human life every time I jerk off? I think most people would say no.

So we have to decide: at what point in between the pieces of POTENTIAL human life (sperm/egg/fetus) and the birth of an ACTUAL new human do we grant the same rights we would give to a full human? My standard is basically when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Up until that point it is basically a parasite (that may sound harsh, but I'm using a technical term here -- it can only survive by remaining attached to the host body). Once we're at a point where the baby can viably survive away from its mother then we're past the point of abortions for the sake of convenience or desire. As I understand it, this is basically the default standard now, as doctors will typically not perform such abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. I am comfortable with that status quo.

---

Fair enough. Here is my take:

• Of course I was referring to "human" life.
• And I am not referring to just potential human life.
• A sperm is not life since, without fertilizing the egg, it will never in its own become human. Of course, I am not also talking about atoms from a table that may eventually bond with us and become part of us for a brief time.
• A fetus can survive outside the mother, and the more advance our technology becomes, the earlier a fetus (pre-mature) can survive outside the mother. Obviously, a premie that needs medical devices to survive is alive, no? How about a 15 week old fetus that can, with even more medical assistance, survive? In 5 years, if medical devices can continue to incubate an 8 week old fetus, would you then be against abortion during the first trimester?
• The laws that we have seem to in many ways treat fetus as a human life. When the crazy woman attacked a pregnant woman and took the fetus, it was treated as murder. When we see women drinking during their 2nd trimester, we treat it almost as child abuse. Does it not seem strange that a woman who drinks while pregnant is treated worse than a woman who chops up and scrapes out the same fetus? If you saw a pregnant woman shooting up heroin, drinking and smoking, would you be OK with that as long as she says, she most likely will abort it in the second trimester? Or if someone assaults a pregnant woman in her first or second trimester and loses the pregnancy, is it still just assault and battery since the fetus is not alive?

Again, ti all comes down to when we believe human life starts. As such, I hope you understand that those who believe life starts before when you believe it starts is not persuaded by appeal to inconvenience or women's rights. No way to prove it either way. It is just a gut reaction and arbitrary standards we create for ourselves on when we decide human life starts.

calbear93 said:

---

Again, ti all comes down to when we believe human life starts. As such, I hope you understand that those who believe life starts before when you believe it starts is not persuaded by appeal to inconvenience or women's rights. No way to prove it either way. It is just a gut reaction and arbitrary standards we create for ourselves on when we decide human life starts.

---

I understand that not everyone shares my view. I hope they also understand that I do not share theirs and will not be swayed by arguments about "baby killing."

The laws we wind up with are pretty much always trying to strike an uncomfortable balance between these competing viewpoints. That's democracy for you.

And now, perhaps this thread should return to discussion of COVID-19.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Again, ti all comes down to when we believe human life starts. As such, I hope you understand that those who believe life starts before when you believe it starts is not persuaded by appeal to inconvenience or women's rights. No way to prove it either way. It is just a gut reaction and arbitrary standards we create for ourselves on when we decide human life starts.

---

I understand that not everyone shares my view. I hope they also understand that I do not share theirs and will not be swayed by arguments about "baby killing."

The laws we wind up with are pretty much always trying to strike an uncomfortable balance between these competing viewpoints. That's democracy for you.

---

That's exactly right. Nether side will be convinced by anything else while they disagree on when human life starts. And if I thought that a fetus did not have human life, I wouldn't care about abortion any more than I would care about someone piercing their nose.

And it should return, but it got sidetrack on abortion when I responded to Blu regarding how conservatives believe in bigger government.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

My body, my choice! FREEDOM!"

---

Except when the government sends you to war to get killed, or a woman is pregnant, or the state decides to execute you, or if you don't want to be around people who pose a threat carrying weapons of menace openly, or if you choose to kneel during the anthem, or don't dress in one of their prescribed ways of gender presentation and then try and use a toilet, or love a person of the same sex and want to use your body to express it, or don't use your mouth to say "Merry Christmas, or really just about anything Republicans want you to do in the name of freedom with their small government that allegedly respects personal liberty.

---

Blu - I will assume you wrote this post in sincerity since you do come across as very sincere, if sometimes overly passionate. And I respect you enough to try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

With that, I want to better understand why you believe the things above are only what Republicans want or why you think they are about lack of freedom (unless you mean freedom to be the ability to do whatever the hell you want to do whenever you want to do it no matter who it hurts, which I assume you don't).

