Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on August 04, 2004, 06:33:20 pm
-
Which are you (not using parties cause they sometimes misreperesent their members)
Myself---> Centrist Conservative
-
I am hereby boycotting this poll because your options only cover one axis.
-
A bit of both extremes... so... Vegetable... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I am hereby boycotting this poll because your options only cover one axis.
Anarchist?
EDIT: Sorry about that G, I was clarifying who I was directing the question at.
-
nevermind...
-
Generally a tolerant bloke.
Except when it comes to punishing rapists, murderers and paedophiles (but not with the death penalty).
Support asylum & EU integration (go euro!).
Pro the abolition of firearms, also free university tuition.
For global trade, but only under the proviso of rules which ensure it is fair.
Want 3rd world debt to be abolished for all democratic nations, and a reward scheme to encourage non-democratic nations to democratise.
For public transport investment ahead of investment in roads.
Pro speed cameras.
Anti war
Against the tabloid media
What does that come under?
-
All balances out, leaving you in limbo, or one some third axis somewhere...
-
EDIT: Centrist, maybe centrist liberal.
-
Libertarian left here, the extreme-ness depends on how practical I'm being.
-
True, this only covers one axis, so its only partially compehensive. I put down liberal.
aldo: liberal probably.
-
I'm not really sure what the word is.
I don't believe in democracy (anymore), i think countries should be ruled by a group of anonomous interlects, who aren't voted into power. Thus they make the best decision, as apposed to the descision that will get them re-elected. This sort of thing stops G W Bush getting into power. The group of interlects would be monitored/moderated to prevent coruption by another group (with appropriate monitoring too). Citizens would enjoy a reasonable amount of freedom in their lives, but be encouraged to make a valid contribution to the nation and be good citizens.
Unfortunatly i don't belive this form of goverment will be seen soon, as the general populace is too stupid/greedy to accept it.
But anyway
As far as my 'moral' standpoint, I am quite liberal, i do believe in things like abortion, legal recognition of gay couples etc.
Imigration is something i've been thinking about a lot lately. I'm a bit more conservative about this, i think asylum seekers should be closely screened, and only those let with valuable skills (ie doctors, teachers, educated people) let in to the country. Many imigrants make a valuable contribution to the nation, but equally some are welfare cheats and even terrorist. Those fleeing persicution surely have more places to go than just Great Britain.
Ultimatly I beleive in solving problems via the best solution, than taking a one sided politcal view and sticking to it.
Edit.
Mmmm, anyone for controversy?
-
i couldn't give a flying ****
-
Am I the only farking conservative?! :shaking:
-
Libertarian/Centrist Liberal.
-
Centrist.
Except for when it comes to Europe. They can go take **** to themselves. God save the Queen.
-
Vegie over here. :p
Wow, it's actually turning out quite balanced. :)
-
Two vegetables... anyone got some lentils and we can make soup?
-
Originally posted by beatspete
I'm not really sure what the word is.
I don't believe in democracy (anymore), i think countries should be ruled by a group of anonomous interlects, who aren't voted into power. Thus they make the best decision, as apposed to the descision that will get them re-elected. This sort of thing stops G W Bush getting into power. The group of interlects would be monitored/moderated to prevent coruption by another group (with appropriate monitoring too). Citizens would enjoy a reasonable amount of freedom in their lives, but be encouraged to make a valid contribution to the nation and be good citizens.
Unfortunatly i don't belive this form of goverment will be seen soon, as the general populace is too stupid/greedy to accept it.
So speaks the arm-chair philosopher. If you had ever lived under such a system, you would hold quite different views. Power without accountability/disposability is almost guaranteed to produce corruption and generally bad conditions for the population.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Generally a tolerant bloke.
Except when it comes to punishing rapists, murderers and paedophiles (but not with the death penalty).
Support asylum & EU integration (go euro!).
Pro the abolition of firearms, also free university tuition.
For global trade, but only under the proviso of rules which ensure it is fair.
Want 3rd world debt to be abolished for all democratic nations, and a reward scheme to encourage non-democratic nations to democratise.
For public transport investment ahead of investment in roads.
Pro speed cameras.
Anti war
Against the tabloid media
What does that come under?
[color=66ff00]I like you.
[/color]
-
Independent of the left and right.
-
centrist liberal
-
Someone here had to represent the uber-conservatives :p
I'm against abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and the EU. I'm for small government, completely legalized firearms (guns don't kill people, I do :p), the kicking of terrorist ass, and getting the US out of the UN. I'd also like to see the rest of the world take some responsibility in solving the world's problems, but I guess that's just a pipe dream :).
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Someone here had to represent the uber-conservatives :p
I'm against abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and the EU. I'm for small government, completely legalized firearms (guns don't kill people, I do :p), the kicking of terrorist ass, and getting the US out of the UN.
The US out of the UN? What I wouldn't give to see that. Seriously, I would devote my time to supporting any major US politician with this as his agenda. Of course, they're not that stupid, they have to maintain a facade of you, know, not being a hegemonic power.
-
So mongoose is in favor of forcing women to carry babies to term that will cause their death, are the results of rape, are massively deformed (inhumane to the mother and the baby), etc
he wants to deny people their human rights and prohibit them from entering into civil contracts
he wants to prevent us from creating medical technologies that will save millions of lives and cure debilitating diseases (so much for sanctity of life!)
he is against the EU which is the europe tending tword becoming a centralized power and more stable thereby
Small government we can agree on, just how small is a different matter
I am in favor of legalizing almost all firearms -- but you must get a license (guns laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, and people kill people - they only sometimes use guns)
I'm all in favor of kicking the ass of _REAL_ terrorists
US out of the UN = bad idea, isolationism harmed us in the past, it will harm us again -- you should learn from your mistakes. The UN does need to get off it's collective asses and do things about the genocide in Sudan, etc
-
A *classical* liberal, not a modern one. Hence, I believe in freedom, not socialism.
Constitutionalist.
-
oh yeah -- people who believe in god but are anti-gay
the majority of fertilized eggs never become children - they are _NATURALLY_ aborted -- so if god created us, that requires that he created that situation as well -- so god is the largest pro-abortion and abortion-giver in existance [were he to exist]
bazing
-
Originally posted by Kazan
So mongoose is in favor of forcing women to carry babies to term that will cause their death, are the results of rape, are massively deformed (inhumane to the mother and the baby), etc
he wants to deny people their human rights and prohibit them from entering into civil contracts
he wants to prevent us from creating medical technologies that will save millions of lives and cure debilitating diseases (so much for sanctity of life!)
he is against the EU which is the europe tending tword becoming a centralized power and more stable thereby
Small government we can agree on, just how small is a different matter
I am in favor of legalizing almost all firearms -- but you must get a license (guns laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, and people kill people - they only sometimes use guns)
I'm all in favor of kicking the ass of _REAL_ terrorists
US out of the UN = bad idea, isolationism harmed us in the past, it will harm us again -- you should learn from your mistakes. The UN does need to get off it's collective asses and do things about the genocide in Sudan, etc
Funny, you seem to forget mentioning the unborn children that are brutally murdered through abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. I guess they don't matter, do they? Remember: you were once an embryo yourself, and if your mother had decided to abort you, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Oh, and by the way, marriage has been an established institution for thousands of years between a single man and woman. I don't see how obliterating this for a bunch of whining ultra-liberals will help this world in any faction. In fact, I see it as further moral degredation.
