|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 11, 2004 8:57:16 GMT -5
Actually, I can agree that a system of values exists under which abortion is wrong. It is not, however, one that has ever been stably reproduced on earth. I do not see why women should be expected to follow a system of values that NO ONE ELSE is following.
Incidentally, Jesus was, if anything, a socialist.
|
|
Yukon
German Shepard
I am the YUKON MAN !
Posts: 13
|
Post by Yukon on Mar 11, 2004 9:29:48 GMT -5
I agree that women are entitled to and exercikse their right to remove unwanted fetal tissue from their bodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 11, 2004 12:09:42 GMT -5
Jesus was the opposite of a socialist. He believed we all have an individual responsibility to help those in need. Your compassion is not measured in how much you demand the government take from others but how much of your own money and time you're willing to give freely. I say this to correct your error. If you would like to explore this in more depth, start a thread about is so as not to highjack this one.
Sounds like you justify your behavior/belief system by the actions of others and what is generally considered acceptable by the society around you. I can't say I have much respect for that. Some people are principled even if everyone else is doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 14, 2004 22:06:46 GMT -5
mo, i completely agree with you on all aspects in this subject.
remedios: give me a reason, a plausible, logical reason why abortion is right? Not why it should be allowed but why the whole process and procedure is "okay", is morally right (not religion moral, but natural law moral), and lets see how selfish your reasoning is as well. If you can do that (excluding danger to mother and child, being that most abortions are done for convienience), then you won yourself an argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 15, 2004 20:28:08 GMT -5
The only reason your argument holds water is that Jesus offers choice where generosity is concerned, while socialists don't. My understanding is that this has EVERYTHING to do with moral choice and NOTHING to do with how Jesus would run the show if he didn't have to sort those who deserve to burn from those who don't. So you're basically arguing that since Jesus allows us to be selfish, our governments should too. And that's about the stupidest thing I've heard of of late, if for no other reason than that you are sincere in believing it.
What it boils down to is this: either we should all be forced to be like Jesus (i.e. to be generous, to prevent war, to "create a culture of life" AND to not have abortions) OR we should be able to make those decisions for ourselves, each according to his own conscience. As long as heads of state are allowed to go to war and kill innocent civilians based on some trumped up excuse, or politicians continue to line the pockets of the already rich to the detriment of the middle and working class, women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies in the first two trimesters without the government having a thing to say about it.
You do so if you'd like. I'm done.
To raja:
Because a fetus is no more attached to its life than a cow.
Because a fetus is only viewed as being more valuable because it is human life, rather than cow life, which is tribal reasoning of animal origin.
These are all reasons why abortion is not wrong. I believe that abortion is neither positively good nor positively bad. It is an act which has no more/ no less moral significance than killing a cow to eat.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 16, 2004 21:48:13 GMT -5
remedios: so, that shallow response is suppose justify sucking the elements of a developing human out of the uteras of a female like a vaccum. And also, lets be just here and face the FACT that not all abortions are done one "just a fetus" and many have organs developed and brains developed and are ripped apart piece by piece, head decapitated, and taken out piece by piece and the only thing justifying this is "Because a fetus is no more attached to its life than a cow."
Oh and also "These are all reasons why abortion is not wrong. I believe that abortion is neither positively good nor positively bad. It is an act which has no more/ no less moral significance than killing a cow to eat."
--Well I BELIEVE that there is no gray area to this. It is a violent act no matter how your view it, the actual procedure is violent. Your comparison to a cow is a weak comparison for the very reason you listed, IT IS a human fetus and humans are on a completely different field and level, therefore adding more value, hense why it is ILLEGAL to shoot a human rather than an animal. So please, don't justify a violent act to a developing HUMAN by comparing it to a COW. When something is wrong it is wrong, when something is "Not wrong" wouldn't that mean right? And even YOU had to cop out behind twisted wording ("not wrong"), and say it is a middle ground topic. Murder by shooting or stabbing someone is not middle ground, it is considered legally and morally WRONG, there is no "neither positively good nor positively bad" when concerning violence to any part of human, including a fetus.
