|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 18, 2004 16:40:28 GMT -5
Ohkay, are you useing trick as in prostitution?! LoL...thats why you move to vegas Heehee. No, i mean it as in false advertizing, forging, misusing fine print, usuring, cheating at the lotto/stock market, counterfeiting, etc... Hey, prostitution is a moral issue too. Now why are there laws about that? If it was legal, we'd have more jobs anyway. We always hammer the president about there not being enough jobs. It'd be funny if he went all "Hey, I solved the unemployment problem by allowing prostitution in all 50 states!" Yeah, society as it is is pretty unfair and otherwise sucks. But it beats feudalism, totalitarianism, and barbarism all hollow, so the natural thing to do is to try and hang on to what we've got. (and to you feudalists and anarchists and stuff out there, I don't mean anything insulting by the above statement ;D heehee I gotta be careful, lest i start a whole 'nother debate) |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 18, 2004 19:25:58 GMT -5
The way I think is that if you end a life, even before it technically begins, you're still ending someone's life, which is a nicer way to say killing someone. Lets say for a second, like you say, that the fetus isn'ta life, it isn't alive. When you destroy the fetus, you are still destroying the life it would have been...that it should have been. That's exact same argument the Catholic church uses to tell people not to wear protection. Do you defend that too? |
|
|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Oct 18, 2004 19:46:37 GMT -5
haha, note to self: next debate make a ref! I heaven't heard that argument Elfie,but i would love to hear more about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 19, 2004 0:16:21 GMT -5
The Catholic church used to, and I believe still does oppose the use of things like condoms because it prevents the sperm from becoming life. That's the origin of the "Every Sperm Is Sacred" song from Monty Python. Now over the years they've gone lax on this rule, but I believe it is still techincally upheld. This parrallels the argument Scythe raised. If we're going to require that all things that could ever become life are allowed to do so, then we cannot accept any argument for birth control. I would disagree and say that they are cases where it's okay to not have things become life. The trick is drawing the line. Some people draw it at conception. Personally, I would never advocate an abortion, so I draw it there too, but I don't feel comfortable telling people my line is the right one, so I would give more leeway than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Oct 19, 2004 10:13:32 GMT -5
1. Lying as an incumbent president is not ALWAYS for personal gain. There have been times in history when the administration had vital information, but could not release it to the public, for whatever reason - usually to prevent public insanity. Take the Cuban Missle Crisis, for example. The administration in power KNEW they had missles, but didn't release that info to the public, and probably would've lied or skirted the issue if directly asked. Why? To prevent mass hysteria.
2. I agree that there are certain cases abortion should be allowed and many cases where it shouldn't. As I've said before, if someone is raped, they shouldn't be forced to have the child. If the baby will come out severely retarded or as a vegetable, it shouldn't be forced into life, as that's not really living. And if the mother is in serious danger, well, I'd rather keep the woman I love and chose to be with than the child I've never met. It gets deeper for me, but that's the basics.
3. Kerry's latest "Taking a Stand" is, I think, yet another political ploy. His advisors sat him down and told him "People think you're an indecisive guy - prove them wrong and you'll get their vote," so that's what he's trying to do. The fact is he IS an indecisive guy...4 months of decisiveness doesn't match at least 3 times that much in the other way. Bush, on the other hand, has, for the most part, been decisive. He has his flip-flops, yes, but everyone does...you've never changed your mind? The fact is, he doesn't do it very often, and usually not in a short span of time. People reference the Bin Laden quotes, but the fact is those are quite a period of time apart.
4. Prostitution, if regulated, should be legal, as should marijuana. Both would create vast income and jobs. Problem is, it's not moral. Well, it's not directly hurting anyone like killing, lying, stealing, and raping would, so fuck it. Let God sort 'em out.
5. I am most definitely NOT "extreme right-wing" and I actually almost take offense to that. Bill O'Reilly is extreme right-wing. I merely drift to the right.
I think that's everything. If I remember anything else, you'll hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 19, 2004 11:39:03 GMT -5
Scythe, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree... I don't see anything wrong with abortion (or, for that matter, dueling, prostitution or euthanasia), and I get EXTREMELY offended when someone who isn't wearing a black robe and carrying a gavel starts passing judgement on people.
So basically, I still say you can think abortion is wrong all you want to, but it doesn't give you the right to force that belief on others.