Actually, I don't really care about the EU too much. If a bunch of European countries want to give up their sovereignty and national pride to make themselves feel like a superpower, that's their own business. As long as the trend doesn't spread overseas, I'm fine with that.
I'm not promoting isolationism; I'm simply stating that the UN has become corrupt, bloated, and utterly ineffective in today's world. Their inability to uphold their own resolution against Iraq shows this very clearly. Which country contributes the most money toward the UN and international aid programs? That's right, it's the US. We've been footing the UN's bill for far too long; it's time for some of the other member nations to stop spewing hot air and put their money where their mouths are.
When I first saw these forums, I told myself that, due to the decidedly left-leaning tone, I wouldn't involve myself in political discussion here. I thought that I would just be inviting flame wars upon myself. I was just going to visit this board as a Freespace fan, nothing more. Unfortunately, I was unable to keep my political opinions bottled up forever. I hope you don't think of me as a freakish racist bigot; nothing could be further from the truth. I simply have differing opinions from the majority of members of this board.
(I should have just stuck to the DBB's Ethics and Commentary forum, like a good Descenter, but I just had to stick my neck out, didn't I? :p)
-
A) "brutally" is patently false, and they're not children, they're featuses - the mothers rights trump theirs as they are not alive they - they are NOT their own life form they are dependant on their mothers body
"and if your mother had decided to abort you, we wouldn't be having this conversation" isn't an argument, it's a tautology, a pointless one at that which doesn't further your argument except in your own simple mind
B) "marriage has been an established institution for thousands of years between a single man and woman" WRONG AGAIN -- in many religions and cultures it is NOT so, and infact has NEVER been so
C) "Actually, I don't really care about the EU too much. If a bunch of European countries want to give up their sovereignty and national pride to make themselves feel like a superpower, that's their own business. As long as the trend doesn't spread overseas, I'm fine with that."
ten minutes ago you said the opposite - has new evidence come to you since then, or did my post getcha?
D) UN I generally gree with this statement
E) Denying that you are a "freakish, racist, bigot" doesn't make that true -- you're against homosexual marriage - that makes you a bigot, sad but true
-
You know, he has a small bit of a point. As it currently stands, the UN is virtually useless. It needs to be reformed to have some actual power to enforce its rulings, as opposed to depending on member states.
-
Kazan, there is an enormous difference between a miscarriage and the deliberate, cold-blooded "termination" of a pregnancy. If you can't see that, then I truly pity you. I also pity your lack of belief in God, but I'm not going to go into that.
Does it matter if a fetus is dependent on its mother for its survival? Does that make it any less of a human? I, for one, say no. A fetus is a separate organism, with its own unique genetic pattern, created at the moment of conception. It has the same right to live a full life as its mother does. I've always thought it to be ridiculous how some people could argue that, just because the fetus is not born or fully developed, it is any less of a human life. A fetus meets all of the biological criteria of human life; there is no realistic way that you can claim that a fetus is anything less than human. My "tautology," showing my "simple-mindedness," was meant to reinforce that point: every person once started out as a single fertilized egg. That one cell contained all of the potential to create a lifetime of personal experiences, accomplishments, and emotions. You advocate throwing all of this away for reasons of convenience. Even if you don't believe the fetus itself is human life, surely you acknowledge that a newborn baby is. Obviously, a fetus will someday become that newborn. Are you willing to sacrifice the potential of a life that could accomplish great feats just to protect some precious "right of choice" that does not even exist in the first place?
It is true that, in some cultures, polygamy and other practices are and have been the norm and accepted standard. But for the vast majority of civilized human history, spanning thousands of cultures and peoples, marriage has been defined as one man, one woman. What changed in the past three years or so to make this definition malleable? I don't see anything different with the world. Why is this suddenly such a huge issue? If homosexuals always desired marriage, why wasn't it an issue in the past? I myself see the drive for same-sex marriage as an attempt to foist the homosexual lifestyle on society as "normal" and "acceptable." Call me a bigot, but it is not. You know that the biological function of human sexuality is to produce offspring, and obviously, a homosexual couple cannot do so unassisted. Marriage, as an institution, was developed to foster development of the family unit. Same-sex marriage is yet another assault on the basic family structure, which has been the cornerstone of society for thousands of years. Yeah, sounds like a great idea to end all that for "equality's sake," doesn't it?
About the EU: I personally disagree with it, and I don't understand the rationale of nations that joined it. My last post didn't change my position but merely clarified. As I said, I would like it if the EU was no more, but I consider the issue to be one which Europe will decide for itself, for good or ill. Interestingly enough, recent financial predictions have suggested that the Euro will most likely fail within several years' time. It seems as though this experiment in global government, which I consider to be very dangerous, will not succeed.
Once again: one who does not want the "normalcy" of a same-sex couple forced onto them by a bunch of ultra-liberals is not a bigot, no matter what your opinion is. I do not see anything wrong with the actual state of homosexuality, since I understand that it is at least in part influenced by factors beyond a person's control. However, being a homosexual does not give one the license to "marry" someone of one's own sex. Homosexuality can be psychologically treated, just as excessive heterosexual sex drive can. I am personally against both homosexual and heterosexual activity outside of the marriage of a man and a woman, for the purpose of bringing forth new life. If you want to keep calling me a bigot, I can't stop you. In response, however, I will say that I see you as morally decrepit. If there is any way that we can see past these limited judgments of each other, let's try to.
-
My "tautology," showing my "simple-mindedness," was meant to reinforce that point: every person once started out as a single fertilized egg. That one cell contained all of the potential to create a lifetime of personal experiences, accomplishments, and emotions.
Then is it a tragedy every time a couple decides not to get pregnant? (this is not a refuttal of an anti-abortion position, just something for you to think about)
It is true that, in some cultures, polygamy and other practices are and have been the norm and accepted standard. But for the vast majority of civilized human history, spanning thousands of cultures and peoples, marriage has been defined as one man, one woman. What changed in the past three years or so to make this definition malleable? I don't see anything different with the world. Why is this suddenly such a huge issue? If homosexuals always desired marriage, why wasn't it an issue in the past?
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo
2. Homosexual relationships were only accepted openly a short while ago.
I myself see the drive for same-sex marriage as an attempt to foist the homosexual lifestyle on society as "normal" and "acceptable." Call me a bigot, but it is not. You know that the biological function of human sexuality is to produce offspring, and obviously, a homosexual couple cannot do so unassisted. Marriage, as an institution, was developed to foster development of the family unit. Same-sex marriage is yet another assault on the basic family structure, which has been the cornerstone of society for thousands of years. Yeah, sounds like a great idea to end all that for "equality's sake," doesn't it?
If marriage is that easy to fracture, then it wouldn't have lasted these thousands of years.
A more effective way of preserving families would be to spend more effort nurturing it from the inside, instead of wasting time attacking outside phantom threats to it, no?
Kinda like patriotism.
