VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Blablahb:
THat's like saying "People have sex anyway, so why not legalise rape?".

Wait, bad example. Anti-abortionists think rape victims should be punished...

Well, this is about as close as a western nation can possibly come to legalizing rape. Instead of some asshole raping women with his penis, we now have a state law that forces doctors to insert a penis-shaped object into a woman without her consent.

I would rather like to see the women in government get really pissed about this and pass a law that forces men to have an anal probe in order to have some kind of medical procedure exclusive to men done. Just to fuck with the guys who wrote this bill. Fair is fair; if men want to stick phallic objects into women then women should be allowed to insert an object of their choice into men.

I'm fairly sure that there are better ways to help reduce abortions that don't involve rape-like actions. Sadly, those religious types are quite against contraceptives too. Don't get rid of the whole abstinence thing though; no way in hell am I ever going to be against anything that encourages girls to give blowjobs.

Seekster:

Fine, for being a conservative theist on a site full of liberal (or liberals in relative terms at least) atheists or anti-theists you will forgive me for being a tad paranoid at times. We will debate again and I hope you are looking forward to it as much as I am.

"Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" 9_9

Pingieking:

Well, this is about as close as a western nation can possibly come to legalizing rape. Instead of some asshole raping women with his penis, we now have a state law that forces doctors to insert a penis-shaped object into a woman without her consent.

I would rather like to see the women in government get really pissed about this and pass a law that forces men to have an anal probe in order to have some kind of medical procedure exclusive to men done. Just to fuck with the guys who wrote this bill.

Viagra prescriptions.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Fine, for being a conservative theist on a site full of liberal (or liberals in relative terms at least) atheists or anti-theists you will forgive me for being a tad paranoid at times. We will debate again and I hope you are looking forward to it as much as I am.

Oh, so you really are clueless about ethical principles. Who knew...?[sarcasm]

Yes I understand ethical principles. In fact they make you study ethics in Journalism school. Obviously its limited to just ethical decisions a journalist might face but I went further than that in my own time.

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Fine, for being a conservative theist on a site full of liberal (or liberals in relative terms at least) atheists or anti-theists you will forgive me for being a tad paranoid at times. We will debate again and I hope you are looking forward to it as much as I am.

Oh, so you really are clueless about ethical principles. Who knew...?[sarcasm]

Yes I understand ethical principles. In fact they make you study ethics in Journalism school. Obviously its limited to just ethical decisions a journalist might face but I went further than that in my own time.

Wait. You are a journalist?

...It's like every rant Matt Taibbi ever made suddenly came to life in front of my eyes.

Bymidew:

Pingieking:

Well, this is about as close as a western nation can possibly come to legalizing rape. Instead of some asshole raping women with his penis, we now have a state law that forces doctors to insert a penis-shaped object into a woman without her consent.

I would rather like to see the women in government get really pissed about this and pass a law that forces men to have an anal probe in order to have some kind of medical procedure exclusive to men done. Just to fuck with the guys who wrote this bill.

Viagra prescriptions.

Oh man, what a fucking awesome idea. Anal probes for little blue pills! If they want to insert their rusty old things in other people they better be prepared to take some rusty old things first.

Pingieking:

Bymidew:
Viagra prescriptions.

Oh man, what a fucking awesome idea. Anal probes for little blue pills! If they want to insert their rusty old things in other people they better be prepared to take some rusty old things first.

I think "Probes for Pills" would be a good name for a government program, don't you? :D

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
While I think be vaginally probed is taking it a little too far, doesn't this occur anyway when you get an abortion?

THat's like saying "People have sex anyway, so why not legalise rape?".

Wait, bad example. Anti-abortionists think rape victims should be punished...

It's not at all like saying that. You can consent to have sex with one person, but not the next. When you go in for an abortion, depending on what type, you're going to have doctors jamming things up you anyway. That's like saying, "I want an abortion, but you have no right touching me in order to get the decapitated fetus out of my womb. I deserve privacy." Of course, the second example is necessary for health reasons.

This would simply mean this happens twice instead of once. Sure, one is arguably unnecessary. But I don't see how it's wrong to try to convince a mother not to get an abortion. After all, as much as you think the option should be available, wouldn't you prefer if abortion didn't happen?

