E. none of the above!Teenybloke wrote:If you oppose gays being allowed to marry you are either;
A. A homophobic bigot.
B. Stupid.
C. A religious zealot intent on suppression of freedom of humans.
D. All of the above.
That's a rather interesting assertion given practicing homosexuality is still illegal in many states.Rekaar. wrote:But no one is looking to make homosexuality itself illegal. It's marriage and family I want to protect, as those 2 institutions do effect the very core of our society.
A gay lifestyle by definition - and choice - precludes you from having children on your own. It's simply not natural for a family to not have a man and a woman.
OMG This reminds me of a sign Bakara and I saw a month ago. It was one of those church signs where they change the message every couple days to quote thr bible or give some cheesy religious message. This particular time it saidAdex_Xeda wrote:Absolute tolerance is evil, because it permits evil.
A loud minority in our culture would have it framed a virtue at the expense of scaring our society.
Why? Because wide open tolerance provides no response to unrestrained acts of selfishness; selfish acts that harm others.
There is no contention that it is living, there is contention that it is a living being of equal value to a human outside the womb. Don't get confused. Nobody is innocent of taking the life of another life form in some way. Just by being alive you have undoubtedly slaughtered many viral organisms (unless you're a bubble boy), trod on and killed several blades of grass, and likely eaten several plants and animals (if you're not vegitarian.) On what basis would you say that a 1 month fetus is of any greater value than a cockroach? The cockroach definitely has more mental capabilities.Tinkin Tankem wrote: As for the abortion subject. Plain and simple if you have sex with someone and concieve a child with them. Conception occurs at the time of sex or shortly there after. How could it be that the being is not living until 9 months later? Plain and simple abortion is just a nice word for whoops we fucked up let's kill it before it's too big. I'm sure if CNN even had a tape of a partial birth abortion they wouldn't even be allowed to air it, if they did there may be some different views on the subject.
Adex is stating a fact that absolute tolerance is evil. There are many things in society that should not, cannot and will not be tolerated. That is what both the billboard and Adex are saying.Lalanae wrote:OMG This reminds me of a sign Bakara and I saw a month ago. It was one of those church signs where they change the message every couple days to quote thr bible or give some cheesy religious message. This particular time it saidAdex_Xeda wrote:Absolute tolerance is evil, because it permits evil.
A loud minority in our culture would have it framed a virtue at the expense of scaring our society.
Why? Because wide open tolerance provides no response to unrestrained acts of selfishness; selfish acts that harm others.
"If you are too open-minded, your brains will fall out"
The stupidity had us laughing all the way home.
Well they're both wrong. You think it's evil to tolerate some things, and others believe it's wrong to tolerate others. You might believe tolerating homosexuality is wrong, yet some other religion might think tolerating Christians into their places of worship is wrong. Openmindedness is what will bring peace, not intolerance.Atokal wrote: Adex is stating a fact that absolute tolerance is evil. There are many things in society that should not, cannot and will not be tolerated. That is what both the billboard and Adex are saying.
It's human, but it's a fetus not a baby or a child.Tinkin Tankem wrote:How can you say that a fetus is living but be unsure if it is equal to a human being? If it's not a human what the fuck is it Sigourney?
Even if technically it's braindead?A child is a child no matter it's abilities.
Any religious arguments / personal beliefs are not relevant since this differs greatly among people.Tinkin Tankem wrote:I am simply putting it in the simplest of forms taking out all of the scientific definitions of when it is and is not a child/baby.
The obvious compromise would be for those who think it's wrong to not do it, and those who don't to do it. Allowing abortions would not impact society in any negative way, whereas prohibiting them would. If a woman really needs an abortion, she will do it. At this point, it becomes a question of is she going to go to Canada or some other country to do it, or is she going to risk her own life by using some questionable technique? If she is poor, then the latter is more likely. This is obviously a big minus for society, and since there is only the small minus of offending the sensibilities of some vs the big minus of potentially fatal improper abortions, I am going to have to go with allowing abortions. Especially since it's even debatable in the first place. Since it is, that means that it is not a universal value, and we should allow it so long as there is no adverse affect on society. Why do we limit drugs when that's debatable too? Because there are very negative aspects of widespread drug use. The same is not the case here.My question to you is who should be the deciding factor. Should it be my view since I think that any termination or abortion of any sort of human life is wrong? Or should it be you since you think it's ok and don't want my views to be imposed onto you?
