Because I like the way you post and your honesty and I believe a kindness others on the board have a hard time exhibiting sometimes...I will attempt to answer as open as possible.
1. I do think Baby's still in the womb have rights. I do not like the "f" word because I believe it is meant to dehumanize a Baby into something that is not yet "life," However we know now it is life. I will not use the "f" word because words matter in debate and that one isn't respectful (even if it's a scientific term because I don't think of humans as animals either) to a human life in my view.
2. I do believe that human life is given by God and we humans are not supposed to snuff it out in war, in peace, even in punishment for those who do kill (this is new for me)...This indeed is stuff of faith but IMHO also science.
3. I also believe in peace and harmony and things like the BLM riots of summer of 2020, the attack on the capital of January 6th, and this release of a brief are designed to create unrest in our nation and force change one way or another for political power. I do feel that they are mostly divisive and not really looking for the change they seek (overall) but to grab power by division.
4. Back on abortion, I'm worried about this one even more than the prior two (i.e. BLM riots, Trumpster Capital attack). The reason I am, is because I think the calmer but pro life people and states in this issue really do have a very distinct moral high ground. I believe however the very pro choice part of the other side has misread the room badly when they attempt to force an complete lack of restrictions on the taking of human life. In this way I do really believe it's nearly equal to the Dread Scott suit in terms of Roe V Wade and has the most potential to divide the country in a way we have never seen in our lifetimes...sadly. I don't want that to happen
5. However, I see handing it to the states where it should have been all along according to our highest law of the land my enable states to work out best cases for their states. Yes it will cause differences in laws and some issues for people who have made poor choices, but it might save some lives as well.
Bottom line, I'm conflicted between my moral and ethical desire for the country that I call home to be free of what I think is our greatest stain (not just abortion of an estimated 60 plus million souls, mind you, but also the lack of treating women and their babies in a way that makes them want to bring them into the world). I'm conflicted because I desire my own personal peace, which means I don't want unrest in the country in which I current live and have all my life...but I also do understand that it's wrong to do what we have done and to continue it completely unchecked isn't the right, moral, ethical, or humanitarian path to take.
@OSUPsych, thanks, and I hope all that answers the question.
1. I do think Baby's still in the womb have rights. I do not like the "f" word because I believe it is meant to dehumanize a Baby into something that is not yet "life," However we know now it is life. I will not use the "f" word because words matter in debate and that one isn't respectful (even if it's a scientific term because I don't think of humans as animals either) to a human life in my view.
2. I do believe that human life is given by God and we humans are not supposed to snuff it out in war, in peace, even in punishment for those who do kill (this is new for me)...This indeed is stuff of faith but IMHO also science.
3. I also believe in peace and harmony and things like the BLM riots of summer of 2020, the attack on the capital of January 6th, and this release of a brief are designed to create unrest in our nation and force change one way or another for political power. I do feel that they are mostly divisive and not really looking for the change they seek (overall) but to grab power by division.
4. Back on abortion, I'm worried about this one even more than the prior two (i.e. BLM riots, Trumpster Capital attack). The reason I am, is because I think the calmer but pro life people and states in this issue really do have a very distinct moral high ground. I believe however the very pro choice part of the other side has misread the room badly when they attempt to force an complete lack of restrictions on the taking of human life. In this way I do really believe it's nearly equal to the Dread Scott suit in terms of Roe V Wade and has the most potential to divide the country in a way we have never seen in our lifetimes...sadly. I don't want that to happen
5. However, I see handing it to the states where it should have been all along according to our highest law of the land my enable states to work out best cases for their states. Yes it will cause differences in laws and some issues for people who have made poor choices, but it might save some lives as well.
Bottom line, I'm conflicted between my moral and ethical desire for the country that I call home to be free of what I think is our greatest stain (not just abortion of an estimated 60 plus million souls, mind you, but also the lack of treating women and their babies in a way that makes them want to bring them into the world). I'm conflicted because I desire my own personal peace, which means I don't want unrest in the country in which I current live and have all my life...but I also do understand that it's wrong to do what we have done and to continue it completely unchecked isn't the right, moral, ethical, or humanitarian path to take.
@OSUPsych, thanks, and I hope all that answers the question.