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
 

F4LL3N:

Irrelevant. What you're describing is natural death. My objection to abortion is that it is one person destroying another for reasons unjust (with the exception of the woman's physical health.)

There are multiple activities or actions a woman can undertake during pregnancy which are proven to increase chance of a miscarriage. These include (but are not limited to) caffeine, low folic acid intake, weight problems (overweight or underweight), certain viral/bacterial infections during pregnancy, being over 35/under 15, stress and a previous history of pregnancy loss.

There's also alcohol on the list, but that one's kind of a given.

How would you view a woman for failing to maintain folic acid levels or for drinking caffeine during a pregnancy, knowing that such things could cause a miscarriage? It's 'one person destroying another', after all, but it's a miscarriage, not an abortion.

CM156:

Are you saying that women don't have the rights to their body in the UK because of the UKs gun laws? That's utterly laughable.

Amnestic:

F4LL3N:

Irrelevant. What you're describing is natural death. My objection to abortion is that it is one person destroying another for reasons unjust (with the exception of the woman's physical health.)

There are multiple activities or actions a woman can undertake during pregnancy which are proven to increase chance of a miscarriage. These include (but are not limited to) caffeine, low folic acid intake, weight problems (overweight or underweight), certain viral/bacterial infections during pregnancy, being over 35/under 15, stress and a previous history of pregnancy loss.

There's also alcohol on the list, but that one's kind of a given.

How would you view a woman for failing to maintain folic acid levels or for drinking caffeine during a pregnancy, knowing that such things could cause a miscarriage? It's 'one person destroying another', after all, but it's a miscarriage, not an abortion.

Well, it depends. If a women is aware of the dangers of caffeine, drugs, and alcohol, but uses it anyway, then she has neglected the health needs of her unborn baby. Failing to maintain folic acid levels aren't exactly in the same league. Unless, of course, her doctor has ordered her to increase the level but she ignores it. Weight problems, infections, not being in the ideal age for pregnancy, stress and previous history of pregnancy loss aren't the mother's fault. To a certain extent, of course.

CM156:

Are you saying that women don't have the rights to their body in the UK because of the UKs gun laws? That's utterly laughable.

The picture makes sense, not that I necessarily support gun ownership. By Pro-Choice logic, guns should be allowed for self-defense.

F4LL3N:

The picture makes sense, not that I necessarily support gun ownership. By Pro-Choice logic, guns should be allowed for self-defense.

Only if you assume that firearms are necessary for self-defense. And that's one hell of an assumption to make.

Amnestic:

F4LL3N:

The picture makes sense, not that I necessarily support gun ownership. By Pro-Choice logic, guns should be allowed for self-defense.

Only if you assume that firearms are necessary for self-defense. And that's one hell of an assumption to make.

Well, in the specific case of women, guns are arguably more effective than kicking and scratching (not to stereotype.) Specifically if the attacker(s) are much stronger males, with weapons.

Not having a gun in the house could cause the women anxiety because she knows she'll be at a disadvantage against possible attackers. Don't women have a right to feel safe? Not feeling safe causes stress. Stress can cause actual physical harm to the woman. Don't women have a right to do what's best for their own body and lifestyle?

F4LL3N:

Amnestic:

F4LL3N:

The picture makes sense, not that I necessarily support gun ownership. By Pro-Choice logic, guns should be allowed for self-defense.

Only if you assume that firearms are necessary for self-defense. And that's one hell of an assumption to make.

Well, in the specific case of women, guns are arguably more effective than kicking and scratching (not to stereotype.) Specifically if the attacker(s) are much stronger males, with weapons.

So, again, the vast majority of women (and indeed men, I suppose) in the UK don't have the rights to their bodies?

Amnestic:

F4LL3N:

Amnestic:

Only if you assume that firearms are necessary for self-defense. And that's one hell of an assumption to make.

Well, in the specific case of women, guns are arguably more effective than kicking and scratching (not to stereotype.) Specifically if the attacker(s) are much stronger males, with weapons.

So, again, the vast majority of women (and indeed men, I suppose) in the UK don't have the rights to their bodies?

If you've been following anything I've said, you should already know my response to that.

F4LL3N:

Irrelevant. What you're describing is natural death. My objection to abortion is that it is one person destroying another for reasons unjust (with the exception of the woman's physical health.)

Yeah, I didn't think you actually gave a shit about the POOR LITTLE DYING FETUSES.

Dying of malnutrition or typhus is ALSO 'natural'. So what?

Come to think of it, people are dying in PERFECTLY NATURAL ways right now in various undeveloped hellhole countries, and I don't see you clamoring that these FULLY GROWN people need to be saved, because it would be inconvenient for us in the well-off nations to do so.

F4LL3N:

Well, it depends. If a women is aware of the dangers of caffeine, drugs, and alcohol, but uses it anyway, then she has neglected the health needs of her unborn baby. Failing to maintain folic acid levels aren't exactly in the same league. Unless, of course, her doctor has ordered her to increase the level but she ignores it. Weight problems, infections, not being in the ideal age for pregnancy, stress and previous history of pregnancy loss aren't the mother's fault. To a certain extent, of course.

So, how should she be PUNISHED for attempted murder/negligent homicide in your world? She she be force-fed? Imprisoned?

Bymidew:

F4LL3N:

Irrelevant. What you're describing is natural death. My objection to abortion is that it is one person destroying another for reasons unjust (with the exception of the woman's physical health.)

Yeah, I didn't think you actually gave a shit about the POOR LITTLE DYING FETUSES.

What? Natural death has nothing to do with abortion. I literally can't do anything about natural death. Why would I sit there telling everyone it's wrong when someone dies naturally? What can they do? Nothing. Only science can fix stop this. Abortion rights aren't scientific, it's simply a train of thought. I can tell people abortion is wrong for this reason and that reason, which could potentially change minds. It's not like natural death can be abolished through consensus.

Dying of malnutrition or typhus is ALSO 'natural'. So what?