Can you tell me why murder is legal is some circumstances and not in others? Let me know if you need help with this one - subjectivity has its limit. If someone killed your mom how would it effect my life or my society? Why should i think it wrong and make laws to punish the guilty party since it doesn't do anything to me personally?Lohrno wrote:Can you tell me why banning abortion would not be a great injustice to those who think it's not wrong, while telling me that currently there is a great injustice? Philosophical arguments only please.Tinkin Tankem wrote:I am simply putting it in the simplest of forms taking out all of the scientific definitions of when it is and is not a child/baby.
-=Lohrno
Sure!Rekaar. wrote: Can you tell me why murder is legal is some circumstances and not in others?
My mom, being a contributing member of society by just being there is valuable. It would affect our society as a whole as there is one less person paying taxes, and contributing to our society in other ways (IE social, economic, etc.) There is also the possibility that said person has not realized that they have an advese effect on society and might do this again. For this reason, this behavior can not be tolerated. As removing people from society is definitely harmful. What is society if it's not the people in it?Let me know if you need help with this one - subjectivity has its limit. If someone killed your mom how would it effect my life or my society?
Punitive laws are not usually intended to offer retribution to people, but to prevent such acts from happening again. The death penalty is the ultimate way of preventing one person from doing this act again. Most acts do not require such severe punishment to correct, and can keep people around. IE: There is no reason to put me to death if I am going 70 on a 55 mph highway. A fine is usually sufficient to make me think twice about this.Why should i think it wrong and make laws to punish the guilty party since it doesn't do anything to me personally?
Tinkin Tankem wrote:I'm sorry but your defense holds absolutely no weight. You're assuming that everyone in a society has a positive effect on society.
Notice the words self perpetuating, and social relationships. Just by existing in society she is a part of it. It is bad to remove people from society because it removes a social tie, and because it hurts the self-perpetuating factor. Therefore murder is bad for society. Fair enough?so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
1
a. The totality of social relationships among humans.
b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
This is not a thread about capital punishment, but fine I'll humor you. If she were a serial killer then yes it would be a good idea to end her life as she is acting in a way that is harmful to society. Ever hear the term "a menace to society?" If not, maybe not, we don't know the circumstances. There are tons of ways of killing people and not all of them are wrong.Unless your mother was a murderer herself. If she was would it be ok to abort her life?
Perhaps she'll get reformed and not kill anyone if she is in jail for a while. At least some of the social ties will still be preserved. I'm not sure how this is even relevant.Or would it have a positive impact on society if we left her to live in a prison for the rest of her life.
Where do you get that idea? Self defense would be the case of taking another's life to preserve your own. Abortion is the terminating of a human fetus. The fetus is not a person, it is a fetus with no self awareness. It wouldn't even know if it died or if it's living. The person about to kill you in a kill or be killed situation has thoughts in it's head.The thing that bothers me is that you fit abortions and self defense in the same category.
What if the next great mind was stopped from it's full potential because in school they were diagnosed with ADHD, and forced to take ritallin? What if the next great mind is living in Queens, NY and is run over by some drunk driver? What if the next great mind is produced by my sperm, however I am spending time writing to you so it will die and never reach it's full potential?You are stopping a living being from being able to reach it's full potential. What if this being were to be one of the next generations geniuses? We will never know if this was the case since none of the geniuses in the past were aborted while the aborted "fetuses" were and there is no way of telling whether they would or would not have been the next great mind.
It's a fetus not a child yet. An aborted fetus may actually have a positive effect in that the woman who's poor right now and can not support a child and climb to any level of success may be able to start a better life and raise a more healthy child. I don't see any minuses really.I really don't think that we can say whether or not an unborn child would be a damper on society, nor that it would be a positive.
Is all life valuable? What about the thousands of microorganisms you are killing right now?Would it not be compassionate to save a life rather than stop one from living?
