Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[tackattack]

Did Sae just advocate for more thought policing? hock:

[Violet]

I am Pro-Choice, but with conditions...lol

Oh?

1. Anyone Woman/child who is raped/molested should always have the choice of Abortion.

How is that a condition of choice? That is the default if we are beginning from free choices...

2. I do not believe Abortions should be used as a form of Birth-Control

Why not?

a. If the Woman has already had 3 abortions, then cut her off, unless my #1 stands into place.

Why?

b. If a Woman has had children taken by the state and 3 abortions later has occurred, then I believe a reversal tube-tie should be in order.

And is what you believe also what the woman believes? If not: why should your beliefs have any particular precedence over her own? Is this not her body we are referring to here? Would you presume to have rights over her own in regards to her body?

3. If the mother's life is in any medically subscribed danger, whatsoever, then an abortion should be available to her.

Oh? And when should it not be available...? Your examples above seem rather silly in my eyes... but perhaps you will explain them?

Define 'medically subscribed danger' for me... then tally that with the facts that bearing children is often 'the ruiner of vaginas' (and other features of one's body); possessing the damn things is often damn near psychological hell; supporting their continued existence is a massive expenditure of one's time, money, and often happiness.

Frankly, I do not understand why anyone would want children at all if it weren't for maternal instinct... indeed that functions even in me. Past that though, one can easily recognize the sodding blighters for the costly parasites they are... and why anyone would want to curse a woman with forcing her to deal with one of these when she doesn't yet want to seems to me not only cruel, unfair, and insensitive... but positively unnerving that people can be so ignorant of how horrible children are that they would value children (that aren't even infants yet!) more than the poor fucker that would bear the damned thing.

---

Did Sae just advocate for more thought policing? hock:

Where?

[tackattack]

"Intention is the larger portion by which we should judge actions, after all."

[KichigaiNeko]

"Intention is the larger portion by which we should judge actions, after all."

"SO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" Do they???

That is the greatest nonsensical contribution I have read from you yet tack.

Mindless drivel.

@ Sae ..."should Childbearing and Parenting be an advertised position NO ONE will take the job. Apart form the fact that it is a biological imperative.... see the 'Selfish Gene' for more clarity than I can bring here.

[tackattack]

It wasn't my contribution. I was quoting Sae to answer her question about why I thought she was advocatng thought police KichigaiNeko. Sorry I couldn't fuel another tirade against me, Christanity or religion yoou're so fond of and you never answered my PM.

[KichigaiNeko]

It wasn't my contribution. I was quoting Sae to answer her question about why I thought she was advocatng thought police KichigaiNeko. Sorry I couldn't fuel another tirade against me, Christanity or religion yoou're so fond of and you never answered my PM.

she wasn't you sanctimonious numbwit!!

[Violet]

"Intention is the larger portion by which we should judge actions, after all."

And how does that equate to "one cannot have thoughts of/from/with ____"?

What I said is to imply that intention is more important than the action occurred... as you can hardly punish a girl for leading a man to evil. I should hardly think that amounts to thought police...

---

@ Sae ..."should Childbearing and Parenting be an advertised position NO ONE will take the job. Apart form the fact that it is a biological imperative.... see the 'Selfish Gene' for more clarity than I can bring here.

They are actually well-advertised positions... how honestly advertised or 'understood' is questionable, however The "Selfish Gene" by Dawkins? I think I read that.... Not sure anymore... so sleepy ^_^

It wasn't my contribution. I was quoting Sae to answer her question about why I thought she was advocatng thought police KichigaiNeko. Sorry I couldn't fuel another tirade against me, Christanity or religion yoou're so fond of and you never answered my PM.

I could fuel one though, if you like?

I can see how one might have argued for thought police in some senses with what I said... but alas: I am far too sensible ^_<

*Saerules practically falls to sleep like a dead tree might fall on a midget if severed at the base*

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"SO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" Do they???

Umm, well yes,actually,a least for me. It's the basis of moral relativism, realpolitik, business, and the way the world actually works day-to-day. Morality is based on pragmatism.

However, that's not a position one may take as a follower of any of the Abrahamic faiths. The Torah, the new Testament and the Koran are all replete with moral absolutes. The Torah has the most,with 613 .(They are known collectively as The Mitzvot, Mosaic Law,or simply The Law.Christianity ignores all but ten.)

