|
|
On October 25 2012 12:37 sunprince wrote:
Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example).
It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected.
Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation.
While true in the criminal sense, Courts have made it pretty clear that nearly anything creates a duty to save a dying person in the civil world.
|
On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
See? Conservatives want big government after all.
On social issues, generally yes.
|
On October 25 2012 12:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it. Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Simply because they are going to become a person. Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being. I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
So you're against abortions, and you're against contraceptives. And you find it fair to try to force everyone else in the country to live their lives according to your beliefs? You don't think their medical decisions, or their sex lives, are things that they can decide for themselves?
|
On October 25 2012 12:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it. Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Simply because they are going to become a person. Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being. I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
The potential to be a person is a rather weird line since each egg that a woman has has the potential to be a person, each one of the 100,000 sperm a male uses each time he has sex has the potential to be a person. Does this mean that a woman should be required to get pregnant every 9 months in order to prevent killing the egg?
|
On October 25 2012 12:40 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:37 sunprince wrote:
Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example).
It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected.
Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation. While true in the criminal sense, Courts have made it pretty clear that nearly anything creates a duty to save a dying person in the civil world.
Not at cost to yourself. We don't require people to rush into burning buildings to save others.
|
On October 25 2012 12:29 ZeaL. wrote:
Another thing to consider is that if you're poor enough that you need help getting contraception then you're probably poor enough to need government assistance raising a child. One is much much cheaper than the other.
Exactly, yet somehow the logic is this, let's not help with the contraception, and actively try to stop people from learning about things like safe sex, contraceptives, consulting with available doctors at a safe place who understands by shutting down places like planned parenthood, a place that actively tries to teach people(including the poor) about sex., and then once they have their unwanted baby , lets complain about providing federal funding like welfare and food stamps for the mother because she is a lazy entitled person who believes she is a victim.
I'm sorry but it's ridiculous.
We need comprehensive sex education early on(no more of this abstinence only, sex is a sin bullshit, come on, it's the 21st century people) , we need expansion of government funding for places like planned parenthood, their need to be more of these places not less, Have you guys been there? I know most of you aren't women, but they are super helpful, and can help with most any thing regarding your sexual health plus they are inexpensive.
|
On October 25 2012 12:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
See? Conservatives want big government after all. On social issues, generally yes.
The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever.
Standard.
|
On October 25 2012 12:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:19 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:15 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live. If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place. Yes it is. You have (should have) a moral and civil duty to your fellow man and citizen that you won't directly take part in an action that kills them. yes the person could tell you that its okay for you to unplug them but by this they have consented to some degree for you to do it. An unborn child can't say or make known their wish's in any way and therefore shoudn't be held to the same standard as a fully grown adult. Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example). Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote:
Would it be any difference to you if it was a child that was connected to you in this analogy? would it make a difference to you if it was your own child that would die if you disconnected yourself from them and were the reason that they died? It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected. Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation.
You didn't cause that person to be in a situation to be dieing on your front lawn and if you did then you have a whole new field of things to consider about it. It may fall under good Samaritan laws depending on where you are if you don't try and save that persons life.
And your analogy fails again because in that situation where your child or anyone needs an organ transplant to survive you are not making an active choice to cause the death of someone you are causing it though indirect negligence at the worst. By choseing not to donate your organ the person is going to die not by you not donating your organ to that person.
I hoped that last part made sense to you as it did to me
|
On October 25 2012 12:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it. Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Simply because they are going to become a person.
really? am i commiting mass murder everytime i masturbate?
|
On October 25 2012 12:50 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Simply because they are going to become a person. really? am i commiting mass murder everytime i masturbate?
