|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/04/2005 08:32:48 AM · #126 |
Phew, that took some reading.
Here's a little link for those of you in the thread that are still debating the issue of religion in society. It's a 12.5 min segment of video taken from Derren Browns show where he explores peoples belief systems, and the ease with which people can be made to adopt a certain belief. As he says himself "It's not meant to put-down anyones beliefs", so try and watch it with an open mind. Interesting results. :)
//media.putfile.com/Movie_00036159/original |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 09:43:33 AM · #127 |
Shouldn't try to debate late at night!
In my last post I was talking to two different people and forgot to quote so things got confused!
this Where do you get your statistics from that society is split 50/50 on the issues being discussed? was meant for the Saj
From your reply I gather that the USA has had a referendum on abortion and homosexuality? Could you please link me to these results as I would be interested to see how the questions were phrased and the exact results?
I thought we were discussing religion as being unhealthy for society generally not just for the USA although the original article was USA based.
My comments, Saj, were not meant to be considered in the discussion on US law but within a discussion on morals so your responses didn't take this into account.\
My fault for being unclear.
P
Message edited by author 2005-10-04 09:55:56.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 09:50:05 AM · #128 |
This
May i point out that homosexuality was not considered unusual 2 centuries ago - in most civilised worlds it was accepted as part of sexual activity for some. It certainly was not considered immoral (using immoral in its true sense).
If society as a whole was to take on board all the beliefs of religions, life would be impossible. Society can only function by accepting that some people will have beliefs that they will live by and that society will tolerate their right to do so. However, it is wrong if those beliefs are then imposed on society as a whole by the way of national laws, they impinge on human rights.
I may or may not believe in abortion or premartital sex but unless society as whole has deemed them immoral then I have no right to enforce the rest of society to stop aborting babies or sleeping with a partner (of opposite or same sex).
There are certain social decisions that society has deemed wrong and the great majority of society accept these are bad eg murder, theft, rape, and so on. These are immoral.
Having sex with a partner without being married is not considered to be wrong by the majority of adults today and therefore is not immoral.
was meant for RonBeam to continue the debate we were having about immorality.
Since the moral laws of the Bible were put into place by the authors to help society in those times, are they still relevant in today's society? And please don't just answer "because God said so", I want your opinion!
P
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 10:37:52 AM · #129 |
Okay, so slavery is okay as long as itâs only for 7 years and the slave owed you money. Is this still acceptable or has that changed? There are some people that owe me money and I can put them to good use (itâll keep me from doing yard work on Saturdays and could save my life!!!). There are other bible quotes I can dig up that say its okay to sell your daughter into slavery and it implies that the slave owner can have sex with her or marry her off to his son as long as they give her food and clothing. Personally, Iâve always been of the belief that slavery in any form is wrong.
Murdering gay people was okay because it prevented the spread of disease? Is this still acceptable, or has that changed? I hope this changed because I have a few gay friends Iâd rather not have to kill. I think it kind of contradicts one of the 10 commandments too. What about murdering non believers or killing everyone in the town because a few people worshiped a different God? Personally, Iâve always thought it would be wrong to murder someone based on their or their neighbors, religious beliefs, or someoneâs sexual preferences.
Killing people that work on Saturday, I guess that is still okay. I feel bad for all you sinners out there, watch your backs because God has some pretty stiff punishment! Does stuff like yard work, doing the dishes and cooking count, or is it just work you get paid for? Crap, I might be in trouble!
And the Bible thinks its okay to round to the nearest whole. I suppose Jesus was a carpenter, and when working with wood you have a little room for error, so I guess I can give you that one. However, in my line of work I canât round off like that and still be considered right, especially when you off be nearly half your of your unit of measure, so itâs a matter of perspective.
Hope you enjoyed that beer! Damn Packers ruined mine.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 12:07:01 PM · #130 |
The Bible for the most part is mistranslated allegories.
Morality, as shown, in almost all religious writings deals with how it effects you, the one enacting it, not the recipient. This leads to a very simple system of do not do what you do not approve of and have sympathy for those who do what you do not approve of. In todays age it has become sensationalize the things that are not approved of and openly prosecute the en-actor of the deed sensationalized.
So, I would have to say religon has not been unhealthy for society, but peoples, use of "Religon", to further their ends, has made religon a scape-goat for their own morality.
Message edited by author 2005-10-04 12:09:43. |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 12:54:28 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by rgo:
You lack compassion and butt your nose into where it does not belong. |
Au contraire, I have compassion....I do not want to see an innoncent child murdered.