Edit -P.S. if you want to preserve marriages, then why not just ban divorce?
-
Had to vote vegetable, since in most democratic countries there are MORE than just 2 political main directions.
-
Oh jesus, another one of these?
I think Soviet Russia was cool, you tell me.
-
Comrade!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If you had ever lived under such a system, you would hold quite different views.
Maybe. Maybe not. Living under the current 'system' of democracy, I see bad decisions and corruption in the goverment daily. The goverment doesnt do what the people want it to do, and the people dont want to do what the goverment wants.
There's never a perfect solution to government, ofcourse.
Originally posted by Rictor
So speaks the arm-chair philosopher.
As apposed to the radical extremist philosopher?
Anyway, politics isnt my field. I'm an engineer, I solve problems, not create them.
-
A quick couple of words here:
The reasons against gay marriage are pointless...
1) Gay marriages were present since the ancient greece, see Athens.
2) If the reason against it is old time tradition, then paedophiles should be accepted too with this line of reasonement (see ancient greeks as for 1)
Oh, and about the EU:
Do not underestimate them, in the long term Russia will join and then the US will most likely be surpassed as superpower...
About abortion: being an unwanted children is something you should think about...
Unless adoption will be made MUCH easier i will always be pro abortion, and not only for medical reasons...
-
there were sancitified homosexual marriages in the catholic church in the 3rd century AD
furthemore mongoose -- it is _NOT_ it's own lifeform as it cannot exist outside it's mothers body, and if unique geneitic material makes it it's own thing then every cell in our body is host to another lifeform - our mitchondria
get past authoritarian morality and start using your brain - things are NOT black and white... and your "sanctity of life" **** is exactly that: ****
A) you're against research that would save millions of lives (and no, not all stem cells have to come from fertilized eggs -- not like all fertilized eggs become children anyway
B) i'm sure you're pro-death penalty, it would fit your demographic
furthermore your loaded language "cold-blooded yada yada bull****" is nothing but you getting caught up in emotionally charged language -- if you don't like abortion so be it, don't get one, but don't tell other people what to do with THEIR BODY (until the 'date of viability' late in the 3rd tri it _IS_ part of the mothers body) ---- the mothers rights to bodily integrity and health come first
-
heading off a moronic argument here
speaking of paedophiles -- are you aware that the gender of their victims has nothing to do with their sexual orientation - it's purely an opportunitistic thing
[thank you psychology :D]
-
Conservative, hell, im down here in Bush-town nothin else to be:p
-
Afraid.
-
Blaise: classic
-
Of me? or Mr Bush?
-
probably Mr ****-on-The-Constitution Bush
-
Everyone, I suppose. People are scary, especially when it comes to politics and such. They say things like 'we must encourage and protect decency and moral fibre' or 'it has to be done for the good of the workers' and I go all pale and start shivering like crazy.
My one battle-cry is "Can't we all just... leave each other the hell alone?" Not really much of one, but I lack the capacity to believe myself so correct that I can happily enforce my views on other people with nary a second thought.
-
First of all, the poll in itself is fairly inadequat, since I consider myself a Right-Liberal, which means that I am in favor of a Minarchist government...
So, it depends of how you interpret liberal. If you say left-wing wackos are liberal, than I am certainly not a liberal. I also tend not be a conservative, because at the moment, conservatives are mostly neo-cons.. (wherever this term came from... It'd be Christian Socialists, rather than Conservatives)...
So, it is not easy to choose.. I suggest this formula instead:
- Communist
- Socialist (Marxian, Democrats (US))
- Left-Wing Anarchist
- Right-Wing Anarchist (Proudhon etc.)
- Classic Liberals
- Conservatives
- Neo-Cons
- Fashists
That'd be a bit wider in political schemes :)
-
No it wouldn't.
-
I maintain that the axes-and-coordinates way is the best system of displaying political alignment.
Alors,
(http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/composers.gif)
-
Seeing that some argument with conservativism and Bush, I have to concur here. Bush is not a classic conservative, but rather a new breed, which is called neo-con.
Since conservatives of the old class did not confuse religion and state-politics in any way. The US have god in their constitution, that's right, but still most conservatives have never let god come in their way of just and reasoned thinking... until the late 60s...
Now, to something completely different, since I am concerned that some might argument against homosexuality by using the bible, this is foolish thinking. It is always a question of interpretation and of context. The bible doesn't prove any side completely right, so it is no use. Besides, the book was written by a human mind and thus it lacks the divinity of god (thereby argumenting on your religious ground). So, instead you should use your head and think about it ;)
As for civil liberties and most of all same-sex-marriage, I can only point to:
Light of Reason - featuring many reports on the on-going war on people (http://blog.light-of-reason.com/)
-
I am rather distrubt, that you can position musicians so clearly in political era, but it might be that I never actually went to read their political essays or opinions (if they exist ?!).
And yes, it would indeed widen the poll, because the poll is not self-explanatory in its current state, since I don't clearly know what you mean with centrist liberal, because such does not exist. You can't hold and eat the same cake at a time, it's a contradiction.
If you are libertarian you still will choose whether you are slightly right-winged or left-winged :)
This is decided when you proclaim to be pro- or contra- free markets :)
So, this poll is not yet perfect ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
So mongoose is in favor of forcing women to carry babies to term that will cause their death, are the results of rape, are massively deformed (inhumane to the mother and the baby), etc
he wants to deny people their human rights and prohibit them from entering into civil contracts
he wants to prevent us from creating medical technologies that will save millions of lives and cure debilitating diseases (so much for sanctity of life!)
he is against the EU which is the europe tending tword becoming a centralized power and more stable thereby
Small government we can agree on, just how small is a different matter
I am in favor of legalizing almost all firearms -- but you must get a license (guns laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, and people kill people - they only sometimes use guns)
I'm all in favor of kicking the ass of _REAL_ terrorists
US out of the UN = bad idea, isolationism harmed us in the past, it will harm us again -- you should learn from your mistakes. The UN does need to get off it's collective asses and do things about the genocide in Sudan, etc
centrist liberal? :doubt:
I dont fit on the liberal side and im only half conservative, so i voted vegetable
-
Yeah, I think he is pretty Centrist Liberal, if something like that exists..
Although I disagree about the free-arms thing, because we already have it (with controls and so)..
And I think that since the UN has no real success to show off, it didn't matter if the US is in or out, because they really just do what they think is necessary in their eyes.
So, in regard to the US, it is back to bilateral treaties :D
On the abortion, research and civil liberties issues, I am with Kazan :)
-
I voted vegetable because I am a potato. Mmmmm.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
I'm not really sure what the word is.
I don't believe in democracy (anymore), i think countries should be ruled by a group of anonomous interlects, who aren't voted into power. Thus they make the best decision, as apposed to the descision that will get them re-elected. This sort of thing stops G W Bush getting into power. The group of interlects would be monitored/moderated to prevent coruption by another group (with appropriate monitoring too). Citizens would enjoy a reasonable amount of freedom in their lives, but be encouraged to make a valid contribution to the nation and be good citizens.
Unfortunatly i don't belive this form of goverment will be seen soon, as the general populace is too stupid/greedy to accept it.