[Samson]

How is that a condition of choice? That is the default if we are beginning from free choices...

Since I do not believe in banning Abortion, and believe that to be an option for women/children who are raped and molested, then it is "Their" choice to have an abortion. Some choose not to, some choose to....So it is a "Choice" of that person in situations such as rape and molestation.

If a state/country bans abortion, then it no longer becomes a "Choice" for said person(s). (Unless of course you have the money to leave your country/state and travel a bit.....But then again, I guess a fifty cent clothes hanger is just as much a choice, right?.....)

Why not?

Well, this would be a BIG depend....It would depend on if it was federally paid for (I.E.) by the tax payers. If it was, then I would not want my tax dollars going towards a person who can't seem to grasp the concept of what a BC pill is or for that matter the hundreds of contraceptives that are cheap and available.

This would also answer my "a" right below this post for your other "Why"... If paid for by them, then whatever they want to do with their body, is their decision/Choice.

And is what you believe also what the woman believes? If not: why should your beliefs have any particular precedence over her own? Is this not her body we are referring to here? Would you presume to have rights over her own in regards to her body?

Of course not, unless I'm having to pay for this woman to have abortions as a form of Birth Control or pop out babies that I will eventually be paying for, hence the reason stated about the children being taken away by the state.

Oh? And when should it not be available...? Your examples above seem rather silly in my eyes... but perhaps you will explain them?

Define 'medically subscribed danger' for me... then tally that with the facts that bearing children is often 'the ruiner of vaginas' (and other features of one's body); possessing the damn things is often damn near psychological hell; supporting their continued existence is a massive expenditure of one's time, money, and often happiness.

I'll give you two medical reasons, out of many more....
1. If a small child is raped and becomes pregnant, it should already be known that there are many risks that can and has happened with someone so young trying to carry a baby long term. (Yes there are risks even for an adult, but I would hope you and everyone else is smart enough to know the difference)..
If the "Child" does not get an abortion in the beginning, and 6 months later starts having these complications, which could risk her life, then the doctors should have the option at their disposal to abort the fetus.

2. As I stated before, even adults can have complications throughout a pregnancy..If any one of those come into place, then aborting during their term should at least be an option. In other words, Mother's life comes first.....But of course, if the mother wanted to die and not abort, then that's a totally different debate.... Point is, that I would never want that "Choice" (Abortion) for the woman to be illegal.


Sae, after reading your last paragraph on this post...Are you saying that you are Pro-Choice as well now?? Or not?

Fuck, now you have me confused....LOLOL

[tackattack]

@Sae.. yes it was intended originally as just a little poke and I'm glad you can see how that quote could have been used for a case for thought police.. luckily I know you are far too sensible, most of the time As far as that tirade.. sure whatever yoou'd like, this is your house, not mine.

---

"SO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" Do they???

Umm, well yes,actually,a least for me. It's the basis of moral relativism, realpolitik, business, and the way the world actually works day-to-day. Morality is based on pragmatism.

However, that's not a position one may take as a follower of any of the Abrahamic faiths. The Torah, the new Testament and the Koran are all replete with moral absolutes. The Torah has the most,with 613 .(They are known collectively as The Mitzvot, Mosaic Law,or simply The Law.Christianity ignores all but ten.)

---

While I completely agree that meta-ethical relativism (I believe the type of moral relativism you espouse from what I've read) is completly contrary to the abrahamic faith I don't believe Normative relativism is contrary to it. I actually believe that I follow a normative relativistic moral appproach to others. I say this becuase I can fully get behind the statement "There is no universal moral standard with which we are to judge others, because we shouldn't judge. Morality is completely subjective from humanistic perspective and we shouldn't judge others based off of ourmorals, traditions, convictions or practices."

Also the reason Christians "ignore all but 10" is primarily because Moses states that his law was added and is tempoary until Jesus comes. Jesus then knew he was leaving and people need rules so he said to keep them, but there's this holy spirit that will help you as a checks and balances to your interpretation to the law, because you guys are too serious with the stonings. I'll follow any o the mossianic lows that are relevant to today and are in line with my personal moral code.