As far as I'm concerned, until it can be demonstrated to have an immediate value, it is ok to kill it. A fetus has no immediate value, just potential. The same can be said for sperm cells.Well obviously not since technically it hasn't taken it's first breath of air and thus it isn't a baby yet, it's just a fetus.
In some rare cases, this has had to happen. Sometimes miscarriages and traumas happen, and the baby needs to be taken out so the mother can live. You are trying to paint an argument I am not making. Either that or you truly do not understand my words?We all know it's ok to kill a fetus in self defense right?
Great! There is. I can't kill you or steal from you without reprocussions because these are almost universally held morals.I would like to make something clear though. My beliefs and my morals although tied together and stemming from generally the same place are different things. My "beliefs" would be considered my faith in God, my belief in Christ, and the rest of the stories which follow the faith of Christianity. That being said my morals stem from this belief but are not this belief. They can be seperated. I know that many of my morals tie into many of the other religions, inside and outside of Christianity. So the idea that some things are good and some are bad coming from my religion would be a correct assumption. However saying that my desire to live in a society which shares my beliefs is not. I don't care if you do or do not believe in Christianity Judaism or any of the other major or minor religions. I do believe that there should be a common ground though.
You can call it jimminyfersnicket or hardcore baby snuff porn for all I care. The fact is that...and let me make this clear.I am also tired of people calling the murder of an unborn child an abortion simply because it makes their life easier to pass through rather than taking the results of their actions.
Agreed. If you do it you should do it early I think at least.If you screw up and choose to abort a child, then by all means do it before it even reaches the grey line of whether it has a thought process or not.
Thats what this place is for man.My apologies if that became a rant, I think I got most of it out though : ))
It infringes on all 3. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm just explaining why just about all societies don't let you murder people on a whim.Sueven wrote:I disagree with Lohrno's answer to your question. The reason you can't kill my mother is because it infringes upon her liberty. That is enough.
Unless war is declared, then it's a ffaLohrno wrote:It infringes on all 3. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm just explaining why just about all societies don't let you murder people on a whim.Sueven wrote:I disagree with Lohrno's answer to your question. The reason you can't kill my mother is because it infringes upon her liberty. That is enough.
-=Lohrno
If you were an American living in Iraq before war was declared, and then it was, and you went outside and butchered random Iraqis in the street (Im not taking a dig at soldiers here, I mean, grab a cleaver and walk down the road killing people in a Jason kind of way), would that make you a murderer, as in would you be trialed and sent to jail etc?Thess wrote:Unless war is declared, then it's a ffaLohrno wrote:It infringes on all 3. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm just explaining why just about all societies don't let you murder people on a whim.Sueven wrote:I disagree with Lohrno's answer to your question. The reason you can't kill my mother is because it infringes upon her liberty. That is enough.
-=Lohrno
Lalanae wrote:OMG This reminds me of a sign Bakara and I saw a month ago. It was one of those church signs where they change the message every couple days to quote thr bible or give some cheesy religious message. This particular time it saidAdex_Xeda wrote:Absolute tolerance is evil, because it permits evil.
A loud minority in our culture would have it framed a virtue at the expense of scaring our society.
Why? Because wide open tolerance provides no response to unrestrained acts of selfishness; selfish acts that harm others.
"If you are too open-minded, your brains will fall out"
The stupidity had us laughing all the way home.
This line of reasoning could be used as follows:Adex_Xeda wrote:Absolute tolerance is evil, because it permits evil.
The core of this discussion is largely focused on morality at the moment. However, this is a legal issue that we are discussing. We have a Constitution that declares freedom and liberty for all while promoting equality for all citizens. However, there are vocal groups within our religious cultures that feel that we should deny that equality based upon their religious doctrine. While this is a good argument for defining their morality, it is a poor argument for defining law.Adex_Xeda wrote:A loud minority in our culture would have it framed a virtue at the expense of scaring our society.
Why? Because wide open tolerance provides no response to unrestrained acts of selfishness; selfish acts that harm others.
Once again, it is completely irrelevant when "life" begins. In all arguments about abortion, I will be glad to assume that a fully concious human life begins at the moment of conception. While that is absurd scientifically, it is certainly "correct" religously if the assumption is that the "soul" of the person is created on conception. I am perfectly happy to conceed that point, again, because it is completely irrelevant.Adex wrote:Sueven wrote:I disagree with Lohrno's answer to your question. The reason you can't kill my mother is because it infringes upon her liberty. That is enough.
