Bull Ring Spiritual vs. Physical definitions: Prolife vs. LGBT beliefs

[Chuz Life]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

 

[Baz Ares]

OOPS, Forgot. Is this your Person in there?.

View attachment 244485

Maybe we drill a hole in these Oven baking Mini-Vans?

View attachment 244490


And tell your person in there to get a waterproof Cell phone case.
FFS!? All that polluted liquids in there. Nasty!

View attachment 244493

Dear Baz Ares: Because I believe in free speech, and anything anyone says during
the democratic process and/or grief/recovery/healing process, even if venting/projecting,
I welcome your participation in any way you end up expressing that.

I know you mean to joke and poke, but there are REAL people
with REAL experiences of their own children born later, after
having previous abortions,
coming out and telling them things like:
"I went away but I came back"
"You weren't ready for me, but I forgive you"
or the child even knowing without ever being told
that the aborted baby
had a birth defect or health condition
and the child "didn't want or wasn't ready to be born"
and had to come back later without those conditions.

You don't have to believe any of these reports that
can never be proven.

Some of my Christian friends believe these are demons
speaking through the children that do have unconscious
knowledge of the past and "pretend" to be past souls talking about past lives
which aren't really those people but some spiritual delusional trick.

You can believe these people reporting that are crazy
or making this up.

But if you are going to throw out your "crazy" cell phone memes
on here, I request you let me throw this "craziness" in the mix as well.

It's no more crazier than what you post.
But if it turns out to be true, that the spiritual consciousness
of children remembers the abortion, then this speaks to the potential of a
bigger spiritual process going on beyond and before conception and birth.

Suck on that thought, and
see what you spit out next!

Your replies ARE welcome in any form.
I appreciate your honesty and transparency Baz Ares
and would rather have that than censorship!
Please keep posting, and thank you for sharing
your creative expressions, which are part of the process.

Dear Baz Ares-: Because I believe in free speech, and anything anyone says during
the democratic process and/or grief/recovery/healing process, even if venting/projecting,
I welcome your participation in any way you end up expressing that.

emilynghiem:
I stopped venting when I became an adult. Projecting is, in my case just simple statement of the
best real true studied, research on the subject matters using data from real science, published works
by educated credential ‘BORN’ persons in good standing, of real facts, confirmed by peers on the subject.

Then I transfer those facts to others. I’m about 98% fully correct on matters I speak off. And will change if provided real facts that corrects my studies on these matters. And thank the ones for these corrections provided to improve me on matters/issues etc..


I know you mean to joke and poke, but there are REAL people
with REAL experiences of their own children born later, after
having previous abortions, coming out and telling them things like:
"I went away but I came back"
"You weren't ready for me, but I forgive you" or the child even knowing
without ever being told that the aborted baby had a birth defect or health
condition and the child "didn't want or wasn't ready to be born"
and had to come back later without those conditions.

You don't have to believe any of these reports that
can never be proven.


Okay, Yes, Humor keeps me interest in boring stuff.
As for the rest above, we learn from our choices, good and bad.

To me, females are required to make a new born person, a Fetus inside,
And a Baby outside. But you can refer a fetus as a baby inside. As it does sound better
But that does not change its state of GOO or legal state in the COTUS or Bill of Rights’.


We are close to producing a child without the use of a female to bake it from the egg state.
After 42 plus weeks there is good odds it will survive outside the womb. But cut that # by to half
at 23 weeks. And less the younger the GOO IS. At 27 weeks, GOO outside of the female oven,
they need major medical care to survive. Recap, half die now, most died before in the 70’s etc.

And most never pay the full cost of the now BORN BABY for its survival. Uncle Sam steps in, paid for by socialism.

Many DOPers are born with a brain defect, they are allowed to live in America.
Where is my proof, just talk to them, feel the orange rage from mentally deficient
Peoples. AKA persons. Hmm? had to use that example..

BTW: I like to call females. Willing and Unwilling host, as just stuck with it, this is
a very accurate description of the process.

As females the First right’ and most choice the course they want to live and how.
And having a Child today can be in many scenarios. More laws to force fathers to
pay if they bail. As they want no part of this child. As to years past. Mother had
little legal recourse before now.