• "Sending to war." By now, I hope we understand that many (not all) of the wars were started or escalated by Democrats, whether escalation in Afghanistan (started by Bush, supported by both parties, and escalated by Obama), Vietnam war (started by Kennedy and escalated by Johnson as well as Nixon), Korean War (Truman), WWII (FDR), etc. Yes, Iraq was all Bush. Furthermore, we have a volunteer army. And finally, I would assume you don't believe we will have freedom if we do not have a military and sometimes go to war (e.g., Civil War, WWII, Afghanistan when Taliban was sheltering the terrorist who caused 9/11) to protect our freedom. I assume when you say your nice things about our military and say that they protect our freedom, it is not some virtue signalling and that you actually believe that. What do you think the military does to protect the freedom? Just play soldier and dress up? Sometimes you have to go to war to protect the exact freedom you love. How is that a reflection of lack of freedom or a big government? Are you suggesting that we have no military? If we do have a military, what would be the point if they could never go to war? We can debate whether any specific war is the right one, but I would hope you don't believe we can have freedom without sometimes going to war against those who would take those away.
• "Or the state decides to execute you" - I am once again confused on why this is representative of big government or even a matter of freedom. Now, the proper discussion may be whether execution is a cruel and unusual punishment. We can also argue whether we should permit the sanctioned killing of our own people, even if they were found to have committed horrible and unimaginable crimes. We can also argue how death punishment is permanent that cannot be reversed once executed. But dropping that in the context of "freedom" seems odd unless you think no one should even go to jail (which also is a restriction on freedom). I assume you are not suggesting that someone who is rightfully found guilty and was rightfully or wrongfully sentenced to death should be let loose back into society. If you think even someone who raped and murdered children should not be killed, I would agree with you but not because i think it represents big government or infringes on the freedom of the criminal. I would want the person to spend of rest of his life in jail and be deprived of his "Freedom" and spend more government time and money to keep him in jail even if it would be smaller government to kill him and be done with it. That is not based on my belief in smaller or bigger government. That is based on my belief on the fallibility of our justice system and the sanctity of life.
• "Woman is pregnant." I assume you don't think a free nation can be free of all laws intended to protect others. For example, unless you are for complete anarchy, I would assume you would not view a law that prohibits a woman from slaughtering her born child as infringement on her right of privacy no matter how much of a burden the child is to the woman and how much she would love to be free from the child. Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman. It is a matter of whether the fetus is alive, is it not? Because if you believe that the fetus is alive and a person, then I would assume you would not side in favor of incremental convenience for the woman over the protection of a child's life. We can debate that, but when people just talk about a woman's right on abortion without any debate on whether the fetus is alive, I am as persuaded as when someone refers to woman's right about a mother who killed her kids. And a law that prevents a mother from killing her kids is not something I hope you or anyone thinks is big government or representative of the conservative hypocrisy.
• "Don't want to be around people who pose a threat carrying weapons of menace openly." Let me get this straight. Are you against gun ownership or someone menacing others openly with a gun, because I would think the latter is illegal. Now, if you want to make guns illegal because you feel like it could be used against you, I think there are a lot ways for people to kill others. For many like me who have been training in martial arts and mixed martial arts for decades, we know that it is fairly easy to kill people without guns. Will I ever do it unless absolutely necessary? Of course not. Although I don't own guns, I would assume, even if I had one, I would no more menace people with it than I would about snapping someone's neck. We also know that you can kill people with knives. Now, the question should be what level of gun control is appropriate and what allows mass murder. That should be the focus of the discussion, but lazy discussion on gun control takes it completely off track. Obviously, carrying a bazooka is not OK. Maybe a small gun that you keep locked up in your house in case there is a burglary? I don't but I assume most would be OK with that. Now, there is a lot in between, and that is what we should discuss. I am not in favor of no gun control. I am leaning more towards stricter gun control (mainly because I have never owned a gun and will never own a gun). But I am not trying to make clones of myself or force others to adopt what I believe as one and only. I am respectful of the second amendment (which is a greater protection than the right of privacy used to ban all restriction on abortion). But, again, not sure how freedom to bear arms is big government or restriction on freedom. You seem to want to restrict freedom provided by the second amendment so that you can be free of feeling afraid of guns (which some may argue is irrational - as Boston marathon terrorist act showed, evil, insane people can cause mass murder with or without guns).
• "Kneel during national anthem" - why isn't someone free to kneel? Is there a law prohibiting this? Has Kap gone to jail? I don't think so. Or are you suggesting that people should not be FREE to criticize that action. I personally think he should do what he believes and I support him, but I also support the right of business owners to dictate code of conduct for their employees and for people to have healthy debate on whether that is the appropriate behavior. What part of that is restriction on freedom or big government? If you think those you agree with should be "FREE" from criticism, that seems to be a big government and lack of freedom to me.
• OK one more - "don't dress in one of their prescribed ways of gender presentation and then try and use a toilet" - Again, let me ask you a question. If I were to go into a bathroom that you wife was using, would that be OK with you? How about if some purely innocent 30 year old man uses the same bathroom that a 5 year girl is using? What if the 30 year old man was gay and not transgender but wanted to use the bathroom the same time as your 5 year old daughter. OK, with that? If not, why not? And how does that change depending on whether the "man" identifies as a woman and dresses a certain way? I get that we should have empathy that the transgender person would want to use the restroom corresponding to the gender she associates with. But what about how she feels changes the main basis for why a straight man would not be allowed to use a woman's bathroom while a 5 year old girl was in there? Was that restriction to protect the man or the little girl? I really do want to understand and have my ears wide open because I do trust you are genuine. I want to understand how you would address the other side of the coin.