In my opinion, it's about time compromise was made. This particular ultrasound thing wouldn't ban abortion; therefore, forcing mother's to do it unsafely and illegally. It leaves the option available, while trying to show mother's why they shouldn't do it.

To get upset about this, is to say you don't want mother's educated on what they are doing to themselves and their unborn baby. Of course, I still think being vaginally probed is taking it a little too far. I would argue a normal ultrasound would suffice, but then again, I'm assuming this wouldn't be as effective as the former method.

p.s. I have no intention of getting into a long debate about this. I believe you posted in my other thread, therefore you know my stance on the matter.

Zekksta:

F4LL3N:
While I think be vaginally probed is taking it a little too far, doesn't this occur anyway when you get an abortion? I would rather this happen to women than what is described in the link below.

http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/

Women probably don't really care what you would rather they do with their bodies.

I'd imagine they would want it to be their choice.

I agree. However, I believe women should be educated on the matter. This includes seeing ultrasound images, hearing the baby if possible, and information on development. Even hearing an unbiased debate from both sides of the abortion issue would be a welcome obsticle, in my opinion.

To say this shouldn't happen is to basically say you don't want women to make an educated choice on the matter. And again, being vaginally probed is potentially taking it too far imo.

F4LL3N:
I agree. However, I believe women should be educated on the matter. This includes seeing ultrasound images, hearing the baby if possible, and information on development. Even hearing an unbiased debate from both sides of the abortion issue would be a welcome obsticle, in my opinion.

To say this shouldn't happen is to basically say you don't want women to make an educated choice on the matter. And again, being vaginally probed is potentially taking it too far imo.

Being guilt tripped is not exactly an 'education'.

Actually, if 'education' is so important, why is that the same people who insist that abortion is TEH WORSTEST THING EVAR also tend to be dead-set against giving teenagers real sex-education and access to contraception, which has worked fine in other countries to lower abortion rates?

I know the Onion link was already posted, but it's such a good one: New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

Also, I found this one: Christ Kills Two, Injures Seven In Abortion-Clinic Attack

Bymidew:

Pingieking:

Bymidew:
Viagra prescriptions.

Oh man, what a fucking awesome idea. Anal probes for little blue pills! If they want to insert their rusty old things in other people they better be prepared to take some rusty old things first.

I think "Probes for Pills" would be a good name for a government program, don't you? :D

You, sir, and/or ma'am, need to run for public office.
At least become the head of a super pac. Your political acumen is disturbingly good, and I think the world will be a much better place with you in charge.

To the other people. Stop acting like this is simply some way to legally rape women. You would be giving consent to have this happen when you go in for an abortion. This wouldn't illegalize abortion, and making men have to go through this to get viagra wouldn't even make sense. The two comparisons are in two completely different leagues.

One would, arguably, be there to educate women. While the other is simply a way to humillate males. You're neither Pro-Choice or Anti-Sexist when you make such claims.

Bymidew:

F4LL3N:
I agree. However, I believe women should be educated on the matter. This includes seeing ultrasound images, hearing the baby if possible, and information on development. Even hearing an unbiased debate from both sides of the abortion issue would be a welcome obsticle, in my opinion.

To say this shouldn't happen is to basically say you don't want women to make an educated choice on the matter. And again, being vaginally probed is potentially taking it too far imo.

Being guilt tripped is not exactly an 'education'.

Actually, if 'education' is so important, why is that the same people who insist that abortion is TEH WORSTEST THING EVAR also tend to be dead-set against giving teenagers real sex-education and access to contraception, which has worked fine in other countries to lower abortion rates?

I know the Onion link was already posted, but it's such a good one: New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

Also, I found this one: Christ Kills Two, Injures Seven In Abortion-Clinic Attack

I like how you had no real argument against educating women in order to make a valid choice, so you simply post satire links. I'm personally not against giving any person real sex-education and access to contraception. That would be one of the best ways to prevent abortion being necessary in the first place.

F4LL3N:
To the other people. Stop acting like this is simply some way to legally rape women. You would be giving consent to have this happen when you go in for an abortion. This wouldn't illegalize abortion, and making men have to go through this to get viagra wouldn't even make sense. The two comparisons are in two completely different leagues.

One would, arguably, be there to educate women. While the other is simply a way to humillate males. You're neither Pro-Choice or Anti-Sexist when you make such claims.

