Subject: United States: Election Time

First, I must apologize for using the wrong word. Abortion is not murder (well, not always) but homicide. In Croatian both of these words translate the same so I didn't realize until now that they have different meanings in English.

Anyway, I am really sorry but you really don't make much sense to me. If I tell that abortion is homicide, how could that be violent? It is my opinion. What is a non-violent way to express this opinion?

Furthermore, what do fanatic pro-life supporters have to do with me? I don't advocate violence. I already wrote here that I accept if abortion gets voted democratically as legal. I only retain my right to lobby for the opposite.

In fact it was you who used explicitly violent language in this topic just because of difference in opinions. You act similarly to those violent feminists from Argentina attacking the Catholics passively defending their cathedral.

And I never said I was against abortions threatening physical health of a woman. But these should be a doctor's recommendation with 2nd opinion and not a parent's wish.

It is the case as soon as the embryo is consider as a conscious person... If you agree the catholic rule for example, then it is normal to see catholic women agreed to keep all babies whatever it happened... I'm totally ok with that... The freedom is kept...
In the case of science and laws in more and more countries, there are some weeks before considering the embryo as a person... In that case, it is the freedom of the women to choose to abort if needed or wanted (not in all states yet)... The freedom is kept...

Law is irrelevant. Law cannot determine who has the moral right on freedom here (the mother or the future child). Law can only determine who has the lawful right on freedom here. (Right and right are two.)

There is no scientific objective point during the pregnancy that determines if somebody has the moral right to live or not. There is a scientific objective point (which can be different I believe) during the pregnancy that determines if the fetus is viable (not on its own of course). (Although the question then might be: what is viable? Is the fetus viable if it needs breath support (permanently)?)

And you know very well that I don't give a s*** about what the Catholic Church (or any religious institution at all) has to say about this.

So, basically, both law & science and religion are not relevant to me to determine who has the moral right to live and who doesn't. (Because that is the most important question here: does an embryo and/or a fetus have the right to live or not?)

The rpoblem i evoked about loose of freedom by catholic Sasha is that he accuse deliberately avorters to be killers by only seeing his own point of view... which is narrow-minded as i told him and not tolerant at all... I respect that all catholic women who wanted to keep their babies as has to be toelrant of all women who wants to abort because they don't recognize the catholic dogm fro their way of living but scientific and state point of view.

Not defending his catholic opinions here, but disagreeing with somebody doesn't mean you don't see his POV. I understand your POV. I just disagree with it.

And about freedom, i clearly see you really don't know me... Mybe you may learn some psychology to learn more about people before judging me ;-)... And one more thing, libertarian is not the prerogative of freedom :-p

Well, I know you don't care for freedom in general given other topics we discussed (like your support of the welfare state and taxes (correct me if I'm wrong)). You cannot say: "I like freedom, but not on the issue of...". (Well, you can say it, but it doesn't make sense.) Liking freedom is liking freedom. It's indivisible.

And yes, in fact, liberalism is the defending of freedom, but both in continental Europe as in the Anglo-Saxon world, liberalism has been hijacked (by social democrats like the Democrats in the States or Verhofstadt and his disciples in Europe), which forces the real liberals to use words like libertarian or classical liberal ;-)

I use viloent language for 2 reasons... First one, is that you use the term of killers (homicide is very similar here) as you only look at your point of view... But there are many people on earth that do not think as you do and got the right to choose their own life thanks to law voted. As far as i know no one accuse catholic women to keep their babies even after a rape if their choice is respected. I can understand that you have an opposit point of view but using such words : killers !!... Well, the 2nd reason is more personal (related to raping...) and you did live with that thus it is easy to hear some victims of raping during croatian war that agreed with your point of view told by cathlic dogm but there are many people who do not believe of your story and feel totally lost after the "without word" fact happened in their life... Maybe it is time to listen them too instead of only giving your part of your story... You ar enot alone to live on earth and you are not alone to get the truth here.

For the case in Argentina, you give again your point of view... But i'm sure you know why those women try to be heard in this particularly catholic country where politic and religion are still very close ;-)

So, basically, both law & science and religion are not relevant to me to determine who has the moral right to live and who doesn't. (Because that is the most important question here: does an embryo and/or a fetus have the right to live or not?)

They are not relevant to me no more as i explained my POV above about that... But i have to use those way of living the women's lives faced to Sasha's way and the way where these women live...

Well, I know you don't care for freedom in general given other topics we discussed (like your support of the welfare state and taxes (correct me if I'm wrong)). You cannot say: "I like freedom, but not on the issue of...". (Well, you can say it, but it doesn't make sense.) Liking freedom is liking freedom. It's indivisible.
As i said you really do not know me :-p... I don't support any state nor taxes :-D but i'm absolutely not libertarian... I'm writing a book about my ideas... Maybe you could read it one day...

Yes, your POV makes sense. I disagree with it but at least it logically and theoretically makes sense. It's too bad it lacks the moral spine to work also in practice. ;)

They are not relevant to me no more as i explained my POV above about that... But i have to use those way of living the women's lives faced to Sasha's way and the way where these women live...

Dafuq did I just read? Sorry, I don't understand it, but don't try to explain it, I have nothing to do with the discussion between you and Sasha.