Yes, the mother may have the means to cover everything one her own, plus family.
But Males must paya share of child birth expenses etc.


Some of my Christian friends believe these are demons
speaking through the children that do have unconscious
knowledge of the past and "pretend" to be past souls talking about past lives
which aren't really those people but some spiritual delusional trick.

You can believe these people reporting that are crazy
or making this up.


These Morons are GULLIBLE and WEAK in the mind. Lacking the genes of
common scene. There are no Demons period. NONE!


But if you are going to throw out your "crazy" cell phone memes
on here, I request you let me throw this "craziness" in the mix as well.

It's no more crazier than what you post.
But if it turns out to be true, that the spiritual consciousness
of children remembers the abortion, then this speaks to the potential of a
bigger spiritual process going on beyond and before conception and birth.

Suck on that thought, and see what you spit out next!

As for meme. You see the point clearly, Crazy CL points require.
Crazy reply to get access into CL’s Melon brain.. But mine are accurate
Point in content.


Your replies ARE welcome in any form. I appreciate your honesty and transparency Baz Ares
and would rather have that than censorship!

On USMB, speech is deleted, moved to restricted areas to hide FACTS the mods don’t like.


Please keep posting, and thank you for sharing
your creative expressions, which are part of the process.

Hmm? I read and confirm source facts mostly. I share facts, I spread no lies.
Creative is always improving. As for the process, I’m at the top leaking real facts.
Where below blocks the trickle Down flows interferes with the natural process
of exposure to the DOPer Class to start. But we know Fact are Nasty thing for them to deal with.

 

[Baz Ares]

Drop the BS here in sig. The 14th sets the terms of what a person needs to MEET! In your weak case, Goo is a Person. FFS!?
The Qualifier is the word 'BORN' to be a person. Even with these morons in 1789 involved here.
Wrote this poorly. You need to get it rewritten to meet your feelings on the matter, you so wrongly apply to.


View attachment 244521

I do want old spews of 1789 forward updated to the 21st Century.

And BTW:Immunities does not help your case. 'Citizens' The Qualifier is the word 'BORN'

"he Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may plausibly be inferred from the clause."

Okay Baz Ares
If we are going to reach agreed terms and definition of a legal person
based on BIRTH,
do you agree to apply the same scientifically established standards to both
* when a PERSON is born being defined by physical birth
* when a PERSON's LEGAL GENDER is defined by physical genetics at birth

Are you okay with both?
And just allow any variations based on "internal or spiritual beliefs"
to remain an issue of faith based preference SEPARATE from legal classification and status?

Yes or no?
Thank you, this is the real question I'm trying to offer.

Yes, the original Birth ID' always applies.
Some are born with defect parts.

Yes, What a person does to oneself, I care not. If they want to change it I care not.
Seems most ID' themselves as transgendering to Male or Female and are about 60% complete.

So if a guy gets Pecker cutoff by half. He's still a Person
If the Pecker is damage, remove fully, he' still a person.

Same for Females. If they are like that Guy (FYI: A Rapper was it?)
who cut his dick off on a live cast. Or made a video for release.
He be Crazy, but still a person.

btw: I forget the other terms used for the process.
of sex reassignment. But as I'm fine with it. A born
person choice comes first.

btw2: And if the GOO Fetus THE UNBORN is ID' as a legal person. (BS btw.)
I guess they can collect many national unborn birth rights' on a world tour
by passport, or illegal immigrant travels. Who by law, give rights' to persons.

 

[emilynghiem]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

 

[Chuz Life]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

There is absolutely no way that I am going to read that journal of a post and respond to it point by point.

If you want to break it down and have a conversation?

Slow your roll and let's do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

There is absolutely no way that I am going to read that journal of a post and respond to it point by point.

If you want to break it down and have a conversation?

Slow your roll and let's do that.

Thank you Chuz Life

1. Point 1 was an objection to your limitation of ONLY
applying the First Amendment to CERTAIN types of organized recognized religions.