The only thing I follow to the letter from the bible is "Judge not". Everything else has circumstances in which it's okay, even things like killing (self-defense), raping (I'd love to see rape victims be given a strap-on dildo so they can pound the ass of the rapist) and stealing (I'll use Robin Hood as an example).
|
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 19, 2004 21:32:53 GMT -5
4. Prostitution, if regulated, should be legal, as should marijuana. Both would create vast income and jobs. Problem is, it's not moral. Well, it's not directly hurting anyone like killing, lying, stealing, and raping would, so fuck it. Let God sort 'em out. I agree, for the most part. Here's one potential pitfall, taken from a real life story in Australia. In Australia there is a program that says if you are offered a job and do not take it you don't get welfare. This is fundamentally a good idea. You should work if you can, and when someone goes out of their way to allow you to work, you shouldn't be rewarded for turning them down. Here's what happened. Australia recently legalized prostitution, which I think was smart. Unfortunately, this proved disastrous for an individual. The individual in question was a woman who couldn't get a job anywhere, well almost anywhere. You see, she was offered a job as a prostitute. This left her with quite a dilemma. She was morally opposed to taking the job, but if she didn't she would be unable to claim welfare. Is this fair? Overall, I'm in favour of legalizing prostitution, if only for the safety of the people involved, but we should also realize it might be a beaurocratic mess and needs ot be thought through carefully. 5. I am most definitely NOT "extreme right-wing" and I actually almost take offense to that. Bill O'Reilly is extreme right-wing. I merely drift to the right. Righties call me a lefty. Lefties call me a righty. It makes me kind of curious. Am I just a centrist? |
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 20, 2004 12:12:33 GMT -5
Yes, Elfie, you're a centrist... albeit a slightly left-leaning one. Bass is NOT a centrist, which is why I singled him out as right-wing, and I most definitely am about as far to the left as you can get.
If you'll notice, I've set this forum up with 6 mods instead of 5... this is so that there are 2 centrists (Elfie and Devo), 2 lefties (me and SpasticChicken) and 2 righties (Bass and Scythe). I've also arranged the names of mods from left to right instead of alphabetically like they are in the other boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 20, 2004 21:08:26 GMT -5
That's exact same argument the Catholic church uses to tell people not to wear protection. Do you defend that too? No. i don't think it extends that far. Once the life-cycle of the human organism begins, when the human begins to develop, thats where I personally would draw the line. Protection and preventative measures are great things to have around and available to the public. the Catholic Church is a bit too extreme in that regards, meesa thinks. Scythe, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree... I don't see anything wrong with abortion (or, for that matter, dueling, prostitution or euthanasia), and I get EXTREMELY offended when someone who isn't wearing a black robe and carrying a gavel starts passing judgement on people. So basically, I still say you can think abortion is wrong all you want to, but it doesn't give you the right to force that belief on others. The only thing I follow to the letter from the bible is "Judge not". Everything else has circumstances in which it's okay, even things like killing (self-defense), raping (I'd love to see rape victims be given a strap-on dildo so they can pound the ass of the rapist) and stealing (I'll use Robin Hood as an example). I don't see where pro-choicers (and supporters of all that other stuff that I don't care to list) come off forcing THEIR values (or lack thereof) on those of us who don't support them. Why should the government tell me and have schools teach my future children (hopefully) that stuff like that is right? This whole thing with the government giving way anyone if the issue involves anything resembling moral questions needs a little tweaking. In a democracy, we should have majority rule with provisions for the protection of the minority. That should not mean, however, that no one can do anything to stop highly divisive issues like abortion that affect all the people of the nation, not just those who support its legalization. Heck, there were plenty of people that still thought slavery was fine morally after the Civil War, for goodness sake. But the government stepped in then and made it illegal simply because over half the nation (approximately) thought it was immoral. The abortion issue is no different. If the majority wants them, we shouldn't be able to stop them, but if more people don't want them, we cant let the minority push the majority around and do it anyway. And about killing, stealing, and raping: the last time that they weren't completely against the law in the majority of the better-off nations of the world was probably the age of feudalism. You know, the "Dark Ages" (hint hint) That ended when central governments arose and brought order, and, uhh, made and enforced strict laws. About killing and raping and stealing... In conclusion, I don't want to force my values on anyone, but i dont want anyone else's values (or lack of values) forced on me. It's a two way street. And yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Oct 21, 2004 18:48:00 GMT -5
Ideal-wise, I'm a centrist. Every test I've taken on the subject so far says so. Application-wise, I'm off to the right, as Elfie is off to the left application-wise. We have the same basic ideals, we just think differently of the ways to apply them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildkarrde on Nov 7, 2004 13:06:17 GMT -5
Scythe, your majority argument is flawed. Slavery being legal forced slaves to have no rights, etc. Abortion being legal does NOT force anyone to do anything. It just means that christians have to live with other ppl doing something they don't approve of. That's the difference.