Having said all that, I am fully in support of requiring people to wear a mask. If not wearing a mask when social distancing is not practical only hurts those not wearing a mask, I could not care less. But if it impacts those who are trying to do the right thing, screw the selfish *****s. We need to get this pandemic under control, and mask wearing seems like a low hanging fruit.

Trolls like Aunbear and Calpoly can feel free to **** off and keep your "snowflake" or other knee jerk responses to yourself. Not interested in your idiocy or discussion with you. Just grown ups.

---

This is a lot and may take some time to get back to.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, she can give it up for adoption, but until she does, she must not abandon it or kill it. A woman who is pregnant can give it up for adoption once it is born. A Siamese twin who want to be free of her sibling is not free to kill her sister. So, it isn't a matter of freedom for the woman.

---

Well . . . there are also a lot of other health complications that can come with pregnancy, not to mention the increasing physical restrictions it can place on a woman to carry a child to term, which may make her unable to work, etc. So just saying she can give it up for adoption doesn't quite cover the whole "freedom" issue.

---

Sycasey, if you are proposing limiting abortion to when a woman's life is in jeopardy, I can absolutely respect that. But if it is a matter of just "physical restriction", there are physical restriction to having to care for a born child. We wouldn't be supportive of a mother (actual cases) who kills her daughter so that she can go back to partying like she did before giving birth. Not convinced by that. If it is a matter of saving a mother's life versus an abortion, I completely understand. If it is a matter of a woman/man who was not responsible and did not use protection and now wants to abort a fetus that I believe to be alive, then it is an issue.

---

My point is not about being able to "party" like she did before becoming pregnant. Pregnancy can prevent you from working, both during and immediately after the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then there is a freedom issue there (one that women have to face but men do not, even though both could be considered equally responsible for the pregnancy). And yes, there are also sometimes health complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Glad we agree on that.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of abortion, but my position is that allowing it is better for society than having to deal with all of the above.

---

If it was a choice between killing a child and allowing for those inconvenience (especially if resulting from failure to use proper birth control), would you still think those are compelling enough inconveniences to justify killing a child?

So, does it not all come down to whether a fetus is alive and how we define life? Because we can talk about freedom, gender equality, and inconveniences all we want, but if the fetus is alive, none of that really matters, right?

---

If I actually believed a fetus deserved the same rights as a child, then no I probably would not think that way.

I do not think fetus = child.

---

I think we finally reached the core of our disagreement on abortion.

Why do you think a fetus does not have life, and what would be needed for life to exist? I don't think we will reach conclusive agreement on this, but I would like to understand your viewpoint. There won't be any objective fact we can point to that will resolve our disagreement, but I would like to understand your standard.

---

See, that's the thing. You're using "life" as your term and I am using "child." A fungus is alive. Houseflies are alive. COVID-19 could be considered to be "life." Most people don't have qualms about ending those lives.

That does not mean all of those things are valued the same way as a human life. Okay, so you'll say a fetus is actually "human" life since it develops into a baby (not always, but that's the idea). That's true, but you could say the same about an egg or a sperm. Am I destroying potential human life every time I jerk off? I think most people would say no.

So we have to decide: at what point in between the pieces of POTENTIAL human life (sperm/egg/fetus) and the birth of an ACTUAL new human do we grant the same rights we would give to a full human? My standard is basically when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Up until that point it is basically a parasite (that may sound harsh, but I'm using a technical term here -- it can only survive by remaining attached to the host body). Once we're at a point where the baby can viably survive away from its mother then we're past the point of abortions for the sake of convenience or desire. As I understand it, this is basically the default standard now, as doctors will typically not perform such abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. I am comfortable with that status quo.

---

One problem with using viability is that viability is variable according to neonatal medical technology available. Viability at the time of Roe v. Wade was later than it is now. And some people have access to better care than others at any given time. I prefer to use brain development as a standard, then err on the side of caution. If there's a huge amount of brain development at 11-14 weeks (and that's off the top of my head, I can't remember the exact timeline), then that's what makes the fetus a true potential human instead of the equivalent of a tadpole.

Folks also seem to be using the term fetus rather freely, when there's actually a pretty lengthy embryo stage.

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

---

Fresno and Kern County are included.