"Butt my nose where it does not belong" is meaningless to me. So did every abolitionist who pushed for the freedom of slaves. "does not belong" is irrelevant when lives are being abused or ended without cause.
Originally posted by rgo:
You presume too much with the "responsible" comment. You show a desire to punish with the "consequences" comment. |
Every choice has "consequences" (both good and bad). And as I've already made allowances for "rape, incest, physical health of the mother, etc." that does leave us to the instances in which the woman had her choice.
Originally posted by rgo:
It's none of your business whether or not a woman CHOOSES to carry through a pregnancy. It's her body. |
How misinformed you are Rgo. It is indeed NOT her body. Rather, the baby has a unique DNA code which neither matches the Mother nor the Father. It is, it's own entity. A little research on medical issues related to different blood types shows this further.
Nor is saying that it's not viable. I have a 5 yr old friend who was born at 6 months. So that alone should make abortions after 6 months illegal. And it's a poor argument. You are no more viable underwater than a tadpole is viable outside of water. The tadpole is still developing and eventually will be viable out of water. However, I think few would argue that a tadpole is not alive.
Originally posted by rgo:
It's her right. You call it murder, but that's a hyperbole. |
Is it a hyperbole because you merely want to dismiss it? Was it a hyperbole when white slave owners killed their black "chimp" slaves? Was it hyperbole when "uber-humans" killed "under-human" Jews in the 1940's?
Please do explain why it's hyperbole? Is it merely because in your mind you've dehumanized the unborn child. Because, guess what, most murders are justified in the perpetrator's mind by dehumanizing the victim.
Originally posted by rgo:
You are short sighted. You judge others despite your lack of clear thinking about the future potential effects of your stance. You lack the compassion to place yourself in the shoes of the people whose lives you try to affect. You blindly forbid a choice that is potentially smart, such as in the case of a single potential mother who clearly recognizes she neither has the capacity nor desire to be a mother who decides to abort, for the sake of YOUR personal beliefs. |
You are quite unfounded. My compassion is quite strong. My thinking very clear. And in no way blind. As for my personal beliefs....well gee...yes...I also think we should forbid murder of adults as well. Is it wrong for me to have such a personal belief?
Now, yes, I do believe we need revisions elsewhere. Adoption is a viable alternative. There is strong demand for "babies", it usually is not a problem to find wanting parents to adopt infants. The difficulty focuses around older children. However, we've made adoption a $$$ crop. And I am all for rigorous overview but I do not think you should need to make $700,000 income to support a child. I think if you can show reasonable support, a safe and loving environment, than there should be a reasonable chance for adoption. But that's a side point.
Originally posted by rgo:
The abortion issue, amongst many others, is a good case in point for the argument that religion may pose unhealthy and negative correlations for a society.
|
BTW...I've known numerous people who are not religious who are anti-abortion. And I've known numerous religious people who are pro-abortion rights.
Your assumption is that it is merely for religious reasons that people think killing babies is wrong. Guess what....it's NOT!!! There are numerous reasons why I believe it is wrong. Firstly, I believe it is a woman choosing another to suffer the consequences of responsibility in her place, and doing so with their life. Secondly, science does not support the arguments of it being part of her body. Thirdly, is it wrong for me to value life outside of religion? Do you value life? Do you think murder in general is wrong? if not, why do we have laws against it?
Originally posted by rgo:
Instead of basing their social perspectives on CURRENT issues within the societies that they live, too many blind believers of religions attempt to use potentially outdated and irrelevant doctrinal ideas to "govern" not only THEIR OWN lives, but also the lives of others.
|
Get off your religious accusation and address all my non-religious issues...you assume too much. I am constantly told by the likes of you that it is wrong to assume that one can't have morality without religion. Well please realize, likewise, one can have morality & religion. And in this case, my morality & religion agree.
Originally posted by rgo:
Such doctrinal perspectives were formulated long ago by men who sought to address the ills of THEIR long-ago societies.
|
So essentially laws against murder & rape were merely formulated long ago by men who sought to address the ills of THEIR long-ago societies. I mean, murder and rape, in and of themselves are not in fact morally wrong. Just socio-economically they pose a loss to society. Where as, if we can kill numerous human beings early on and receive an socio-economic benefit than we are just in doing so?
By this same means, if killing ever blue-eyed individual posed a reduction in crime and social burden and thus provided a socio-economic benefit it should be morally acceptable.
Sorry if I don't buy it...
You have not provided a single sound justification for your moral resolution. Please do so...
Originally posted by rgo:
The refusal to incorporate today's societal ills, to seriously look at and address them with MODERN standards of compassion and LOGIC does pose problems for today's societies. |
How mistaken of me....I should apply MODERN standards of compassion. I should not jail or execute that serial rapist. I mean, those women were so seductive. I should instead sentence the women, the rape victims to death instead. Yes...that makes more sense.
Originally posted by riponlady:
From your reply I gather that the USA has had a referendum on abortion and homosexuality? Could you please link me to these results as I would be interested to see how the questions were phrased and the exact results? |
a) the party lines are balanced fairly equally with said issue being a major dividing point
b) numerous polls have been taking and usually show approx. 50/50 balance +/- 10%
c) here are just some statistics...
Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
* According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
* According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%
//womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
//www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491938/posts
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 03:07:09 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
This
May i point out that homosexuality was not considered unusual 2 centuries ago - in most civilised worlds it was accepted as part of sexual activity for some. It certainly was not considered immoral (using immoral in its true sense).
If society as a whole was to take on board all the beliefs of religions, life would be impossible. Society can only function by accepting that some people will have beliefs that they will live by and that society will tolerate their right to do so. However, it is wrong if those beliefs are then imposed on society as a whole by the way of national laws, they impinge on human rights.
I may or may not believe in abortion or premartital sex but unless society as whole has deemed them immoral then I have no right to enforce the rest of society to stop aborting babies or sleeping with a partner (of opposite or same sex).
There are certain social decisions that society has deemed wrong and the great majority of society accept these are bad eg murder, theft, rape, and so on. These are immoral.
Having sex with a partner without being married is not considered to be wrong by the majority of adults today and therefore is not immoral.
was meant for RonBeam to continue the debate we were having about immorality.
Since the moral laws of the Bible were put into place by the authors to help society in those times, are they still relevant in today's society? And please don't just answer "because God said so", I want your opinion!
P |
A fair question. Mixed answer. The determinations of morality/immorality are still relevant, but the consequences are not - because of Christ.
For many acts of immorality, the Old Testament prescribed a penalty of death. That changed with the advent of Christ. Christ himself, when confronted with an adulterous woman, was tested to see if he would call for her to be stoned to death, as Moses had instructed. Instead he said that one who was without sin should cast the first stone. When none did, he asked the woman "where are your accusers? has no man condemned you?" She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Then neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more."
And it was not just to help "society" that the moral laws were given. It was to help individuals as well. In rearing my children, I found that they were far more contented when they were disciplined for being disrespectful, greedy, aggressive, rough, rude, nasty, annoying, etc. Not that they didn't constantly push the limits, but when the limits were not clear and consistent and enforced, they lost confidence in their environment. They felt less "safe". We came to believe that they NEEDED the discipline to help them to KNOW that we were there to protect them from themselves, as it were.
A very dear friend once told me that before he became a believer, he seldom felt guilty when he acted immorally, but AFTER he became a believer he felt FAR more guilty when he did so. That added guilt was the burden that helped to lead him away from those immoral thoughts and deeds. And made him happier as a result. If society benefits, all the better. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:30:31 AM · #133 |
I'd just like to say something, on the issue of abortion, to those who advocate for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. I hope you realize that women will not stop having abortions even if you are successful. For one thing, abortion will remain legal in many states, and women will travel, if necessary, to obtain a safe abortion. If they can't travel they'll have an illegal abortion, and there will be deaths as a result. I don't know a single woman who has had an abortion who didn't feel at least some ambivalence about it, or worse, but because of the desperation of their circumstances they felt they had no choice. I don't know a single woman who made the decision without giving it a great deal of thought and without considering every other option.
I've talked to several women who are now in their 70s and 80s, and without exception they all know a woman (or are one themselves) who either had an illegal abortion or tried to abort the baby themselves, by throwing themselves down a staircase or sticking a hanger into their bodies -- this at a time before abortion was legal. Is this really an era to which you want us to return?
Just so you know that your actions have consequences, too, and not very pretty consequences.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:06:14 AM · #134 |
"I'd just like to say something, on the issue of abortion, to those who advocate for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. I hope you realize that women will not stop having abortions even if you are successful."
But if it was not abortion on demand and without reason....or even not merely as casual as it is today. If it was made the last alternative instead of the first...then there would be less abortions.
"Just so you know that your actions have consequences, too, and not very pretty consequences."
Yes, they do...in fact, 100-200 yrs ago they would simply take the newborn babies away and smother, drown or chop their heads off.
But your argument for abortion is akin to saying "let's simply kill the poor". There will be no more starving poor people if we simply kill them all.
That's not a solution.
As for what I want a return too.... i merely, want us to return to a point in which we take responsibility for our actions. Not put that burden on an innocent child who was never given a choice. We talk about choice....let's talk about it. You tell me just when that child got to make a choice. You talk about not making a decision for another. Please tell who made the decision? the child or the child's mother?
All the rhetoric of the pro-choice camp fails to move me because it doesn't equal out. You can't say it's about choice and deny another choice. You can't say no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body and then destroy a child's body. You accuse a lack of care and compassion on those who actually are doing the caring.
And when a 15 yr old girl who can't even be given tylenol or a cough drop at school can be taken for an abortion and have her life placed in jeopardy (yes, abortion does pose serious health risks including death) - than something is wrong.
And beyond returning, I want to advance. I want to see a much more viable adoption system. We'll often keep families in limbo for years as they try to adopt a child. But turn around and stick those children in poorly monitored, barely reviewed ghetto foster homes with repeat abuse situations. Go figure....
If they are unable or unwilling to support the child they created than they should give the child up for adoption. And yes, I am willing to pay taxes to facilitate such and even to support orphanages and monitor their well-being. Much more so than I am willing to kill 1 out of 3 children conceived.
I believe a woman has the "right to choose" but I believe she makes that choice when she opens her legs. If you're not ready or willing to take responsibility for your actions - than don't.
And yes, by the way, because I believe such I went 29 years without sleeping with a woman so as not to put someone in the situation where she'd have to ever consider the choice of an abortion. Doing so, was to me, the responsible part on being a man.
I think, in general, our society has become far to accustomed to not having to bear responsibility for it's actions. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 02:35:15 AM · #135 |
There are already restrictions on abortion, and your own statistics (those you pointed to in a previous post) state that 88 percent of abortions in the U.S. are performed in the first trimester. Most of the women I know who have had abortions were using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant, so your assertion that women don't act responsibly is just false. And plenty of women in marriages, using contraceptives, find themselves with unwanted pregnancies, unwanted for reasons I'm sure you can't fathom, like being married to a violent/abusive partner, or having a partner who doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, and a whole host of other reasons I won't go into. You'll probably respond by saying the woman should have been more responsible and not married a man who was going to abuse her, etc. Well, you know what? Shit happens! The whole point of my previous post was lost on you (what else is new?), that point being that I don't know of any woman for whom abortion was the first choice or who skipped her way merrily into the abortion clinic.
And as for not having sex before marriage, our mothers were having sex before they were married, and our grandmothers, and our greatgrandmothers. And when they found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, they were performing abortions on themselves. Always has been and always will be. You can't turn the clock back to the 1950s or the Victorian era, or whenever it was that they were in bondage, barefoot and pregnant. I know that's what you'd like, but it just ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 02:42:42 AM · #136 |
Maybe if we want to cut down on abortions more men can get vasectomies instead of going online to order Viagra.
Women getting abortions have rarely, if ever, fertilized themselves. Hey, how about if you don't want the woman to abort the baby, you can instead at least make sure it doesn't happen again and cut off the guy's .... |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 02:50:29 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe if we want to cut down on abortions more men can get vasectomies instead of going online to order Viagra.
Women getting abortions have rarely, if ever, fertilized themselves. Hey, how about if you don't want the woman to abort the baby, you can instead at least make sure it doesn't happen again and cut off the guy's .... |
Or put more tax dollars into social programs. Or support well-designed and -informed sex-ed programs so that people from a very young age get an idea about what safe sex is. Abstinence is a moral position. If you want to take into account how the real world is, you need to provide services to those who choose to NOT abstain.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 02:50:53.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:24:10 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
There are already restrictions on abortion, and your own statistics (those you pointed to in a previous post) state that 88 percent of abortions in the U.S. are performed in the first trimester. |
There are very few and that dependent on the state. When you can without any physical health reason have a partial-birth abortion. Which essentially, is while on the labor table they insert clamps into the woman's uterus and crush the babies skull. A baby that would otherwise be perfectly viable. Then the restrictions are utterly inadequate.
88 percent of abortions may be in the first trimester. So what happens when we reach a point where we can still bring to viability via technology a 2nd trimest or even a first trimester baby?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Most of the women I know who have had abortions were using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant, so your assertion that women don't act responsibly is just false. |
I believe most contraceptives state right on the box that they have a failure rate. Secondly, contraceptives work best in conjunction with other contraceptives in order to further reduce risk. And with time scheduling. And if contraceptives really offer 98% prevention and everyone is using them but still getting enough pregnancies for a million abortions then they must be using them "incorrectly".
Furthermore, the risk is still there. Sure, you've reduced it. You're still making a gamble, just one stacked in your favor. But there is still the risk and when you make that choice you should make it with the determination of accepting responsibility for your choice.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And plenty of women in marriages, using contraceptives, find themselves with unwanted pregnancies, unwanted for reasons I'm sure you can't fathom, like being married to a violent/abusive partner, or having a partner who doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, and a whole host of other reasons I won't go into. |
I fully fathom them. But guess what, a violent/abusive partner is not a reason to commit a violent abusive act. That is an issue which must be addressed seperately. Not by repeated abortions.
"or having a partner who doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term"
Interesting you mention this cause many early American feminists were against abortion for this exact reason. They believed if it were legal women would be forced or co-ersed by their men to give up their babies.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And as for not having sex before marriage, our mothers were having sex before they were married, and our grandmothers, and our greatgrandmothers. |
No, I'm just expecting responsibility for actions be placed on the person who made the choice and not some innoncent child.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe if we want to cut down on abortions more men can get vasectomies instead of going online to order Viagra. |
Sounds good to me, I those who repeatedly have abortions or abandon pregnant women should have to choose (abortion + infertility measures) or responsibility.
Originally posted by rgo:
Or support well-designed and -informed sex-ed programs so that people from a very young age get an idea about what safe sex is. Abstinence is a moral position. If you want to take into account how the real world is, you need to provide services to those who choose to NOT abstain. |
Abstinance is an action not a morality. Abstinance is the safest measure, and should be promoted as the best choice to make until one is responsible enough to raise a child. Condoms, contraceptives, etc. should be taught with the understanding that they are risk-reducers but not eliminators. But if you're going to take the risk at least reduce the odds so as to be in your favor.
I am fine with teaching that....but don't hand condoms to fifth graders and simply tell them "go have safe sex" and all is okay. When it's not. It's "safer sex". And not something a 5th grade is yet responsible enough to handle the potential consequences of. Show support for those who are being responsible instead of glorifying irresponsibility with the justification that it's a "right". |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 05:57:56 PM · #139 |
I thought this country's culture was more advanced in their attitudes toward sexuality and women than, say, the Taliban in Afghanistan, but I guess I was wrong.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 17:58:24. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 06:44:17 PM · #140 |
Since this has developed into an abortion debate, I\'ll add my two pence worth!
More foetuses/babies are aborted naturally in the early weeks of pregnancy than are ever aborted by medical means. Most women who abort naturally do not even know they are pregnant - it appears to be a slightly later, heavier period. It seems in pro-life terms that this is a \"baby\" that has died - killed by whom? Nature? God? That collection of cells was not a baby or even a life as it could not survive without being in the womb. It was no more a baby than an unfertilized egg being washed away as eggs are during every period.
Today a woman can test for pregnancy within a week or two, much earlier then ever before. Therefore they are likely to make the decision whether to continue the pregnancy much earlier. Rarely are terminations taking place when a baby is viable, certainly in this country. I agree wholeheartedly that a limit must be made when abortions take place and I consider 20 weeks maximum to be about right for a variety of reasons. I also do not agree with using abortion as a contraceptive and this is why all children from an age when they are physically mature enough to have sexual relations resulting in a pregnancy should be given sex education including abstinence and contraception. But come on let\'s be honest, pandora\'s box is open and you will not stop young people indulging in sexual activity- their hormones are raging and lifestyles today encourage them to acknowledge their feelings earlier (I\'m not saying I agree with this but I am a realist!)
Many pro-life campaigners will say abortion is OK for pregnancies where the mother\'s life is in danger. Why? Does this mean it is not murder in their eyes? A choice is being made - just the way a woman and hopefully her partner, make a choice for reasons that to them will be life changing.The laws cannot choose when to \"murder\" a baby - either it is right or wrong so if the law says no abortion it must be for ALL cases regardless of the circumstances.
This is why abortion must be allowed.
For a woman to carry an unwanted child inside her for 40 weeks is a nightmare no-one should HAVE to endure. Choice is all that is asked for.
I\'m not even going to start on the points about a woman\'s right to decide what happens with her body.
P
As someone once said to me \"If men had periods, tampons would be free!\" :))))
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 07:20:04 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I thought this country's culture was more advanced in their attitudes toward sexuality and women than, say, the Taliban in Afghanistan, but I guess I was wrong. |
They are....i'm just hoping it can also be more advanced than the Taliban when it comes to value of life, as opposed to murder and killing.
Guess you want to be wrong there too? |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 07:25:34 PM · #142 |
Bottom line, whatever religion people choose, it will still be perverted by people. People write the religious documents, people interpret "godsâ word". People in power will evoke it for support.
And second, the human capacity for self-deception and/or wishful_thinking is vast.
People actually put down flowers and lit candles and prayed next to a stain on the wall of a bridge because they thought it was the Virgin Mary. In the world I live in, we call that padded wall potential. You are called a crazy if you say you saw aliens, which based on science are very likely to exist somewhere; but if you claim to have spoken to an invisible man in the sky, thatâs perfectly fine.
Being as we live in a world built of science and realities around us that are grounded in provable fact and filled with problems based on those facts and realities; we should not use a superstitious book written by scientifically ignorant humans thousands of years ago to try and solve them or to guide life; again, a book written by people, not "god".
Until god himself comes down and writes a bible in his own handwriting while we document it, then the bible and other religious works should be considered created by humans; people, with all their flaws, bias's and passions and NOT the âword of godâ.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 07:26:39 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I thought this country's culture was more advanced in their attitudes toward sexuality and women than, say, the Taliban in Afghanistan, but I guess I was wrong. |
They are....i'm just hoping it can also be more advanced than the Taliban when it comes to value of life, as opposed to murder and killing.
Guess you want to be wrong there too? |
Comparing the abortion issue to the Taliban has to get the award for the most ridiculous comment I've seen on here today, or at least it ties with your other comment, "I believe a woman has the "right to choose" but I believe she makes that choice when she opens her legs." Your attitude towards the unborn babies is admirable, albeit misguided, but your attitude toward women and their sexuality stinks.
I agree with Riponlady and JudithPolakoff 100%.
edit...forgot to give props to Judith. ;)
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 19:30:06.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 07:31:42 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Until god himself comes down and writes a bible in his own handwriting while we document it, then the bible and other religious works should be considered created by humans; people, with all their flaws, bias's and passions and NOT the âword of godâ. |
...and history should record that I agree with you 100% on this too. ;)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:04:14 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
More foetuses/babies are aborted naturally in the early weeks of pregnancy than are ever aborted by medical means. |
Quite likely, as that is the point in which the body often determines viability and stable path toward development. However, I'd wager that a lot more foetuses/babies are aborted between the 3-6 month period than occur naturally.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
It seems in pro-life terms that this is a \"baby\" that has died - killed by whom? Nature? God? |
OMG....since death can occur by natural causes...why should be alarmed by any other death!!!!
a) because it's needless
b) because this logic fails when applied universally... "people die of natural causes, why should murder be an issue"
Originally posted by Riponlady:
That collection of cells was not a baby or even a life as it could not survive without being in the womb. |
Already addressed this ill-founded rhetoric
a) you can't survive outside your environment. If I held you underwater you would die.
b) likewise, a tadpole is incapable of surviving out of water...this "feotal frog" would die. However, to call it non-viable is meaningless. A fish is non-viable out of water.
So all in all, the above argument ceases to motivate me a single degree with it's illogical argument.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Therefore they are likely to make the decision whether to continue the pregnancy much earlier
I agree wholeheartedly that a limit must be made when abortions take place and I consider 20 weeks maximum to be about right for a variety of reasons. |
That is at least a more intelligent view than most I encounter. But that still leaves the question...what happens when we can take a 6 week embryo and transplat it into an artificial womb and let it's growth continue until full development? Should, at that time, abortion be made a illegal and we merely offer "extractions" ?
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I also do not agree with using abortion as a contraceptive and this is why all children from an age when they are physically mature enough to have sexual relations resulting in a pregnancy should be given sex education including abstinence and contraception. |
Than we agree on this. I would like to know what you think should be done in the case of those who are on their third abortion? 4th? 6th even?
Especially, as a lot of federal tax dollars go to supporting said activity. I am more in line of requiring them to choose to get their tubes tied in such cases.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But come on let\'s be honest, pandora\'s box is open and you will not stop young people indulging in sexual activity- their hormones are raging and lifestyles today encourage them to acknowledge their feelings earlier (I\'m not saying I agree with this but I am a realist!) |
I absolutely agree. But we've also seen that the promotion of abstinance (not exclusively) but rather the supporting of it strongly by having parents & teachers encourage it, bringing in the handful of athletes and celebrities and models who are to share and encourge it and basically the programs that promote "it's cool to wait". Have shown to help...not all but at least to strengthen those on the fence. And I wonder if we dumped a 10% of the funding we give for contraceptives and abortions toward such additive programs it would make a difference.
A sexy 18-20 yr old drop dead gorgeous model who is still a virgin (and there are actually quite a few) comes into the classroom and basically says... "yeah, I'm a virgin...by my own choosing...and trust me i've had plenty of offers. Don't get me wrong...of course I want to have sex...but i want it to be meaningful and with a guy who will treat me right. And when I'm ready...it'll be there. So i'll wait...and hopefully you will too. Cause I know I don't want to give myself to some guy who's slept with 100 other women. I don't want to be one more number - I want it to be special. And girls...you all deserve that. And guys, if you don't realize that you deserve the same - then don't expect to get into our pants. And if you're not...please at least use one of these *holding up a condom* - losing your life for a moment of pleasure is just stupid!"
Blunt, beautiful, but you know what...it would change the stigma if there was more of that. Allowing and incorporating such. They're in fact starting to do that with PSA (Public Service Announcements) on some of the youth channels. I mean, is to ask for a chunk of funding to do such too much to ask for?
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Many pro-life campaigners will say abortion is OK for pregnancies where the mother\'s life is in danger.
|
Some do, many others don't like the idea either way...but realize that there is already a danger to both the mother and the child. So they do not see it as needless. Rather they see it as choosing between "two likely deaths" or "just one". It doesn't mean they like it....but they at least understand the conflict there...as opposed to simply deciding to terminate another's life needlessly and without cause.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
The laws cannot choose when to \"murder\" a baby - either it is right or wrong so if the law says no abortion it must be for ALL cases regardless of the circumstances. |
*ha* Yes, the conundrum. But there is a big difference in "losing a life to save a life" and taking a life when there is no need. And many reasons why pro-lifers are willing to concede such is that the actual number of cases a year in which a pregnant woman's life is threatened by her pregnancy is extremely small.
So small, that if you were to do a bar graph and print it on a piece of paper verses the total number of abortions you would not even see the bar. So yeah, do we concede the argument...for your sake we do. Because if such were the only lives lost we'd still mourn and hope for better. But we'd be happy to know the genocide is over and a million humans did not get killed that year.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
For a woman to carry an unwanted child inside her for 40 weeks is a nightmare no-one should HAVE to endure. |
I wonder just how many infertile women spending thousands of dollars trying to become pregnant and have a baby who'd read that statement would be weeping tears right now. "a nightmare no-one should HAVE to endure" the "dream they wish they could have".
Funny, so if one were to argue that growing up poor is a nightmare no child should endure. Should we go into the poor parts of the city and kill all the 5 yr olds? They shouldn't endure such. Life...is a nightmare...no one should endure. Why not just start killing everyone. What is a nightmare? A natural cycle & system? and who says we have the right to avoid nightmares... Having to crap every day is a nightmare. Wish I could avoid that and never be stuck looking for a toilet. If bearing a child is such a nightmare. Than perhaps what we really should offer and fund with our tax money is the option to have a vasectomy so it can never ever happen. For some reason 9 months of pregnancy and a day of labor seems so much less a nightmare, and no where near the damning sentence of taking one's life. Raising a teenager is a helluva lot more nightmare than pregnancy. Perhaps we should allow parents to abort teenagers too?
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Choice is all that is asked for. |
I'm giving it to you....you have a right to have sex...but you have an obligation to bear the responsibilities and consequences of your choice and not make someone else suffer for them
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I\'m not even going to start on the points about a woman\'s right to decide what happens with her body. |
If you did I would simply comment she already decided. Now, what makes you think she has the right to decide for another's body while you seemingly tell me it's wrong to decide for her body. Either, it's wrong for me to tell her what to do with her body and likewise wrong for her to take action against the baby's body. Or if she has the right to take action against another's body, action we're speaking her, than I easily have the mere right to tell her she should not do so.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
As someone once said to me \"If men had periods, tampons would be free!\" |
That's a new one, I haven't heard that one. But yes, if men had to give birth in labor the human race would have died out ages ago.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:06:23 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Until god himself comes down and writes a bible in his own handwriting while we document it, then the bible and other religious works should be considered created by humans; people, with all their flaws, bias's and passions and NOT the âword of godâ. |
...and history should record that I agree with you 100% on this too. ;) |
holy.. 
:) |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:32:07 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Comparing the abortion issue to the Taliban has to get the award for the most ridiculous comment I've seen on here today, or at least it ties with your other comment, "I believe a woman has the "right to choose" but I believe she makes that choice when she opens her legs." |
Well....how funny, as I AM NOT THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THE TALIBAN. And this is why these conversations are as they are. You guys can bring up the Taliban. And I can reverse it. And then you can come on and attack me for bringing it up. Look to your own side....
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Your attitude towards the unborn babies is admirable, albeit misguided, but your attitude toward women and their sexuality stinks. |
And my attitude toward women is in deed better than most out there you will ever find. The only real issue with my attitude toward women is in regard toward abortion in which, no, I am not going to look aside and accept the multitudes of excuses and false justifications.
I have yet to see any of you address the issues on claims of choice as it violates the option of choice for the child. Not one addressing of such....why? Cause you don't have a redress...so it's always avoided. A 100 debates and it will always be rounded with "another reason"
You provide reason after reason after reason...all of which for the most part are poor. Than when I grant you a questionable reason (case of physical health of the mother, rape, incest) you try turning that into an argument on saying I'm compromising on my stand. Is that the only argument you can make with any validity.
Yes, I do believe that when a woman "spreads her legs" she must take responsibility for any consequences. You can't "enjoy the benefits without the responsibilities". If that was the case you have credit cards that never required being paid back.
Likewise, I think any "guy who unzips his pants" needs to be held responsible for the consequences of his actions. And our society tends to agree in that it meters old child support to the father. Are you saying responsibility should not be taken or required? It was the guy's choice that got the woman pregnant as well. We hold to that understanding. Why should a man not be able to walk into court and when the court demands child support argue that he owes none...she could have had an abortion. The child was completely her choice....and therefore completely her responsibility.
You don't like that...but it makes sense logically. On the flip side, I don't like it either. I hate deadbeat dads. And I vowed to never put a woman in a situation where she'd have to choose between an abortion or child-support payments. I took responsibility for my actions...and guess what...it wasn't easy, it was damn hard, but it was the RIGHT thing to do. Responsibility is never the easy thing to do....merely the responsible thing to do.
The real real real shame, is that feminism has been turned into a single issue. (One that many early American feminists were adamantly opposed, ironically enough.) So it doesn't matter if you are for women's rights, equal opportunity, equal pay, respect, respect for feminimity, doesn't matter if you fight for women's self-respect, nor if you stand up against guys who disrespect women and their bodies (touching, grabbing, abusing them). None of that matters.....now it's been turned into:
1. You support abortion therefore you're pro-feminist and support and respecter of women (Clinton is loved as a feminist but he was a sexist pig who repeatedly cheated on his wife, made sexual advances toward women, used his position of power like an executive bigot toward secretaries, in fact, went so far as to stop a woman from having her legal right to due process in a court of law - but because he supported abortion - he's pro women).
2. You can be the most respectful and supportive person for women and equality - but be pro-life - and you are merely a bigot.
Guess what, I've lived my life, and lived it true enough that very few friends of mine would say my "attitude toward women" stinks. Even one's who are adamantly on the opposite side of this issue from me. Because they've seen my respect. In fact, many of them, although they still disagree with me on abortion, have commented on me being one of the few guys they met that ever truly did respect them as women. (Ironically, a couple have commented that their husband's were one of the few others.) *lol*
But I really am disinclined to see any reason to even wince at such a comment from one who can make an entire retort and accusation and judgment of me for bringing the Taliban up....when in deed it was not I. I am left to assume that you are too blinded by your beliefs to deal with this matter rationally or logically.
- Jason
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:33:15 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Until god himself comes down and writes a bible in his own handwriting while we document it, then the bible and other religious works should be considered created by humans; people, with all their flaws, bias's and passions and NOT the âword of godâ. |
...and history should record that I agree with you 100% on this too. ;) |
Strangely, I think even if God himself did come down and wrote it in his own hand-writing you likely object even still.... *lol*
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:36:34 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Until god himself comes down and writes a bible in his own handwriting while we document it, then the bible and other religious works should be considered created by humans; people, with all their flaws, bias's and passions and NOT the âword of godâ. |
...and history should record that I agree with you 100% on this too. ;) |
Strangely, I think even if God himself did come down and wrote it in his own hand-writing you likely object even still.... *lol* |
I'd at least make sure to check that He had valid ID ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 20:37:29. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:37:15 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Until god himself comes down and writes a bible in his own handwriting while we document it, then the bible and other religious works should be considered created by humans; people, with all their flaws, bias's and passions and NOT the âword of godâ. |
...and history should record that I agree with you 100% on this too. ;) |
Strangely, I think even if God himself did come down and wrote it in his own hand-writing you likely object even still.... *lol* |
Of course I would be skeptical; everyone should question reality and other humansâ who are in positions of power and influence, interpretations of it. But at least then we could have SOME proof...
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 20:39:27. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/24/2025 03:02:10 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/24/2025 03:02:10 AM EDT.
|
