The Glade 4.0

Wow you mean people will have to put more thought into if they should have sex or not? Or perhaps practice safe sex/contraception? I can see why liberals are against this amendment- it puts the responsibility on the individual rather then the nanny state.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It's not the pro-life argument that bothers me. It's the extremely common mindset amongst Christians that their own rules do not apply to them. That they have moral superiority simply because they are a member of that denomination, and thus God understands all their sinning while everyone else is damned.

The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion.



This abortion funding scandal is just more evidence that the pro-life camp has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

I have many Catholic relatives who commit a half-dozen mortal sins daily, are aware of the fact that these are technically mortal sins, but use the "God understands me because I'm Catholic" line to explain them all away while telling you how damned you are for such things like believing in evolution. I really cannot describe how otherwise intelligent people can be so hypocritical, I have to lay it at the feet of the religion.

Liberals typically put a lot of thought into if they should have sex or not, or practice safe sex. That is generally why we propose things like sex education, etc.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense. We are advocating individual responsibility, that of the pregnant woman, be the one that has final authority over her own body. Not that of the state. Your conservative rhetoric rings hollow.

I believe you mispelled "humanity" as "Christians".

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

As I have pointed out numerous times if you attack the use of any moral apriori reasoning you attack all use of moral apriori reasoning which is to say you attack all arguments of the form "One should...". Thus you attack your own argument as well. So the best you can do is a draw where you say you are as wrong as I and there ends discussion. Knowing you I don't believe you believe yourself to be wrong so you've just dismissed your own position in this post.

Resolution of this conflict is up to you but again I ask you to show where I argue using religion.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Holy ****.

Have you met Emily?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Looking at this from a economical point of view. By taking away coverage for abortion the % of people not being able to afford it goes up, thus creating more ward of states, thus forcing the rest of the country to pay for their up bringing. I'm not really seeing an upside to this... (Other than omg think of the children)

I had an uncle who thought like that. His reasoning was, "Let the blacks have their abortions, so I don't have to pay for welfare for them".

And your uncle was racist (no offence), but now you're just using the appeal to emotion/opinion rather than looking at facts.
If you want to discuss personal opinion on this topic, well I'm sure most here knows my stance on the subject.

No it isn't. This is just the extremely common mindset of people who have problems with Christianity that Christians are somehow supposed to be different than everyone else in terms of their behavior. It's simply a strawman of Christian belief, and pretty much ignores the basic idea of Christianity in order to castigate it for imagined hypocrisy. The moral high horse many non-Christians take towards Christians can be hilarious



What scandal?



Then you're being just as hypocritical as they are, because their hypocrisy is no worse than anyone else's. It's just more offensive to you becasue you're clearly offended by people believing something you don't like.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No offense taken, he was racist in that regard. One of the few things I didn't like about him.

Except that you aren't. This would be true if the choice to have an abortion did not affect the life and therefore the rights of another individual. Like I posted earlier, I don't know if and when a fetus constitutes life and therefore has life.

But if we assume for the moment that it does, then its rights have been infringed. There is an implicit responsibility taken for the child that might be conceived every time someone engages in sexual intercourse. You are oversimplifying the issue to the point of changing it completely.

Like I posted before, since I know you won't want to read into the nuance of my actual post, I don't know if a fetus constitutes a life. That last sentence isn't meant as an attack, but far too often, I'll post something, the subtleties of which you throw away and it ends up in a strawman of what my point is.. This question must be answered, and I don't think society has or will ever have an answer for it. However, you are establishing that it doesn't have life and therefore has no rights prior to actually asserting the points the opposing view is actually making.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Yawn, round and round we go.

Ok, then how about making people responsible for their own actions? You have sex- it's up to you to deal with the prospect of children. You can take steps to minimize that chance, but it is still a chance. Make sure you have sex with someone you are willing to have in your life for a minimum of 18 years, or be willing to be an incubator for 9 months and give up the child to someone who has the capacity to care for your choice. As a male, you better be willing to be anchored to that person for the next 18 years in support of your decision- financially, and as a parent to that potential child.

I'll clarify, I am still pro-abortion because while the debate as to life vs awareness vs sentience rages on, I'd rather err on the created human than the one in development. I do seek consistancy in the laws that contridict each other. I just would not have a relationship where that was an option.

If someone wants to kill off their own offspring, they should feel free. I feel it's counter intuative to a functioning human being to want to destroy their own children. But if under the idea of legality, they can do so, have at it. I'll plug in the Shop Vac for them.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

To give a fertilised egg rights, to take a step further, by using contraception, you're denying the right of an egg to be fertilized? With out being able to specify a point this could go down hill very very fast.
Oh and "every sperm is sacred" hehe...

An egg has no rights it is a part of the whole (the woman). Same for sperm. The union of egg and sperm however is no longer a part of either but its own individual.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I didn't say that every time sex occurs that someone is denying the right to life by use contraception of the tried and true pull er out. I meant only that the risk that child can be conceived is understood by those engaging.

Thus, I submit that when a child is conceived that the engaging couple has no recourse of defense of "ignorance".

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I know what you meant hun, I was merely playing with the idea.. thus the every sperm is sacred comment =P

In that case, I'm a worse murderer than Stalin, Hitler and Mao Zedong all rolled into one

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Only if there were willing eggs =P

Off work soon, you boys play nice now.

Is this, what, 3 threads on abortion now?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The problem with this is you're basically asking humans to suppress their sex drive until their mid 20s or later, it's just not going to happen. Remember in the "old days" people were married off at like age 14 so this wasn't a major problem. At no point in history have we ever expected this of humanity in general, it's kind of unreasonable to expect it to happen now.

There's no problem with that. That's a poor excuse and not a real reason at all. If someone's sex drive is that great, there are ways to make yourself infertile. Otherwise, you accept the risks that contraception fails.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Scientifically prove that a zygote is a human being with full "inherent rights." Heck, prove that "inherent rights" exist for anybody, but that's a separate point. Rights do exist, however they are merely a legal construct. You have rights only because the law says you have rights.

A fertilized zygote is not empirically a human being. You can believe in your heart it is. You can have a personal philosophy that it is. You can make all the arguments you want that it is, but the definition of human being is not an objective, definitive thing. Furthermore, there are other arguments that would allow for abortion even if it was. In the end, the existence of a "right to life" for a zygote or embryo...or even a full grown human...depends on it being legally defined. If you ban abortions, then you can accurately claim the unborn have a right to life. If you don't, then you can't.

Your religion is your metaphysical inherent rights construct. By applying it to human development from zygote and beyond, you are attempting to force that construct on other people. You know what? Big deal, law is determined subjectively anyway. However, society has in general disagreed with you. Abortion is now, and will always be, legal in civilized society. And since the law disagrees with you, you are also wrong. Empirically, the unborn do not have the right to life. The Law lets an expecting mother end that life, therefore the "right" is nonexistent.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Rights are only a legal construct because people chose to agree to certain protections to each other in exchange for protections for themselves.

But rights, in the form of "natural laws", exist without laws.

That said, many which are claimed "rights" today are purely human constructs.

Before you can carry out a reasoned argument, both parties must begin with shared assumptions. This is why abortion fails as anything resembling a debate. The pro-life group argues from the assumption that a fetus is a living, breathing human while the pro-abortion group argues from the assumption that a fetus is not a living, breathing human being. You can not have debate on the subject of abortion unless both parties involved come to an agreement regarding classification of the fetus.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.