I was arguing this is DISCRIMINATORY against people of other beliefs,
so that "not all people are equal under law" and
do not have "equal protections of the law" as
GUARANTEED to all PERSONS as under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So this is my objection and offer of correction or clarification.
if we CHOOSE to interpret religious freedom more INCLUSIVELY
to apply to ALL PEOPLE whether or not affiliated with "organized religions"
that is more consistent and equal enforcement of Constitutional laws for everyone
instead of discriminating on the basis of one's religion or beliefs.

2. Point 2 is answering your question:
What is the point of addressing
right to life beliefs at the same time as LGBT beliefs?

Because the LEFT wants their LGBT beliefs (in how they define Gender Identity by subjective means)
to be recognized by govt laws INDEPENDENT
of the PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH regarding "gender"
which the RIGHT argues to use.

I am comparing this to:
the RIGHT wanting to recognize PERSONS
by govt laws INDEPENDENT of just the
PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH
which the LEFT argues to use.

I am addressing both these at the same time
to ask WHY is each side expecting to use a
PHYSICAL BIRTH-based legal definition in one case
and some other more subjective faith based criteria
for legal definition used by govt in the other case.

I am asking can we agree to be fair in both cases
and either agree to stick to PHYSICAL BIRTH based legal definitions
for BOTH case, or agree to ACCOMMODATE opposing arguments
for INCLUDING and RECOGNIZING the other ways that
go BEYOND just the "birth based" legal definitions.

Why the inconsistency?

Isn't this Discrimination by Creed
to defend one while excluding the other?

And if this is Discriminatory
can we agree to fix both cases by
treating them equally and allowing free choice,
and only establishing laws if and where people AGREE on definitions.

[Last, in Point 2 I also listed 3 areas that could be
focused on to reach agreement instead of just
the above arguments where people don't agree because of clashing
beliefs that won't change. Despite these conflicts, we can still agree
to focus instead on positive points and goals of agreement,
listed as 1-3 at the bottom of Point 2]

 

[Chuz Life]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

There is absolutely no way that I am going to read that journal of a post and respond to it point by point.

If you want to break it down and have a conversation?

Slow your roll and let's do that.

Thank you Chuz Life

1. Point 1 was an objection to your limitation of ONLY
applying the First Amendment to CERTAIN types of organized recognized religions.

I was arguing this is DISCRIMINATORY against people of other beliefs,
so that "not all people are equal under law" and
do not have "equal protections of the law" as
GUARANTEED to all PERSONS as under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So this is my objection and offer of correction or clarification.
if we CHOOSE to interpret religious freedom more INCLUSIVELY
to apply to ALL PEOPLE whether or not affiliated with "organized religions"
that is more consistent and equal enforcement of Constitutional laws for everyone
instead of discriminating on the basis of one's religion or beliefs.

2. Point 2 is answering your question:
What is the point of addressing
right to life beliefs at the same time as LGBT beliefs?

Because the LEFT wants their LGBT beliefs (in how they define Gender Identity by subjective means)
to be recognized by govt laws INDEPENDENT
of the PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH regarding "gender"
which the RIGHT argues to use.

I am comparing this to:
the RIGHT wanting to recognize PERSONS
by govt laws INDEPENDENT of just the
PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH
which the LEFT argues to use.

I am addressing both these at the same time
to ask WHY is each side expecting to use a
PHYSICAL BIRTH-based legal definition in one case
and some other more subjective faith based criteria
for legal definition used by govt in the other case.

I am asking can we agree to be fair in both cases
and either agree to stick to PHYSICAL BIRTH based legal definitions
for BOTH case, or agree to ACCOMMODATE opposing arguments
for INCLUDING and RECOGNIZING the other ways that
go BEYOND just the "birth based" legal definitions.

Why the inconsistency?

Isn't this Discrimination by Creed
to defend one while excluding the other?

And if this is Discriminatory
can we agree to fix both cases by
treating them equally and allowing free choice,
and only establishing laws if and where people AGREE on definitions.

[Last, in Point 2 I also listed 3 areas that could be
focused on to reach agreement instead of just
the above arguments where people don't agree because of clashing
beliefs that won't change. Despite these conflicts, we can still agree
to focus instead on positive points and goals of agreement,
listed as 1-3 at the bottom of Point 2]

1. I didn't say anything about limiting the application of the premises established by the 1st amendment.

2. Apples and oranges and you are over-complicating the issue, to say the least. It appears that you do not know or care to know that the resources are that any of us are using as a basis for our claims.

