Reading This Now
-
Thomas George wrote:
it is crucial...that elected representatives do not invoke God of a certain religion. Why is it crucial? inclusiveness. Buddhists should not feel alien because the President keeps refering to Jesus, and the Governor to Allah or whatever . . .
In other words, you're for restricting the religious freedoms of a person so as not to offend someone? :confused:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
In other words, you're for restricting the religious freedoms of a person in order that someone not get offended?
No confusion needed. I am not asking anyone to restrict his religious freedom. But, when you are in an elected position and catering to a multi-religious community, you should not use that privilege to spread a religious message -- and this restriction applies ONLY when you are doing your job. You can go to the church/synagogue/temple in your personal capacity and do your evangelic work; but, not in the official address to the nation, on the floor of the house, or in a debate that has no direct link to religion. If you want to retain your right to preach your religious messages all the time, do not run for elections. Retaining that right means that you do not have the qualifications to represent the aspirations of a multi-religious society, most probably, not willing to consider alternatives that do not gel with your religious positions (but, nevertheless may be good for the community) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I have not read the book; I will try to get a copy, but, may not be readily available as I live in India now. But, I am interested in understanding how government is organized. When I was in NY, I was impressed with the political system. But, is it essential that the constitution of any country remain in its initial form? Would it not be necessary to amend the text to accomodate the changes? My only concern is back-door changes in interpretation without actually changing the text -- the kind that results from petty partisan politics. But, if the majority in the country feels that the text should have been interpreted the new way means that there is some ambiguity. I think that change is inevitable, . . . and inability to deal with change can bring about the downfall of any country. If 50 Americans who represent different view points can be assembled, they can competently do a review of the changes and changed interpretations.
Thomas George wrote:
as I live in India now.
I assume you are on leave, since your profile still mentions the NY company. Btw, sorry if my memory is wrong, but aren't you from Trivandrum? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
I am not an American citizen; and my interest in the subject is just academic, and basically how I would like law to work in my country. I am just stating that there are some basic human rights that every person needs to have where ever he lives.
espeir wrote:
Some people believe that the definition of rights should conform to whatever their personal beliefs rights are, rather than what society as a whole decides.
Okay. How does society decide? I state my opinion; you state yours. Sometimes I can convince you why my idea is better; sometimes you convince me. Does my opinion has value? Yes. Is the majority view right always? No. You cannot interfere with certain rights, however much support it has.
espeir wrote:
However, this has been misinterpreted as an absolute right to privacy, meaning that laws supposedly cannot be passed if they infringe on somebody's personal actions (e.g. drug use). That's not the wording at all.
Tell me, did I even imply this? You are just assuming my position. I just said that despite what I do wrong or right, a judicial warrant should be required to intrude into my privacy. Private individuals, when they try to photograph a celebrity actress in here home through the window, is trespassing on her right. When a police officer decides to enter my house without a judicial warrant, or some kind of system that the society agreed upon (for right or wrong intentions), it should be condemned. You can catch all the drug users you want, but only if you have the requisite license from the society to do that.
espeir wrote:
Again you personal opinion is irrelevant. It doesn't matter when someone who is not in a responsible position of power (such as yourself) claims that everyone should conform to his own beliefs.
Again, my opinion matters. If there was no individual opinion, and no one tried to advertise their opinions, then how does a collective opinion form? On this subject, I believe that despite your personal beliefs, You , when in a position of power, should act on behalf of all the people you represent. You have no right to deliver a Catholic message, or a Buddhist message, or a Muslim message from that position. A president or a prime minister should not be saying things like "Jesus save our country", or "Lord Rama is on our side". Again, it is my opinion, and it matters.
Thomas George wrote:
Okay. How does society decide? I state my opinion; you state yours. Sometimes I can convince you why my idea is better; sometimes you convince me. Does my opinion has value? Yes. Is the majority view right always? No. You cannot interfere with certain rights, however much support it has.
This is a common intellectual deficit of the left. Democracy is not ruled by morality. Once that occurs, then the minority can overrule the desires of the majority by claiming moral superiority. Democracy is about self-governance. By inferring laws from non-existent legal text, you trunp the will of the people in favor of a judicial oligarchy and tyranny.
Thomas George wrote:
Tell me, did I even imply this? You are just assuming my position. I just said that despite what I do wrong or right, a judicial warrant should be required to intrude into my privacy. Private individuals, when they try to photograph a celebrity actress in here home through the window, is trespassing on her right. When a police officer decides to enter my house without a judicial warrant, or some kind of system that the society agreed upon (for right or wrong intentions), it should be condemned. You can catch all the drug users you want, but only if you have the requisite license from the society to do that.
No, I was agreeing with you by stating that the constitution supports your view on that matter. However, many believe that "privacy rights" are as I described.
Thomas George wrote:
Again, my opinion matters. If there was no individual opinion, and no one tried to advertise their opinions, then how does a collective opinion form? On this subject, I believe that despite your personal beliefs, You , when in a position of power, should act on behalf of all the people you represent. You have no right to deliver a Catholic message, or a Buddhist message, or a Muslim message from that position. A president or a prime minister should not be saying things like "Jesus save our country", or "Lord Rama is on our side". Again, it is my opinion, and it matters.
You opinion matters insomuch as you are allowed to try and sway the public with it. However, legally your personal opinion should not matter in a Democracy unless it is part of the collective voice of the voting public. Otherwise you would have a disproportionate amount of power and we would have tyranny. The pr
-
"The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Andrew Napolitano. If you want an understanding of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights were intended to do, but how both documents are mere shreds of their former selves, read this book. ------- sig starts "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
read this book
Ordered. I need something else besides rereading Niven's Ringworld books. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Thomas George wrote:
as I live in India now.
I assume you are on leave, since your profile still mentions the NY company. Btw, sorry if my memory is wrong, but aren't you from Trivandrum? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!I am from Trivandrum; and I live in Trivandrum now. I partly owned my previous company, which was sold in March 2005. After that, I decided to return to India, and be more with my extended family :). Btw, where are you now? I saw that you are listed as Dundas India CEO and is located in Trivandrum.
-
I am from Trivandrum; and I live in Trivandrum now. I partly owned my previous company, which was sold in March 2005. After that, I decided to return to India, and be more with my extended family :). Btw, where are you now? I saw that you are listed as Dundas India CEO and is located in Trivandrum.
Thomas George wrote:
I am from Trivandrum; and I live in Trivandrum now.
Cool, next time I am in TVM, and if you are free, it'd be cool to meet up.
Thomas George wrote:
I partly owned my previous company, which was sold in March 2005.
Ah, did a Zafir Anjum, didn't you? ;-)
Thomas George wrote:
After that, I decided to return to India, and be more with my extended family .
Cool! And eat proper food too I guess.
Thomas George wrote:
Btw, where are you now? I saw that you are listed as Dundas India CEO and is located in Trivandrum.