The requirement for a vaginal ultrasound is only present to humiliate women. That particular kind of ultrasound is totally unnecessary to achieve the "educational" purpose you propose.

Additionally, the law regards consent under coercion as invalid. This bill REQUIRES that women consent to an invasive vaginal penetration in order to have an unrelated medical procedure performed. That is coerced consent. That's fucking rape.

F4LL3N:
I'm personally not against giving any person real sex-education and access to contraception. That would be one of the best ways to prevent abortion being necessary in the first place.

Congratulations. You are now the single most rational pro-lifer I've ever met.

And that's a sad, sad thing to have to say.

F4LL3N:
To the other people. Stop acting like this is simply some way to legally rape women. You would be giving consent to have this happen when you go in for an abortion. This wouldn't illegalize abortion, and making men have to go through this to get viagra wouldn't even make sense. The two comparisons are in two completely different leagues.

You're absolutely right. One is an attempt to humiliate and guilt-trip women who are trying to avoid having their lives ruined, the other is, indeed, a satirical attempt to humiliate men trying to purchase a luxury item.

Oh yes, and only one of them is on its way to becoming law.

F4LL3N:
It's not at all like saying that. You can consent to have sex with one person, but not the next. When you go in for an abortion, depending on what type, you're going to have doctors jamming things up you anyway. That's like saying, "I want an abortion, but you have no right touching me in order to get the decapitated fetus out of my womb. I deserve privacy." Of course, the second example is necessary for health reasons.

Wrong, that's not how consent works. You can consent to have sex with one person and then not consent to the same person 2 hours later. You can consent to oral but not anal. (or vice versa). In this particular case, you can consent to an abortion but not to a transvaginal ultrasound. Or at least you could until this law is passed.

Your argument comes from the same line of bullshit that brought us "she was dressed all slutty so i assumed she was looking for sex."

F4LL3N:
This would simply mean this happens twice instead of once. Sure, one is arguably unnecessary. But I don't see how it's wrong to try to convince a mother not to get an abortion. After all, as much as you think the option should be available, wouldn't you prefer if abortion didn't happen?

I'd prefer it if lung transplants didn't happen either but i'm not going to try and convince someone not to get one.

F4LL3N:
In my opinion, it's about time compromise was made. This particular ultrasound thing wouldn't ban abortion; therefore, forcing mother's to do it unsafely and illegally. It leaves the option available, while trying to show mother's why they shouldn't do it.

"Compromise" my bleeding ass. This is just the most extreme anti-abortion measure the Virginia legislature thought it could get away with.

F4LL3N:
To get upset about this, is to say you don't want mother's educated on what they are doing to themselves and their unborn baby. Of course, I still think being vaginally probed is taking it a little too far. I would argue a normal ultrasound would suffice, but then again, I'm assuming this wouldn't be as effective as the former method.

Fine then, let's mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for ALL pregnant women, so they can make the best choices for themselves and their babies.

In fact, why don't we take this to its logical conclusion and make sure EVERYONE is informed about the medical decisions they're making. From now on before every surgery, patients will be required to watch a full-color video of the procedure they're about to undergo, in real time. If you're against this then you don't want patients to be educated.

See Spot Run:

F4LL3N:
To the other people. Stop acting like this is simply some way to legally rape women. You would be giving consent to have this happen when you go in for an abortion. This wouldn't illegalize abortion, and making men have to go through this to get viagra wouldn't even make sense. The two comparisons are in two completely different leagues.

One would, arguably, be there to educate women. While the other is simply a way to humillate males. You're neither Pro-Choice or Anti-Sexist when you make such claims.

The requirement for a vaginal ultrasound is only present to humiliate women. That particular kind of ultrasound is totally unnecessary to achieve the "educational" purpose you propose.

Additionally, the law regards consent under coercion as invalid. This bill REQUIRES that women consent to an invasive vaginal penetration in order to have an unrelated medical procedure performed. That is coerced consent. That's fucking rape.

I decided to do some research on the matter. From my understanding, no where in the bill does it say a women is required to get a transvaginal ultrasound. It says she is required to get an ultrasound (transabdominal ultrasound.) If this ultrasound fails to determine the gestational age, then she will be offered an opportunity to undergo other ultrasound techniques. She doesn't even have to look at the information, she will simply be given a choice.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=121&typ=bil&val=SB484

This bill more seems in place to ensure the correct abortion method is used rather than to coerce women into not getting one. Unfortunately.