 

[Baz Ares]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

There is absolutely no way that I am going to read that journal of a post and respond to it point by point.

If you want to break it down and have a conversation?

Slow your roll and let's do that.

Thank you Chuz Life

1. Point 1 was an objection to your limitation of ONLY
applying the First Amendment to CERTAIN types of organized recognized religions.

I was arguing this is DISCRIMINATORY against people of other beliefs,
so that "not all people are equal under law" and
do not have "equal protections of the law" as
GUARANTEED to all PERSONS as under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So this is my objection and offer of correction or clarification.
if we CHOOSE to interpret religious freedom more INCLUSIVELY
to apply to ALL PEOPLE whether or not affiliated with "organized religions"
that is more consistent and equal enforcement of Constitutional laws for everyone
instead of discriminating on the basis of one's religion or beliefs.

2. Point 2 is answering your question:
What is the point of addressing
right to life beliefs at the same time as LGBT beliefs?

Because the LEFT wants their LGBT beliefs (in how they define Gender Identity by subjective means)
to be recognized by govt laws INDEPENDENT
of the PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH regarding "gender"
which the RIGHT argues to use.

I am comparing this to:
the RIGHT wanting to recognize PERSONS
by govt laws INDEPENDENT of just the
PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH
which the LEFT argues to use.

I am addressing both these at the same time
to ask WHY is each side expecting to use a
PHYSICAL BIRTH-based legal definition in one case
and some other more subjective faith based criteria
for legal definition used by govt in the other case.

I am asking can we agree to be fair in both cases
and either agree to stick to PHYSICAL BIRTH based legal definitions
for BOTH case, or agree to ACCOMMODATE opposing arguments
for INCLUDING and RECOGNIZING the other ways that
go BEYOND just the "birth based" legal definitions.

Why the inconsistency?

Isn't this Discrimination by Creed
to defend one while excluding the other?

And if this is Discriminatory
can we agree to fix both cases by
treating them equally and allowing free choice,
and only establishing laws if and where people AGREE on definitions.

[Last, in Point 2 I also listed 3 areas that could be
focused on to reach agreement instead of just
the above arguments where people don't agree because of clashing
beliefs that won't change. Despite these conflicts, we can still agree
to focus instead on positive points and goals of agreement,
listed as 1-3 at the bottom of Point 2]

1. I didn't say anything about limiting the application of the premises established by the 1st amendment.

2. Apples and oranges and you are over-complicating the issue, to say the least. It appears that you do not know or care to know that the resources are that any of us are using as a basis for our claims.

Are you now at your stage 2 development? The Preoperational of Child Development functions. As DOPer Faux ALT-Facts reviewers never seem to develop to the next stage btw.

Should we wait for you to get to stage 4? The Formal Operational Stage, as children are able to use logic to solve problems? So you can use the human logic Functions in thread discussion.

 

[Baz Ares]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

There is absolutely no way that I am going to read that journal of a post and respond to it point by point.

If you want to break it down and have a conversation?

Slow your roll and let's do that.

Thank you Chuz Life

1. Point 1 was an objection to your limitation of ONLY
applying the First Amendment to CERTAIN types of organized recognized religions.

I was arguing this is DISCRIMINATORY against people of other beliefs,
so that "not all people are equal under law" and
do not have "equal protections of the law" as
GUARANTEED to all PERSONS as under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So this is my objection and offer of correction or clarification.
if we CHOOSE to interpret religious freedom more INCLUSIVELY
to apply to ALL PEOPLE whether or not affiliated with "organized religions"
that is more consistent and equal enforcement of Constitutional laws for everyone
instead of discriminating on the basis of one's religion or beliefs.

2. Point 2 is answering your question:
What is the point of addressing
right to life beliefs at the same time as LGBT beliefs?

Because the LEFT wants their LGBT beliefs (in how they define Gender Identity by subjective means)
to be recognized by govt laws INDEPENDENT
of the PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH regarding "gender"
which the RIGHT argues to use.