It's a Technopark glitch :-) I am currently in Toronto. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
I believe that the list you mentioned are basic human freedoms that need to be there -- constitution or no constitution! The right to privacy: I thought I had the right to be in my home without being disturbed. If someone wants to see me, I can refuse, and "someone" should just walk away. Everything I do need not be disclosed to everyone else -- or simply put, no one else has the right to intrude into my private life without a judicial warrant. The right to abortion: Again, IMO, no law needed. It can also be argued that there is nothing in the US constitution preventing abortion. I know many people are against abortion; but, medically it may be needed for the survival of the mother. I would rather leave it to the mother and the medical professional rather than make a decision for all of them. Based on the collective morality and ethics in a society, this can be acceptable or not acceptable. Other issues of similar nature can be "mercy killing", status of patients on life support systems for years with no expected recovery etc. These are the kind of issues that I mean by change -- the majority in your country can change their mind. Again, life is sacred theory that causes the opposition to abortion. Nature gives us no indication that it values life much. Lots of lives are lost in natural calamities. We ourselves make choices -- freedom for a lot of lives of our fellow citizens by defending our countries, death penalty for a better behaved society, etc. Yet, the life is sacred theory has jeopardized scientic progress by stalling stem cell research by limiting use of embryonic stem cells. All these are not in the constitution either. I believe that when most constitutions were framed, they did not think about the rights of the unborn child -- now, there is an attempt to extend civil law to apply to the unborn child. If there can be no consensus, that will allow an amendment that will clarify the position, I believe the decision should be left to the individual. Separation of church and state: It is crucial that religious connotations are not given to law or governmental positions -- and that elected representatives do not invoke God of a certain religion. Why is it crucial? inclusiveness. Buddhists should not feel alien because the President keeps refering to Jesus, and the Governor to Allah or whatever . . . Freedom of expression: I would rather leave it at "You can express whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anyone else." Religions have been very intolerant about any alternative view poi
Thomas George wrote:
The right to abortion: Again, IMO, no law needed. It can also be argued that there is nothing in the US constitution preventing abortion. I know many people are against abortion; but, medically it may be needed for the survival of the mother. I would rather leave it to the mother and the medical professional rather than make a decision for all of them. Based on the collective morality and ethics in a society, this can be acceptable or not acceptable. Other issues of similar nature can be "mercy killing", status of patients on life support systems for years with no expected recovery etc. These are the kind of issues that I mean by change -- the majority in your country can change their mind. Again, life is sacred theory that causes the opposition to abortion. Nature gives us no indication that it values life much. Lots of lives are lost in natural calamities. We ourselves make choices -- freedom for a lot of lives of our fellow citizens by defending our countries, death penalty for a better behaved society, etc. Yet, the life is sacred theory has jeopardized scientic progress by stalling stem cell research by limiting use of embryonic stem cells. All these are not in the constitution either. I believe that when most constitutions were framed, they did not think about the rights of the unborn child -- now, there is an attempt to extend civil law to apply to the unborn child. If there can be no consensus, that will allow an amendment that will clarify the position, I believe the decision should be left to the individual.
As usual, most people (even pro-choicers) miss the point when it comes to abortion. It's not about killing anything (a child, a human being, a fetus, an embryo, a bunch of cells, or whatever you consider it). Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there. And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal. It sucks that most people focus on the life of the unborn child over the right all of us should continue having over what can go in or should be removed from our own bodies. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross -- modified at 12:39 Monday 1st May, 2006
-
Judah Himango wrote:
In other words, you're for restricting the religious freedoms of a person in order that someone not get offended?
No confusion needed. I am not asking anyone to restrict his religious freedom. But, when you are in an elected position and catering to a multi-religious community, you should not use that privilege to spread a religious message -- and this restriction applies ONLY when you are doing your job. You can go to the church/synagogue/temple in your personal capacity and do your evangelic work; but, not in the official address to the nation, on the floor of the house, or in a debate that has no direct link to religion. If you want to retain your right to preach your religious messages all the time, do not run for elections. Retaining that right means that you do not have the qualifications to represent the aspirations of a multi-religious society, most probably, not willing to consider alternatives that do not gel with your religious positions (but, nevertheless may be good for the community) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote:
I am not asking anyone to restrict his religious freedom.
Are you sure about that Thomas? It seems you're saying elected officials shouldn't talk about God. You also said religious people (who preach all the time) shouldn't run for office. That sounds restrictive, if not discriminatory.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Thomas George wrote:
The right to abortion: Again, IMO, no law needed. It can also be argued that there is nothing in the US constitution preventing abortion. I know many people are against abortion; but, medically it may be needed for the survival of the mother. I would rather leave it to the mother and the medical professional rather than make a decision for all of them. Based on the collective morality and ethics in a society, this can be acceptable or not acceptable. Other issues of similar nature can be "mercy killing", status of patients on life support systems for years with no expected recovery etc. These are the kind of issues that I mean by change -- the majority in your country can change their mind. Again, life is sacred theory that causes the opposition to abortion. Nature gives us no indication that it values life much. Lots of lives are lost in natural calamities. We ourselves make choices -- freedom for a lot of lives of our fellow citizens by defending our countries, death penalty for a better behaved society, etc. Yet, the life is sacred theory has jeopardized scientic progress by stalling stem cell research by limiting use of embryonic stem cells. All these are not in the constitution either. I believe that when most constitutions were framed, they did not think about the rights of the unborn child -- now, there is an attempt to extend civil law to apply to the unborn child. If there can be no consensus, that will allow an amendment that will clarify the position, I believe the decision should be left to the individual.
As usual, most people (even pro-choicers) miss the point when it comes to abortion. It's not about killing anything (a child, a human being, a fetus, an embryo, a bunch of cells, or whatever you consider it). Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there. And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal. It sucks that most people focus on the life of the unborn child over the right all of us should continue having over what can go in or should be removed from our own bodies. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross -- modified at 12:39 Monday 1st May, 2006
. . . and I believe that until it is decided conclusively by an amendment or something, it should be allowed. The back door tactics of appropriate judical appointments and such divides people more, and makes them dig deep into their stated positions. IMO, the pro-life position is a religious position. They are not willing to fight as much to oppose death penalty or sending soldiers to fight enemies, as much as they oppose the "morning after" pill (even for rape victims) and embryonic stem cell research. Thomas
-
Judah Himango wrote:
In other words, you're for restricting the religious freedoms of a person in order that someone not get offended?
No confusion needed. I am not asking anyone to restrict his religious freedom. But, when you are in an elected position and catering to a multi-religious community, you should not use that privilege to spread a religious message -- and this restriction applies ONLY when you are doing your job. You can go to the church/synagogue/temple in your personal capacity and do your evangelic work; but, not in the official address to the nation, on the floor of the house, or in a debate that has no direct link to religion. If you want to retain your right to preach your religious messages all the time, do not run for elections. Retaining that right means that you do not have the qualifications to represent the aspirations of a multi-religious society, most probably, not willing to consider alternatives that do not gel with your religious positions (but, nevertheless may be good for the community) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Again, the constitution only says that the Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion or outlawing it. It does not restrict any one person from having, expressing or even preaching religion regardless of his position (including the president). That said, nothing Bush has done even qualifies as "preaching". You may not personally like that he says "God" every now and then (I've never even heard him say "Jesus"), but it is certainly within his rights per the constitution.
-
Thomas George wrote:
I am from Trivandrum; and I live in Trivandrum now.
Cool, next time I am in TVM, and if you are free, it'd be cool to meet up.
Thomas George wrote:
I partly owned my previous company, which was sold in March 2005.
Ah, did a Zafir Anjum, didn't you? ;-)
Thomas George wrote:
After that, I decided to return to India, and be more with my extended family .
Cool! And eat proper food too I guess.
Thomas George wrote:
Btw, where are you now? I saw that you are listed as Dundas India CEO and is located in Trivandrum.
It's a Technopark glitch :-) I am currently in Toronto. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!It would be a pleasure to meet you. Yes, sold the company. I remember inviting you to join Radical. So, do you work for CP or Dundas? . . . and are there any real plans for a Dundas Trivandrum? Food is certainly better and healthier. I am not good at cooking, and eating at restaurants every day screws up the whole system. I have thoroughly enjoyed the last year in that respect :).