Bymidew:

F4LL3N:
To the other people. Stop acting like this is simply some way to legally rape women. You would be giving consent to have this happen when you go in for an abortion. This wouldn't illegalize abortion, and making men have to go through this to get viagra wouldn't even make sense. The two comparisons are in two completely different leagues.

You're absolutely right. One is an attempt to humiliate and guilt-trip women who are trying to avoid having their lives ruined, the other is, indeed, a satirical attempt to humiliate men trying to purchase a luxury item.

Oh yes, and only one of them is on its way to becoming law.

Perhaps. But being guilt-tripped would be a side effect of receiving valid information. To deny women education simply because it may make them feel bad is unjustified. If they truly feel bad, they will no longer want to do it; therefore, the claim cannot be made that it would ruin their life. If they feel bad, but do it anyway, they cannot complain as they made the choice.

If women don't want to take responsibility for getting pregnant, they sure as hell better take responsibility after choosing to abort. You simply cannot denounce all responsibility for everything you do. It's childish to say the least.

cobra_ky:
Wrong, that's not how consent works. You can consent to have sex with one person and then not consent to the same person 2 hours later. You can consent to oral but not anal. (or vice versa). In this particular case, you can consent to an abortion but not to a transvaginal ultrasound. Or at least you could until this law is passed.

Your argument comes from the same line of bullshit that brought us "she was dressed all slutty so i assumed she was looking for sex."

Correct.

I'd prefer it if lung transplants didn't happen either but i'm not going to try and convince someone not to get one.

Irrelavant to the topic at hand. If someone gets a lung transplant, it is for life and death situations. Abortion is only sometimes for life and death situations.

"Compromise" my bleeding ass. This is just the most extreme anti-abortion measure the Virginia legislature thought it could get away with.

Well, it is to my understanding any talk about 'transvaginal ultrasounds' is simply Pro-Choice lies in order to destroy this bill. I will maintain this belief until someone shows me the bill that says this is required before getting an abortion.

Fine then, let's mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for ALL pregnant women, so they can make the best choices for themselves and their babies.

In fact, why don't we take this to its logical conclusion and make sure EVERYONE is informed about the medical decisions they're making. From now on before every surgery, patients will be required to watch a full-color video of the procedure they're about to undergo, in real time. If you're against this then you don't want patients to be educated.

The first statement isn't valid. If a women didn't want an abortion, why would you want to change her mind. Childbirth is completely natural. If a women does want an abortion; however, it is perfectly reasonable to give her enough information to make an informative choice.

Regarding the second statement, I would have no objection to it. If someone's going in for a major surgery, or basically any medical procedure that has it's risks and consequences, why wouldn't you want them to be fully educated on the matter.

EDIT: To make things clear, there are risks involved with giving birth. Obviously this should be made aware. Parenthood is also life changing. I would show full support of anything that required parents-to-be to undertake parenting courses/training.

F4LL3N:

"Compromise" my bleeding ass. This is just the most extreme anti-abortion measure the Virginia legislature thought it could get away with.

Well, it is to my understanding any talk about 'transvaginal ultrasounds' is simply Pro-Choice lies in order to destroy this bill. I will maintain this belief until someone shows me the bill that says this is required before getting an abortion.

The bill as passed by the house requires that the ultrasound be taken "in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age." 88% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks, when a transvaginal ultrasound is the only reliable way to determine gestational age. Ergo in the overwhelming majority of abortion cases, a transvaginal ultrasound is required under the provisions of this bill.

F4LL3N:

Fine then, let's mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for ALL pregnant women, so they can make the best choices for themselves and their babies.

In fact, why don't we take this to its logical conclusion and make sure EVERYONE is informed about the medical decisions they're making. From now on before every surgery, patients will be required to watch a full-color video of the procedure they're about to undergo, in real time. If you're against this then you don't want patients to be educated.

The first statement isn't valid. If a women didn't want an abortion, why would you want to change her mind. Childbirth is completely natural. If a women does want an abortion; however, it is perfectly reasonable to give her enough information to make an informative choice.

Regarding the second statement, I would have no objection to it. If someone's going in for a major surgery, or basically any medical procedure that has it's risks and consequences, why wouldn't you want them to be fully educated on the matter.