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 16, 2004 21:54:28 GMT -5
mistake in last post, it is not from remedios, its from raja
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 16, 2004 22:37:26 GMT -5
You say "shallow," I say "totally legitimate." I'm perfectly willing to let you think what you think and live your life accordingly, why the heck can't you do the same? After all, I'm never going to abort one of YOUR babies, and you have total power to prevent any of YOUR babies from being aborted. Don't give me the typical crud about your "moral outrage" over the "murder" of innocents, 'cuz I don't buy it. More likely than not you're just a stodgy old republican man who wants to kick women back into the home, or a stupid old republican woman who doesn't understand the world in which she lives. Whatever you may actually be, it is undoubtedly the case that you are a moral hypocrit, supporting all sorts of slaughter and self-interest, so long as it doesn't disturb the status quo. Well guess what? The status quo WILL change. Always has, always will. Too bad for you.
Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse??? If you have and you yell as loudly with PETA and amnesty international about animal rights and the death penalty, then I'll have to give you kudos for consistency. I'll still think you're naive, but at least you'll get points for consistency.
That's great. Are you as glad as I am that we live in America, where there is freedom to choose on issues about which reasonable men may differ in opinion?
Why? I'd really like to get an answer to this question. I have had this discussion and gone down this line of reasoning with countless pro-lifers and have yet to run into one who could articulate exactly why human life is intrinsically "more valuable."
The reason it is illegal to shoot a human is that we, as humans, got together and decided that we'd rather not be able to be killed with impunity . . . because we value our lives and because our families value our lives, neither of which is true of an unborn, unwanted child. Morals developed as rules by which to live so that communities could stabilize and grow. Explain to me how women being able to abort unborn, unwanted children, ESPECIALLY in the first two trimesters, has a negative impact on the community - 'cuz I could make a LONG, LONG list of how legal abortion has a POSITIVE effect.
Perhaps, but it could also mean that it is of no moral significance. Is brushing your hair "right" or "wrong?" How 'bout taking a shower every other day instead of every day? What about drinking alcohol in moderation? Or accumulating and keeping more money than you need for financial security when there are people born into desperate financial straits everyday through no fault of their own?
I personally view abortion as falling roughly on the scale between drinking alcohol socially and being a greedy, selfish person, neither of which should be made illegal.
You clearly have a different opinion. Aren't you glad that we live in America, where there is freedom to choose on issues about which reasonable men may differ in opinion?
From the looks of most of your posts, apparently not. Apparently you'd much rather America officially be a Christian state, as Afghanistan is a Muslim one, or like the polygamy loving Mormon fundamentalist are trying to create out in the desert of Utah.
Actually, what I said was that abortion is neither wrong, NOR RIGHT. Go back and read it.
And when human beings stop going to war, allowing each other to starve, and endorsing state-sanctioned killing, I'll be perfectly fine with outlawing abortion.
You see, the real problem I have with so-called pro-lifers isn't that they want to make abortion illegal, but that they advance a reason for it (the sanctity of life) which they OBVIOUSLY do not really believe in, otherwise most of their other viewpoints would be very different.
I have ZERO problem with pro-life feminists, ZERO problem with anti-war, pro-life Catholics, or any other group who are consistent about their pro-life beliefs. The far right's stance on economic issues, capital punishment, and various assorted unnecessary wars BELIE their real motivation for wanting to make abortion illegal: to limit women's freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 17, 2004 23:48:01 GMT -5
"More likely than not you're just a stodgy old republican man who wants to kick women back into the home, or a stupid old republican woman who doesn't understand the world in which she lives."