Edit: Notice also that Napa and Sonoma (location of most wineries) are not

---

Yes but the closures do not affect food processing plants in Fresno and Kern, the major source of COVID infection among Hispanics in the Valley and it's subsequent spread. The closures are consumer driven.

Anarchistbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

---

Fresno and Kern County are included.

Edit: Notice also that Napa and Sonoma (location of most wineries) are not

---

Yes but the closures do not affect food processing plants in Fresno and Kern, the major source of COVID infection among Hispanics in the Valley and it's subsequent spread. The closures are consumer driven.

---

I would call food processing plants an essential business.

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

---

Fresno and Kern County are included.

Edit: Notice also that Napa and Sonoma (location of most wineries) are not

---

Yes but the closures do not affect food processing plants in Fresno and Kern, the major source of COVID infection among Hispanics in the Valley and it's subsequent spread. The closures are consumer driven.

---

I would call food processing plants an essential business.

---

An essential business responsible for many outbreaks and hot spots in a pandemic should not be regarded as "essential" unless they control the safety of workers. The track record of a lot of these places says otherwise.

I mean if you are really interested in curbing the virus concentrate on the biggest hot spots- Food processing, bars, nursing homes, prisons for a start.

Anarchistbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

---

Fresno and Kern County are included.

Edit: Notice also that Napa and Sonoma (location of most wineries) are not

---

Yes but the closures do not affect food processing plants in Fresno and Kern, the major source of COVID infection among Hispanics in the Valley and it's subsequent spread. The closures are consumer driven.

---

I would call food processing plants an essential business.

---

An essential business responsible for many outbreaks and hot spots in a pandemic should not be regarded as "essential" unless they control the safety of workers. The track record of a lot of these places says otherwise.

I mean if you are really interested in curbing the virus concentrate on the biggest hot spots- Food processing, bars, nursing homes, prisons for a start.

---

Sure, but you can't close them any more than you can close nursing homes or prisons. You can create guidelines and fine them if they aren't met. If you are advocating for that then I agree.

What these new closures are meant to do is control the spread so that if a bunch of workers at a plant get sick at least they can't spread it at a bar or restaurant after work.

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misses the boat on Central Valley where the hot spots are food processing plants. People are infected and bring it home. Once again the onus is put on us not industries where the virus thrives. Closing wineries is a joke- what you mean is you are closing tasting rooms but meat packing and other ag plants continue to run as essential.

---

Fresno and Kern County are included.

Edit: Notice also that Napa and Sonoma (location of most wineries) are not

---

Yes but the closures do not affect food processing plants in Fresno and Kern, the major source of COVID infection among Hispanics in the Valley and it's subsequent spread. The closures are consumer driven.

---

I would call food processing plants an essential business.

---

An essential business responsible for many outbreaks and hot spots in a pandemic should not be regarded as "essential" unless they control the safety of workers. The track record of a lot of these places says otherwise.

I mean if you are really interested in curbing the virus concentrate on the biggest hot spots- Food processing, bars, nursing homes, prisons for a start.

---

Sure, but you can't close them any more than you can close nursing homes or prisons. You can create guidelines and fine them if they aren't met. If you are advocating for that then I agree.

What these new closures are meant to do is control the spread so that if a bunch of workers at a plant get sick at least they can't spread it at a bar or restaurant after work.

---

Food processing plants are different than a prison or nursing home which can't easily be closed. Food plants can be closed or production curtailed for endangering the public health with their food- outbreak, recall etc., if someone gets sick eating the food the plant is responsible . But what if they are also endangering the public health by infecting their workers and then us through bad practices; it's similar. The problem is the State doesn't want to intrude.

Coronavirus deaths: How pandemic compares to other deadly outbreaks - Business Insider


https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-deaths-how-pandemic-compares-to-other-deadly-outbreaks-2020-4
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-deaths-how-pandemic-compares-to-other-deadly-outbreaks-2020-4%3famp

I caught the Hong Kong Flu in Dec. '67. Any other old timers get it? Returning troops from Vietnam brought it to California.

can't watch, sorrry okaydo, allergic. your brain on fox, below..

AunBear89 said:

---

Just curious: How outraged were you when a 12 year old child (not an unborn fetus) was shot and killed immediately by a police officer? Or did Tamir Rice have it coming? He should have complied even before the officer arrived. And he shouldn't have been playing with a toy.

---

Which is why I say, until the anti-abortion activists fight for the rights of the born as stridently as they fight for the rights of the unborn, I don't give a flying fsck what they have to say on the subject.

bearister said:

---

Self examine for the latest Covid 19 symptom.

Covid patient suffers four-hour erection after coronavirus 'triggered priapism and blood clots'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12002080/coronavirus-patient-suffers-4-hour-erection-priapism-blood-clots/

---

Let's face it. It's a hard disease to live with, it takes a long time to recover, and we probably won't have a vaccine before the next erection on November 3.