But anyway
As far as my 'moral' standpoint, I am quite liberal, i do believe in things like abortion, legal recognition of gay couples etc.
Imigration is something i've been thinking about a lot lately. I'm a bit more conservative about this, i think asylum seekers should be closely screened, and only those let with valuable skills (ie doctors, teachers, educated people) let in to the country. Many imigrants make a valuable contribution to the nation, but equally some are welfare cheats and even terrorist. Those fleeing persicution surely have more places to go than just Great Britain.
Ultimatly I beleive in solving problems via the best solution, than taking a one sided politcal view and sticking to it.
Edit.
Mmmm, anyone for controversy?
Brave New World...
-
Brave New World ;)
Yeah, I don't think this would work for several reasons :)
Who would be the monitoring groups? Who would elect them and on what legitimate basis could they rule the people of this country?
Who says that intellectuals can really do the right choices? Many people in the Nazi regime were very intelligent (Goebbels f.e.) and even those in the Monarchies before WW I had outstanding knowledge (Germany's Realpolitician Bismarck f.e.), so how do you define intellectual?
And the third thing is, do those people know how to organize a state or do they have knowledge on fields like morality and so on? (Good, on the contrary do have todays politicians knowledge on those fields ;) )
So, you restrict freedom by an assumed greater good of the nation (in other words, the ruling class government?). This is not freedom, this is the start to an authoritarian state.
Who will stop those intellectuals if they make a bargain with the monitoring party?
Is there a freedom of media?
Your Idea, beatspete, reminds me a bit of a elite-version of communism :)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
So mongoose is in favor of forcing women to carry babies to term that will cause their death, are the results of rape, are massively deformed (inhumane to the mother and the baby), etc
Deformed babies are still precious, babies that are the result of R, the mother should have a choice, but maybe cared by the mother and if not, put up for adoption into a loving home (probably the best option).
Anyway, if I were in an insulting mood I could say that Kazan is in favor of killing babies and wasting precious life. Life is too precious just to throw away because someone wanted to do whatever they wanted. Now they have to accept the consequences of their actions. One of the major differences (my thoughts) between liberals and conservatives is the idea of responsibility, one has it, the other does not.
Chill
-
Hmmm... It appears that were pretty evenly split, however most political threads are started from the liberal viewpoint. Anyone know why this is?
(Mmmmm... vegetables....)
-
furthemore mongoose -- it is _NOT_ it's own lifeform as it cannot exist outside it's mothers body, and if unique geneitic material makes it it's own thing then every cell in our body is host to another lifeform - our mitchondria
Then at what point does the fetus become more than that? When it's born? When the brain develops (which is well before birth)?
-
Yes, but another difference is the legitimation of this responisibility. The liberals believe that anyone can do with his life what he wants, as long as it does not limit the personal liberty of another person as proclaimed in the Bill of Rights, f.e.
The Conservatives, however, believe that they are in possession of the ultimate right to know what is good and just about another persons life (that's why they force a war on drugs, alcohol and smoking). They seem to think that the government has the responsibility and the means to adjust people to their own believes. They claim that an abortion would be a violation of the sacred (through god ?!) life of an unborn.
There you can argue whether the life in existence or the life in potentia is the more important one? How can we dare to force a human being to give birth to something they didn't want or they have not the means to take care of? And one step further can we decide whether the child could survive under certain conditions within the family?
No, we can't say it, thus we have to leave the decision in the caring and knowing hands of the woman. Instead we should advise her on the problems of abortion. I think the woman will be reasonable and intelligent enough to decide wisely by taking everything into account....
The Conservatives deny this right to the mother, which seems to say that they believe women and men, except themselves, to be stupid and ignorant to the situation...
-
Thank you, Deepblue. That was a nice sum-up of what I was attempting to say about abortion, although I couldn't get it across right.
Mr. Vega: I am opposed to artificial contraception, so yes, I think it is a shame when couples decide to not have children. I believe that marriage is of twofold purpose: the sharing of love and the giving of new life. Contraception prevents one of these from occurring, and as such, I do not agree with it. I am also opposed to divorce; I actually believe in the "till death do us part" aspect of marriage.
Zarax: Is being an unwanted child worse than never having a chance at life at all? I don't think so myself. All human life is precious and should be treated as such. Many children from broken families have grown up to accomplish great things. Would you eliminate the gifts that these people have to share? Is killing an unborn child simply because it is "unwanted" really that much of a favor? Oh, and I highly doubt that the EU will ever obtain the same status as the United States. God forbid that ever happen.
Kazan: Abortion isn't just an issue of the mother. Millions of people from my generation have been killed because of it. I could have lost best friends, co-workers, and even my future wife because of abortion. It really does affect society as a whole and is much more than a personal "choice." Abortion truly is killing our future, removing the potential for human growth that all of those lives represent. By your description, a fetus is something akin to a tumor, dependent on its host for nourishment. I hope I speak for most people when I say that this is far from the truth. You keep making reference to "mother's health," but very few abortions are performed for that reason. "Health," as stated in Roe v. Wade, has come to mean such things as emotional well-being or lack of mental stress. For the most part, abortion has nothing to do with physical well-being and everything to do with convenience.
I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the death penalty. While I think that taking a life for a life really doesn't accomplish anything, I recognize that the state has the right to protect its citizens, and that sometimes, the death penalty may be a required method of doing so.
Tell me: why exactly is the sancity of human life "****"? What kind of view of humanity is that? I wonder about your own mental status if that's what you think of humanity.
I did not say that I was against all stem-cell research; stem cells can be obtained from umbilical cords and even the adult body. What I am against is killing embryos to obtain stem cells. It's not hard to see how this could easily lead to "farming" embryos for usable cells. Now that's a frightening concept.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with my language. I disagree with you; some things in this world are black and white. Abortion is one of them. You're wrong: it isn't the woman's body, it's also the unborn child's. It has as much right to live as the mother. The mother is entrusted with the care of her child, and abortion is the ultimate betrayal of that trust. I have every right to say that abortion should be outlawed; those whom abortion affects have no voice to cry out against it, so it is up to the rest of us to defend them.
-
With that much vegetables in the poll, someone care for a mixed salad ? :p
-
"Oh, and I highly doubt that the EU will ever obtain the same status as the United States. God forbid that ever happen."
Tell me when some god forbade EU to became a world superpower and show me where...
I won't be rude but i want to remember you that if the US are a superpower today is also thanks to the toil and ingenuity of many europeans.
An enlarged EU, with the resources coming from Russia and north african countries can very well be a world class superpower.
And about abortion: banning it won't solve the problem, it will just make it harder and more risky for mother's life. People would go to illegal ways and still do it.
If you want to reduce abortion you have to make adopting children MUCH easier and allow for much better support for "orphan" (might be an unadequate word) children.
However, this would require public spending and a basic welfare support that right parties would never allow.
-
Wow, well said, Mongoose. :yes:
-
Mr. Vega: I am opposed to artificial contraception, so yes, I think it is a shame when couples decide to not have children.
Overpopulation! Famine! Disease! W00T!
Drop the birth rate to zero and there wouldn't be hearing about people dying by the thousands in countries like Ethiopia.