Exactly. So what? I don't understand your point... Well actually, malnutrition shouldn't happen in any first world country.

Come to think of it, people are dying in PERFECTLY NATURAL ways right now in various undeveloped hellhole countries, and I don't see you clamoring that these FULLY GROWN people need to be saved, because it would be inconvenient for us in the well-off nations to do so.

I think I made my opinion of this clear last night. Remember?

So, how should she be PUNISHED for attempted murder/negligent homicide in your world? She she be force-fed? Imprisoned?

Well, if the law was correct she would be imprisoned for negligent homicide for excessive drinking/drug use.

F4LL3N:
What? Natural death has nothing to do with abortion. I literally can't do anything about natural death.

Yes, you can. It's called medical science, and applied through universal healthcare.

F4LL3N:
Exactly. So what? I don't understand your point... Well actually, malnutrition shouldn't happen in any first world country.

Well it does. And on a pretty massive scale too considering eating too much or wrongly is also malnutrition. In fact, the percentage of the population in western countries that suffers from malnutrition is around or above 50%, and above 75% in the US.

As for lack of nutrition, that is also the case on a limited scale in European countries. Mostly a few exceptions who make bad choices with money, and in eastern Europe. In the US, millions of children and many elderly face lack of nutrition because of the poverty there.

Why don't you care about that?

F4LL3N:
Well, if the law was correct she would be imprisoned for negligent homicide for excessive drinking/drug use.

So, do you also support imprisoning you for neglicent homicide because you go to church, thus supporting something which kills millions of people?

Or are you a hypocrite who picks and chooses in what cases and effects are relevant depending on how conventient it is to yourself?

Blablahb:
Yes, you can. It's called medical science, and applied through universal healthcare.

I've made it quite clear, not necessarily in this thread, that I believe in Socialism. I'm 110% for free healthcare. I live in Australia. We have free healthcare. How can I personally help medical science unless I actually get into a career that researches it? Which, tbh, I would love to do.

Well it does. And on a pretty massive scale too considering eating too much or wrongly is also malnutrition. In fact, the percentage of the population in western countries that suffers from malnutrition is around or above 50%, and above 75% in the US.

Correct. Nonetheless, it's still natural. I don't see why it was brought up. I could start a campaign to get people healthier, but I'm pretty sure that's the governments job. Well, everyone can get involved... Regardless, are you suggesting I do that rather than being on here discussing abortion?

As for lack of nutrition, that is also the case on a limited scale in European countries. Mostly a few exceptions who make bad choices with money, and in eastern Europe. In the US, millions of children and many elderly face lack of nutrition because of the poverty there.

Sure. First world countries still have third world problems. If you were to say this needs to be address, I would agree with you.

Why don't you care about that?

I do. There's many things I'd like to do with my life at some point in the future to help others. I'm starting it off by discussing abortion on a forum I frequent. Hopefully soon I get involved in more practical things.

So, do you also support imprisoning you for neglicent homicide because you go to church, thus supporting something which kills millions of people?

Or are you a hypocrite who picks and chooses in what cases and effects are relevant depending on how conventient it is to yourself?

We were going good until this point where you said something utterly stupid. I've made it EXTREMELY clear I am not religious, multiple times.

You need to address this. You're that hate-filled towards religion it jeopardize your entire stance on the matter. The fact you can't even acknowledge someone being a Pro-Life non-religious person is disturbing.

Thank you for waiting while I was out of town.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
What on Earth is wrong with consistency? Its a sign of how far gone our society is that you would even see consistency as a negative quality here. Do not mistake this for me proposing inflexibility though. I believe that a good system of morality (even if it is still imperfect) should be built around a few core consistent principles and then use this as a foundation for answering moral questions.

Is it just me or are conservatives outright terrified of change?

No, not someone who understands what Conservatism is anyway. Everything changes (well the more things change the more they stay the same), only a fool denies that. A conservative does not reject all change but rather we resist change we deem to be unnecessary. We are the skeptics when it comes to change. Even on things like the Declaration of Independence, Conservatives were among the last to agree that separation from England was necessary.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Yes Cigarettes are an interesting case and one of the few exceptions to the general rule that few things go from being moral to immoral under Secular morality. However as for drug use in general...pot.

Alcohol is actually suffering the same effects, albeit they're less noticeable because no one is trying to ban alcohol. Also, who said it's immoral to smoke? It's all about context. Is it wrong to smoke near a pregnant woman? Yes, it is. Is it wrong to smoke in your own home? No, it's not.

Interesting, can I get your take on an issue I have heard brought up locally a few times? Basically if a woman walks into a bar and is clearly pregnant and she asks for some alcohol, should the barkeep refuse to give her any or should it be the fault of the pregnant woman if her baby is born with a disability because she went into a bar and got drunk while pregnant? In your opinion if the pregnant woman gets drunk, who is responsible for her being drunk, her or the guy who gave her alcohol? I already have an answer myself I am just curious what you will say.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
In the past it was looked down upon even to intimately associate with a single member of the opposite sex when you were married. Today the feeling among secular humanists is more "meh as long as they are both ok with it".

Actually, that was only in Victorian England. Victorians also believed any unattended woman was a prostitute so take that as you will.

Also, where do you get these outright deluded ideas? That's no what secular humanists say at all. Please refrain from stereotyping an entire group of people.

I read, and I will try and refrain from talking about humanists then because your right I shouldnt be stereotyping people. I prefer to criticize ideas more than those who hold them.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
One example that comes to mind of how much things have changed, the wife of Andrew Jackson was attacked, even viciously (all verbal attacks mind you) because she started courting Jackson while still in a marriage. In fact it used to be that fidelity was taken so seriously that when someone's spouse died they refused to remarry (their spouse being their only true love).

Infidelity is still looked down upon today and the whole romantic idea that people refused to remarry after the death of their spouse is just that, a romantic idealisation. Do some people do that? Yes, of course. There's seven billion people on this planet, someone is bound to be heartbroken for years on end if their spouse dies. Is taking up another wife or girlfriend after your spouse dies immoral? Of course not. Human beings have needs. Intimacy, personal and romantic relationships are part of our very being.