A fetus requires more than just sperm.
|
On October 25 2012 12:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it. Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Simply because they are going to become a person.Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being. I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
On October 25 2012 12:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:32 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? Not at all. I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alo the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time? Child: sentient, intelligent, developed nervous system, individual, birthed. Fetus: not You can make a scientific argument that a fully grown human is not an individual organism. Show nested quote +The traditional view is that a human body is a collection of 10 trillion cells which are themselves the products of 23,000 genes. If the revolutionaries are correct, these numbers radically underestimate the truth. For in the nooks and crannies of every human being, and especially in his or her guts, dwells the microbiome: 100 trillion bacteria of several hundred species bearing 3m non-human genes. The biological Robespierres believe these should count, too; that humans are not single organisms, but superorganisms made up of lots of smaller organisms working together.
It might sound perverse to claim bacterial cells and genes as part of the body, but the revolutionary case is a good one. For the bugs are neither parasites nor passengers. They are, rather, fully paid-up members of a community of which the human “host” is but a single (if dominating) member. This view is increasingly popular: the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature and Science, have both reviewed it extensively in recent months. It is also important: it will help the science and practice of medicine (see article). LinkJust trying to demonstrate that multiple views / opinions can be equally valid.
Your contention is contingent upon the definition of individual, which a scientist would/could clarify. The existence of bacteria in the gut is therefore not support of the notion that we are not individuals, and not really relevant to the abortion issue.
|
On October 25 2012 12:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:40 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 12:37 sunprince wrote:
Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example).
It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected.
Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation. While true in the criminal sense, Courts have made it pretty clear that nearly anything creates a duty to save a dying person in the civil world. Not at cost to yourself. We don't require people to rush into burning buildings to save others.
Because the burning building will endanger the person running into it. The situation that made good Samaritan laws force you to help people whos lives are in risk are there to prevent people from not calling the police when they see a women getting raped and murdered outside their house/apartment. the analogy I just used actually happened believe it or not.
You constantly use bad analogies that have crippling failures that you just aren't seeing for some reason and making us point it out. Its borderline straw man and its not helping you make your case.
And I do believe that planned parenthood is a good thing. I've never been in one because I don't live in the city but they have basically the same thing I believe in a medical clinic in a town near me.
|
On October 25 2012 12:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
See? Conservatives want big government after all. On social issues, generally yes. The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever. Standard.
Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
|
On October 25 2012 12:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:37 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:19 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:15 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live. If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place. Yes it is. You have (should have) a moral and civil duty to your fellow man and citizen that you won't directly take part in an action that kills them. yes the person could tell you that its okay for you to unplug them but by this they have consented to some degree for you to do it. An unborn child can't say or make known their wish's in any way and therefore shoudn't be held to the same standard as a fully grown adult. Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example). On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote:
Would it be any difference to you if it was a child that was connected to you in this analogy? would it make a difference to you if it was your own child that would die if you disconnected yourself from them and were the reason that they died? It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected. Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation. You didn't cause that person to be in a situation to be dieing on your front lawn and if you did then you have a whole new field of things to consider about it. It may fall under good Samaritan laws depending on where you are if you don't try and save that persons life. And your analogy fails again because in that situation where your child or anyone needs an organ transplant to survive you are not making an active choice to cause the death of someone you are causing it though indirect negligence at the worst. By choseing not to donate your organ the person is going to die not by you not donating your organ to that person. I hoped that last part made sense to you as it did to me
This. The mother has sex, which can result in a pregnancy. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
I should bare no responsibility for some dying man in my lawn. I did not do anything to contribute to his condition.
This analogy is really poor and doesn't encompass the whole situation.
I agree that our sex ed needs to be better. People need to understand contraceptives are not 100% effective.
|
On October 25 2012 12:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:23 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Lets put it this way, where exactly does the Constitution grant you bodily autonomy? If it did then all of those things would not be allowed, but they are. As argued by the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v Wade (and subsequent cases), this right is implicit. That's why even though you don't have an explicit Constitutional right to protect you from the goverment forcing you to donate parts of your body to save others, most people (and legal scholars) will agree that this right exists.