I am comparing this to:
the RIGHT wanting to recognize PERSONS
by govt laws INDEPENDENT of just the
PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH
which the LEFT argues to use.

I am addressing both these at the same time
to ask WHY is each side expecting to use a
PHYSICAL BIRTH-based legal definition in one case
and some other more subjective faith based criteria
for legal definition used by govt in the other case.

I am asking can we agree to be fair in both cases
and either agree to stick to PHYSICAL BIRTH based legal definitions
for BOTH case, or agree to ACCOMMODATE opposing arguments
for INCLUDING and RECOGNIZING the other ways that
go BEYOND just the "birth based" legal definitions.

Why the inconsistency?

Isn't this Discrimination by Creed
to defend one while excluding the other?

And if this is Discriminatory
can we agree to fix both cases by
treating them equally and allowing free choice,
and only establishing laws if and where people AGREE on definitions.

[Last, in Point 2 I also listed 3 areas that could be
focused on to reach agreement instead of just
the above arguments where people don't agree because of clashing
beliefs that won't change. Despite these conflicts, we can still agree
to focus instead on positive points and goals of agreement,
listed as 1-3 at the bottom of Point 2]

This COTUS was written by limited peoples in the 1800's.
To pass it by the then colonies signed. Was dealing with many being homeschooled. Yes, some
had higher education, but then, those schools mostly, were under religious controls,
using the many bibles as the limited BS to understanding then of what rights' are. And only whites
were protected in the intent of the COTUS, then.

The above needs to be updated with modern inputs by real educated peoples of today.
Not fearful bible abused ignorant people mostly, of then.

Weak, poorly written above. The direct simple rational review of words chosen then, is clear.

No laws, to protect/ establishment of religion. (Meaning is 100% clearly)
The Prohibiting Free Speech is clear in intent. (forbid by law, rule, or other authority)
That said.

When this was written, Free Speech at home was whatever BS you spewed or not.
In the 1800's, when written, what was not clearly defined was Private and Public place.

USMB is a Public Square, and shits on the 1st Amendment. But hey, that's DOPers for you.

 

[Baz Ares]

'Spiritual vs. Physical'

Spiritual' - The Gullible Pure Definition of, Real Facts Don't Matter.

Physical - Provides Proof, the Pure definition, Real Facts, Do Matter.

 

[emilynghiem]

HI Chuz Life I am responding here to this and your two other posts asking
about spiritual/religious references and LGBT.

Is my post to BA more clear why I am asking about these in tandem?

I can see what you are asking about. However, I can not see what any of it has to do with me.

Furthermore, I see the "spirituality" thing as a side issue that is, to say the least, ddistracting and confusing.

People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion.

There is sufficient evidence to make the case for what elective abortions are unconstitutional. Why complicate those arguments with a bunch of unnecessary side issues and clutter?

Thanks Chuz Life
1. Because only interpreting the First Amendment to protect people of an "established organized religion"
is not protecting all persons equally, that is why I ask people to apply this more uniformly
and respect ALL beliefs of people whether considered a formal religion or not.
I find this more consistent, so that people do not get into discrimination
issues with only SOME people getting their beliefs protected from govt making laws to the contrary.
Instead, I am saying ALL people of ALL beliefs (secular, religious, spiritual, moral, political etc)
ANYTHING faith based should be treated the same and
KEPT OUT OF GOVT where Govt neither Establishes nor Prohibits in ways that involve "faith based" beliefs of ANY type.
Not just the organized or recognized religions which would mean only members of that group have protections applied.

2. The reason I point out the "faith based" beliefs behind arguments regarding
* prolife/right to life beliefs about human consciousness and identity before birth counting as a sentient human being "recognized legally"
* LGBT identity argued for "legal recognition" in ways BEYOND the physical genetic "gender" types historically established by science and law

is that I AM saying the FAITH BASED beliefs cannot be established by govt.
There would have to be AGREEMENT on the scientific standards, criteria and definitions
to make public laws that represent the people WITHOUT discriminating, establishing or prohibiting on the basis of creed or faith based beliefs.

So I AM saying to keep ALL this "extra" stuff out that "clutters" up govt with BELIEF based biases.