I don't really have a problem with people remarrying after their spouse dies (its "till death do us part" after all), I just brought it up as a way to show how much social norms on the matter have changed in only the past few centuries which is a relatively short amount of time compared with human history as a whole.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Well to clarify divorce would not be really necessary if people took marriage seriously and understood that its not the "happily ever after" ending that movies and books make it out to be.

Who says people don't take marriage seriously? We take marriage now more seriously than we ever have. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that sometimes, fifty percent of the times to be more precise, relationships simply don't work. It's not like people outright divorce as soon as they get into a fight but considering how long and costly divorces can be they're certainly not done on a whim.

Ha! No one of the valid points (valid but irrelevant mind you) that proponents of same-sex marriage make is how frivolous some heterosexual marriages can be. I think there is a strong misconception in society that you won't be happy unless you get married and that once you do get married then you will be happy and "love will conquer all" and that sort of thing. Note how many films or books end with the bride and groom driving off as the camera pans away after they just got married as if to say "well thats the end, and they lived happily ever after". In short I think people need to realize that they can still live a happy life without ever being married and that marriage should only be entered into with someone you are honestly willing to spend your entire life with.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Marriage keeps going after the wedding, its almost like society fails to understand this. Divorce in the case of abuse or exploitation is another matter but getting married, having kids, and then deciding you dont want to play house anymore is immoral yes.

You first need to asses the situation before you can declare an action immoral. You don't know why people get divorced so long into marriage so don't make presumptious assumptions about a situation you know nothing about.

I have assessed the situation. Too many marriages are entered into frivolously and without careful thought of what a marriage means. As a result you have too many marriages ending in divorce for reasons that should have been settled back when the couple was dating not after they got married. "I found out I just didn't love him/her" is a valid reason to break up a with a boyfriend or girlfriend, its foolish to get married to someone if you arent sure you love the person you are marrying. Now divorce for things like abuse or neglect is actually a good thing to have as an option for worst-case scenarios but you can't look at the stats and deny that too many marriages end in divorce.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Its immoral because it doesnt just effect you but your spouse and your kids if you have any.

Actually, there were studies done on this and it's generally accepted that divorce is the best course of action in regards to the well being of the children if the relationship simply doesn't work. Still, it's all about the situation. You first need to know why the marriage ended in the first place before you can reach the conclusion that what those two people did was immoral.

Well sure, after all that goes with the theme of inconsistency that forms the basis for secular morality. "If it can be justified its not immoral", did you say that earlier? Don't get me wrong, I don't think its possible to ban abortion and our society would go nuts if such a ban were ever attempted. I am a conservative after all and I think most problems can be best solved without the need for government intervention. To fight social ills like this is is best to inform people about the importance of marriage and how marriage is not all happiness and roses. Sometimes it takes work to keep a marriage going and sometimes spouses are going to get into disagreements. I believe that it is vital for prospective spouses to not rush into a marriage without knowing the man or woman they are going to marry as well as it is possible to know them outside of marriage.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
And like number 2 you seem to be confusing "it happened" with "it was socially acceptable". A sexual engagement with someone you were not married with used to be a hush hush thing you did in secret and even today there is still a degree of social awkwardness in talking openly about sexual encounters as a stigma still exists (especially in the case of women) for those who engage sexually with multiple partners in a relatively short span of time).

It was socially acceptable. Everyone did it from the lowly peasants to the mightiest of lords. It was extremely common to have a mistress.

If it was socially acceptable then why was it normally kept hush hush and secret? I don't deny that it happened and may have actually been common like you say, there is however little way to know how common it was since most people who had mistresses didnt go around making it known that they had one all that much.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
In short I reject your rebuttal on all four counts for reasons explained for each above.

And I reject yours.

Your reasoning for rejecting it is...?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
For drug use, yes in some cases like with smoking but in other cases I point to the "legalize it" argument.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why would it work for other drugs? Besides, after fifty years it should be quite obvious that the only way to combat drugs is to legalize them.

Prohibition did work for alcohol (depends on what you mean "work") it just caused more problems than it solved. I could see why people might think the same thing for other drugs and there may be something to it. As a matter of principle though I believe it is best to keep such harmful substances banned. The precedent that "if a crime becomes to prevalent then the only way to combat that crime is to legalize it" is a dangerous one. There are plenty of crimes that are prevalent, legalizing doesnt stop the act from being committed, it just stops law enforcement from doing anything to stop it.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Murder has never been socially acceptable or considered moral. At best murder cries out for a consistent definition.

It was treated much more lightly a thousand years ago than it is now.

Is that why hanging is so prevalent today?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Aye Child Abuse and I would add spousal abuse to that. Both exceptions to the general rule I laid out earlier about it being rare for secular morality to consider something immoral which used to be moral...actually not so much moral as overlooked or tolerated in most cultures.

It wasn't just tolerated, it was encouraged.

Encouraged was it? Could you provide examples of child abuse being encouraged in the past to back that up?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
As for pedophilia, the jury is still out. Yes now its seen as immoral and I am fairly certain it always has been seen as immoral but already you see some groups forming to argue that a true pedophile would never hurt a child. Maybe I am just being cynical but give it about a hundred years at most and pedophiles may be considered an oppressed group.

You mean NAMBLA? You do realize they don't exist anymore do you? Also, pedophilia was not always considered immoral. Ancient Greece says hello.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Maybe someone needs to update Wikipedia then because there was no mention of it being disbanded and the organization is talked about in the present tense as if it still exists.

Hmm well yes on Ancient Greece but they are hardly a shining beacon of sexual morality.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
When Gone With the Wind came out it was a huge deal when the character of Rhett Butler said the word "damn" near the end of the movie. Now nobody hardly bats an eye.

