it boils down to some people wanting a nanny state where their concept of choice and responsibility is which pacifier to suckle on.
others want to be able to make their own decisions, and are willing to fall down. they expect to pick themselves up, not have someone there to stop them from trying because they could/will get hurt.
The whole 'pro-choice' phrase is very deceptive. The people that seem to embrace it, according to my estimation, are better served by a phrase more like "anti-consequence".
A lot of pro-choice movements really want to do away with the consequences of a given choice.
I do not know anyone that doesn't value choice.
We are all at liberty to do what we choose. When we choose badly, society imposes consequences.
The whole 'pro-choice' phrase is very deceptive. The people that seem to embrace it, according to my estimation, are better served by a phrase more like "anti-consequence".
A lot of pro-choice movements really want to do away with the consequences of a given choice.
I do not know anyone that doesn't value choice.
We are all at liberty to do what we choose. When we choose badly, society imposes consequences.
I really don't like how people hide behind words.
I would add a few thoughts to that. BTW nice to meet you, read your bio on your "www".
I would say the "consequence" will be what it will be no matter what words people hide behind. I do hear you point but do you see that the "consequence" will materialize in any case?
I will say that "Pro Choice" does have a nice ring and sheds a "nice" light on an issue that is beholden to darker realities than a "happy" "motto" that says pro-choice.
A more honest slogan would be "For the right to abort a baby" again pro-choicers believe it a right to abort a baby.
Yes you are right that the consequence will be there anyway. And, yes the pro-choice movement revolves around the abortion issue. However, I see in this thread a lot of talk about choice and the same philosophy is bleeding over to other issues brought up in this thread.
Take abortion, it roots itself in the choice to have sex. That is where the choice is. Pregnancy is one result (consequence) of having sex. The pro-choice movement has embraced the thought that abortion is the choice part of the sequence.
Although having an abortion itself IS a choice. That is a choice that one would be forced to make as a result (consequence) of another choice that was made.
Common sense is clouded when 'pro-choice" people promote having sex with as many people as you like as a RIGHT rather than a choice. But the sex part is where the choice is.
Is that to say sex is bad or should be regulated? Of course not. But the consequences are there and they help level headed people make their choices accordingly.
Where the pro-choice movement tries to eliminate the consequences, and they have succeeded, is where they involve the government in the sequence. Pass a law to make abortion legal, and you have effectively removed the consequence. A lot of week minded people will buy the logic.
Granted, a lot of people with a semblance of morality see consequences more compelling than any law an do not fall for the political double speak.
If the consequence of pregnancy results in the choice of abortion, the person who has the abortion will have to live with the consequence that they prevented something growing inside them from becoming a potential life. It is none of your business.
If the consequence of pregnancy results in the choice of abortion, the person who has the abortion will have to live with the consequence that they prevented something growing inside them from becoming a potential life. It is none of your business.
I agree with you that it is none of my business what you or anyone else does, but now this issue is all of our business because the government has made it our business.
Follow me here:
If I raise my daughter with the principles I have, and I teach her that abortion is a wrong, and actions have consequences and try to instill some morals, and yet the government is promoting the opposite, that makes my life as a parent more difficult than it already is.
And if you think that the government and all the agencies don't promote that movement, you are fooling yourself. Look at the whole parental notification thing. It has gotten to a ridiculous point.
I agree with you that it is none of my business what you or anyone else does, but now this issue is all of our business because the government has made it our business.
Follow me here:
If I raise my daughter with the principles I have, and I teach her that abortion is a wrong, and actions have consequences and try to instill some morals, and yet the government is promoting the opposite, that makes my life as a parent more difficult than it already is.
And if you think that the government and all the agencies don't promote that movement, you are fooling yourself. Look at the whole parental notification thing. It has gotten to a ridiculous point.
So you are saying that abortion should be made illegal to better shelter your daughter?
the only argument against abortion from a libertarian perspective would be that you're taking from the unborn child, who is in fact a person.
the "is in fact a person" is where people usually get hung up. on that definition.