--Well, the OBVIOUS fact that you can't judge who a person is by their opinion shows that you shouldn't assume at all, let alone post your assumption. The little info i will tell is that I am neither democrat nor republican. I go with the flow, so to speak, but as this country IS FREE OF OPINION i have my opinion on this matter and it does lean to a more conservative side. And I'm FAR from old. So leave your pathetic assumptions at the door thank you.
"Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse If you have and you yell as loudly with PETA and amnesty international about animal rights and the death penalty, then I'll have to give you kudos for consistency. I'll still think you're naive, but at least you'll get points for consistency."
--the problem with your argument is this constant comparison of humans to animals. Technically we are on top of the food chain, proving that we are on a different level. Although slaughtering of animals is a violent act, it is not the issue in this board. If I'm not wrong here, i do believe this issue is about abortion, so trying to justify it by comparing it to slaughtering animals is a bit twisted. There is a thing referred to as Natural Law. It isn't a religious term but a term referring to a human's natural morality. THAT natural morality is what decided that, oh, maybe humans shouldn't kill themselves. Not just because of value, but because of natural morals.
"Explain to me how women being able to abort unborn, unwanted children, ESPECIALLY in the first two trimesters, has a negative impact on the community"
--my argument is not about the affects of abortion on the community, it's about the affects of abortion on that child and its rights, if you haven't caught on to that just yet. Others shouldn't tell a woman what do to with her body just as that woman shouldn't decide what to do to a seperate being within them.
"Is brushing your hair "right" or "wrong?" How 'bout taking a shower every other day instead of every day? What about drinking alcohol in moderation?"
--Comparing the moral significance of a violent procedure of killing a fetus, or in some cases an almost fully developed child, to brushing hair and drinking alcohol is about the most ludicrious and morally confused statement i have ever seen.
"you'd much rather America officially be a Christian state"
--as i said in an earlier post, i DO NOT mention christian morals but rather natural law morals. The part of the human brain that distinguishes what is right and wrong. SO STOP the statements about me forcing Christianity among the people because they are unresearched and therefore unintelligent comments.
"And when human beings stop going to war, allowing each other to starve, and endorsing state-sanctioned killing, I'll be perfectly fine with outlawing abortion."
--these are each, completely seperate topics that the government handles seperately, as do I. My argument is not about these other important, but irrelevent issues, its about just one moral issue, abortion. Throwing these topics into the air still holds no justification to killing unborn children, it just brings more issues at hand.
"...BELIE their real motivation for wanting to make abortion illegal: to limit women's freedom."
--the fact that I am a woman shows that this does not hold true for ALL pro-lifers. I don't wish to limit my freedom but to justify a child's right to exist in this world once it's conceived. The fact that MANY pro-lifers are women, some who have had abortions and regret it, shows that your mislead as to what pro-lifers are motivated by.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 19, 2004 14:24:30 GMT -5
I said "more likely than not." Re-read it.
Funny, I don't have a problem with it.
Or only that we happen to be faster, smarter, and more well adapted to life on land AT THE MOMENT.
It'd be nice for you if it were that easy. Too bad it's not. The two are completely related logically and philosophically. Any argument to the contrary is an obvious but doomed attempt to extract oneself from the logically necessary conclusions of the question.
Please elaborate. What does the "natural law" have to say about adultery, murder, theft?
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 20, 2004 21:30:45 GMT -5
"I said "more likely than not." Re-read it"
--No need to re-read it because the concept that you included those four little words doesn't take away from the FACT that it was still an assumption either way, concrete or not...and it was quite possibly the farthest away from the truth that anyone could get so unfortunately it still renders pathetic.
Your Quote:Technically we are on top of the food chain, proving that we are on a different level.
Or only that we happen to be faster, smarter, and more well adapted to life on land AT THE MOMENT.
Your Quote:If I'm not wrong here, i do believe this issue is about abortion, so trying to justify it by comparing it to slaughtering animals is a bit twisted.