-
. . . and I believe that until it is decided conclusively by an amendment or something, it should be allowed. The back door tactics of appropriate judical appointments and such divides people more, and makes them dig deep into their stated positions. IMO, the pro-life position is a religious position. They are not willing to fight as much to oppose death penalty or sending soldiers to fight enemies, as much as they oppose the "morning after" pill (even for rape victims) and embryonic stem cell research. Thomas
You're both completely wrong. We're talking about the law...Not your personally desires to inflict your skewed sense of morality on the public. There is no text in the constitution that prohibits a state from passing a law that restricts abortion. If abortion were made illegal via the legislative process that's one thing, but the tactics were quite teh opposite. Abortion was inflicted on an unwilling public. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not fanatic minorities who make up laws on a whim.
-
Thomas George wrote:
The right to abortion: Again, IMO, no law needed. It can also be argued that there is nothing in the US constitution preventing abortion. I know many people are against abortion; but, medically it may be needed for the survival of the mother. I would rather leave it to the mother and the medical professional rather than make a decision for all of them. Based on the collective morality and ethics in a society, this can be acceptable or not acceptable. Other issues of similar nature can be "mercy killing", status of patients on life support systems for years with no expected recovery etc. These are the kind of issues that I mean by change -- the majority in your country can change their mind. Again, life is sacred theory that causes the opposition to abortion. Nature gives us no indication that it values life much. Lots of lives are lost in natural calamities. We ourselves make choices -- freedom for a lot of lives of our fellow citizens by defending our countries, death penalty for a better behaved society, etc. Yet, the life is sacred theory has jeopardized scientic progress by stalling stem cell research by limiting use of embryonic stem cells. All these are not in the constitution either. I believe that when most constitutions were framed, they did not think about the rights of the unborn child -- now, there is an attempt to extend civil law to apply to the unborn child. If there can be no consensus, that will allow an amendment that will clarify the position, I believe the decision should be left to the individual.
As usual, most people (even pro-choicers) miss the point when it comes to abortion. It's not about killing anything (a child, a human being, a fetus, an embryo, a bunch of cells, or whatever you consider it). Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there. And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal. It sucks that most people focus on the life of the unborn child over the right all of us should continue having over what can go in or should be removed from our own bodies. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross -- modified at 12:39 Monday 1st May, 2006
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there.
I find it absolutely appalling that you would trivialize the issue to this extent. The nature of the "something" being removed is relevant to the discussion, as are the rights that "something" may or may not have. To brush that aside as if one were talking of removing a wart is callous in the extreme. And a late term abortion is very much about killing a child who might otherwise survive...
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal.
That is precisely the argument. Many people do question that "right" when the "something" is an unborn child. I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
read this book
Ordered. I need something else besides rereading Niven's Ringworld books. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there.
I find it absolutely appalling that you would trivialize the issue to this extent. The nature of the "something" being removed is relevant to the discussion, as are the rights that "something" may or may not have. To brush that aside as if one were talking of removing a wart is callous in the extreme. And a late term abortion is very much about killing a child who might otherwise survive...
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal.
That is precisely the argument. Many people do question that "right" when the "something" is an unborn child. I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
Why stop there?
-
Judah Himango wrote:
In other words, you're for restricting the religious freedoms of a person in order that someone not get offended?
No confusion needed. I am not asking anyone to restrict his religious freedom. But, when you are in an elected position and catering to a multi-religious community, you should not use that privilege to spread a religious message -- and this restriction applies ONLY when you are doing your job. You can go to the church/synagogue/temple in your personal capacity and do your evangelic work; but, not in the official address to the nation, on the floor of the house, or in a debate that has no direct link to religion. If you want to retain your right to preach your religious messages all the time, do not run for elections. Retaining that right means that you do not have the qualifications to represent the aspirations of a multi-religious society, most probably, not willing to consider alternatives that do not gel with your religious positions (but, nevertheless may be good for the community) My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote:
But, when you are in an elected position and catering to a multi-religious community, you should not use that privilege to spread a religious message -- and this restriction applies ONLY when you are doing your job.