Personally I'm all for dropping the population to 2 or 3 billion until we begin space colonization.
"Oh, and I highly doubt that the EU will ever obtain the same status as the United States. God forbid that ever happen."
If that happens it will be because they got their act together, in which case I welcome them. The EU is far more culturally suitable to be a superpower than the US.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
I voted vegetable because I am a potato. Mmmmm.
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
If that happens it will be because they got their act together, in which case I welcome them. The EU is far more culturally suitable to be a superpower than the US.
I don't think, we (europeans) are really more suitable to be a superpower than the US :)
The US has at least not a history of twisted military struggles, political wars (even World Wars !!!) and such. They only had the secession war and that ended in an early stage of development and even today many US citizen want a less global state and more federal rights for the states...
So, it is very unlikely that the EU will be similar to the United States without disregarding civil liberties ;)
So, we are not really culturally more suitable, but we are on a philosophic basis more likely to succeed becoming a superpower, since we have enough socialist elements to do so :)
-
Originally posted by moddy
I don't think, we (europeans) are really more suitable to be a superpower than the US :)
The US has at least not a history of twisted military struggles, political wars (even World Wars !!!) and such. They only had the secession war and that ended in an early stage of development and even today many US citizen want a less global state and more federal rights for the states...
That's my point. Europe is very heterogenous culturally and thus it has much more experience in cross-culture communication than the still-has-some-isolationalist-tendencies US.
-
Plus, moddy, I'd say that it's because of these wars that we're more suited. For exemple, many UE countries made the same mistake that the US is making with Irak, : France with Algeria, England with India. That is, trying to 'free' a country that never asked for us.
Due to the fact that we've got more of an history than the US, and that, despite inherent stupidity by most of the politics in the world, people can learn from this history, I do think that UE in general would be suited to be a superpower. And believe me, I don't want to wait for China to develop enough to be a superpower. I've been there, and to think of the place as a superpower scares me like you wouldn't believe:shaking:
But then, that's only the opinion of a 'cheese-eating-surrendering-monkey' :doubt:
-
China is a superpower...
They got atomic weapons, can kick pretty much any near nation butt (even russian one) and not even bush would dare to try invading it...
If you don't believe me try looking where many things you buy are made, and take a look at their economy figures...
-
China could win a ground war, but never an air\naval war. (against the US)
Period.
-
Good point Zarax.
*yawn*
Too tired to argue the point now, but i'll try to find exemple of what i said later.
-
Mongoose
Kazan: Abortion isn't just an issue of the mother.
no **** sherlock holmes - however it is HER body
Millions of people from my generation have been killed because of it.
Incorrect for reasons you are incapable of comprehending
I could have lost best friends, co-workers, and even my future wife because of abortion.
*Yawn* appeal to emotion, patent logical fallacy
It really does affect society as a whole and is much more than a personal "choice."
Except in a good way, despite your assertions to the contrary
Abortion truly is killing our future,
No, abortion would be killing our future of our birthrate declined because it legalizing it -- hint: it didn't decline
removing the potential for human growth that all of those lives represent.
quality over quantity
By your description, a fetus is something akin to a tumor, dependent on its host for nourishment.
It is
I hope I speak for most people when I say that this is far from the truth.
Not biologically speaking
You keep making reference to "mother's health," but very few abortions are performed for that reason.
Mental and physical health - and if you cannot afford a child you doom them to a sad life, better to safe them from that cruelty
BTW: brining a child into the world who is mentally, or physically deformed is an act of unconsciousable cruelty and selfishness
"Health," as stated in Roe v. Wade, has come to mean such things as emotional well-being or lack of mental stress.
Roe V Wade didn't make that definition -- DOCTORS DID
For the most part, abortion has nothing to do with physical well-being and everything to do with convenience.
You are truely ignorant of reality
-
United Europe = Modern Roman Empire
:)
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Then at what point does the fetus become more than that? When it's born? When the brain develops (which is well before birth)?
'Date of Viability' ie when it becomes capable of living outside it's mothers body without the help of medical science
-
Kazan, I'm not going to even bother replying to the assertions in your last post. It sickens me to think that people like you exist. "Quality over quantity"? Good God, who died and appointed you supreme overlord? And how is millions of deaths due to abortion a "logical fallacy" or "incorrect for reasons beyond my comprehension"? Do these "tumors" walk the Earth today? No, they don't. Obviously, they were never born. Think about how many abortions are performed each year. If they were not performed, there would be that many new births each year. But there must be some other mitigating factor "beyond my comprehension" that renders this statistic meaningless. Please, enlighten this ignorant peon :blah:.
-
Mongoose, if two people don't have a child, even if they can, aren't they too "killing" a potencial child, adult, etc...? I don't have fixed views about abortion, but such reasoning I find to be... well... flawed.
Kazan, try to be less agressive. You are making a fallacy yourself.
-
You are shooting over the target, because first of all, with every time a fertile cell or a sperium dies, the possibility of new life dies.
Second, it is a point to argue about since what time the fetus can really be called a human being, but who are you (I suspect that you are not a girl ?!) to say when it is.
Third, I think that an unborn child is only a human in potentia, while the mother is already an existing human being, so her well-being is of more importance than the child. She can decide what happens with that life, because she will have the trouble and reputation for the child.
As you put it, the legalization of abortion would result into a drastoc decrease of birth rate. I don't think this will be the result, because you are doing the "Green"-reasoning, which means you use fears to validate your argument. And you consider women to be stupid and amoral, don't you?
Otherwise you would have to acknowledge that some other humans might come to the same conclusion that this life is a beautiful thing even though it will be hard to raise and she will abstain from abortion. Still the right to abortion should always be protected.
And Mongoose, please point me to a statistic that shows the numbers you are claiming to know?
-----
To the EU thingy:
Well, yes, we had our time on imperialism, but still, we have a history of blood-shed between France, Germany, GB, Spain, Italy and Poland which isn't easily forgotten and which will always set us apart from each other. A supra-nation like the US is very unlikely, still the EU can be a military super-power in the future, but this wouldn't be anything like the US.
First, the EU-forces would be slower to deploy, because of struggles in command-chain and the still nationalistic tendencies in the bigger nations (Spain, Italy, GB, Germany and France)...
If you ever met a French, you will probably know :)
It think we can assume that the EU can merge to something like the Holy Roman Empire (which was the prelude to Germany), but it would be hard to go further, because we don't have many common cultural traits.
(different languages, different habits and different philosophies, although it is called western-culture it has a lot of diversity)
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Kazan, I'm not going to even bother replying to the assertions in your last post.
because you're completely and totally incapable of doing so
Originally posted by Mongoose
It sickens me to think that people like you exist.
Look in the mirror, you'll find someone 1,000,0000 times worse staring back at you
Originally posted by Mongoose
"Quality over quantity"?
With less overcrowding individuals have a higher quality of life, and are capalle of achieving greater educational levels with less hardships
Originally posted by Mongoose
Good God, who died and appointed you supreme overlord?
Way to inject useless, irrelevant exclaimations of your lack of comprehension
Originally posted by Mongoose
And how is millions of deaths due to abortion a "logical fallacy" or "incorrect for reasons beyond my comprehension"?