It'd be nice for you if it were that easy. Too bad it's not. The two are completely related logically and philosophically. Any argument to the contrary is an obvious but doomed attempt to extract oneself from the logically necessary conclusions of the question.
Your Quote:There is a thing referred to as Natural Law. It isn't a religious term but a term referring to a human's natural morality. THAT natural morality is what decided that, oh, maybe humans shouldn't kill themselves. Not just because of value, but because of natural morals.
Please elaborate. What does the "natural law" have to say about adultery, murder, theft?
--my elaboration of all these issues, in one sense or another is located in my post responce on the "abortion after rape" post.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 21, 2004 13:18:36 GMT -5
As long as I didn't claim that you absolutely were either one of the things I speculated about, you really don't have a point. I can muse about my adversarial opponents all I like. You can as well, mind you, and I will simply confirm or refute your musings. I would not, however, think the fact that you muse would commenting on, especially not for rhetorical effect. But then again, you are outgunned rhetorically.
Actually, my musings stand unanswered. Until you offer some evidence to the contrary, they also stand quite legitimate. Evidence like . . . oh, I don't know, a secular basis for creating a culture of life that is philosophically consistent.
Here we go again: WHY? If you can't answer the question (not that it's unanswerable) you shouldn't be debating abortion, because this question is what (among other things) it logically comes down to.
No, it's not. So you can't answer the question, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 23, 2004 1:41:49 GMT -5
"As long as I didn't claim that you absolutely were either one of the things I speculated about, you really don't have a point. I can muse about my adversarial opponents all I like. You can as well, mind you, and I will simply confirm or refute your musings. I would not, however, think the fact that you muse would commenting on, especially not for rhetorical effect. But then again, you are outgunned rhetorically."
--actually by speculating and posting that speculation as being more likely this or else more likely that, you are not just being commented on your musing but on the fact that your musing is so uneducated and uncultivated which doesn't reflect well on you and what you argue. My point was that if you don't know anything about what you're speculating why not be civil and simply ask instead of imply and assume that which you undoubtably DON'T know.
"Whatever you may actually be, it is undoubtedly the case that you are a moral hypocrit, supporting all sorts of slaughter and self-interest,"
--since you YET AGAIN have no evidence of this superficial statement, it is UNDOUBTEDLY the case that you are rude to assume these things and unaquainted with what you so certainly speculate, so maybe you should take my latter advice and leave those pitiful statements at the door. To answer your question, i do not support all sorts of slaughter and self-interest as you so CERTAINLY thought i did but your blindness in judgement once again doesn't reflect well on you and your arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 23, 2004 18:30:30 GMT -5
Neither does the terrifically horrible grammar in every last one of your posts. Are you aware that they often approach being totally unintelligible?
Because I didn't have to do to get the information I wanted. As it is abundantly clear to me that you are someone who would does not respect other people and their right to make their own choices free from intervention and pro-life propaganda, I have absolutely zero problem with manipulating you in whatever fashion I see fit.
To bad saying it doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 24, 2004 0:49:21 GMT -5
"Neither does the terrifically horrible grammar in every last one of your posts. Are you aware that they often approach being totally unintelligible?"
--I'm sorry, i didn't know this was grammer school. I guess i suffer from having many thoughts to write down and writing them down too fast. Thanks, Miss Anal retentive for correcting me.
"Because I didn't have to do to get the information I wanted. As it is abundantly clear to me that you are someone who would does not respect other people and their right to make their own choices free from intervention and pro-life propaganda, I have absolutely zero problem with manipulating you in whatever fashion I see fit.
--"because i didn't have TO DO to get the information, or "...that you are someone who WOULD DOES not respect other people..." Now THAT'S what proper grammer should look like boys and girls.
--I suppose in my case it would be hard to manipulate a narrow minded, tunnel visioned person, such as yourself...but just so you know, manipulating and attempting to manipulate differ, and what you are undoubtably doing is the latter of the two.
|
|