And this is where things get ugly, as one person's "spreading a message" is another's "being honest and upfront about my beliefs". But don't worry - i doubt we'll get either an honest or a godly politician any time soon.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
Why stop there?
espeir wrote:
Why stop there?
Some don't. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Abortion is about removing something from a woman's body she doesn't want there.
I find it absolutely appalling that you would trivialize the issue to this extent. The nature of the "something" being removed is relevant to the discussion, as are the rights that "something" may or may not have. To brush that aside as if one were talking of removing a wart is callous in the extreme. And a late term abortion is very much about killing a child who might otherwise survive...
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
And when it comes to visiting a doctor to have him/her remove something from our bodies we don't want there, no one questions that it should be legal.
That is precisely the argument. Many people do question that "right" when the "something" is an unborn child. I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
I'm not an absolutist either, and I agree with you. There should be limits on how much time the woman is granted the right to an abortion, especially if there's a great chance the fetus can survive outside the woman's body. Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
You're both completely wrong. We're talking about the law...Not your personally desires to inflict your skewed sense of morality on the public. There is no text in the constitution that prohibits a state from passing a law that restricts abortion. If abortion were made illegal via the legislative process that's one thing, but the tactics were quite teh opposite. Abortion was inflicted on an unwilling public. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not fanatic minorities who make up laws on a whim.
Apparently, if the majority of the US believed that abortion is illegal, it would have been an open and shut case, say, like going to war in Iraq. Despite all the minority protests, the elected representatives allowed it by a big margin. All you need is to present a bill wherever it needs to be presented, get it passed. But, AFAIK, Mr. Bush had a hard time passing the partial death abortion bill itself. Please accept that public opinion is quite divided, and the division is more cloase to 50% -- although it is impossible for me to know which side is leading. Anyway, an anti-abortion bill would have found much more favour, if the plight of rape victims and teenage pregnancies were dealt with more pragmatically. Instead, the living already born women are treated like shit, and they don't get to make a decision that a Federal court in US has allowed. Now you talk about the law -- the law is that most cases of abortion are legal. The extreme right has reacted to this violently at times by bombing abortion clinics etc. All these are not helping the cause. You make the opponents to an outright ban on abortion (without any consideration to whether there is a health risk for the mother, whether she was raped etc.) look like people who shoot and kill children during their spare time for fun. I don't enjoy supporting abortion. I don't enjoy killing babies either. But, if a woman gets raped, she should have the right to abort the child, if she wishes to. She should not have to live with the nightmare for a second more than needed. If a woman has sex, she should have the right to use a "morning after pill" to prevent an unwanted child from entering the world. Adoption as a solution has not worked either -- because the orphanages are still full of babies and grown kids with no one to adopt them . . . and many of them live with a feeling of unwantedness. If a democracy (80% Hindus) in India decide to kill all Christians in India, would that be acceptable to you? There are some things that are not negotiable, despite the support it has. The constitution of most countries have provisions that certain rights cannot be impeded upon; and allows the judicial system to strike down those laws, if passed by the legislative assemblies. I guess, the US would have laws stating individual freedoms including speech, religion etc. being not negotiable.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I am not an absolutist on either side of this argument, but believe there are reasonable limits which should be taken into consideration at both extremes. Your position, in my opinion, is callous and unsupportable. It is tantamount to granting the mother the exclusive right to murder her children up until the moment of birth.
I'm not an absolutist either, and I agree with you. There should be limits on how much time the woman is granted the right to an abortion, especially if there's a great chance the fetus can survive outside the woman's body. Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Don't get me wrong, hopefully someday we'll be able to remove a fetus from a woman's body (at any stage) without ending its life.
Wait a few months and it will be at just such a stage. Why is the ability to have an abortion so important? Why don't women just not whore around if they don't want to get pregnant. I mean this stuff is known by every middle school kid. I don't drive really fast through crowded city streets (even though it might be fun) because it might kill somebody.