As i said you really do not know me :-p... I don't support any state nor taxes :-D but i'm absolutely not libertarian... I'm writing a book about my ideas... Maybe you could read it one day...

Anarchist then? And what part of libertarianism don't you like? The economic free market?

And I fear it'll be in the language of Voltaire and though I like Voltaire, I don't like reading French. (No offence :p) I can read English almost as fast as Dutch, but French takes more time (if I want to understand it thoroughly).

For the case in Argentina, you give again your point of view... But i'm sure you know why those women try to be heard in this particularly catholic country where politic and religion are still very close ;-)

Try to be heard!? Have you actually watched the video!? And you say I am biased!? When it is the other way around and when Catholic minority in France uses the same violent means to "get heard", then you condemn them and you are shocked. That's pure hypocrisy.

And also, why should religious communities not be allowed to participate in the political life same as any other NGO? Why shouldn't there be a religious party? If you can have green party, feminist party, LGBT party, sex party, punk party, beer party, why are people always most strongly against a religious party? Is that also an important part of freedom fighting?

to work also in practice.

Well, Catholics haven't had such problems in the past, that's true. Force comes in handy to make something work ;-)

why are people always most strongly against a religious party?

Maybe they always controlled politics in the past and they get tired of them nowadays ?

Maybe you're not polite but as far as you put a link to inform me about something you want to share, i see it...

I just copied one part of the... journalist ? text... "Argentina’s National Women’s Encounter attracts thousands of women every year from extremist feminist groups, many of them homosexuals, to angrily demand the acceptance of their political agenda, which includes the legalization of abortion and the vindication of the homosexual lifestyle."
I only kept the bold part which stay objective...

Then as i said above, they indeed try to be heard... Just ask yourself why a little bit ? ;-)

Furthermore, argentina's case and catholic groups i evoked are not similar... they use violence but not for the same reason... I don' condemn violence, i condemn the reason fo catholic people... Argentina's women fight for their on rights... catho groups to avoid rights of other people. You obviously biased the speech again...

Law is irrelevant. Law cannot determine who has the moral right on freedom here (the mother or the future child). Law can only determine who has the lawful right on freedom here. (Right and right are two.)

There is no scientific objective point during the pregnancy that determines if somebody has the moral right to live or not. There is a scientific objective point (which can be different I believe) during the pregnancy that determines if the fetus is viable (not on its own of course). (Although the question then might be: what is viable? Is the fetus viable if it needs breath support (permanently)?)

And you know very well that I don't give a s*** about what the Catholic Church (or any religious institution at all) has to say about this.

So, basically, both law & science and religion are not relevant to me to determine who has the moral right to live and who doesn't. (Because that is the most important question here: does an embryo and/or a fetus have the right to live or not?)

I Agree.
I want only to ask why someone claim that this is a business to be ruled?
Why not to leave freedom to people to do what they like more.

before you answer, remember that :
1 fetus is not a person (it's not, ot's a fact, you can say it is a potential person, but still..)
2 fetus has not HIS rights (right is something you can activate, a fetus can't do anything)
3 is useless to make a rule you are not able to enforce (where abortion is illegal abortion is done in secret, with sanitary risk for womans)

I don' condemn violence, i condemn the reason fo catholic people...

OK but then don't get too much surprised when people with different opinion but the same amount (=100%) of righteousness as yours come at your front door to educate you. They are not much different than you.

catho groups to avoid rights of other people

You're the one who's not polite. You ignore on purpose the subject matter here. Catholics don't want to avoid rights of other people. They perceive unborn babies as people and so they also perceive their right to live as far more important than the pregnant women's right to kill them just because they think it would make their life better.

Legalizing unnecessary homicide has far reaching influence on human relation to life and its dignity. It's not only an act. It's also a message. It says "Human life is a factor in the socioeconomic equation on the same level as any other. So, it can be negotiated. The unborn don't have any negotiation power. Bad luck."

They perceive unborn babies as people

that is an error,
if I perceive rocks as people I am simply wrong.
yeah I can claim to give "rights to the roks" (and it sounds really good!), in democracy anyone can say anything, but still people can answer me that I'm mad..

1 fetus is not a person (it's not, ot's a fact, you can say it is a potential person, but still..)

It's not a fact. People define who a person is. There were cases of babies that survived birth after only 21 weeks of pregnancy. Were they born as persons?

2 fetus has not HIS rights (right is something you can activate, a fetus can't do anything)

If that was true, we could kill a lot of insane people as well.

3 is useless to make a rule you are not able to enforce (where abortion is illegal abortion is done in secret, with sanitary risk for womans)

If that was true, we could legalize also all types of prostitution, all drugs, all guns, all animal fights, continue the list until you like.

in democracy anyone can say anything, but still people can answer me that I'm mad..

So, you're calling 1/6 of Earth's population mad? And you think you are sane?
(edited)

I'm not calling none mad, I say they are wrong.

edit: you previous post is un-answerable. Lot of logic error in it. I don't want to discuss with someone that doesn't see the difference from a right (and a legal person) and something different-
If we follow your view even a dog or a cow is a person..
(edited)