EDIT: To make things clear, there are risks involved with giving birth. Obviously this should be made aware. Parenthood is also life changing. I would show full support of anything that required parents-to-be to undertake parenting courses/training.

Because giving birth to a child requires a whole host of medical decisions above and beyond whether or not to abort. If you didn't know that about pregnancy then i'm not sure why we're even discussing this.

It's pretty interesting that you don't seem to have a problem with government interference in people's private medical decisions though. As a small government liberal that's not really something i can support, however.

By the way, how can you possibly argue that the purpose of this bill is to "educate" the woman when she isn't even required to look at the results?

cobra_ky:
The bill as passed by the house requires that the ultrasound be taken "in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age." 88% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks, when a transvaginal ultrasound is the only reliable way to determine gestational age. Ergo in the overwhelming majority of abortion cases, a transvaginal ultrasound is required under the provisions of this bill.

Firstly, I do not understand how this form of politics works. Both the Senate and the House have bills. Do they both go through to a higher power? Regardless, I will assume 12104755D-S1 (Senate) and 12105599D-H2 (House) are the ones that are up for debate.

The Senate bill says this, while the House substitute bill says consent is needed for other forms of ultrasound if a transabdominal ultrasound is unable to determine gestational age (she can reject.)

For the Senate bill; even if a transvaginal ultrasound is needed before abortion, it is not designed to humiliate as others have claimed. As you have stated, this is the only reliable method at such early stages of pregnancy. Therefore, it would be required simply to collect the information the bill is designed to collect.

Because giving birth to a child requires a whole host of medical decisions above and beyond whether or not to abort. If you didn't know that about pregnancy then i'm not sure why we're even discussing this.

It's pretty interesting that you don't seem to have a problem with government interference in people's private medical decisions though. As a small government liberal that's not really something i can support, however.

By the way, how can you possibly argue that the purpose of this bill is to "educate" the woman when she isn't even required to look at the results?

Of course pregnancy and childbirth has it's complications, I stated that in my last post... I have no problem with government interference in somebody's private medical decisions when an unborn baby is involved.

Well, to force this information onto the women could potentially be "unconstitutional" or "coercive." I'm sure it is also designed for other research purposes, and I'm sure the persons behind this bill would hope most women look at this information. Btw, I'm liberal too.

F4LL3N:
I agree. However, I believe women should be educated on the matter. This includes seeing ultrasound images, hearing the baby if possible, and information on development.

Well, since nobody ever has an abortion without knowing about it, it's settled then, and you can agree with the rest of the world that de facto rape with an ultrasound or other concious efforts to traumatise and guilt-trip people who need an abortion into not having one, are unethical and even illegal.

I wasn't aware there were sides in a discussion about abortion though. So far I've only seen the consensus that exists in pretty much all of the world challenged by people who want to force their religion onto others and strip them of any freedom. That they want to change their country to a totalitarian theocracy is a different issue, not related to abortion.

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
I agree. However, I believe women should be educated on the matter. This includes seeing ultrasound images, hearing the baby if possible, and information on development.

Well, since nobody ever has an abortion without knowing about it, it's settled then, and you can agree with the rest of the world that de facto rape with an ultrasound or other concious efforts to traumatise and guilt-trip people who need an abortion into not having one, are unethical and even illegal.

I wasn't aware there were sides in a discussion about abortion though. So far I've only seen the consensus that exists in pretty much all of the world challenged by people who want to force their religion onto others and strip them of any freedom. That they want to change their country to a totalitarian theocracy is a different issue, not related to abortion.

And it's not like it'll actually decrease the number of abortions, anyway. All it'll do is encourage women to perform it themselves in a back alley to avoid state-mandated sexual assault.

Fuck, this makes me angry.

Seekster:

Yes I understand ethical principles. In fact they make you study ethics in Journalism school. Obviously its limited to just ethical decisions a journalist might face but I went further than that in my own time.

You have failed to demonstrate this supposed knowledge of ethical principles. Logic dictates you know nothing unless, that is, you have some form of evidence suggesting you are familiar with ethical principle, like answering a couple of simple questions.

hardlymotivated:
Fuck, this makes me angry.

Lol, the same here. The whole anti-abortion stuff is generally sickening, but sometimes you see things... Fallen himself made a post that was so utterly ignorant and offensive.