Abortion is something that affects no one but the woman or girl having it done, and her child. Parents can make other decisions about the life of their child, like letting them have medications, making medical decisions, etc. Abortion in many cases is a medical decision, for the child or the parent.
Also, you said that the woman/girl only has to suffer through nine months, then she can get rid of the child and be financially compensated. Not true. She will forever be scarred, both physically and emotionally by what she had to go through. If raped, she will always regret having the child, and will have her life uttterly destroyed by having it. Her social life will be ruined, if she was an athlete, her collge sports scholarship could be rescinded, because she was pregnant with her rapist's child, etc.
Basically, it is a moral issue, and moral issues should not be decided by the gov't. You say killing is a moral issue as well, as is stealing. Sorry my friend, but you are wrong. Those are public safety issues. A murderer is endangering or ending the lives of others, thus the gov't has every right to stop murder. Theft is damaging to the public as well. The decision to have an abortion only affects the mother and fetus, not the general public.
You also say that more lives are lost due to abortion than saved. Very, very wrong, sorry to have to point that out to you.
In countries where abaortion is illegal, many, many women die from unsafe illegal abortions.
Drugs, prostitution, abortion, all should be personal choices, and the government should have no say in them, except perhaps to regulate.
I may lean far to the left myself, but I don't think you can argue with some of my points, no matter how far right you are. Anyone that can tell my 14-yr old friend who was drugged, gang-raped, beaten, and had an abortion that she should have had the child, to her face, I'd like to see that.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Nov 8, 2004 3:22:56 GMT -5
I'm not about to say that, as my position on the issue has already shown. But I'm in the mood to argue one specific point that jumped out at me.
You said theft is damaging to the public, did you not? Yes, you did. But how? It doesn't directly harm anyone (unless the person shoots someone in the process, but that's different). If you're talking financially, that's different. Welfare also damages society financially...it allows people who aren't contributing to society to leech off of it for a given period of time. It's similar to stealing. Not quite the same, but similar. Killing I can yield, but as you can see, there's a plenty fine argument for stealing having nothing to do with society's safety, thus making it a moral issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildkarrde on Nov 8, 2004 9:23:48 GMT -5
When someone has a possession stolen it's considered damaging, if not physical, then emotional, and financial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Nov 8, 2004 11:16:27 GMT -5
You also say that more lives are lost due to abortion than saved. Very, very wrong, sorry to have to point that out to you. ...umm...so I take it you're subtracting the number of children whose lives are ended through abortion from your calculations... Scythe, your majority argument is flawed. Slavery being legal forced slaves to have no rights, etc. Abortion being legal does NOT force anyone to do anything. It just means that christians have to live with other ppl doing something they don't approve of. That's the difference. Sorry, but how is it different? Slavery being legal forces slaves to have no rights as human beings. Abortion being legal forces little babies to have no rights as human beings. I fail to see a difference there. I'm gonna stop here. Most of your arguments are based on the assupmtion that the child involved has no rights and/or should not be counted as a human being. If it is true that it is merely a moral issue and not something the government should be able to stop, there is no reason to have laws against slavery or even about equal rights for women or different religious groups or races and all that un-fun jazz. I'll spew more later. |
|
|
|
Post by Wildkarrde on Nov 8, 2004 11:54:37 GMT -5
...umm...so I take it you're subtracting the number of children whose lives are ended through abortion from your calculations... Sorry, but how is it different? Slavery being legal forces slaves to have no rights as human beings. Abortion being legal forces little babies to have no rights as human beings. I fail to see a difference there. I'm gonna stop here. Most of your arguments are based on the assupmtion that the child involved has no rights and/or should not be counted as a human being. If it is true that it is merely a moral issue and not something the government should be able to stop, there is no reason to have laws against slavery or even about equal rights for women or different religious groups or races and all that un-fun jazz. I'll spew more later. No I'm not subtracting the child, because a) before three weeks it is not a child, and b) when the mother dies as well, that's double the number of deaths.....seems obvious to me. When the mother tries an abortion on her own and ends up dying, as happens in other countries, it causes more deaths. Simple. And yes, I am saying the chil doesn't have the same rights as a slave would, because, again, a) not a child until 3 weeks, and b) parents always have control over decisions affecting the childs life, so this should be more so before they are formed, not less. And again, I challenge you to go up to my friend, who was drugged, gang raped, beaten, and had an abortion, and tell her she was wrong. Or any of the numerous girls even younger than that who are victims of sexuakl predators, whose health would have been destroyed by having a child, and whose lives would have been ruined, as well as the child's, in most cases. I am in no way advocating that abortion should be used as a method of birth-control, but I do think it should be legal in extreme circumstances, such as rape, cases where the mother's health is endangered, and teenage pregnancy. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it? |
|
