UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

He is like William J. Lepetomane. Just sign what unelected people put in front of him. The main difference is he has no one hot on his admin.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

for conor Jr. to be drafted

them away as a senior citizen.

Glad we have our priorities in order.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Seems you’re still on winter break. Bored much?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

If Ukraine gives up, we stop helping them. So, the deaths of Ukrainians has been decided by Ukraine as being worth it for sovereignty and freedom. This is the same as the Englad deciding to fight Germany, and us helping them...the US was not buying English deaths. Similarly, the UK was not buying US deaths when it assisted the US in Afghanistan.

the people who support and advocate for military intervention everywhere, everytime, have noble intentions.

Ukraine can decide to fight with or without our support. They basically did.

Then, they asked anyone who would listen to help them...which is would have done if I were facing a war with Russia. Of course, it is our decision to help them or not.

I think one can (1) oppose our aid, without (2) challenging Ukraine's decision to fight for its sovereignty and freedom. Do you challenge both?...or just the former?

but the isolationists couldn’t care less about that fact.

(no message)

And then the firing squad or gulags for any who resisted.

In fact, the Ukraine fought for months before US aid was received.

assistance from France back then as well.

Way to Go, Joe!

(no message)

the Jan. 6th Insurrectionists, all of them were afforded complete "Due Process", and some leaders (e.g. Oath Keepers and Proud Boys) pleaded guilty to "Seditious Conspiracy".

btw, when are you going to answer my question regarding innocent women who have been forced/coerced into pregnancies they never wanted...should they be able to choose the option of abortion without any government interference?

(no message)

(no message)

If you don't see my answer in that sentence, then you do not understand the issues you are discussing. It is wrong to impose violent aggression upon any innocent human being, and the government should protect all innocent human beings from aggression...all. You can't say you believe the same, can you?

obvious that the government did not protect her...now she's faced with a truly life-changing decision...allow the pregnancy to go to term, with unknown potential physical, mental and emotional costs (in some cases, her life) for the rest of her life...or, choose to have an abortion. Is it your position that such an option should not be available to her?

(more to come, based on your reply)

It is the government's role to punish aggressors who harm innocent human beings. The government should never become an aggressor against innocent human beings. We can assist victims in many ways, but never in a way which creates more victims.

Here is a question for you: In the great majority of cases, in which a woman is not forced or coerced into a pregnancy, would you ever allow the government to pass any restriction on abortion? Any restriction at all? Or, do you think that all abortions should be legal no matter what?

to do with central issue of "Personhood"...be sure to read that post and link, but in the moment, I'll outline it.

>The ONLY 'Un-Debated' Person here is the innocent Woman who was impregnated against her will...not the Fetus. Therefore, the only true "Victim" is that woman, and she deserves the option of Abortion.

>The mere fact that a woman has the biological ability to turn the meeting of egg and sperm into another human being does not mean that she HAS TO under any and all circumstances...especially when that situation is forced or coerced on her...and could cause immense harm, both physically, mentally and emotionally for the rest of her life...and possibly even cost her her life. It needs to be noted that 90% of people in this country...including Catholics...agree with that perspective when it comes to forced/coerced pregnancies.

>I've provided you and everyone else on the OF evidence that at any point in time approximately 6 million women in the U.S. will acknowledge they've had a forced or coerced pregnancy during their reproductive lifetime, so such occurrences are not rare.

>It is not possible for others to judge the validity of a woman's claim that a pregnancy was forced/coerced, nor is it justifiable for others to intrude on her privacy to try and investigate their 'suspicions' of her...for example, questioning her over her need for miscarriage medical care.

>As regards concerns that a pregnancy was not forced or coerced, again it is not possible for outsiders/government to "process" such investigations and reach valid decisions in such a short time period...i.e. before 'Viability'...as had been defined in Roe v Wade.