Right. I don't believe it is in fact a person until it can survive on its own outside the womb. Abortion therefore does not conflict with my mainly libertarian views.
So you are saying that abortion should be made illegal to better shelter your daughter?
Well, yes, but for every family that is trying to instill right and wrong into their children.
As far as the if it is a person issue, the purpose for sex is reproduction. You guys know what that word is, right? My wife was convinced by a previous boyfriend that an abortion was the way to go (before she met me), and she cries (read sobs) every time she thinks about it. We have three beautiful kids. The whole 'when does it become human thing makes me want to throw up. No reasonable person could not consider that baby inside to be a human. Any way...
If you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex or at least protect yourself. Some people think that life cannot continue without sex. once again this is an issue of consequences.
the only argument against abortion from a libertarian perspective would be that you're taking from the unborn child, who is in fact a person.
the "is in fact a person" is where people usually get hung up. on that definition.
Correct, and since the mother most likely made the choice to have sex, I tend to lean to the pro-life side. Obviously it's a matter of great debate. As I said earlier, I think the ultimate compromise is to set up the law such that abortions are illegal when our knowledge of fetal development deems the unborn child to be sentient.
Right. I don't believe it is in fact a person until it can survive on its own outside the womb.
This is not to argue or debate the issue as we all have our feelings on the matter. I simply want to artuculate another angle:
Two aspects:
First aspect,
In a container or not in a container..
A baby in a container "mothers womb" can be killed so say pro-choicers in any case. No restrictions.
A baby outside the container "mothers womb" if killed could be considered murder, manslaughter, negligent care, etc. even by pro-choicer standards.
So there you have my first of two aspects. Container? or no container.
Aspect number two.
Timing. Before birth? or after birth:
Before birth the life in the mother's womb has no rights and "must not have a soul" or if it does have a soul "who cares" is the attitude of pro-choicers.
So again no legal rights before birth.
After birth that all changes. Human Rights apply to the baby once born according to all including pro-choicers.
So in closing with aspect two timing is crucial. Before or after birth makes all the difference in legal standing.
Now having said the above I ask some questions below:
Concerning the issue of a container:
If I put a cat in a box and kill the cat while it is inside the box is the cat not indeed a cat while in the box?
I would say it is still a cat. The notion of a container determining whether or not a cat is or is not a cat depending on if the cat or "not-cat" is or is not in the container is absurd.
Concerning the issue of timing: Pro choicers say before birth the life inside the womb has no right to life outside the womb.
If that is the case and the life inside the womb has no right to live outside the womb if a deranged drunk on the street kicks a mother in the stomache and it turns out that action kills the baby did he not commit murder?
I guess not because,
After all that life in the womb has no rights.
What if the mother wanted to carry the child. Is it just tough luck for her because her attempt at generating a life has no rights until a birth is realized? (will the law not charge the man with anything other than battery and assault?) Remember the life in the womb has no rights because it is in a container...
Again we all have differing views on this subject. I added my examples above to get people to see the issue from other angles.
Am I saying a woman should NEVER be allowed in (legal) status issued by the government to have an abortion? No, I am saying such protected legal right to have an abortion should (in my humble view) be weighed and determined by clear and simple criteria such as "is the mother's life at stake?" In such a case an abortion would be completely legal for obvious concern for the mothers wellbeing. Do I believe pro-choicers should ALWAYS be able to have (legal) access to an abortion in any case "chosen" by any citizen? No. You may say it is none of my business what they do. In part yes and in part no. I believe it can be my business because killing is killing and when done electively it is the same thing as murder is for born individuals.