The only thing that changed was the words we now consider offensive. Instead of damn we have fuck. Instead of poppycock we have dick. Nothing has changed.

Even fuck is starting to lose its inappropriateness in society. Oh yes things have changed, we moved on to new words as you said, someday we will move on to another set of words.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
No I'm not some puritan thinking all women need to be in long skirts but seriously have you seen some of the things girls as young as 10 are wearing now?

image

Thats like the stereotypical most Americans have of a British man sporting his stiff upper lip.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Not everything about being more permissive is bad you understand, its good that now things like interracial marriage are not seen as immoral but still that is evidence even you can accept of society becoming more permissive.

We're not becoming more permissive. We're trading one thing for another, just like we've done for ages. That's not to say we aren't becoming more progressive but that's different.

We are becoming more permissive whatever you want to call it. How is "trading one thing for another" different than society becoming more permissive?

Seekster:
Interesting, can I get your take on an issue I have heard brought up locally a few times? Basically if a woman walks into a bar and is clearly pregnant and she asks for some alcohol, should the barkeep refuse to give her any or should it be the fault of the pregnant woman if her baby is born with a disability because she went into a bar and got drunk while pregnant? In your opinion if the pregnant woman gets drunk, who is responsible for her being drunk, her or the guy who gave her alcohol? I already have an answer myself I am just curious what you will say.

They're both at fault.

Seekster:
I don't really have a problem with people remarrying after their spouse dies (its "till death do us part" after all), I just brought it up as a way to show how much social norms on the matter have changed in only the past few centuries which is a relatively short amount of time compared with human history as a whole.

We're becoming more progressive, it's only natural we rid ourselves of outdated social norms.

Seekster:
In short I think people need to realize that they can still live a happy life without ever being married and that marriage should only be entered into with someone you are honestly willing to spend your entire life with.

Marriage is a social contract. Being married as its advantages over cohabitation that's for sure. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with divorce. Sometimes relationships fall appart, that's just the way it is. You can never predict the course of a relationship.

Seekster:
I have assessed the situation.

No, you have not. You need to think about the individual relationships, not marriage as a whole.

Seekster:
Well sure, after all that goes with the theme of inconsistency that forms the basis for secular morality. "If it can be justified its not immoral", did you say that earlier?

No, I did not. I made it quite clear that it's all about context.

Seekster:
I believe that it is vital for prospective spouses to not rush into a marriage without knowing the man or woman they are going to marry as well as it is possible to know them outside of marriage.

How do you know for a certain the reason people divorce is because they marry to early into the relationship?

Seekster:
If it was socially acceptable then why was it normally kept hush hush and secret?

Because a certain organization had a vested interest in controlling people's private lives. Besides, are you saying affairs are socially acceptable now? Having an affair is still not something you tell your kids about, Christ.

Seekster:
Prohibition did work for alcohol (depends on what you mean "work") it just caused more problems than it solved.

No, it did not. Alcohol use rose sharply and so did the amount of improperly made alcohol.

Seekster:
As a matter of principle though I believe it is best to keep such harmful substances banned.

The US tried that with alcohol and it didn't work, at all. The decision to ban alcohol ended up creating an entire black market centered around the production and distribution of the stuff and believe me, those guys didn't give a flying fuck what happened to their customers. Crime also rose sharply during the prohibition due to that very black market that it created. It's exactly the same today.

Seekster:
The precedent that "if a crime becomes to prevalent then the only way to combat that crime is to legalize it" is a dangerous one.

Oh come on, you're not going to start saying that if we legalize drugs we'll soon legalize rape will you?

Seekster:
There are plenty of crimes that are prevalent, legalizing doesnt stop the act from being committed, it just stops law enforcement from doing anything to stop it.

Which is why after legalizing alcohol the US has such a big underground black market for it.

Seekster:
Is that why hanging is so prevalent today?

Why would you even give that example? You support the death penalty.

Seekster:
Encouraged was it? Could you provide examples of child abuse being encouraged in the past to back that up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Seekster:
Maybe someone needs to update Wikipedia then because there was no mention of it being disbanded and the organization is talked about in the present tense as if it still exists.

"Media reports from 2006 have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Seekster:
Even fuck is starting to lose its inappropriateness in society. Oh yes things have changed, we moved on to new words as you said, someday we will move on to another set of words..

Exactly. Profanity still is socially unacceptable in most social circles.

Seekster:
We are becoming more permissive whatever you want to call it. How is "trading one thing for another" different than society becoming more permissive?

Because we're becoming more accepting of certain ideas and less so about other. Saying society is beocming more permissive implies that we're heading towards a point where virtually anything will be acceptable which is simply untrue.

F4LL3N:

Amnestic:

F4LL3N:

Irrelevant. What you're describing is natural death. My objection to abortion is that it is one person destroying another for reasons unjust (with the exception of the woman's physical health.)

There are multiple activities or actions a woman can undertake during pregnancy which are proven to increase chance of a miscarriage. These include (but are not limited to) caffeine, low folic acid intake, weight problems (overweight or underweight), certain viral/bacterial infections during pregnancy, being over 35/under 15, stress and a previous history of pregnancy loss.

There's also alcohol on the list, but that one's kind of a given.

How would you view a woman for failing to maintain folic acid levels or for drinking caffeine during a pregnancy, knowing that such things could cause a miscarriage? It's 'one person destroying another', after all, but it's a miscarriage, not an abortion.

Well, it depends. If a women is aware of the dangers of caffeine, drugs, and alcohol, but uses it anyway, then she has neglected the health needs of her unborn baby. Failing to maintain folic acid levels aren't exactly in the same league. Unless, of course, her doctor has ordered her to increase the level but she ignores it. Weight problems, infections, not being in the ideal age for pregnancy, stress and previous history of pregnancy loss aren't the mother's fault. To a certain extent, of course.

I noticed you avoided the question. She neglected the health needs causing death or serious birth defects so... is she a murderer too?