>Finally, the United States is a pluralistic nation, not defined by any one religious belief, and the majority of Americans believe that the option of Abortion should be available to all women...therefore it should be available and safe, meaning all Health Care Systems should be able to provide such a service.

Summarizing, the only "Prudential Judgement" that should be reached on the issue of Abortion is a return to Roe v Wade.

>


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=226976

That is morally wrong, even in accepted secular belief systems.

My position does not stand on a nuanced and artificial legal definition (as yours does). It stands on accepted biological science...not the fictional system you create where sex is not genetic (even though there is a gene for it) and sexual attraction is genetic (even though there is no gene for it). Your view is contrary to biological science, and as such, it is akin to Lysenkoism, and will be an embarrassment to future liberals, as Lysenkoism is to current communists.

Nor does my position stand on religious grounds (so religious arguments are irrelevant). It stands on accepted secular humanism moral theory (and definitely not the nazi-style of moral theory where you just define a human being to be a non-person so you can kill them). Your position is akin to eugenics (a moral theory based on politics and/or personal convenience...neither of which is something upon which morality should be based; morality either restricts convenience or political acts, or it is totally meaningless). Your political/convenience-based morality will be an embarrassment to future generations as eugenics is to us now (assuming evil does not take over the world, and I don't think it will.

A further point about American jurisprudence: It is a basic principle that the government cannot transfer a harm from one innocent victim to a new innocent victim. Our system of law should not do that, and authorizing such aggression against innocent human beings, when done in the US, is (or should be) an aberration to be fixed, not a feature to be lauded.

can turn on, leaving her with no way to turn it off...even if it was turned on against her will...yet that is your position...i.e. the woman has NO SAY in the matter. It's like you looking at her and saying "Sorry, Honey, but you shouldn't have be born female...you'll just have to suck it up and deal with it...or we'll put you in prison." btw, as history has taught us, one way it will be dealt with is "Back Alley Abortions"...and those stories had a lot to do with why Roe v Wade got passed.

As for religious views, you like to turn it on when it suits your purpose...e.g. with RCC Catechism paragraph references dealing with "Killing", but then deny any interest when the same reference allows for Killing when "Prudential Judgement" is brought to bear with "Just Wars"...or when Catholic scholars acknowledge that the RCC Magisterium has NEVER taught that a fetus has "Personhood"...a very important distinction for ALL Religions...e.g. many Jews believe "Personhood" begins at Birth...AND for Secular Governments...e.g. in the U.S. a fetus becomes a legal person with judicial rights when it is BORN...not before.

btw, I'm not sure where you get your "Secular Humanist Moral Theory" idea from, so maybe you can share a link with us that backs you up...but I did a quick search with those words and found a "Humanist Perspective on Abortion" and it in no way backs up your unbending statement that Humanists are 100% against Abortion in all circumstances. (I'll link my source shortly....DONE...see attached article)...so your contention is highly suspect.

Summarizing for the moment, since we (I) will definitely come back again...
>Women who are forced or coerced into pregnancies are undeniably PERSONS with the FULL RIGHTS of Personhood...and when they are sexually attacked and impregnated, they have the right to decide whether or not to bring the pregnancy to term...because...
>Neither Religious, nor Secular authorities grant a fetus "Personhood Rights"

We need to get women's rights solidified...and then move on to ways in which the number of abortions are reduced...without sacrificing those rights...i.e. reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies...with contraceptives and wide use of Sex/Sexuality Education - for ALL ages...and finally, more programs that make carrying a pregnancy to term "Doable" for women on the margins...even those who might have been forced or coerced into them.

Again...first we must solidify a woman's right to choose an abortion. I'll be here.


Link: https://understandinghumanism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Abortion-humanist-perspective.pdf

When you don't do that, I don't "turn on" the religious arguments, because they are unnecessary. Abortion is merely another type of homicide, fully regulatable by the state without resort to religious support. Same with "Thou shalt not steal" laws...no need to resort to religious argument, but there are ample religious arguments available if the other person says they are religious, or misrepresents my religion's doctrine like you do. But, I assume you agree that just because there is a religious argument against homicides and stealing, that the state must allow all homicides and all stealing.