I believe murder is illegal for a reason. Sure some could argue that "Well, people are going to commit murder anyway legal or not" While that is a true statement I grant you, that is not a stong argument to warrant making murder legal in my opinion. Have you ever heard people push to make murder legal? I doubt it and why not? Have you ever wondered why not? The answer is that in our general society at large we do subscribe to a certain moral and ethical standard. We indeed do. As those who say if abortion is made illegal people will still use coathangers and have one anyway. I believe that as well is not a strong argument to stand on as to justify late term abortion being legal.. Remember Murder is illegal for a reason and just because one can say with accuracy that "well people are going to murder people anyway if murder is illegal" While true it is not justification to reverse the legal standing of murder. The reasoning is obvious.
Just my opinions, If you notice above the words ALWAYS and NEVER are in bold. This is to say I believe neither is a true viable reasonable choice. I believe in a balance in the middle that "does the right thing" my business or not my business.
Somewhere between ALWAYS and NEVER reasonable people can come to understanding and agreement. Those on each end will never come to the table to work out issues.
You are obviously a well adjusted human being. Well said.
One thing I would add is having absolutes is not a bad thing. Guessing about whether killing is actually killing only leaves loopholes for someone to exploit and encourages further rationalization regarding human life.
You are obviously a well adjusted human being. Well said.
One thing I would add is having absolutes is not a bad thing.
Society does adhear to the notion of absolutes much to the displeasure to some who abhor such a notion of "absolutes". Our justice system when it issues a verdict determines or "judges" actions in one of two ways. As "good" or "innocent" and with no need of restitution, penalty, time in jail, or it does find "bad" in the case and assigns one or more of restitution, penalty, time in jail. This is based on findings that a judge or jury find that "absolutely" lead them to find an individual or corporation as innocent or guilty.
We do agree to standards in society as civilized people and we live by said rules. We do not all agree but agreeable people can come to the table and try to communicate and live together as best as is possible. The thing is not all people are agreeable people.
As "good" or "innocent" and with no need of restitution, penalty, time in jail, or it does find "bad" in the case and assigns one or more of restitution, penalty, time in jail.
Ooops!
Wrong there Fellows.
The law is outside of good or bad. Only guilty or innocent.
To put it another way, some countries will find you guilty of drinking booze and punish you. By your logic you'd be bad ... are you?
Just because you've broken a law makes you 'bad' does it?
The law is outside of good or bad. Only guilty or innocent.
To put it another way, some countries will find you guilty of drinking booze and punish you. By your logic you'd be bad ... are you?
Just because you've broken a law makes you 'bad' does it?
Get it? Good and evil are moveable.
Harald don't misunderstand me. I could have been more clear and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I am saying that when guilty parties receive a penalty of one sort or another it is indeed an absolute that society deems various acts or lack of acts as "bad". Yes "bad" is fuzzy but none the less our laws are written to punish when someone does something "bad"
What I am saying is that civilized members of a society have no trouble agreeing that some things are "bad" as behavior or actions. Otherwise the system would issue no punishment. The other side of the coin is if an individual does nothing "wrong" in the eyes of the law no punishment is issued.
This is not to argue or debate the issue as we all have our feelings on the matter. I simply want to artuculate another angle:
Two aspects:
First aspect,
In a container or not in a container..
A baby in a container "mothers womb" can be killed so say pro-choicers in any case. No restrictions.
A baby outside the container "mothers womb" if killed could be considered murder, manslaughter, negligent care, etc. even by pro-choicer standards.
So there you have my first of two aspects. Container? or no container.
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. The mother obviously doesn't want it. If it were to be removed, it couldn't survive by itself. It hasn't achieved human status yet. It's not murder.
up to at least a year or two old that statement would be entirely true. not sure you want that to be your definition.
A two year old can breathe without a machine. I'm not talking about long term forage the forest for food survival. I'm talking about simple very short term biological survival.
Find the average age a fetus can survive outside of the womb. Go back 4 or 5 standard deviations. There's the cutoff.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
it boils down to some people wanting a nanny state where their concept of choice and responsibility is which pacifier to suckle on.
others want to be able to make their own decisions, and are willing to fall down. they expect to pick themselves up, not have someone there to stop them from trying because they could/will get hurt.
