After this's all over, I hope the U.S. gov't bills Trump for the damage he's done to our reputation

[psychic vampire.]

At the end of the day it is the individual's decision to have an abortion regardless of what I say. I am prolife, but that doesn't mean I'd take away someone else's right to make a choice. That actually contradicts what we are taught as Christian's which is free will and to not judge others. Although there are many that don't agree with me.

Always cool to hear this. As someone who was raised in Catholicism and felt the experience pretty negatively, i just never understood/gelled with the dogmatism and the imperitive to impose dogma on people who didn't agree/believe. Like, even from the perspective of the Bible, the pro-life stance of writing it into law never really made sense to me.

[backwardsvoyager]

i find it pretty ironic, too, that so many people who are concerned with the rights of the child over the mother have no problem letting parents make all sorts of other serious decisions without waiting for a child to express their own will, like severe forms of religious and/or heteronormative indoctrination, or circumcision...
it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

[D.o.S.]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

[backwardsvoyager]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

*human life. unless all pro-lifers happen to be vegan.
i don't disagree but i think any 'sincere' expression like that deserves scrutiny when the people in question mention the 'right of the unborn child' but have twisted standards regarding the rights of said life once it's actually born.
how many people are well and truly making that argument? i feel like it's a small minority. maybe i'm wrong.

[hbombgraphics]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

*human life. unless all pro-lifers happen to be vegan.
i don't disagree but i think any 'sincere' expression like that deserves scrutiny when the people in question mention the 'right of the unborn child' but have twisted standards regarding the rights of said life once it's actually born.
how many people are well and truly making that argument? i feel like it's a small minority. maybe i'm wrong.

You are probably right in that an unborn life to most pro-lifers matters way more than a Syrian life or a Mexican life, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire argument.

I would argue that most people with strong causes have blind spots or major hypocrisies that they would have a hard time getting around.

Even Hilary when addressing the abortion issue last week referred to the unborn as an Unborn Person, It's very hard to not attribute some personhood and life to an unborn child, at least at some point in the pregnancy. Having seen the ultrasounds of my kids I think that age is very very early. That's not a religious argument either that's just an observation that at a very young age with a very tiny heartbeat I knew and accepted they were people. If I know and accept that they are people, the idea of killing them intentionally is a problem.

[D.o.S.]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

*human life. unless all pro-lifers happen to be vegan.
i don't disagree but i think any 'sincere' expression like that deserves scrutiny when the people in question mention the 'right of the unborn child' but have twisted standards regarding the rights of said life once it's actually born.
how many people are well and truly making that argument? i feel like it's a small minority. maybe i'm wrong.

Yeah, I would say that not many on the 'pro-life' (lock arms and block cemeteries!) wagon are making that argument, just that it can be very easily conjured if one has five minutes and the desire to do so.

I mean, I would say I generally agree with my aforementioned argument as a general rule -- shocking, I'm sure -- but I'm also pro-choice, which would put me in the "going to hell" basket.

[psychic vampire.]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

*human life. unless all pro-lifers happen to be vegan.
i don't disagree but i think any 'sincere' expression like that deserves scrutiny when the people in question mention the 'right of the unborn child' but have twisted standards regarding the rights of said life once it's actually born.
how many people are well and truly making that argument? i feel like it's a small minority. maybe i'm wrong.

This, this, this. Often when encountering pro-life stances, i wonder the person's position on food stamps or state insurance. Or gay people, or people in middle eastern countries. I know not all pro-life people are frothing at the mouthe, many people hold beliefs personally that they don't speak about too often. Just a confusing world of often mutually exclusive morals, and it is interesting to parse out, often for no better reason than people are interesting.

[Faldoe]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

*human life. unless all pro-lifers happen to be vegan.
i don't disagree but i think any 'sincere' expression like that deserves scrutiny when the people in question mention the 'right of the unborn child' but have twisted standards regarding the rights of said life once it's actually born.
how many people are well and truly making that argument? i feel like it's a small minority. maybe i'm wrong.

Yeah, I would say that not many on the 'pro-life' (lock arms and block cemeteries!) wagon are making that argument, just that it can be very easily conjured if one has five minutes and the desire to do so.

I mean, I would say I generally agree with my aforementioned argument as a general rule -- shocking, I'm sure -- but I'm also pro-choice, which would put me in the "going to hell" basket.

I can't remember what Hicks video that is from, couldn't find it, but this is a good one.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQfNzjGjZ0M[/youtube]

[Jwar]

I guess I'm weird. I value all life equally. I even value animal lives but I gotta get my brotein somehow!

[hbombgraphics]

I guess I'm weird. I value all life equally. I even value animal lives but I gotta get my brotein somehow!

It's not that unique, I primarily agree with you, I just hate the term pro-life because most people who claim to be pro-life have less value for ALL Human life than you do.

I am not 100% against abortion or For it, I think the way it's practiced can be barbaric and unhealthy and I think Life/personhood starts much earlier than many people think.
I also think that part of being a parent is making good choices for people who can't make good choices yet, we have all in our lives experienced someone else making a good choice for us when we couldn't. If we hadn't then we all would be dead. So the "It's always 100% my choice" argument, doesn't hold as much water as people think. Nothing is ever 100% our choice.

[D.o.S.]

it really isn't easy to come across a sincere argument that isn't rooted in said dogmatism.

Sure it is: Unnecessary cessation of life should be avoided whenever possible.

*human life. unless all pro-lifers happen to be vegan.
i don't disagree but i think any 'sincere' expression like that deserves scrutiny when the people in question mention the 'right of the unborn child' but have twisted standards regarding the rights of said life once it's actually born.
how many people are well and truly making that argument? i feel like it's a small minority. maybe i'm wrong.

Yeah, I would say that not many on the 'pro-life' (lock arms and block cemeteries!) wagon are making that argument, just that it can be very easily conjured if one has five minutes and the desire to do so.

I mean, I would say I generally agree with my aforementioned argument as a general rule -- shocking, I'm sure -- but I'm also pro-choice, which would put me in the "going to hell" basket.

I can't remember what Hicks video that is from, couldn't find it, but this is a good one.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQfNzjGjZ0M[/youtube]

I first heard it on Rant in E Minor, but it's the same bit, and a tremendous one at that.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwV0Gtu3hQ8[/youtube]

[Mudfuzz]

I guess I'm weird. I value all life equally. I even value animal lives but I gotta get my brotein somehow!

Are you sure you wanted to take this here? ok here we go!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GdzbCIxkzo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GdzbCIxkzo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GdzbCIxkzo[/youtube]

[snipelfritz]

Alright. The Republican contest is tied up at this point. It's going to be Cruz/Walker for their ticket.

Clinton is going to win and Julian Castro is her VP.

Clinton wins by an small (but not super-close) margin. Takes Florida and Ohio but loses Wisconsin.

That's my bet.

[Inconuucl]

Naw, Clinton is going to lose by delegate counts but her superdelegates will push her towards winning, causing mass upheaval and calls of corruption.

[D.o.S.]

This is your regularly scheduled 10 page reminder that that's not really how superdelegates work.