The same sentiment is extended by many to an unborn child.
The contention again would be the disputed starting point of where life begins.
and this only a sentance later:I don't treat [fags] any differently then I would a straight person
does not jive. Obviously if you think breeders should be able to get married and fags should not, then that is treating them differently. Perhaps, much like the southern gentleman of old who was magnaminous enough to allow the nigger to ride in the back of the same bus upstanding white folk were riding, when you say you do "not treat [fags] differently than [normal folk]" you just meant you don't spit on them when in range?I do not support gay marriage.
What you are removing from your equation is the consequence(s) of choice. The society you are nurturing is awash in easy fixes, no consequences, everything is ok.Aaeamdar wrote:
Here is a good exmaple. No one, I would hope, would disagree that a 19 y.o. female human is "life." Nor would anyone disagree that that life is worth protecting. But, if "life" is all we are concerned with, it makes perfectly good sense that if that 19 y.o. female human is dying and the only thing that can save her is one of my Kidneys (and we accept that I only need one of my two to live), then our laws should insist that I surrender one of my kidneys. They don't. Nor should they. Nor do our laws require a lesser surrender of my body - such as blood. If a 19 y.o. female human is going to die without a transfusion from my blood, I am completely free under our laws to refuse to provide that transfusion. Our laws do not even require that if I see that 19 y.o. female human in mortal peril - say dangling by one hand off a bridge - that I do anything to prevent her death. This even extends to me after I die! If my organs from my dead corpse are what is needed to prevent another human from dying - I can refuse to help even though I am dead.
Why? Because "its life" has nothing to do with it. My liberty to not surrender my person or to act in a particular manner trumps all your notions of "life" and its value under the laws, customs and social norms of our society. You Christains are not out there on a crusade to reguire organ donation upon death - something that would clearly save lives AND effect no other living being. You Christians are not out there trying to pass "good samaratin (sp?)" laws (well actually some of you are, but it does not generate the universal Christian Right fervour that abortion does). You Christains are not out there trying to pass laws that would mandate participation of the general populace in life saving medical procedures.
Yet you are all out there trying to significantly curtail the liberty of women on the basis that a fetus/embryo is "life."
So please, Adex, stop trying to "answer" that this is all some toss up that it all comes down to the unanswerable question of when "life" begins. It is not in anyway relevant to the conversation.
True, but why do we need to legislate that?Atokal wrote: Using abortion as post-fuck contraception is wrong and completely irresponsible.
Being pro-choice (legally speaking), I have to point out that if you disagree with this particular statement, you're probably an asstard. You're not going to find many intelligent people to argue this point.Atokal wrote:Using abortion as post-fuck contraception is wrong and completely irresponsible.
Agreed, and additionally it's irrelevant as we are not supposed to be legislating personal ethics.Niffoni wrote:Being pro-choice (legally speaking), I have to point out that if you disagree with this particular statement, you're probably an asstard. You're not going to find many intelligent people to argue this point.Atokal wrote:Using abortion as post-fuck contraception is wrong and completely irresponsible.
If a woman has one abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy (ie no health risks or extenuating circumstances) it is being used as contraception. Making the guy equally responsible for the baby NOT the abortion is quite simple with DNA testing etc.Aaeamdar wrote:That's why the Religous Right always falls back to those straw man arguments. Of course abortion should not be used as a means of contraception (something, mind you, that is definitionally impossible - excepting one case from Christian mythology). Toker (and those that would argue the point he made in his post above) does not understand the difference between "choice" and "assumption of risk." He also, like all other pro-life men, likes to toss around the idea that the man should also be responsible, which again is either impossible or completely misunderstands "responsibility" in the context of abortion.
Ahhh personal attacks. When you are losing an argument and don't have anything else clever to say, they feel good don't they?Atokal wrote: So Aaeamdar the guy who places No value on human life whether it is a man enjoying outdoor recreation or a fetus is offering opinions here?
Your own prejudiced and morally bankrupt views on the value of human life make your opinions of far less value.