This is so true.
Fellows
A lot of pro-choice movements really want to do away with the consequences of a given choice.
I do not know anyone that doesn't value choice.
We are all at liberty to do what we choose. When we choose badly, society imposes consequences.
I really don't like how people hide behind words.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The whole 'pro-choice' phrase is very deceptive. The people that seem to embrace it, according to my estimation, are better served by a phrase more like "anti-consequence".
A lot of pro-choice movements really want to do away with the consequences of a given choice.
I do not know anyone that doesn't value choice.
We are all at liberty to do what we choose. When we choose badly, society imposes consequences.
I really don't like how people hide behind words.
I would add a few thoughts to that. BTW nice to meet you, read your bio on your "www".
I would say the "consequence" will be what it will be no matter what words people hide behind. I do hear you point but do you see that the "consequence" will materialize in any case?
I will say that "Pro Choice" does have a nice ring and sheds a "nice" light on an issue that is beholden to darker realities than a "happy" "motto" that says pro-choice.
A more honest slogan would be "For the right to abort a baby" again pro-choicers believe it a right to abort a baby.
Fellows
Yes you are right that the consequence will be there anyway. And, yes the pro-choice movement revolves around the abortion issue. However, I see in this thread a lot of talk about choice and the same philosophy is bleeding over to other issues brought up in this thread.
Take abortion, it roots itself in the choice to have sex. That is where the choice is. Pregnancy is one result (consequence) of having sex. The pro-choice movement has embraced the thought that abortion is the choice part of the sequence.
Although having an abortion itself IS a choice. That is a choice that one would be forced to make as a result (consequence) of another choice that was made.
Common sense is clouded when 'pro-choice" people promote having sex with as many people as you like as a RIGHT rather than a choice. But the sex part is where the choice is.
Is that to say sex is bad or should be regulated? Of course not. But the consequences are there and they help level headed people make their choices accordingly.
Where the pro-choice movement tries to eliminate the consequences, and they have succeeded, is where they involve the government in the sequence. Pass a law to make abortion legal, and you have effectively removed the consequence. A lot of week minded people will buy the logic.
Granted, a lot of people with a semblance of morality see consequences more compelling than any law an do not fall for the political double speak.
Originally posted by BR
If the consequence of pregnancy results in the choice of abortion, the person who has the abortion will have to live with the consequence that they prevented something growing inside them from becoming a potential life. It is none of your business.
I agree with you that it is none of my business what you or anyone else does, but now this issue is all of our business because the government has made it our business.
Follow me here:
If I raise my daughter with the principles I have, and I teach her that abortion is a wrong, and actions have consequences and try to instill some morals, and yet the government is promoting the opposite, that makes my life as a parent more difficult than it already is.
And if you think that the government and all the agencies don't promote that movement, you are fooling yourself. Look at the whole parental notification thing. It has gotten to a ridiculous point.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I agree with you that it is none of my business what you or anyone else does, but now this issue is all of our business because the government has made it our business.
Follow me here:
If I raise my daughter with the principles I have, and I teach her that abortion is a wrong, and actions have consequences and try to instill some morals, and yet the government is promoting the opposite, that makes my life as a parent more difficult than it already is.
And if you think that the government and all the agencies don't promote that movement, you are fooling yourself. Look at the whole parental notification thing. It has gotten to a ridiculous point.
So you are saying that abortion should be made illegal to better shelter your daughter?
the only argument against abortion from a libertarian perspective would be that you're taking from the unborn child, who is in fact a person.
the "is in fact a person" is where people usually get hung up. on that definition.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ugh. this is getting ugly.
the only argument against abortion from a libertarian perspective would be that you're taking from the unborn child, who is in fact a person.
the "is in fact a person" is where people usually get hung up. on that definition.
Right. I don't believe it is in fact a person until it can survive on its own outside the womb. Abortion therefore does not conflict with my mainly libertarian views.