Because you are incapable of attaining the third psychological level of moral --- as evidenced by your own lack of understanding
an unborn entity, dependant on it's mothers body has any potential rights it has trumped by it's mothers rights
you do not have the right to be born, but once you are born you have rights
Originally posted by Mongoose
Do these "tumors" walk the Earth today?
way to pick out an irrevelant word from a weak analogy and attempt to make an argument out of it -- that's called the Straw Man Fallacy
Originally posted by Mongoose
No, they don't. Obviously, they were never born.
You were born, I was born -- many other people were born -- the individual matters nothing until they make themselves worth something. You are only making yourself a detriment to our society -- i know you are fully capable of climing out of the cesspool of ignorance you have dove into, but whether you have the will to do so is entirely up to you.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Think about how many abortions are performed each year.
Which is completely and totally insignificant next to the number of naturally occuring abortions -- and is furthermore completely irrelevant to this discussion -- numerics matter nothing
Originally posted by Mongoose
If they were not performed, there would be that many new births each year.
Among the most impoversished section of humanity causing a surge in poverty -- impoverished people tend not to get a sufficient education -- insufficiently educated people flooding into society cause a massive increase in the crime rate, the wellfare rolls, etc.
It is the mature decision for these mothers not to bring a child into the world to be faced with a life of subsistence living and hardship. It is merciful and responsible.
Originally posted by Mongoose
But there must be some other mitigating factor "beyond my comprehension" that renders this statistic meaningless. Please, enlighten this ignorant peon :blah:.
What you cannot comprehend is the third psychological level of moral cognition - known as the post-conventional stage. The average adult human being never attains such refinement in their psychological developement, however the line drawn between those that do and do not is absolutely clear and unwavering.
Thos stuck in the mire of the second level - the convnetional stage -- stick to moralities that are authoritarian in nature "it is this way because someone said so", typically that someone is a god or godess or other irrelevant nonexisting entity which they believe in because it is emotionally appealing and they do not have the intellectual maturity to realize that reality is not subjec to the emotions of the individual. Authoritarianism is repressive by nature and cares nothing for reality.
Thus your inability to comprehend the reason is wholly psychological and completely evidence to anyone who knows this about human psychology.
I know you're capapble of maturation, whether you're willing is a different story.
Ghostavo: name it and point it out
-
Originally posted by Kazan
'Date of Viability' ie when it becomes capable of living outside it's mothers body without the help of medical science
Ok, but from an emotional standpoint the fetus posseses brain function (and thus it can feel) before that, even if it isn't conscious, so the distinction between it and a newborn baby or a child vanishes (again, on a strictly emotional standpoint, but emotions are why we care about living things).
I have been pro-choice but I'm starting to have second thoughts. If you can convince me, great. If not, I keep thinking.
-
Kazan, if "maturation" means becoming something like you, I'll wholeheartedly stay immature. At least I still have a shred of decency and morality. And yes, I am a Catholic. Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order, since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is. By the way, psychological quackery and techno-babble doesn't impress anyone; most of us have realized that you can't simply explain away some things in this world.
What's more, you keep avoiding one of my primary assertions: How is killing a preborn child "merciful"? If that fetus had a voice, would it agree? It is very disturbing that you feel that no life is better than a life with hardships. Again, I say that many have risen up out of impoverished, difficult lifestyles and have made a difference in this world. By your logic, however, these people would never have existed. And just explain it to be clearly: how do people not have the right to be born? The most basic and fundamental of human rights is the right to live, without oppression and fear of death. Read the Declaration of Independence, unless you consider it beneath you. As I said before, that unborn "lump of cells" has every right to exist that its mother has. After all, the mother helped bring it into existence; she therefore has the responsibility to care for it. And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, all of us were once embryos. This is not an irrelevant fallacy but a cold fact. The fact that none of us would even be here if our mothers had chosen abortion is a solid truth. Could you try giving an intelligent response to it, instead of continuing in your own sense of "higher being"?
I'm just thankful that I've never met someone like you, who seems so self-absorbed in their own psychological "superiority." And yet I'm "1,000,000 times worse" for wanting to save the lives of unborn children. Yeah, I see the psychological rationale in that. If that's what true advancement feels like, I'll continue to be ignorant and blissful, thank you very much.
-
Even in your previous post...
Look in the mirror, you'll find someone 1,000,0000 times worse staring back at you
Although he didn't do much better...
Try to... ignore the person at hand and focus on their thoughts and opinions.
And about this...third psychological level of moral cognition... does this have something to do with Piaget?
P.S.
Just saw Mongoose's post, and something tells me this thread is gonna get pushed towards euthanasia
-
And yes, I am a Catholic. Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order, since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is.
Funny - we think exactly the same about you theists. Does this not bother you?
-
It does not bother me, because I am absolutely secure in my beliefs. I mean no offense to any atheists on this board. I have found it interesting, however, that the average Internet bulletin board seems to attract a disproportionately large number of atheists. I have no idea why this is, but I do find it curious.
-
security does not imply correctness - i am able to defend my position with evidence and logic, you cannot
you find a disproportionately large number of atheists online because the internet attracts a disproportionately high concentration of intelligent people - and there is a direct correlation between intelligence and tendancy to be atheist (not insult intended - just stating the facts)
Mongoose if your kind didn't insist on forcing everyone else to comform to your authoritarian views it wouldn't be neccesary to eliminate your kind (peacefully) from the face of the planet
-
Well, I would go with "liberal" except that I don't believe in patriotism, which, I can't deny, pretty much puts me in the "uber-liberal" category.
Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order, since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is.
That's an old one: "Atheists are too analytical, they take the beauty out of everything, etc."
I disagree. I believe the appreciation of beauty to be an inescapable aspect of the human psyche. The religious tendency is one manifestation of this, but one does not have to intellectually embrace the idea of a god to stand in awe of the universe. I am of the school of thought that says that everything we experience is ulitimately the result of totally random chance. I do not believe in any god, and I am convinced that the only laws truly set in stone are the laws of physics. But at the same time, I think that the human tendency towards religion is not something to be laughed at or "purged" from society. I see a very close relationship between religion and the artistic tendency; I see god as something woven into the mind, and at its best, it is a beautiful thing. I can't ignore something like Mozart's "Requiem" as inconsequential.
-
1. Perhaps people on the internet (at least those who register at bulletin boards like these) are affected by the information they have easy access to (stated less impartially, they are better educated)?
2. The internet is one of the few places atheists can readily discuss this with others?
Probably a combination of both.
Edit-Kazan beat me to it
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Ok, but from an emotional standpoint the fetus posseses brain function (and thus it can feel) before that, even if it isn't conscious, so the distinction between it and a newborn baby or a child vanishes (again, on a strictly emotional standpoint, but emotions are why we care about living things).
appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I have been pro-choice but I'm starting to have second thoughts. If you can convince me, great. If not, I keep thinking.
You don't have the right to force your views on others, and they ask you to remember this -- they extend you the same curteousy by not limiting your speech
[edit]
redacted
-
Mongoose is a religous zealot who belives in god and the churches infalibility, his abortion and contraception views are old and ultimatly wrong, aborption will never affect the birth rate in any major way as a minority of people have them, stem cell research is a great advance and religous types like you are holding it back. contraception is nessacary as people enjoy sex and like to do it without having children, condoms also help prevent the spread of aids.