BTW, pretty much all doctors order folic acid these days. Almost everyone is short and the consequences of not having enough are well proven.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
What on Earth is wrong with consistency? Its a sign of how far gone our society is that you would even see consistency as a negative quality here. Do not mistake this for me proposing inflexibility though. I believe that a good system of morality (even if it is still imperfect) should be built around a few core consistent principles and then use this as a foundation for answering moral questions.

Is it just me or are conservatives outright terrified of change?

It's just you. And you demonstrate your lake of openness and understanding by making that kind of broad statement.

Seekster:
As for pedophilia, the jury is still out. Yes now its seen as immoral and I am fairly certain it always has been seen as immoral but already you see some groups forming to argue that a true pedophile would never hurt a child. Maybe I am just being cynical but give it about a hundred years at most and pedophiles may be considered an oppressed group.

You are off base here. The age that was considered appropriate for sex and marriage as been many things at many times over the years. In particular, the age of onset of puberty was pretty commonly accepted for marriage and sex. Sexual contact with even younger kids, too young for penetration generally speaking, also existed in some places at some times.

Seekster:
No I'm not some puritan thinking all women need to be in long skirts but seriously have you seen some of the things girls as young as 10 are wearing now?

I have to agree with this one. Overly sexualizing young kids isn't a good thing. For me personally the age is probably 12-14 where it starts to become appropriate to express sexuality, but that's just me. If you go back in history, onset of puberty... so 10 would be fine for many girls, if not younger for some.

I think the only way we can fix this is pass a new law that makes abortion compulsory for all women.

Then maybe some politicians will start showing up to votes, and voters will start paying attention to what's going on.

I can't help but think the GOP are so against abortion, because they know the only way to get to get any support for their wildly backward ideas is to get their current supporters to procreate continually and bring the kids up to have the same whackjob ideas.

This should only go thru if Santorum and his lot are going to also pass a bill that all men who apply for Viagra are forced to have a rectal exam before being prescribed it. After all, prostate cancer is a killer, so it's not an invasion of privacy right? Oh and the nurse has to use Deep Heat gel instead of lube, just to make sure you really think about if you need those pills.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Interesting, can I get your take on an issue I have heard brought up locally a few times? Basically if a woman walks into a bar and is clearly pregnant and she asks for some alcohol, should the barkeep refuse to give her any or should it be the fault of the pregnant woman if her baby is born with a disability because she went into a bar and got drunk while pregnant? In your opinion if the pregnant woman gets drunk, who is responsible for her being drunk, her or the guy who gave her alcohol? I already have an answer myself I am just curious what you will say.

They're both at fault.

Seekster:
I don't really have a problem with people remarrying after their spouse dies (its "till death do us part" after all), I just brought it up as a way to show how much social norms on the matter have changed in only the past few centuries which is a relatively short amount of time compared with human history as a whole.

We're becoming more progressive, it's only natural we rid ourselves of outdated social norms.

Seekster:
In short I think people need to realize that they can still live a happy life without ever being married and that marriage should only be entered into with someone you are honestly willing to spend your entire life with.

Marriage is a social contract. Being married as its advantages over cohabitation that's for sure. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with divorce. Sometimes relationships fall appart, that's just the way it is. You can never predict the course of a relationship.

Seekster:
I have assessed the situation.

No, you have not. You need to think about the individual relationships, not marriage as a whole.

Seekster:
Well sure, after all that goes with the theme of inconsistency that forms the basis for secular morality. "If it can be justified its not immoral", did you say that earlier?

No, I did not. I made it quite clear that it's all about context.

Seekster:
I believe that it is vital for prospective spouses to not rush into a marriage without knowing the man or woman they are going to marry as well as it is possible to know them outside of marriage.

How do you know for a certain the reason people divorce is because they marry to early into the relationship?

Seekster:
If it was socially acceptable then why was it normally kept hush hush and secret?

Because a certain organization had a vested interest in controlling people's private lives. Besides, are you saying affairs are socially acceptable now? Having an affair is still not something you tell your kids about, Christ.

Seekster:
Prohibition did work for alcohol (depends on what you mean "work") it just caused more problems than it solved.

No, it did not. Alcohol use rose sharply and so did the amount of improperly made alcohol.

Seekster:
As a matter of principle though I believe it is best to keep such harmful substances banned.

The US tried that with alcohol and it didn't work, at all. The decision to ban alcohol ended up creating an entire black market centered around the production and distribution of the stuff and believe me, those guys didn't give a flying fuck what happened to their customers. Crime also rose sharply during the prohibition due to that very black market that it created. It's exactly the same today.

Seekster:
The precedent that "if a crime becomes to prevalent then the only way to combat that crime is to legalize it" is a dangerous one.

Oh come on, you're not going to start saying that if we legalize drugs we'll soon legalize rape will you?

Seekster:
There are plenty of crimes that are prevalent, legalizing doesnt stop the act from being committed, it just stops law enforcement from doing anything to stop it.

Which is why after legalizing alcohol the US has such a big underground black market for it.

Seekster:
Is that why hanging is so prevalent today?

Why would you even give that example? You support the death penalty.

Seekster:
Encouraged was it? Could you provide examples of child abuse being encouraged in the past to back that up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Seekster:
Maybe someone needs to update Wikipedia then because there was no mention of it being disbanded and the organization is talked about in the present tense as if it still exists.

"Media reports from 2006 have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Seekster:
Even fuck is starting to lose its inappropriateness in society. Oh yes things have changed, we moved on to new words as you said, someday we will move on to another set of words..

Exactly. Profanity still is socially unacceptable in most social circles.

Seekster:
We are becoming more permissive whatever you want to call it. How is "trading one thing for another" different than society becoming more permissive?

Because we're becoming more accepting of certain ideas and less so about other. Saying society is beocming more permissive implies that we're heading towards a point where virtually anything will be acceptable which is simply untrue.

Yes I would say both of them have their own share of responsibility. The bartender should not get in trouble for refusing to give the pregnant woman a drink.