Originally posted by BR
So you are saying that abortion should be made illegal to better shelter your daughter?
Well, yes, but for every family that is trying to instill right and wrong into their children.
As far as the if it is a person issue, the purpose for sex is reproduction. You guys know what that word is, right? My wife was convinced by a previous boyfriend that an abortion was the way to go (before she met me), and she cries (read sobs) every time she thinks about it. We have three beautiful kids. The whole 'when does it become human thing makes me want to throw up. No reasonable person could not consider that baby inside to be a human. Any way...
If you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex or at least protect yourself. Some people think that life cannot continue without sex. once again this is an issue of consequences.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ugh. this is getting ugly.
the only argument against abortion from a libertarian perspective would be that you're taking from the unborn child, who is in fact a person.
the "is in fact a person" is where people usually get hung up. on that definition.
Correct, and since the mother most likely made the choice to have sex, I tend to lean to the pro-life side. Obviously it's a matter of great debate. As I said earlier, I think the ultimate compromise is to set up the law such that abortions are illegal when our knowledge of fetal development deems the unborn child to be sentient.
Originally posted by BR
Right. I don't believe it is in fact a person until it can survive on its own outside the womb.
This is not to argue or debate the issue as we all have our feelings on the matter. I simply want to artuculate another angle:
Two aspects:
First aspect,
In a container or not in a container..
A baby in a container "mothers womb" can be killed so say pro-choicers in any case. No restrictions.
A baby outside the container "mothers womb" if killed could be considered murder, manslaughter, negligent care, etc. even by pro-choicer standards.
So there you have my first of two aspects. Container? or no container.
Aspect number two.
Timing. Before birth? or after birth:
Before birth the life in the mother's womb has no rights and "must not have a soul" or if it does have a soul "who cares" is the attitude of pro-choicers.
So again no legal rights before birth.
After birth that all changes. Human Rights apply to the baby once born according to all including pro-choicers.
So in closing with aspect two timing is crucial. Before or after birth makes all the difference in legal standing.
Now having said the above I ask some questions below:
Concerning the issue of a container:
If I put a cat in a box and kill the cat while it is inside the box is the cat not indeed a cat while in the box?
I would say it is still a cat. The notion of a container determining whether or not a cat is or is not a cat depending on if the cat or "not-cat" is or is not in the container is absurd.
Concerning the issue of timing: Pro choicers say before birth the life inside the womb has no right to life outside the womb.
If that is the case and the life inside the womb has no right to live outside the womb if a deranged drunk on the street kicks a mother in the stomache and it turns out that action kills the baby did he not commit murder?
I guess not because,
After all that life in the womb has no rights.
What if the mother wanted to carry the child. Is it just tough luck for her because her attempt at generating a life has no rights until a birth is realized? (will the law not charge the man with anything other than battery and assault?) Remember the life in the womb has no rights because it is in a container...
Again we all have differing views on this subject. I added my examples above to get people to see the issue from other angles.
Am I saying a woman should NEVER be allowed in (legal) status issued by the government to have an abortion? No, I am saying such protected legal right to have an abortion should (in my humble view) be weighed and determined by clear and simple criteria such as "is the mother's life at stake?" In such a case an abortion would be completely legal for obvious concern for the mothers wellbeing. Do I believe pro-choicers should ALWAYS be able to have (legal) access to an abortion in any case "chosen" by any citizen? No. You may say it is none of my business what they do. In part yes and in part no. I believe it can be my business because killing is killing and when done electively it is the same thing as murder is for born individuals.
I believe murder is illegal for a reason. Sure some could argue that "Well, people are going to commit murder anyway legal or not" While that is a true statement I grant you, that is not a stong argument to warrant making murder legal in my opinion. Have you ever heard people push to make murder legal? I doubt it and why not? Have you ever wondered why not? The answer is that in our general society at large we do subscribe to a certain moral and ethical standard. We indeed do. As those who say if abortion is made illegal people will still use coathangers and have one anyway. I believe that as well is not a strong argument to stand on as to justify late term abortion being legal.. Remember Murder is illegal for a reason and just because one can say with accuracy that "well people are going to murder people anyway if murder is illegal" While true it is not justification to reverse the legal standing of murder. The reasoning is obvious.