IF god exists and you were right none of this would be possible as god would just prevent anything he disliked and if he does exist and all this is possible (it is) god is on our side since he/she/it has not stoped it.
-
Oh ****! I knew I should have tried harder to pick that chick up the other night. Sorry mongoose, I might have just killed your nineteen future, poverty stricken, half mentally disabled, childrens' potential best mate.
Mr. Vega: I am opposed to artificial contraception, so yes, I think it is a shame when couples decide to not have children.
You know what! Me too! AIDS doesn't hurt - who needs it? Bunch of pussies those dang niggers in Africa, right?
I did not say that I was against all stem-cell research; stem cells can be obtained from umbilical cords and even the adult body. What I am against is killing embryos to obtain stem cells. It's not hard to see how this could easily lead to "farming" embryos for usable cells. Now that's a frightening concept.
You know what! Me too! I mean, just because they're second class stem cells, that shouldn't make a difference! God'll sort 'em out - just pray a bit, and they'll become viable for the kind of research we need to cure things like Alzheimers, or to grow replacement organs.
Oh, and GhoulMeister
:welcome:
Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Kazan, if "maturation" means becoming something like you, I'll wholeheartedly stay immature. At least I still have a shred of decency and morality.
because you cannot comprehend post-conventional morality you try to say I am without it. I assure you I behave more morally than 75% of christians
Originally posted by Mongoose
And yes, I am a Catholic.
That explains a lot
Originally posted by Mongoose
Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order,
Psychological sciences say you're full of it
Originally posted by Mongoose
since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is.
No, we simply face reality that if there isn't evidence, it cannot be rationally believed. the Universe can be appreciated as beautiful without having to attribute it to inexistant deities
Originally posted by Mongoose
By the way, psychological quackery and techno-babble doesn't impress anyone; most of us have realized that you can't simply explain away some things in this world.
No, you prefer to ignore the explainations in favor of your own selfish emotionality -- reality is not whim to the emotional desires of an individual
Originally posted by Mongoose
What's more, you keep avoiding one of my primary assertions: How is killing a preborn child "merciful"?
I've explained this, you haven't comprehended the answer
Originally posted by Mongoose
If that fetus had a voice, would it agree?
Irrevelant
Originally posted by Mongoose
It is very disturbing that you feel that no life is better than a life with hardships.
Ask a slave which is worse - life in bondage or death
Originally posted by Mongoose
Again, I say that many have risen up out of impoverished, difficult lifestyles and have made a difference in this world.
Indeed, however they are the vast minority
Originally posted by Mongoose
By your logic, however, these people would never have existed.
So what, someone else would have done it -- this is the "Steven Hawking Fallacy"
Originally posted by Mongoose
And just explain it to be clearly: how do people not have the right to be born?
The Bad Samaritan rule -- if someone else has to be deprived of their bodily integrity, health, etc for your gain then you are not entitled to the gain
Originally posted by Mongoose
The most basic and fundamental of human rights is the right to live, without oppression and fear of death.
ONCE YOU'RE BORN
Originally posted by Mongoose
Read the Declaration of Independence, unless you consider it beneath you.
I've read it - it's above you
Originally posted by Mongoose
As I said before, that unborn "lump of cells" has every right to exist that its mother has.
However by the Bad Samaritan Rule she has more rights
Originally posted by Mongoose
After all, the mother helped bring it into existence; she therefore has the responsibility to care for it.
Yeah.. becoming pregnant from being raped is a good example. Or thinking the guy is going to stick around and he splits. There are a million good reasons why not to bring a child into the world
Originally posted by Mongoose
And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, all of us were once embryos. This is not an irrelevant fallacy but a cold fact.
No ****, and a highly irrevelant one to this thread of the discussion
Originally posted by Mongoose
The fact that none of us would even be here if our mothers had chosen abortion is a solid truth. Could you try giving an intelligent response to it, instead of continuing in your own sense of "higher being"?
Once again irrevlant -- this is the "Steven Hawking Fallacy"
Originally posted by Mongoose
I'm just thankful that I've never met someone like you, who seems so self-absorbed in their own psychological "superiority."
Yes you have, you just didn't know it because they didn't feel the need to reproach you for your backwardness
Originally posted by Mongoose
And yet I'm "1,000,000 times worse" for wanting to save the lives of unborn children.
At the cost of their quality of life, at the cost of their mothers health, at the cost of the standard of living for all civilization.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Yeah, I see the psychological rationale in that. If that's what true advancement feels like, I'll continue to be ignorant and blissful, thank you very much.
*Sighs* not even going to try and explain it
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
[Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority.[/color]
except that minority thinks they have can mandate morality for all
-
appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy
:wtf:
Why?
If that's true, then why do you care about abortion, or anything else for that matter?
I am sick and tired of people viewing logic and emotion as mutually exclusive. Probably the fault of the early Christians/Catholics, worried about the influence of Greek logic, trying to emphasize their irrationality, and you've played right into it.
I am concerned about whether a fetus should be valued as a human life. The reason I am concerned is because of empathy. Despite my lack of morals, I will not kill another human because of empathetic reasons. Is that a logical fallacy? No, it's not, because logic does apply here in that sense. Logic does not create motivation. It is pointless on its own.
You don't have the right to force your views on others, and they ask you to remember this -- they extend you the same curteousy by not limiting your speech
If a fetus cannot be considered a life, then, yes, you are perfectly correct. But if it is a life, then abortion violates the rights of another human, at which point your argument falls apart, by your own previous statements.
You response to my previous post was basically that my arguments were ****. You've expressed general ill will towards the opinions of Mongoose, me, and a few others (though sometimes for good reasons), and been lackadasical is stating your reasons for your own opinions. Right now you are acting far more irrationally than the Christians who have posted here have.
-
"Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority" i hope that was not directed at me, i am for abortion and fully agree with kazan.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
:wtf:
Why?
are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic -- whether something is true or not isn't subject the to emotional wants of an individual
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
If that's true, then why do you care about abortion, or anything else for that matter?
not related -- furthermore it is logical to care about rights and truth
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I am sick and tired of people viewing logic and emotion as mutually exclusive.
They each have their own realms -- mixing them is dangerous
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Probably the fault of the early Christians/Catholics, worried about the influence of Greek logic, trying to emphasize their irrationality, and you've played right into it.
No, no offense but you have already demonstrated a lack of understanding on the subject and a lack of understanding what i mean.
the rest of your post is not worth replying to
-
Originally posted by GoulMeister
"Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority" i hope that was not directed at me, i am for abortion and fully agree with kazan.
he was talking about mongoose
-
I am concerned about whether a fetus should be valued as a human life
Do you consider your toenail human life, or a tumor. i dont consider a foetus sentient til it has a fully developed brain, then it is fully human as it can think. up to that point it might as well be a tumor.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
he was talking about mongoose
'Deed, should have clarified that. :nod:
-
are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic -- whether something is true or not isn't subject the to emotional wants of an individual
Ok, looking back at my post...asking Why was not what I meant. Sorry. And I agree with you there, but whether something is true or not true isn't the entirety of the issue.
not related -- furthermore it is logical to care about rights and truth
For solely logical reasons, no, there is no reason to care about rights and truth. Since you say I do not understand, please, enlighten me.