He basically just denies all rights to rape victims, and then blames all women who got pregnant for it being a choice. I've seen two cases of rape within families, and at some point in time my wife IUD shifted and possibly ceased working, so a chance existed she'd gotten pregnant. Setting those things is horribly painful, worse than having several broken ribs - and someone pushing against them. And here goes this guy from some comfortable suburb in a wealthy happy family saying that going through that isn't enough reason to assume someone has tried to take measures not to get pregnant, and that those girls who went through hell because their (step)father was deranged pervert only have themselves to blame...

I know that if Fallen had stood next to me as a person and said what he said in that post, I don't know if I could've guaranteed his safety. Probably not actually. Some things just make one's blood boil.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Yes I understand ethical principles. In fact they make you study ethics in Journalism school. Obviously its limited to just ethical decisions a journalist might face but I went further than that in my own time.

You have failed to demonstrate this supposed knowledge of ethical principles. Logic dictates you know nothing unless, that is, you have some form of evidence suggesting you are familiar with ethical principle, like answering a couple of simple questions.

You see Percy I wouldnt last long on this forum if I cared overly about what random people think of me or what I know. You don't even know me so why are you spending all this time on personal attacks. I don't mind if you attack what I say but now you are trying to attack me and its annoying, particularly when you have a flimsy basis for these attacks.

Seekster:

You see Percy I wouldnt last long on this forum if I cared overly about what random people think of me or what I know. You don't even know me so why are you spending all this time on personal attacks. I don't mind if you attack what I say but now you are trying to attack me and its annoying, particularly when you have a flimsy basis for these attacks.

No one attacked you personally. I asked you to prove your claim that you are well versed on the subject of ethics, you failed to do so.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

You see Percy I wouldnt last long on this forum if I cared overly about what random people think of me or what I know. You don't even know me so why are you spending all this time on personal attacks. I don't mind if you attack what I say but now you are trying to attack me and its annoying, particularly when you have a flimsy basis for these attacks.

No one attacked you personally. I asked you to prove your claim that you are well versed on the subject of ethics, you failed to do so.

I admit I am not well versed in the subject of economics because I am not. I will not say I am not well versed in the subject of ethics because I am. Not an expert no but I probably know more about the subject than the average person. If you choose not to believe me then we aren't going to get anywhere. I tell people I have Bachelor's Degrees in Military History and Journalism because I do. I don't see any need to prove that. You either believe me or you don't.

As for you not attacking me personally...

PercyBoleyn:
Oh, so you really are clueless about ethical principles. Who knew...?[sarcasm]

PercyBoleyn:
So you know jack shit. Noted. Stick to history Seek, philosophy ain't your cup of tea.

Ill grant you that these arent particularly savage personal attacks but you are still saying I don't know anything about a subject. I find its best to give someone in a discussion the benefit of the doubt that they at least have a working knowledge of the subject. If you question everyone's knowledge you wont get very far in a discussion.

Seekster:
I will not say I am not well versed in the subject of ethics because I am.

What are the three major branches of ethics?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I will not say I am not well versed in the subject of ethics because I am.

What are the three major branches of ethics?

There are more than three.

Seekster:

There are more than three.

So what are they?

F4LL3N:

Of course pregnancy and childbirth has it's complications, I stated that in my last post... I have no problem with government interference in somebody's private medical decisions when an unborn baby is involved.

So you, OF COURSE, support welfare, subsidized day care, free healthcare for mother and child, and other things that will insure that the child will HAVE a life above and beyond being a PUNISHMENT for that filthy slut mother that's hauling it around as penitence for her sins?

OF COURSE NOT. That would be Socialism. Which, unlike wasting money on guilt-tripping pregnant women, is Bad and Tyranny.

People like you make me much gladder than I should need to be that I'm male.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

There are more than three.

So what are they?

Well three common types are normative, applied, and meta-ethics. Is that what you were looking for?

Seekster:

Well three common types are normative, applied, and meta-ethics. Is that what you were looking for?

Cool.

What are secular ethics?

What's moral absolutism?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Well three common types are normative, applied, and meta-ethics. Is that what you were looking for?

Cool.

What are secular ethics?

What's moral absolutism?

Google is your friend. You arent my professor and I don't come on here to be quizzed by you. If you are going to persist in challenging my knowledge of a subject I may decide to challenge your knowledge of the subject.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked