Posts: 6896
Threads: 89
Joined: January 13, 2013
Reputation:
116
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 2, 2013 at 8:36 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2013 at 8:40 pm by Mystical.)
Quote:Why couldn't they just setup the system a different way? Abortion is murder.
What's the question, who'se they and what system are we talking about?
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 2, 2013 at 9:27 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2013 at 9:30 pm by Autumnlicious.)
(April 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (April 2, 2013 at 10:26 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Contraception and abortion grant the ability to sidestep that dilemma
With contraception no unique individual has its life terminated. With abortion you have to make that call.
No dilemma/ dilemma
Because every fetus is 100% viable and there's no such thing as a miscarriage...
/s
Simpleton.
Oh, and 100% FREE OF DEFECTS...
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 1:14 am
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2013 at 1:49 am by Violet.)
(April 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To me, a person exists from conception... it's how I've come to understand it. You define it differently: after fetus.
The new human is existant from conception. It is never a human 'somewhere along the line'. The information that makes it into the human being is all right there in the fertilised egg. Mum does nothing more than facilitate it's development: her body feeds it and provides a host environment that helps it to develop.
Humanity is irrelevant... once it develops personality more advanced than other persons we deem simple enough to cull for our food: then I'll consider with the current value of personhood, rather than the vague potential of personhood which it presents as a fetus.
But y'know... nobody ever takes me seriously. I can see the headlines now: Woman assassinates entire US congress; says she was tired of not being taken seriously. 
(April 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, I oppose the killing of the individual who cannot express their rights. The issue of abortion is a tough one, because there are two individuals involved, and the rights of each one needs to be heard since they come into conflict (the right of the mother to control her womb versus the right to life of the baby).
There are plenty of Libertarians who oppose abortion, and plenty who do not. It's not an issue that is as obvious to Libertarian principles as others.
I take it individuality is suddenly a human-only characteristic, and that humans have some sort of inherent rights? I should hope not, since parallels to other social issues could be drawn (race, votes for women, something about hookers serving cheeseburgers in unrelated hot-dog syrup).
Or are you a vegetarian? 
Quote:No. Each case is different. Whilst I would rather not see an innocent life put to death, there are acceptable instances where abortion doesn't violate Libertarian principles of non-aggression. For instance, when the baby is killing / hurting the mother, or when that baby is the product of a non-aggression violation (i.e. rape).
Non-aggression seems like a weak marketing stance... why is non-aggression a Libertarian principle? Are there no Libertarians who do not subscribe to such a principle?
Why see any lives put to death, guilty (of what?) or not? Why not put every life to death that does not satisfy your goals?
Quote:I do not, however, think abortion should be legal for people who have consensual sex and become pregnant. I'm not saying they have to keep the baby; but they do not have the right to end its life just because they don't want it.
And why not? Accidents happen, people are stupid, and holidays are fantastic for conning the shit out of one's fellows... and I know that I would every time claim that I had been raped by a stranger in an alley if such a law were to come into play and I was pregnant with unwanted fruit.
Failing that... and people who are greatly opposed to the idea *will* find a way... and people opposed but concerned greatly for their health *will* be miserable hosts, with a good chance to be emotionally wrecked. Such laws seem only to succeed in endangering the infected's, er... expecting mother's life. Is that not seeing innocent (the fuck does that mean?) lives put to death? Or are we obsessing over intent, and not result, here?
(April 1, 2013 at 7:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Oh yes it is (/ends argument)
Well then, my heart is also an individual. And my liver. And my stomach. And some random tissues in my neck too. Let's not forget my penis: that's certainly an individual, even a paragon of its kind!
(April 2, 2013 at 2:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If it can't think our feel it isn't a being you mean? It would never have developed into a unique person, and therefore never have the right to be considered an individual?
Do you, by chance, ever eat chicken, cow, fish, or spaghetti? 
STOP THE MADNESS!!!!! SAVE THE PASTA!!!!!!!!!  WHO'S WITH ME?!!!!?!?!!!!
(April 2, 2013 at 10:26 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Life is a gift, not a burden.
Dunno man... seems pretty heavy. Not sure if can carry.
* Violet doesn't even lift.
(April 2, 2013 at 9:27 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Oh, and 100% FREE OF DEFECTS...
So it'll be JUST LIKE ME! 
I can't wait for my cousins to arrive ^_^
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 1:56 am
(April 2, 2013 at 9:27 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Because every fetus is 100% viable and there's no such thing as a miscarriage...
/s
Simpleton.
Oh, and 100% FREE OF DEFECTS...
Woah what!?
So there is no dilemma?
*name call
Posts: 6896
Threads: 89
Joined: January 13, 2013
Reputation:
116
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 10:09 am
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2013 at 10:09 am by Mystical.)
![[Image: pasta-strainer-tn-210x210.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=madmikesamerica.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fpasta-strainer-tn-210x210.jpg)
SAVE THE PASTAAAAA!!!!!!!!! Oh and the penises. Save those too!
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm
(April 2, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Joel Wrote: Again, I say, I don't support contraceptive abortions... I don't really support abortion at all - I don't like it. But it's not my choice to make and I can see that it's not fair - or morally right - to force a woman to have a child that she did not want (and had no control over - rape), endangers her life, or will birth a child with an extremely poor quality of life. Perhaps you can explain your statement a bit more, because to me at least one of those reasons (did not want), and maybe two (poor quality of life) seem to be contraceptive abortions...
Posts: 548
Threads: 13
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm
If a woman is raped and does not want the child - she shouldn't be forced to keep it... Rather than she had consensual sex and got pregnant - knowing that she may get pregnant.
If her potential child is tested and found that it may be born with severe defects/disease, then she should have the choice.
(March 30, 2013 at 9:51 pm)ThatMuslimGuy2 Wrote: Never read anything immoral in the Qur'an.
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 1:35 pm
(April 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Joel Wrote: If a woman is raped and does not want the child - she shouldn't be forced to keep it... Rather than she had consensual sex and got pregnant - knowing that she may get pregnant.
Not a lot of things you know when you're properly shmashed. You don't remember any of it!
If she had consensual sex and does not want the child: why should she be forced to keep it? What's so special about rape anyway?  It's a means to the end, and the end is pregnancy, and the pregnancy which is the issue.
Quote:If her potential child is tested and found that it may be born with severe defects/disease, then she should have the choice.
I agree. Defects such as screaming should not be forced upon any mother. If only chuck norris and jesus characters are allowed to be born: we shall become THE MASTER RACE!
Why do defects and disease exempt her from having no choice? How are these negatively perceived problems with a potential person somehow worth more than other negative perceived problems with them? If one exception: another. And another. And why not some more?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 1:58 pm
(April 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Joel Wrote: If a woman is raped and does not want the child - she shouldn't be forced to keep it... Rather than she had consensual sex and got pregnant - knowing that she may get pregnant.
If her potential child is tested and found that it may be born with severe defects/disease, then she should have the choice. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with both of those assessments.
Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: For the logic impaired...
April 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm
(April 2, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Joel Wrote: Yeah, and I don't support those cases.
…so far we agree.
Quote: I'm not saying that it should be done because of the mother's life: I'm saying that because it affects her life; it's her choice to make.
If you truly believe abortion is killing a living human being then I don’t see how you can also justify the above statement. How is it any different than someone in the 19th Century saying, “I personally do not support slavery, but since it affects the well-being of the slave owner I support their right to own slaves” ?
Quote: Again, I say, I don't support contraceptive abortions... I don't really support abortion at all - I don't like it. But it's not my choice to make and I can see that it's not fair - or morally right - to force a woman to have a child that she did not want (and had no control over - rape), endangers her life, or will birth a child with an extremely poor quality of life.
According to whom is it morally wrong? I do not believe there is a moral right for a mother to kill any child she decides she doesn’t want. Additionally, how do you even measure quality of life? That seems to assume we have knowledge of future events that we simply cannot possess; interesting discussion though Joel.
(April 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Joel Wrote: If a woman is raped and does not want the child - she shouldn't be forced to keep it... Rather than she had consensual sex and got pregnant - knowing that she may get pregnant.
If her potential child is tested and found that it may be born with severe defects/disease, then she should have the choice.
I’d be interested in hearing sometime where your notion of rights and morality are coming from; but I am curious…would you support making abortion illegal unless it is permitted by a legal court or legal proceeding because a rape has occurred?
|