You do understand that Schwarzneger's "Junior" was fictional, right? Making a man equally responsible as a woman for the concenquences of pregnancy is not possible. This is an issue of liberty, not money.Making the guy equally responsible for the baby NOT the abortion is quite simple with DNA testing etc.
No, that is not possible. It is being used in place of contraception or as a backup after contraception failed. Abortion, by definition, requires conception (except, again, in one case noted in Christian mythology) and therefor can never be used as contraception.If a woman has one abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy (ie no health risks or extenuating circumstances) it is being used as contraception.
I value human life. I just don't use a pretense that I value it over all other things when presenting my arguments. I leave that sort of dishonesty to "moral" people.So Aaeamdar the guy who places No value on human life whether it is a man enjoying outdoor recreation or a fetus is offering opinions here?
I dunno. I've let my conscious friend guide me back home on at least one occasion...Sueven wrote:3. Your signature doesn't make sense. The word you're looking for is "conscience."
It varies. It varies for you as well, if you are being honest. In some cases money is more important than human life. In the case we are talking about, liberty is more important than human life. I'll use money as an illustration because I think we can all agree on it and it makes a nice, cold example that should get people off their "sanctity of human life" high-horse.Reekar wrote:And so, in the dar hierarchy of values, what holds the top rung of importance if not life?
Aaeamdar wrote:Once again, it is completely irrelevant when "life" begins. In all arguments about abortion, I will be glad to assume that a fully concious human life begins at the moment of conception. While that is absurd scientifically, it is certainly "correct" religously if the assumption is that the "soul" of the person is created on conception. I am perfectly happy to conceed that point, again, because it is completely irrelevant.Adex wrote:Sueven wrote:I disagree with Lohrno's answer to your question. The reason you can't kill my mother is because it infringes upon her liberty. That is enough.
The same sentiment is extended by many to an unborn child.
The contention again would be the disputed starting point of where life begins.
So then "life" (e.g. a soul) begins at conception. Abortion is not about life, it is about liberty. By making the question about life, you get to ignore the effect that life is having on another living being. Life, however, once again, has nothing to do with it. You will recall my examples from the most recent (before this one) post on this issue.
Here is a good exmaple. No one, I would hope, would disagree that a 19 y.o. female human is "life." Nor would anyone disagree that that life is worth protecting. But, if "life" is all we are concerned with, it makes perfectly good sense that if that 19 y.o. female human is dying and the only thing that can save her is one of my Kidneys (and we accept that I only need one of my two to live), then our laws should insist that I surrender one of my kidneys. They don't. Nor should they. Nor do our laws require a lesser surrender of my body - such as blood. If a 19 y.o. female human is going to die without a transfusion from my blood, I am completely free under our laws to refuse to provide that transfusion. Our laws do not even require that if I see that 19 y.o. female human in mortal peril - say dangling by one hand off a bridge - that I do anything to prevent her death. This even extends to me after I die! If my organs from my dead corpse are what is needed to prevent another human from dying - I can refuse to help even though I am dead.
Why? Because "its life" has nothing to do with it. My liberty to not surrender my person or to act in a particular manner trumps all your notions of "life" and its value under the laws, customs and social norms of our society. You Christains are not out there on a crusade to reguire organ donation upon death - something that would clearly save lives AND effect no other living being. You Christians are not out there trying to pass "good samaratin (sp?)" laws (well actually some of you are, but it does not generate the universal Christian Right fervour that abortion does). You Christains are not out there trying to pass laws that would mandate participation of the general populace in life saving medical procedures.
Yet you are all out there trying to significantly curtail the liberty of women on the basis that a fetus/embryo is "life."
So please, Adex, stop trying to "answer" that this is all some toss up that it all comes down to the unanswerable question of when "life" begins. It is not in anyway relevant to the conversation.
If God did not permit evil, then we'd be robots, unfree to make our own choices. God allows evil out of respect to us. He gives us a choice. All of the chaos of this world can be linked back to individual choices outside of God's preference.archeiron wrote:This line of reasoning could be used as follows:Adex_Xeda wrote:Absolute tolerance is evil, because it permits evil.
God is evil because He permits evil.