I am saying govt should remain neutral and void of things that
people do not agree as proven by science. We either need to
agree on proof and criteria, or else remove and separate such policies from govt.

The way I'd recommend to revise laws on abortion regulations and LGBT/Christian anti-discrimination
is to focus on angles or neutral levels that don't require faith based arguments.

Stick to where people AGREE on standards and make laws based on THAT.
For where people DISAGREE because of FAITH BASED DIFFERENCES,
then separate policies and jurisdictions, where people have a choice which
policies to fund or defund.

Only areas and angles where all sides AGREE can be established as law without violating principles regarding faith based beliefs (not just religions but any faith based creed).

So in the cases of
LGBT - if the only thing people can agree on is the physical genetic definitions that can be proven by science
to be distinguishable this way, then either make laws based on that, or SEPARATE jurisdictions and allow
people to redefine their labels using other means such as internal or spiritual gender identity etc.

prolife and abortion - if the only thing people can agree on is to ban abortions after the 1st trimester,
then keep the legal definition at that point, and separate jurisdictions and funding on other points
of disagreement so nobody has to support or fund the standards of definitions of others they don't share beliefs in.

I'd also recommend to take a DIFFERENT angle on abortion,
and enforce the option of MEN getting charged with relationship abuse,
sexual abuse, fraud, rape etc. for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.
So this would hold both men and women equally responsible for the decision to have
sex being fully informed and consensual to the point of agreeing if pregnancy occurs,
and not just push abortion laws that disproportionately affect women and incur due process issues.

Chuz Life I believe we'd have a much better path toward agreement on laws preventing abortion by focusing on
areas we could actually AGREE on WITHOUT getting involved in "faith based" beliefs and arguments that become unconstitutional to legislate or enforce.

1. agreements to hold MEN equally accountable as women for FULLY INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions
to engage in sexual relations (ie BEFORE pregnancy occurs so the laws don't just target and affect women)
to prevent any form or complaints of rape, relationship abuse or fraud, sexual abuse or other coercion.

2. agreements to SEPARATE funding and allow prolife groups to allot taxes to alternative nonprofits
such as the Nurturing Network as opposed to Planned Parenthood, so that taxpayers are represented not discriminated against by beliefs

3. agreed plans to REDUCE rates or numbers of abortions over time
until these are eliminated by 100% prevention where possible, and
an agreed process for REVIEWING and improving the progress to reach those agreed benchmarks, deadlines and goals
as set by each district, state or party agreeing to represent concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Not all groups will agree on the same plans, so this should be left to how those people elect to represent
their interests and beliefs on how best to reduce and eliminate abortion in the fastest, safest and most effective ways.

Because all 3 of these points rely on people AGREEING on approaches and standards for enforcement,
none of these requiring agreeing on BELIEFS about WHY abortion is or isn't acceptable
or HOW to go about enforcing bans so that women are not targeted or discriminated against unfairly compared with
the men equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy if not more responsible in the case of coercion, rape or other abuse where
the woman didn't freely consent.

Even if we disagree on beliefs and arguments,
we can still agree to work on different ways to reduce prevent and eliminate abortion,
and work out a timeline to achieve those goals.

Only by 100% prevention of abortion can we avoid the
above arguments that people don't agree on.

By not having any abortions anyway, then those arguments no longer matter because they don't apply.
So the goal should be 100% elimination, and what's left is
working out agreements on the best solutions to get there.

There is absolutely no way that I am going to read that journal of a post and respond to it point by point.

If you want to break it down and have a conversation?

Slow your roll and let's do that.

Thank you Chuz Life

1. Point 1 was an objection to your limitation of ONLY
applying the First Amendment to CERTAIN types of organized recognized religions.

I was arguing this is DISCRIMINATORY against people of other beliefs,
so that "not all people are equal under law" and
do not have "equal protections of the law" as
GUARANTEED to all PERSONS as under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So this is my objection and offer of correction or clarification.
if we CHOOSE to interpret religious freedom more INCLUSIVELY
to apply to ALL PEOPLE whether or not affiliated with "organized religions"
that is more consistent and equal enforcement of Constitutional laws for everyone
instead of discriminating on the basis of one's religion or beliefs.

2. Point 2 is answering your question:
What is the point of addressing
right to life beliefs at the same time as LGBT beliefs?

Because the LEFT wants their LGBT beliefs (in how they define Gender Identity by subjective means)
to be recognized by govt laws INDEPENDENT
of the PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH regarding "gender"
which the RIGHT argues to use.

I am comparing this to:
the RIGHT wanting to recognize PERSONS
by govt laws INDEPENDENT of just the
PHYSICAL legal definitions by BIRTH
which the LEFT argues to use.

I am addressing both these at the same time
to ask WHY is each side expecting to use a
PHYSICAL BIRTH-based legal definition in one case
and some other more subjective faith based criteria
for legal definition used by govt in the other case.

I am asking can we agree to be fair in both cases
and either agree to stick to PHYSICAL BIRTH based legal definitions
for BOTH case, or agree to ACCOMMODATE opposing arguments
for INCLUDING and RECOGNIZING the other ways that
go BEYOND just the "birth based" legal definitions.

Why the inconsistency?

Isn't this Discrimination by Creed
to defend one while excluding the other?

And if this is Discriminatory
can we agree to fix both cases by
treating them equally and allowing free choice,
and only establishing laws if and where people AGREE on definitions.

[Last, in Point 2 I also listed 3 areas that could be
focused on to reach agreement instead of just
the above arguments where people don't agree because of clashing
beliefs that won't change. Despite these conflicts, we can still agree
to focus instead on positive points and goals of agreement,
listed as 1-3 at the bottom of Point 2]

1. I didn't say anything about limiting the application of the premises established by the 1st amendment.

2. Apples and oranges and you are over-complicating the issue, to say the least. It appears that you do not know or care to know that the resources are that any of us are using as a basis for our claims.

Thank you Chuz Life

1. RE: limiting the application of the premises established by the 1st Amendment
CL: "People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion."
^ This is the statement that sounded like you were limiting the meaning to only
prohibiting laws based "SOLELY ON RELIGION"

What about beliefs in general, and any values or rational for laws imposing a FAITH BASED argument or standard.

I am arguing that it's not only RELIGION that govt cannot establish,
but the broader meaning in order to apply to protecting all people
concerns faith based beliefs.

Are you okay with classing the pro LGBT "beliefs" as INCLUDED in
not "establishing religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion" when it
comes to persona choice to believe or not believe in gender identity that is apart from
what is agreed by science as in genetic identity established at birth.

2. Again the WHOLE POINT of this thread is to show how
in both cases, OBJECTIONS to the prolife arguments or the pro-LGBT arguments
are that the LEGAL defintions should be based on what is established at birth,
and not conflicting beliefs such as
* subjective "gender identity" that half the population doesn't agree to recognize
* beliefs in recognizing rights of individual persons before birth, which again half the
people doesn't agree to establish by law

Instead of addressing these SEPARATELY where both issues deadlock and nobody
changes their approach, I am comparing these at the same time to ask
that in both cases we all agree to
* neither establish the subjective conflicting beliefs and definitions that opposing views don't agree on
and don't want this forced on them because of free exercise of religion and not establishing faith based
beliefs that others do not choose freely and shouldn't be coerced into by force of law or govt
* nor PROHIBIT or discriminate against either Prolife believers or LGBT believers since they have equal rights to those beliefs, and NOT be forced under laws that disparage and infringe on their rights and beliefs

Are you okay with applying this broader sense of religious freedom to
these kind of BELIEFS so that we agree not to make laws that
infringe on either side in either case.

Again, the reason I bring both up, is so that people who take one approach
in one case, put themselves in the shoes of the other side in the other case.

Chuz Life:
If you are pushing your beliefs about prolife in the case of abortion,
are you okay with others pushing their faith based beliefs about LGBT in the other case.

If you do not agree to LGBT redefining gender to be some "subjective" faith based
identity that isn't agreed on due to conflicting beliefs and can't be forced on other people by govt,
are you okay with refraining from defining the starting point of human rights BEFORE birth
instead of the legal terms using birth as the starting point, similar to laws recognizing gender
at birth and not subjective/relative definitions which LGBT advocates believe in using.