Tied up right now. Just happened to see this part of your post, and thought I'd type a quick response.

you can prove them, show us the documentation that supports you. Let's focus on more than 'Personal Opinion' which lately is all I'm seeing from you.

Current situation...

>Catholic Church:...no teaching that a fetus has "Personhood", which is a meaningful distinction...otherwise it wouldn't be 'Debated'...so you need to understand what that means...especially when it comes to the abortion issue.

>Government:...Fetal Personhood is only recognized at the Federal Level when Born.

>Secular Humanism:...Split Opinion (take the time to read what I provided...feel free to add similar "Secular Humanist" sources that guided your thinking in the earlier post)

>U.S. Polling:...Since Roe v. Wade both Secular and Catholic polls show that 80-90% of Americans say that Abortion should be legal and available under "Certain Conditions". I've posted supporting data more than once.

By the way, you never answered my question: In the great majority of cases, in which a woman is not forced or coerced into a pregnancy, would you ever allow the government to pass any restriction on abortion? Any restriction at all? Or, do you think that all abortions should be legal no matter what?

..
In response to your post above:

The Church says that intentional, aggressive murder of innocent biological human beings is wrong. You think it is ok, but you can't successfully lie about the Church's position on this.

You said: >Government:...Fetal Personhood is only recognized at the Federal Level when Born.

This is not true. I guess it is your personal opinion, but it is not true.

You said: >Secular Humanism:...Split Opinion (take the time to read what I provided...feel free to add similar "Secular Humanist" sources that guided your thinking in the earlier post)

We can disagree on this, and I will engage you on this, if you first recognize that the Catholic Church opposes abortion. Will you recognize Church Doctrine? If so, let's then discuss the variants of secular humanism, which I think are sufficient enough to justify opposition to things like homicide, stealing, burglary, etc. You don't need to resort to religious edicts to justify US laws which outlaw aggression against innocent human beings. But, to get to this point, please agree that Catholic Doctrine condemns the killing of innocent human beings, regardless of various legal definitions of "personhood" and regardless of age, and regardless of their dependence upon their mother for sustenance. Let's agree on that, and then we can discuss secular views. If you want to have a debate on Catholic viewpoint on this, we will all know that you are disingenuous on this issue.h

You said: >U.S. Polling:...Since Roe v. Wade both Secular and Catholic polls show that 80-90% of Americans say that Abortion should be legal and available under "Certain Conditions". I've posted supporting data more than once. Otherwise, we can disregard polling on a moral issue like this. Just let me know which you prefer.

Do you determine your own personal morality by polling? If so, admit it, and I will take this as an admission that you are not Catholic, and we can discuss this at a purely secular level.

against their will...with 6M women attesting to such attacks during their reproductive lives at any point in time, this is no small matter...so you NEED to focus on that set of circumstances...the rest is easily addressed for reasons I've already explained, but ignored by you. Do you accept the ability of such innocent women who have been forced/coerced into pregnancies to have the Option of Abortion?

As to your specific replies...
>The RCC has NEVER taught that a fetus is a defined Person...since it is virtually impossible to know that EVERY conception actually occurred...or will continue to a full term birth (e.g. Miscarriages and Still Births). There are no RCC 'Rites'...no records kept...no certificates issued for any of those circumstances...not even Pastoral condolences insisted upon by the RCC. Consequently this is NOT killing a person. And, again, the example of the RCC Catechism "Just War" allowance means that after a period of "Prudential Judgement" by the Victim...under certain circumstances...it is permissible to end another "Person's" life...innocent or not. So, given that example, it follows that the women mentioned above should have the same Option...under certain circumstances, and after "Prudential Judgement" on their part...of choosing an Abortion of a fetus that the RCC does not categorically recognize as a "Person".