My point was our society IS changing and becoming more permissive or progressive or whatever you want to call it.

For the sake of a avoiding an unrelated argument lets just say that the problem with divorce lies more with frivolous marriages than divorce itself.

"No, you have not. You need to think about the individual relationships, not marriage as a whole."

I have, and we arent going to get anywhere if we keep accusing each other of not thinking. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there so please return the favor.

"No, I did not. I made it quite clear that it's all about context."

PercyBoleyn:

You have got to be kidding. If something is absolute it cannot be justified. If an immoral action can be justified then that action is not immoral. This is basic logic, you can't be having this much trouble understanding it.

According to you its basic logic.

"How do you know for a certain the reason people divorce is because they marry to early into the relationship?"

Ill have to find the stats but I know that many of the common reasons given for marriage have to do with people deciding they arent ready for it yet.

In any event I think I have sufficiently proven that society is getting more permissive/progressive or whatever you want to call it which was the original reason I brought up those examples. Lets not get side tracked.

"Because we're becoming more accepting of certain ideas and less so about other. Saying society is beocming more permissive implies that we're heading towards a point where virtually anything will be acceptable which is simply untrue."

Actually I think your own arguments would indicate that it is the likely conclusions. Society is becoming far more permissive of things than it is intolerant of certain things. Its not a zero-sum game like you seem to be suggesting where an equal amount of things are tolerated or not tolerated.

Seekster:
I have, and we arent going to get anywhere if we keep accusing each other of not thinking. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there so please return the favor.

You have? So what, you went around and talked to every single divorced couple in the world and found out the exact reason they broke up?

Seekster:
According to you its basic logic.

You're taking what I said out of context. I specifically stated that an action is immoral or moral based on the context in which it is committed. An action by itself is neither moral nor immoral. It can be both depending on the situation.

Seekster:
In any event I think I have sufficiently proven that society is getting more permissive/progressive or whatever you want to call it which was the original reason I brought up those examples. Lets not get side tracked.

You showed a couple of examples and I debunked those. If you have any more I'll be happy to address them as well.

Seekster:
Actually I think your own arguments would indicate that it is the likely conclusions.

What arguments?

Seekster:
Society is becoming far more permissive of things than it is intolerant of certain things.

Prove it.

Seekster:
Its not a zero-sum game like you seem to be suggesting where an equal amount of things are tolerated or not tolerated.

It never has been that way. You're talking as if secularism is intrinsically evil whereas theological ethics are the only way to avoid this perceived breakdown of societal order you keep talking about.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I have, and we arent going to get anywhere if we keep accusing each other of not thinking. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there so please return the favor.

You have? So what, you went around and talked to every single divorced couple in the world and found out the exact reason they broke up?

Seekster:
According to you its basic logic.

You're taking what I said out of context. I specifically stated that an action is immoral or moral based on the context in which it is committed. An action by itself is neither moral nor immoral. It can be both depending on the situation.

Seekster:
In any event I think I have sufficiently proven that society is getting more permissive/progressive or whatever you want to call it which was the original reason I brought up those examples. Lets not get side tracked.

You showed a couple of examples and I debunked those. If you have any more I'll be happy to address them as well.

Seekster:
Actually I think your own arguments would indicate that it is the likely conclusions.

What arguments?

Seekster:
Society is becoming far more permissive of things than it is intolerant of certain things.

Prove it.

Seekster:
Its not a zero-sum game like you seem to be suggesting where an equal amount of things are tolerated or not tolerated.

It never has been that way. You're talking as if secularism is intrinsically evil whereas theological ethics are the only way to avoid this perceived breakdown of societal order you keep talking about.

You are impossible to have a discussion with when you refuse to accept any premises or accept one one moment and don't accept it the next.

No I am not taking what you said out of context, that was practically the entire post I quoted. If you want to change your view thats fine I actually agree that in secular morality context is important.

You didn't debunk anything, you quibbled about the details but all I needed to do was show that society is becoming more permissive/progressive, I did that moving on.

*Throws his hands up* Good lord man you are going circular on me. I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore.

Kendarik:

F4LL3N:

Well, it depends. If a women is aware of the dangers of caffeine, drugs, and alcohol, but uses it anyway, then she has neglected the health needs of her unborn baby. Failing to maintain folic acid levels aren't exactly in the same league. Unless, of course, her doctor has ordered her to increase the level but she ignores it. Weight problems, infections, not being in the ideal age for pregnancy, stress and previous history of pregnancy loss aren't the mother's fault. To a certain extent, of course.

I noticed you avoided the question. She neglected the health needs causing death or serious birth defects so... is she a murderer too?

BTW, pretty much all doctors order folic acid these days. Almost everyone is short and the consequences of not having enough are well proven.

I didn't avoid the question. He/she didn't ask is the mother a murder for doing this. He/she asked how I would I view a woman who does this.

If she drinks mountains of caffeine know this could cause miscarriage, she should be up for negligent homicide. If she has no idea about folic levels, it's hardly her fault. If a doctor says, "eat this or take this to increase your folic acid level" but she doesn't, and it results in miscarriage, she should be up for negligent homicide. She'll only know if her folic acid levels are low if her doctor tells her.

F4LL3N:
If she drinks mountains of caffeine know this could cause miscarriage, she should be up for negligent homicide. If she has no idea about folic levels, it's hardly her fault. If a doctor says, "eat this or take this to increase your folic acid level" but she doesn't, and it results in miscarriage, she should be up for negligent homicide. She'll only know if her folic acid levels are low if her doctor tells her.

Let's see if you support your own argument:
Because of course you are not a hypocrite, and will thus agree with me that you should be placed on trial for rape, murder, genocide, treason, theft, hatespeech, assault, manslaughter and some other things because you are strongly religious.

After all, you either know or should have known that being fervently religious causes those things to happen, and according to your own argument, you are thus guilty of them.

So, the United States vs F4LL3N on a list of 49.364 indictments. yes or no?