Like I said, you are calling your opinions rights. Or rather, judicial activism is fine and dandy. The 9th amendment was never intended to grand infinite powers to judges. You are taking a bill of rights designed to limit federal power and using that as justification for the federal government destroying state laws (often supported by majorities of both men and women of that state) prohibiting abortion. Most legal scholars will not say the 9th amendment is a blank check to give judges the power to invent rights and enforce them or that it is a source of new rights.
How would you feel if a new Court decided the right of fetuses to live was a 9th amendment right?
|
On October 25 2012 12:42 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:29 ZeaL. wrote:
Another thing to consider is that if you're poor enough that you need help getting contraception then you're probably poor enough to need government assistance raising a child. One is much much cheaper than the other. Exactly, yet somehow the logic is this, let's not help with the contraception, and actively try to stop people from learning about things like safe sex, contraceptives, consulting with available doctors at a safe place who understands by shutting down places like planned parenthood, a place that actively tries to teach people(including the poor) about sex., and then once they have their unwanted baby , lets complain about providing federal funding like welfare and food stamps for the mother because she is a lazy entitled person who believes she is a victim. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous. We need comprehensive sex education early on, we need expansion of government funding for places like planned parenthood, their need to be more of these places not less, Have you guys been there? I know most of you aren't women, but they are super helpful, and can help with most any thing regarding your sexual health plus they are inexpensive.
This is the part that always gets me. In terms of public health, there are few things as simple, cheap, and effective as low key health distributorships like Planned Parenthood. They are incredibly high "bang for your buck" establishments, in that they lack the overhead/red tape of hospital systems, are promulgated in such a way as to provide unparalleled access (especially in low income/poor health areas), and are able to provide highly effective means of treating and more importantly preventing the spread of disease. The downside of spending taxpayer money, potentially interpreted as a moral compulsion that society "support" others, ignores the hard truth of large population health dynamics; the cost of "what if?" is simply too high.
|
On October 25 2012 13:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 25 2012 12:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
See? Conservatives want big government after all. On social issues, generally yes. The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever. Standard. Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
Because they're attempting to impose their absolutist, inflexible belief upon women, even those who impregnated by rape.
|
On October 25 2012 12:56 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Simply because they are going to become a person.Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being. I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it. This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
|
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFiR45zcQjo/UIiwvQ4JClI/AAAAAAAAALU/a795jMbW66o/s1600/obama+funny.jpg)
It feels like economic growth and prosperity is against Obama's agenda. Spreading the wealth so everything is "fair" for others looking into starting a small business is just plain dumb. Obama believes that the government has the ability to resolve our problems while Romney believes in private enterprises and has distrust in government intervention. Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Its so irritating to hear Obama say the rich need to be taxed a little bit more to spread the wealth around. Unemployment is only bad because banks don't lend as much since 2008's crisis, trillions of dollars are just sitting around doing nothing within banks and there's idle workers. If you aren't building anything than your SCVs and the workers inside your barrackses and factories will be idle and not getting pay checks.
Those are just my 2 cents, Obama is going to drag this recession on for another 4 years.
|
On October 25 2012 13:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 25 2012 12:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
See? Conservatives want big government after all. On social issues, generally yes. The though of government spending a portion of your tax dollars on things you don't agree with is unbearably abhorrent, but you have no problems letting them forbid women from receiving certain medical procedures that have no bearing in your life whatsoever. Standard. Well, personally I'm pro-choice but I don't see the pro-life argument as 'wrong' either. The state I live in (MA) will never outlaw abortion or revert the legality of same-sex marriage. But if the bible belt states feel otherwise I see no reason to impose my own cultural beliefs on them.
The abortion issue is not one of cultural beliefs. It's health care. It's a basic human right. You're not imposing yourself on anybody by being pro-choice, you're choosing to not allow others to impose their beliefs onto you and your body. Saying you want to leave a basic right up to the states is a cop-out. Some states wanted slavery, but that doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't protect African Americans because certain states voted for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