Judging from your response, you misunderstood me. I did not mean emotion should affect your logic. Using logic (which is based on the fact that reality is consistent) I understand things. Emotion motivates me to do things, based on what I have understood through logic. Sorry if I was not clear enough.
Do you consider your toenail human life, or a tumor. i dont consider a foetus sentient til it has a fully developed brain, then it is fully human as it can think. up to that point it might as well be a tumor.
Children no not have fully developed brains. Teenagers do not have fully developed brains. Argument refuted.
I am waiting (even hoping to an extent) that one of you will give me an argument (that a fetus cannot be compared to a human who has left to womb as a life) that I can't refute, but so far your arguments have been unconvincing.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
As I said before, that unborn "lump of cells" has every right to exist that its mother has.
The problem is, there are many "lumps of cells" or perhaps even single cells which are living, potential-humans which are necessarily discarded all the time. It is natural.
Nocturnal emissions occur because the body needs to regulate the amount of sperm. These released sperm will most likely not become a born human, lots of potential humans lost there.
In the menstrual cycle ova are discarded from the body a week or so after ovulation. This is discarding potential humans.
Anyway if there is anything to blame for "lumps of cells" that you think of as potential humans being "killed" all the time, blame your allmighty God thing. According to you folks it designed/created the human body, I presume that would include menstruation and nocturnal emissions.
*shock* God designed humans to kill lots of innocent sperm that could become future Heisenburgs! :eek:
:p
-
Children are capeable of concious thought as are teenagers, foetus are not, if you think a foetus is clased as human life then why not sperm or an egg. a foetus is not human untill it developes its own brain to a point where it is capeable of concious or unconcious thought.
-
But a fetus is capable of unconcious thought. Does thought just suddenly start right when it leaves the womb?
-
Why does it matter so much if they can think or not? I doubt a fetus can think "Oh no, I'm going to be killed! Help me!" or "I want to live!" more than a sperm can.
-
As for an embryo not being human, ok, I give you that.
-
I'm all for the abortion of people who use their cell phones during concerts. I've never seen people begging so hard to be aborted.
-
Vegas, see it that way. There is an embryo, which might have the cognitive abilities of an ape or something around that point and then we have the mother. Usually, the mother will bring the unborn into the world, and if she can't take care of it, she can rely on giving it free for adoption.
In the cases, where we have abortion, there are special circumstances (normally), which put the mother in an enviroment, she cannot handle. Doctors will advise her on the situation, but she is dead set on abortion. You could call it evil, because you will destroy a life-in-potentia or you kill a being on level with an animal. Since there are no animal rights, that'd be not a really violation of anything.
Still, there is a potential life at hand, as you ascertain. But we are speaking of special circumstances and most likely the life of the women is threatened in one way or the other. Either by direct means that'd kill her or by means out of the social environment.
So, should the girl rather live unhappy, perhaps losing her life as it is, through the force of somebody else (those alleged thinkers of good), or should she take priority to her own life.
We can't judge whether the life is more precious than her life, because she hasn't done anything evil by being pregnant, so it is her choice alone to decide and I take it that they don't do a quick run on this.
So, the discussion is not on the level of intelligence and cognitive abilities of the unborn, because we can't truly determine it fully or the right of a life-in-potentia, because this would neglect and violate the rights of a life already in its full bloom.
Instead, we should rely on the reason and wisdom of a well-advised girl (via doctors amongst others) to find the right solution to the problem.
Thus it is a discussion of whether we give the woman the right to her life or not. I know that sounds hard, but I tend to trust women in this.
-
I whole-heartedly agree with that.
The other thing that infuriates me is the people who pass judgement on the woman because she's pregnant when she doesn't want to be. When you're on par with Jesus you can come back and preach about how she should live with her mistakes.
I'm also curious as to how many people here who are opposed to abortion are equally zealous in opposition to the death penalty.
-
most anti-abortionists are pro-death-penalty
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The other thing that infuriates me is the people who pass judgement on the woman because she's pregnant when she doesn't want to be.
The real irony is that if these people are so pro-life why are they usually so anti-contraception. Isn't it better that the life is never concieved at all rather than concieved and (In their opinion) killed?
If you thought that abortion was murder wouldn't you be willing to do a tiny thing like promoting contraception if that would reduce the death rate?
Bah. The whole thing is a bunch of circular logic that doesn't make sense to even a large percentage of christians (which is why protestants can use contraception and many catholics ignore the rules against using it).
-
The idea is that women of true moral integrity should know better than to indulge in the corrupting pleasures of sex.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The real irony is that if these people are so pro-life why are they usually so anti-contraception. Isn't it better that the life is never concieved at all rather than concieved and (In their opinion) killed?
If you thought that abortion was murder wouldn't you be willing to do a tiny thing like promoting contraception if that would reduce the death rate?
Bah. The whole thing is a bunch of circular logic that doesn't make sense to even a large percentage of christians (which is why protestants can use contraception and many catholics ignore the rules against using it).
(any excuse will do.......)
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3
DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.
PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!
NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The idea is that women of true moral integrity should know better than to indulge in the corrupting pleasures of sex.
then there is always the "OMFG Sex is BAD!" morality being dead wrong and outdated
-
It's not even outdated. Many conservatives seem to have this idea that in the past there was a time of purity and innocence, and that modern society has corrupted our morals, but this is a complete misconception. As I've mentioned before, one has only to look at ancient Greece to see that we have not cornered the market on indulgence.
-
You don't even have to look back that far. How many servants ended up bearing the master's child?
-
Well, this is where my conservative side kicks in a bit, and I remember a blurb from the introduction to Brave New World, written in the 50's.
Nor does the sexual promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years, no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve moths, with no law against changinge dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time.
Though I'm not too conservative about it, I do see an increasing trend towards promiscuity, which I can potentially see, like all human traits, going too far. Now, whether people will have the common sense to appreciate the value of moderation (speaking for all characteristics) or whether the current trends, be they sexual, economic, cultural or whatever, will continue past the point when they become "too much of a good thing" is anyone's guess.
-
Rictor, this is more related to the constantly decrease of maturity at all ages around than the real divorce issue...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Though I'm not too conservative about it, I do see an increasing trend towards promiscuity, which I can potentially see, like all human traits, going too far.
What's wrong with promiscuity?
-
nothing so long as you be safe about it (use protection)
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
What's wrong with promiscuity?
There isn't enough of it from nubile females in my vicinity. ;7
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The idea is that women of true moral integrity should know better than to indulge in the corrupting pleasures of sex.
This is typical, place the blame on women. What about men? Ohh nooo... it's those evil seductive women.
That's why 9 out of 10 fundies never get to share their genes, which is why the few who do have 9 kids. :p
Note: If you're too stupid to understand sarcasm or satire... I pitty you.
-
Precisely. I think that in the cases of many men, the condemnation of promiscuity is really nothing but a form of control.