Baz Ares
If you reject the faith based arguments about defining persons and rights
based on conditions other than natural birth, and defending agreed
secular standards of using BIRTH for determining legal status,
are you okay when opponents of subjective LGBT identity
"similarly demand" to use scientific genetic gender at birth as the legal definitions
and NOT be forced to comply with "faith based beliefs about gender identity or orientation"
under penalty of law because having beliefs otherwise is opposed as "class discrimination"
when such opponents argue this isn't a class of person but is a range or choice of BEHAVIOR.

Chuz Life
If you believe in using scientific definitions of gender at birth
instead of govt establishing and recognizing "faith based" beliefs in
subjective LGBT identity,
do you understand my point that secular liberals also demand to
use legal definitions at birth when it comes to recognizing persons under law.

If we cannot agree on this, that is why I am saying
we need to solve the problem another way. Because
both sides require establishing their beliefs over the beliefs of others
which is unconstitutional. In order to respect all beliefs equally,
we'd have to try a totally different approach that doesn't run
into these impossible contradictions where laws couldn't be
established without violating beliefs of others. The way to
prevent that in such cases is to make laws by agreed consensus
so no beliefs on either side are violated or discriminated against by the policies.

 

[Baz Ares]

"If you reject the faith based arguments about defining persons and rights
based on conditions other than natural birth, and defending agreed
secular standards of using BIRTH for determining legal status,
are you okay when opponents of subjective LGBT identity
"similarly demand" to use scientific genetic gender at birth as the legal definitions
and NOT be forced to comply with "faith based beliefs about gender identity or orientation"
under penalty of law because having beliefs otherwise is opposed as "class discrimination"
when such opponents argue this isn't a class of person but is a range or choice of BEHAVIOR."


----------------FFS here!
'Faith' is not based on facts.
It's a feeling, weak it be. A Con play. A replacement, to not having real facts to prove a case.
The defective weak, use it as a dodge.

A person, and LGBT identity is real. Do I need to say more?

 

[Chuz Life]

For someone who obviously thinks they have a point to make to do so much to bury it in a word salad like this?

It's laughable and maybe just a little bit sad.

How did you ever get to be a mod?

Your post is not even interesting enough for me to consider reading it again to see if there might be a chance to re-engage.

My time is better spent on something else.

 

[Baz Ares]

For someone who obviously thinks they have a point to make to do so much to bury it in a word salad like this?

It's laughable and maybe just a little bit sad.

How did you ever get to be a mod?

Your post is not even interesting enough for me to consider reading it again to see if there might be a chance to re-engage.

My time is better spent on something else.

Keep playing your DOPer WEAK hand.
As you have no reply to REAL facts.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 244918

"If you reject the faith based arguments about defining persons and rights
based on conditions other than natural birth, and defending agreed
secular standards of using BIRTH for determining legal status,
are you okay when opponents of subjective LGBT identity
"similarly demand" to use scientific genetic gender at birth as the legal definitions
and NOT be forced to comply with "faith based beliefs about gender identity or orientation"
under penalty of law because having beliefs otherwise is opposed as "class discrimination"
when such opponents argue this isn't a class of person but is a range or choice of BEHAVIOR."


----------------FFS here!
'Faith' is not based on facts.
It's a feeling, weak it be. A Con play. A replacement, to not having real facts to prove a case.
The defective weak, use it as a dodge.

A person, and LGBT identity is real. Do I need to say more?

??? Baz Ares and Chuz Life can we start here ^

Just becauses LGBT identity is faith based doesn't mean it's not real!
Someone's Christian identity (or Muslim or Atheist) is faith based and it's REAL
and STILL cannot be regulated by govt because it's faith based
ie NEITHER ESTABLISHED NOR PROHIBITED

Something can be real and still not be proven by science,
and doesn't NEED to be if it's a faith based choice.

Chuz Life do you agree that LGBT identity beliefs are faith based?

And part of the reason I was chosen as a Mod was because I support
diversity and inclusion, and seek to facilitate communicate regardless of beliefs.
Yes, it gets messy. If we don't allow freedom of thought and speech
we'd never get through and finish the process, which can go in all directions.
I allow for that freedom, and that's a major reason I support USMB that allows this freely.