Seekster:
You are impossible to have a discussion with when you refuse to accept any premises or accept one one moment and don't accept it the next.

I refuse to accept a premise based on faulty logic.

Seekster:
No I am not taking what you said out of context, that was practically the entire post I quoted. If you want to change your view thats fine I actually agree that in secular morality context is important.

I did not change my view. My argument there dealt with your erroneous claims about moral absolutism. A post after that I specifically dealt with your faulty definition of secular ethics and stated specifically that secular ethics deal with context.

Seekster:
You didn't debunk anything, you quibbled about the details but all I needed to do was show that society is becoming more permissive/progressive, I did that moving on.

Progressive is not the same as permissive. I addressed every single point you made regarding society becoming more "permissive". If you believe I left something out then please tell me.

Seekster:
Good lord man you are going circular on me. I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore.

First it was that whole bullshit ordeal about how life is sacred. Then you misinterpreted secular ethics and right now I'm guessing we're still dealing with the fallout from that one.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
You are impossible to have a discussion with when you refuse to accept any premises or accept one one moment and don't accept it the next.

I refuse to accept a premise based on faulty logic.

Seekster:
No I am not taking what you said out of context, that was practically the entire post I quoted. If you want to change your view thats fine I actually agree that in secular morality context is important.

I did not change my view. My argument there dealt with your erroneous claims about moral absolutism. A post after that I specifically dealt with your faulty definition of secular ethics and stated specifically that secular ethics deal with context.

Seekster:
You didn't debunk anything, you quibbled about the details but all I needed to do was show that society is becoming more permissive/progressive, I did that moving on.

Progressive is not the same as permissive. I addressed every single point you made regarding society becoming more "permissive". If you believe I left something out then please tell me.

Seekster:
Good lord man you are going circular on me. I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore.

First it was that whole bullshit ordeal about how life is sacred. Then you misinterpreted secular ethics and right now I'm guessing we're still dealing with the fallout from that one.

For the sake of argument I've been accepting a few of your premises which are based on faulty logic at least in my view. If view my my premises as being based on faulty logic then its only intellectual honesty to at least entertain them for the sake of argument the way I do yours if only long enough to determine whether its really faulty logic or just you dont like the premise so you say its based on faulty logic.

I think we are done here, its clear that we either have a massive misunderstanding or that you are unwilling to have a discussion in good faith. I stand by everything I said about life being sacred and about secular morality and you never debunked or refuted a thing I said on either.

The next time we have a discussion we will have to try a different approach to ensure we don't go off in a million directions and lose focus like we have now twice done in this topic.

Seekster:
For the sake of argument I've been accepting a few of your premises which are based on faulty logic at least in my view.

For example?

Seekster:
If view my my premises as being based on faulty logic then its only intellectual honesty to at least entertain them for the sake of argument the way I do yours if only long enough to determine whether its really faulty logic or just you dont like the premise so you say its based on faulty logic.

The premise on which you based your litle apocalypse theory on is based on a faulty definition of secular ethics. You want me to legitimize your faulty claims for no reason at all other than to figure out whether or not you're wrong when you clearly are?

Seekster:
I stand by everything I said about life being sacred and about secular morality and you never debunked or refuted a thing I said on either.

You failed to provide a reason why life is sacred and you misinterpreted the definition of secular ethics. Come again?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
For the sake of argument I've been accepting a few of your premises which are based on faulty logic at least in my view.

For example?

Seekster:
If view my my premises as being based on faulty logic then its only intellectual honesty to at least entertain them for the sake of argument the way I do yours if only long enough to determine whether its really faulty logic or just you dont like the premise so you say its based on faulty logic.

The premise on which you based your litle apocalypse theory on is based on a faulty definition of secular ethics. You want me to legitimize your faulty claims for no reason at all other than to figure out whether or not you're wrong when you clearly are?

Seekster:
I stand by everything I said about life being sacred and about secular morality and you never debunked or refuted a thing I said on either.

You failed to provide a reason why life is sacred and you misinterpreted the definition of secular ethics. Come again?

For most of our discussions I have been giving you benefit of the doubt that you arent employing faulty logic.

Its not an apocalypse theory because its all hypothetical. I clearly pointed out when I laid out my argument on Secular Morality that the system it espouses has a weak foundation and would fall apart long before we reach a point where pretty much anything can be justified.

I failed to provide a reason why life is sacred that you would agree with. I grant you my debate skills are not the best since I am essentially self-taught in that area but I've been doing this for years and at this point I am fairly comfortable with the theory that you just have a problem accepting logic you disagree with and so you claim its faulty.

Like I said, we are done here. I have no interest in continuing because at this point its just going to devolve into personal jabs and there is no point to that. I don't have any personal problem with you and I would hope you aren't so petty as to have a personal problem with me either. Your argument though seems to be all over the place though that could just be because this discussion has been all over the place. Next time I will try and keep the discussion focused and on topic.

Seekster:
Its not an apocalypse theory because its all hypothetical. I clearly pointed out when I laid out my argument on Secular Morality that the system it espouses has a weak foundation and would fall apart long before we reach a point where pretty much anything can be justified.

I fail to see this weak foundation you keep talking about. If anything, moral absolutism is the one with the weak foundation because it's so subjective.

Seekster:
I failed to provide a reason why life is sacred that you would agree with

Well I wouldn't agree with any religious reasons that's for sure.

F4LL3N:

Kendarik:

F4LL3N:

Well, it depends. If a women is aware of the dangers of caffeine, drugs, and alcohol, but uses it anyway, then she has neglected the health needs of her unborn baby. Failing to maintain folic acid levels aren't exactly in the same league. Unless, of course, her doctor has ordered her to increase the level but she ignores it. Weight problems, infections, not being in the ideal age for pregnancy, stress and previous history of pregnancy loss aren't the mother's fault. To a certain extent, of course.

I noticed you avoided the question. She neglected the health needs causing death or serious birth defects so... is she a murderer too?

