Abortion
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Seriously, you and nearly everyone else who have responded have missed that point. He isn't saying get rid of abortion he is saying get rid of what causes the need for it. I think you all saw abortion and then started getting your liberal panties in a wad instead of actually reading what he said.
And I'm saying get rid of gaols becuase they're also unnessasary. I think it is you that has missed my point. I didnt give an option on abortion, I only attemped to draw a parallel to point out the impracticle aspect of what was proposed. Why call me a liberal and be rude?
What I propose is that abortion would not be necessary (mostly) if people acted responsibly and unselfishly. The statement, even if impractical (as you opine), is true nonetheless. Your proposition is also true if people were indeed moral and responsible.
_Josh_ wrote:
Why call me a liberal and be rude
Liberal == rude? Wow, I didn't know. ;P :laugh:
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Are you intentionally trying to miss his point? He is explaining how to get rid of all needs for abortion.
And you appear to intentionally be trying to miss the counter-points that people are providing. How about providing something intelligent to the conversation beyond the silly "Why are you missing the point" comments.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Seriously, you and nearly everyone else who have responded have missed that point. He isn't saying get rid of abortion he is saying get rid of what causes the need for it. I think you all saw abortion and then started getting your liberal panties in a wad instead of actually reading what he said.
And I'm saying get rid of gaols becuase they're also unnessasary. I think it is you that has missed my point. I didnt give an option on abortion, I only attemped to draw a parallel to point out the impracticle aspect of what was proposed. Why call me a liberal and be rude?
Impractical, maybe. But his post is getting a lot of negative criticism. < rant> Why not work on the problem instead of the symptom? Why not try and fix the real issues? This goes way beyond abortion but as a global society we all seem to try and fix the symptom instead of the problem. We do it in education, government, economy, unemployment, etc. We always want to blame something or somebody else. Let's put the responsibility back where it belongs, on the individual, and stop avoiding the actual issues. It's only impractical because not enough people support it. THAT is what makes it impractical. The principle alone is not impractical it is that not enough people care, and that is your (generally speaking) weakness, not a weakness in the principle. < /rant> Sorry, this isn't really just to you, in fact most of it is to the rest of the loons who are too lazy to do anything.
-
I will go even further. I say let that unwanted children been taken from their irresponsible and immoral mothers (who will be obligated to give birth from the law) and raised from the society in a specialized facilities. Then they will have to work on behalf of that very society. The boys will become soldiers and the girls pole-dancers. The girls who don’t have looks for a pole-dancer and the boys who are too weak for soldiers will be forced to be software developers. Problem solved! Simples. On a more serious note, the human relationships are too complicated and dynamic to fit in the narrow frame you’re trying to put them. The society has to discourage the abortion in any possible reasonable way (financial stimulus, moral norms etc.), but never takes the choice from the parents, ever.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
What I propose is that abortion would not be necessary (mostly) if people acted responsibly and unselfishly. The statement, even if impractical (as you opine), is true nonetheless. Your proposition is also true if people were indeed moral and responsible.
_Josh_ wrote:
Why call me a liberal and be rude
Liberal == rude? Wow, I didn't know. ;P :laugh:
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Why call me a liberal and be rude
the key word there is 'and' he called me a liberal AND he was being rude by suggesting my underpants where in a particular state causing discomfort. Truth is I'm not a liberal (either big of little L) and im not wearing underpants at the moment. Both our statements are true and both are worthless because neither will ever come to pass. Its nice to think that either might one day though.
-
Certainly, right now. But, ultimately, if we want to survive as a race: no.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
All you godless people ever say is god doesn't exist so that you can justify your actions. If you don't have to answer to anyone then you can't be wrong. How convenient. :-\ Just because you do not believe in Him, does not mean He does not exist.
ryanb31 wrote:
All you godless people ever say is god doesn't exist so that you can justify your actions.
And the religious conveniently justify their hideous behavior by their 2000+ year old books.
ryanb31 wrote:
Just because you do not believe in Him, does not mean He does not exist.
Just because you say he exists, doesn't mean he does.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
All you godless people ever say is god doesn't exist so that you can justify your actions. If you don't have to answer to anyone then you can't be wrong. How convenient. :-\ Just because you do not believe in Him, does not mean He does not exist.
ryanb31 wrote:
All you godless people ever say is god doesn't exist so that you can justify your actions
Actually, I didn't say god doesn't exist.You assumed that I said that. I said that God as a moral authority to justify restrictions on society was a non-starter, because many people do not believe. I don't need to justify anything, these are debating points.
ryanb31 wrote:
If you don't have to answer to anyone then you can't be wrong.
Again, you make the assumption I'm an atheist. Even people who are have to answer to themselves. If the fear Hell/Jahanam is the only thing keeping you on a straight and narrow path, I'd argue you are less moral than someone who does lead a good life and doesn't have this fear. Oh and I'm often wrong.
ryanb31 wrote:
Just because you do not believe in Him, does not mean He does not exist.
And just because you do, doesn't mean he does. See how that cuts both ways.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
And you appear to intentionally be trying to miss the counter-points that people are providing. How about providing something intelligent to the conversation beyond the silly "Why are you missing the point" comments.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
All you godless people ever say is god doesn't exist so that you can justify your actions.
And the religious conveniently justify their hideous behavior by their 2000+ year old books.
ryanb31 wrote:
Just because you do not believe in Him, does not mean He does not exist.
Just because you say he exists, doesn't mean he does.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Impractical, maybe. But his post is getting a lot of negative criticism. < rant> Why not work on the problem instead of the symptom? Why not try and fix the real issues? This goes way beyond abortion but as a global society we all seem to try and fix the symptom instead of the problem. We do it in education, government, economy, unemployment, etc. We always want to blame something or somebody else. Let's put the responsibility back where it belongs, on the individual, and stop avoiding the actual issues. It's only impractical because not enough people support it. THAT is what makes it impractical. The principle alone is not impractical it is that not enough people care, and that is your (generally speaking) weakness, not a weakness in the principle. < /rant> Sorry, this isn't really just to you, in fact most of it is to the rest of the loons who are too lazy to do anything.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
All you godless people ever say is god doesn't exist so that you can justify your actions
Actually, I didn't say god doesn't exist.You assumed that I said that. I said that God as a moral authority to justify restrictions on society was a non-starter, because many people do not believe. I don't need to justify anything, these are debating points.
ryanb31 wrote:
If you don't have to answer to anyone then you can't be wrong.
Again, you make the assumption I'm an atheist. Even people who are have to answer to themselves. If the fear Hell/Jahanam is the only thing keeping you on a straight and narrow path, I'd argue you are less moral than someone who does lead a good life and doesn't have this fear. Oh and I'm often wrong.
ryanb31 wrote:
Just because you do not believe in Him, does not mean He does not exist.
And just because you do, doesn't mean he does. See how that cuts both ways.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
ryanb31 wrote:
Sorry, this isn't really just to you, in fact most of it is to the rest of the loons who are too lazy to do anything.
Yes let's hold hands and pray!
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Why call me a liberal and be rude
the key word there is 'and' he called me a liberal AND he was being rude by suggesting my underpants where in a particular state causing discomfort. Truth is I'm not a liberal (either big of little L) and im not wearing underpants at the moment. Both our statements are true and both are worthless because neither will ever come to pass. Its nice to think that either might one day though.
Yeah, I got it. I was just making fun. Yes it is nice to think it might one day come to pass. If we don't try, then it never will.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
You're right. It is "hideous behavior" to try and prevent unwed sex, incest, rape, abuse, etc. How dare religious people do that. Thanks.
ryanb31 wrote:
You're right. It is "hideous behavior" to try and prevent unwed sex, incest, rape, abuse, etc. How dare religious people do that.
It is hideous, yes. How dare religious people do that! 1) According to the bible, rape is something god demands that his followers do when he wants them to. 2) According to the bible, the rape victim along with the rapist should be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death. 3) According to the bible, you can sell your daughter into slavery where she is to "please the man who bought her". 4) According to the bible, a rapist must marry the woman if he gets caught.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
At least the one we answer to can be proven to exist.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
I will go even further. I say let that unwanted children been taken from their irresponsible and immoral mothers (who will be obligated to give birth from the law) and raised from the society in a specialized facilities. Then they will have to work on behalf of that very society. The boys will become soldiers and the girls pole-dancers. The girls who don’t have looks for a pole-dancer and the boys who are too weak for soldiers will be forced to be software developers. Problem solved! Simples. On a more serious note, the human relationships are too complicated and dynamic to fit in the narrow frame you’re trying to put them. The society has to discourage the abortion in any possible reasonable way (financial stimulus, moral norms etc.), but never takes the choice from the parents, ever.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
but never takes the choice from the parents, ever.
What about teen pregnancies - cases where the 'parents' are mentally and financially able to raise a child are quite rare. Of course, the other extreme to force abortions in such cases is just that - an extreme. But the problem of teenage pregnancies is one which really messes up lives of at least three people - parents and the child. Further complication is the lone mother issue. Sure, there are organisations trying to educate about bringing up children etc - but they are reactionary. I have not seen/heard aggressive programs/lectures about how to PREVENT teen pregnancies. As to the original post, the sentiment is correct, but humans have rarely understood appeal to morality en masse. Shreekar
-
Enlighten us oh wise one. What is the point of me adding to something you don't even get?
ryanb31 wrote:
What is the point of me adding to something you don't even get?
If I am missing the point then perhaps you could in your pansophical wisdom explain it to my obviously inferior mind so that I may share in your blissful countenance.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Yes really. You're saying it's unrealistic. I say it's eminently realistic. I have greater faith in human behavior (in general).
mark merrens wrote:
Simply making laws has not stopped the behaviour
True, but my point is that laws are made all the time governing human behavior. It's really more of a break this rule, here's the consequence sort of thing.
mark merrens wrote:
Now you're talking like an evangelist
I suppose, since evangelist is just another way of saying teacher. Of course, evangelism has a religious aspect to it. Parent is another way of saying teacher too.
mark merrens wrote:
a human being somewhat lower on the hate scale than a lawyer
That's really sad. Of course, given what some "evangelists" in certain circles have done (Catholic Priests, for example), it's understandable.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunThe last was a joke!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me