>Legal Personhood...before I posted, I researched the following link. I'm aware of many efforts to challenge this position, but as yet, I'm not aware of any success at the Federal level. If you've got evidence to prove otherwise, please share it.

https://legalvoice.org/legal-fetal-personhood-timeline/

>Secular Humanist Perspective on Abortion...there you go AGAIN...shifting to 'Religious' arguments, rather than staying with the specific subject..."Secular Humanism". Nonetheless, I gave you an extensive argument...by "Humanists" who make a strong case for acceptance of abortion. If you disagree, show me evidence supporting that contention...otherwise, I have to score that one as a LOSS for your side. BTW, I've already shown that the RCC Catechism allows Killing of even innocent Persons, provided certain circumstances are met...and sufficient "Prudential Judgement" (their words) has been employed...Time for YOU to accept this documented fact.

>Polling...I use the documented results...from 1975...showing overwhelming favor for legal abortion as substantiation of...and agreement for my position. Think of this as an application of the "Law of Large Numbers"...all those people...over such a long period of time...are much more likely to have the right stance than you and the other 10%ers. Therefore, the onus is on you to bend toward that perspective. You can't possibly claim that ALL of those people are incapable of making a sound moral/legal judgement and be on the wrong side.

Once we get the bedrock circumstances of women forced or coerced into pregnancy having the option of abortion settled, we can move onto to those situations where the woman's pregnancy was not "Un-Wanted"...but based on previous experiences I have to insist that you focus on the "Forced/Coerced" section.

Let me also say that I really appreciate you expending the effort to dialogue...albeit with too liberal a use of the term "lying". I'm honestly doing my best to share a perspective that I believe in...for the SOLE purpose of arriving at the TRUTH...nothing more.

My question, for the third time: In the great majority of cases, in which a woman is not forced or coerced into a pregnancy, would you ever allow the government to pass any restriction on abortion? Any restriction at all? Or, do you think that all abortions should be legal no matter what?

As to your comments, I've already stated I am talking about all human beings, not just those you choose to recognize legally for convenience of getting votes for your party. Biology trumps your legal fictions. Nazis tried to label groups of human beings as non-persons so that they could legally kill them; why do you seek to follow in their footsteps? "Personhood" has nothing to do with this issue, because whether you recognize a human being as a person or not, they are still a human being.

And, please stop misrepresenting the Catholic position. I suppose you are doing that so that I will recognize that you are being disingenuous, and therefore stop talking to you. But, others see through your tactic of misrepresenting Church teaching. I've already posted quotes from the Catholic Catechism that refute what you say, but you just ignore them, as you have ignored my question above. The Catechism is very clear on this, and no one who seeks to maintain their credibility would argue that the Catholic Church allows abortion. There are legitimate ways to argue for abortion. Why don't you choose one of them, rather than choosing to misrepresent Catholic Doctrine?

sweep over the rest of the country.

And later... dead Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Hungarians. etc., etc., citizens of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

Who cares? We can hide from the world's ruthless dictators' genocidal aggressions forever. Right?

But what country in the world would be foolish enough to become a US ally?

ISOLATION, ISOLATION, ISOLATION!

We don't need anyone else.

(no message)

in how ineffective these types of deception have become. It's really the best aspect of the ascendance of populism. The masses have always been the safeguard against these stupid wars, but it has always taken years of futility and death before the masses turn against them and shut down them down. Now, I think any new glorious, direct effort to "protect and spread democracy abroad" will be a non-starter. I don't think the people are buying this crap anymore.

Other countries have no choice but to ally with the United States. It's absurd to argue that the U.S. will have no allies unless he intervene in all these different places. They all want access to our economy and they either fear or respect us. Gosh, what a horrible predicament we are in, huh?

horrific consequences!

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

(no message)