Just my opinions, If you notice above the words ALWAYS and NEVER are in bold. This is to say I believe neither is a true viable reasonable choice. I believe in a balance in the middle that "does the right thing" my business or not my business.
Somewhere between ALWAYS and NEVER reasonable people can come to understanding and agreement. Those on each end will never come to the table to work out issues.
Fellowship
One thing I would add is having absolutes is not a bad thing. Guessing about whether killing is actually killing only leaves loopholes for someone to exploit and encourages further rationalization regarding human life.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are obviously a well adjusted human being. Well said.
One thing I would add is having absolutes is not a bad thing.
Society does adhear to the notion of absolutes much to the displeasure to some who abhor such a notion of "absolutes". Our justice system when it issues a verdict determines or "judges" actions in one of two ways. As "good" or "innocent" and with no need of restitution, penalty, time in jail, or it does find "bad" in the case and assigns one or more of restitution, penalty, time in jail. This is based on findings that a judge or jury find that "absolutely" lead them to find an individual or corporation as innocent or guilty.
We do agree to standards in society as civilized people and we live by said rules. We do not all agree but agreeable people can come to the table and try to communicate and live together as best as is possible. The thing is not all people are agreeable people.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
As "good" or "innocent" and with no need of restitution, penalty, time in jail, or it does find "bad" in the case and assigns one or more of restitution, penalty, time in jail.
Ooops!
Wrong there Fellows.
The law is outside of good or bad. Only guilty or innocent.
To put it another way, some countries will find you guilty of drinking booze and punish you. By your logic you'd be bad ... are you?
Just because you've broken a law makes you 'bad' does it?
Get it? Good and evil are moveable.
Originally posted by Harald
Ooops!
Wrong there Fellows.
The law is outside of good or bad. Only guilty or innocent.
To put it another way, some countries will find you guilty of drinking booze and punish you. By your logic you'd be bad ... are you?
Just because you've broken a law makes you 'bad' does it?
Get it? Good and evil are moveable.
Harald don't misunderstand me. I could have been more clear and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I am saying that when guilty parties receive a penalty of one sort or another it is indeed an absolute that society deems various acts or lack of acts as "bad". Yes "bad" is fuzzy but none the less our laws are written to punish when someone does something "bad"
What I am saying is that civilized members of a society have no trouble agreeing that some things are "bad" as behavior or actions. Otherwise the system would issue no punishment. The other side of the coin is if an individual does nothing "wrong" in the eyes of the law no punishment is issued.
That is what I am saying.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
This is not to argue or debate the issue as we all have our feelings on the matter. I simply want to artuculate another angle:
Two aspects:
First aspect,
In a container or not in a container..
A baby in a container "mothers womb" can be killed so say pro-choicers in any case. No restrictions.
A baby outside the container "mothers womb" if killed could be considered murder, manslaughter, negligent care, etc. even by pro-choicer standards.
So there you have my first of two aspects. Container? or no container.
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. The mother obviously doesn't want it. If it were to be removed, it couldn't survive by itself. It hasn't achieved human status yet. It's not murder.
If it were to be removed, it couldn't survive by itself. It hasn't achieved human status yet. It's not murder.
up to at least a year or two old that statement would be entirely true. not sure you want that to be your definition.
Originally posted by alcimedes
up to at least a year or two old that statement would be entirely true. not sure you want that to be your definition.
A two year old can breathe without a machine. I'm not talking about long term forage the forest for food survival. I'm talking about simple very short term biological survival.
Find the average age a fetus can survive outside of the womb. Go back 4 or 5 standard deviations. There's the cutoff.
Find the average age a fetus can survive outside of the womb
with or w/o technology?