BTW, pretty much all doctors order folic acid these days. Almost everyone is short and the consequences of not having enough are well proven.

I didn't avoid the question. He/she didn't ask is the mother a murder for doing this. He/she asked how I would I view a woman who does this.

If she drinks mountains of caffeine know this could cause miscarriage, she should be up for negligent homicide. If she has no idea about folic levels, it's hardly her fault. If a doctor says, "eat this or take this to increase your folic acid level" but she doesn't, and it results in miscarriage, she should be up for negligent homicide. She'll only know if her folic acid levels are low if her doctor tells her.

Ok, well then you are consistent in your logic at least.

I'm more than a bit shocked that you think that a mother should be treated as a criminal for her eating habits though. Would you then arrest and force feed the roughly 1/3 of mothers in the US who do not have proper nutrition while pregnant on the basis that they are negligent/child abusers?

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

It is. This is government sanctioned rape. This is why America's going down the crapper.

Blablahb:
Let's see if you support your own argument:
Because of course you are not a hypocrite, and will thus agree with me that you should be placed on trial for rape, murder, genocide, treason, theft, hatespeech, assault, manslaughter and some other things because you are strongly religious.

After all, you either know or should have known that being fervently religious causes those things to happen, and according to your own argument, you are thus guilty of them.

So, the United States vs F4LL3N on a list of 49.364 indictments. yes or no?

I'm sorry we share different values. Come back to reality now or give up, because this charade is not doing your position any favors... Not that I'm saying I disagree with your point. I certainly am guilty of all those crimes simply under the premise that I'm a religious zealot.

Kendarik:
Ok, well then you are consistent in your logic at least.

I'm more than a bit shocked that you think that a mother should be treated as a criminal for her eating habits though. Would you then arrest and force feed the roughly 1/3 of mothers in the US who do not have proper nutrition while pregnant on the basis that they are negligent/child abusers?

What's so shocking? Common sense would suggest you eat healthy regardless of pregnancy. If they can't afford it, then the government should supply aid. Otherwise, take responsibility for your actions. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't have them arrested and force fed. They'd simply get a thorough warning if anything were to happen to the unborn child they would be up for charges.

jimClassic:

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

It is. This is government sanctioned rape. This is why America's going down the crapper.

I disproved this little claim earlier on in the discussion. I don't care to find the post; however, you'll find that transvaginal ultrasounds are normally always preformed before and again after an early term pregnancy. It's standard practice.

F4LL3N:

jimClassic:

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

It is. This is government sanctioned rape. This is why America's going down the crapper.

I disproved this little claim earlier on in the discussion. I don't care to find the post; however, you'll find that transvaginal ultrasounds are normally always preformed before and again after an early term pregnancy. It's standard practice.

its also standard practice to get consent and not force it onto someone

F4LL3N:

jimClassic:

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

It is. This is government sanctioned rape. This is why America's going down the crapper.

I disproved this little claim earlier on in the discussion. I don't care to find the post; however, you'll find that transvaginal ultrasounds are normally always preformed before and again after an early term pregnancy. It's standard practice.

You're still missing the point; all such procedures are entirely voluntary. The mother does not have to get them, and you'd find plenty of mother's who don't. Here the government is essentially saying that if you want to get an abortion, you have to get a doctor to shove one of these things into you. Legally, that is Rape by Coercion. The mother doesn't want to go through with it, but in order to do something she does want she has to.

That you can not see something even mildly morally suspect about this despite your pro-life stance is disturbing.

F4LL3N:
I'm sorry we share different values. Come back to reality now or give up, because this charade is not doing your position any favors... Not that I'm saying I disagree with your point. I certainly am guilty of all those crimes simply under the premise that I'm a religious zealot.

So you love to condemn other people, but when it comes to yourself, suddenly the same principle shouldn't be applied.

That's hypocritical.

Shaoken:
You're still missing the point; all such procedures are entirely voluntary. The mother does not have to get them, and you'd find plenty of mother's who don't. Here the government is essentially saying that if you want to get an abortion, you have to get a doctor to shove one of these things into you. Legally, that is Rape by Coercion. The mother doesn't want to go through with it, but in order to do something she does want she has to.

That you can not see something even mildly morally suspect about this despite your pro-life stance is disturbing.

No they're not. They're not done if the women wants them done. They're done for health reasons. If they're told one is needed and they refuse, they do not get an abortion. Many clinics always perform them, therefore any women getting an early term abortion needs to get it done. The bill just makes sure everyone follows this.

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
I'm sorry we share different values. Come back to reality now or give up, because this charade is not doing your position any favors... Not that I'm saying I disagree with your point. I certainly am guilty of all those crimes simply under the premise that I'm a religious zealot.

So you love to condemn other people, but when it comes to yourself, suddenly the same principle shouldn't be applied.

That's hypocritical.

Go ahead if you want to it's just a little more silly than what I do, since I've never even used a religious argument.

F4LL3N:

Shaoken:
You're still missing the point; all such procedures are entirely voluntary. The mother does not have to get them, and you'd find plenty of mother's who don't. Here the government is essentially saying that if you want to get an abortion, you have to get a doctor to shove one of these things into you. Legally, that is Rape by Coercion. The mother doesn't want to go through with it, but in order to do something she does want she has to.

That you can not see something even mildly morally suspect about this despite your pro-life stance is disturbing.

No they're not. They're not done if the women wants them done. They're done for health reasons. If they're told one is needed and they refuse, they do not get an abortion. Many clinics always perform them, therefore any women getting an early term abortion needs to get it done. The bill just makes sure everyone follows this.

"Many clinics always perform this." Citation needed. IF so many do it then this legislation would not be required, Likewise you need proof that a doctor needs to have this particular form of ultrasound to perform an abortion, since by your own admission not every abortion clinic performs them, showing that they are, in fact, not needed.

So you ended up contradicting yourself in the same paragraph by admiting not all clinics perform them, thus they don't "need" to be done.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked