Texas, the new haven for terrorists

[NLXSK1]

if you're looking for some verifiable ultimate truth, don't bother. the answer you are asking for is right there in the question. individual morality, being a personal interpretation of the greater societal ethos, is entirely subjective. even society's views on right and wrong are subjective. i suppose you could start by asking if i have made any factual errors in my statement. is a child in the womb innocent of any offence? are millions of them slaughtered? could the vast majority of those unwanted pregnancies have been avoided if those involved had simply been responsible enough to use some sort of contraception?

to demand undeniable objective proof for your every belief is to lead a small life.

You just said that morality is subjective. Then in the next heartbeat you declare Abortion to be wrong which by your own definition is subjective.

Could you be wrong? Could abortion be neither good or bad which are human subjectivities anyway?

Do you feel that you have the right to force someone of a different morality to abide by your interpretation of morality? Would you give up your own rights on the subject if the majority thought otherwise?

People make choices in life based on their own morality. If you do not want your choices curtailed by someone else then you need to understand that you cannot expect your morality choices to be forced on someone else.

These fundamental things have brought me to the conclusion that the government should get out of the abortion business altogether. They should not subsidize abortions, they should not decide whether abortions are legal or not, etc. Every individual state has a licensed medical board. Those boards should decide what procedures are acceptable and/or not acceptable from a medical standpoint. Acceptable procedures should be able to be carried out by doctors in agreement with their patients not based on morality but medical criteria.

If we want more freedom in this country we should be prepared for people to be more free in ways we do not like...

 

[Uncle Ben]

These fundamental things have brought me to the conclusion that the government should get out of the abortion business altogether. They should not subsidize abortions, they should not decide whether abortions are legal or not, etc. Every individual state has a licensed medical board. Those boards should decide what procedures are acceptable and/or not acceptable from a medical standpoint. Acceptable procedures should be able to be carried out by doctors in agreement with their patients not based on morality but medical criteria.

If we want more freedom in this country we should be prepared for people to be more free in ways we do not like...

Well said!

 

[undertheice]

You just said that morality is subjective. Then in the next heartbeat you declare Abortion to be wrong which by your own definition is subjective.

Could you be wrong? Could abortion be neither good or bad which are human subjectivities anyway?

Do you feel that you have the right to force someone of a different morality to abide by your interpretation of morality? Would you give up your own rights on the subject if the majority thought otherwise?

People make choices in life based on their own morality. If you do not want your choices curtailed by someone else then you need to understand that you cannot expect your morality choices to be forced on someone else.

These fundamental things have brought me to the conclusion that the government should get out of the abortion business altogether. They should not subsidize abortions, they should not decide whether abortions are legal or not, etc. Every individual state has a licensed medical board. Those boards should decide what procedures are acceptable and/or not acceptable from a medical standpoint. Acceptable procedures should be able to be carried out by doctors in agreement with their patients not based on morality but medical criteria.

If we want more freedom in this country we should be prepared for people to be more free in ways we do not like...

to begin with... at no time did i suggest initiating force to inflict my morality on anyone else. in fact, i clearly stated that this is a subject that goes beyond mere legality. its answer lies more in abating society's moral decay than in legislative prohibitions or judicial mandates. we live in a society that is rapidly losing all sense of personal responsibility, favoring a collective responsibility that allows us to heap the blame for our own failures and errors on others. would you consider this a healthy attitude? does this enhance or demean our humanity?

while i certainly agree that the state has no place subsidizing abortion, it should also not be engaging in the social engineering that makes the slaughter not only possible but appear to be a moral positive. the subject of its legality is problematic. the flaw in your reasoning is the notion that right and wrong, having no objective proof, are irrelevant. what is the proof that murder is bad? is there objective evidence that rape or child molestation are wrong? no, in each case we place the needs and desires of the "victim" first. if we consider the needs and desires of the "perpetrator" to be of primary importance, then all of these acts cease to be crimes and might even be seen moral.

each choice we make includes a responsibility for that choice. we often find our choices limited by the needs and desires of others. i can't go racing down the freeway at 110, no matter whether i can drive safely at that speed or not. i may choose to ignore that limitation, but i must take responsibility for that action, including being ticketed, arrested or paying for any damage should i fail to properly control my vehicle. i need food to survive. in order to provide myself with sustenance i must perform some useful task, earn my living and purchase that food. i may choose to avoid all of that and simply force someone else to give me that food, but i should be held responsible for that action and made to repay that other for his unintentional largess. our society relieves many of that responsibility. they are allowed to simply demand what most must labor to acquire. would you consider this a healthy attitude? does this enhance or demean our humanity?

 

[Rrog]

Yyyyaaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[Rob Roy]

I appreciate the way @undertheice and @NLXSK1 have approached their discussion.

 

[undertheice]

Why are you beating us with your bible drivel so early in the AM

i realize that all this is a bit above your pay grade, but do try to keep up or maybe just grow up. where was it i quoted or even mentioned the bible? do you consider morality to be irrelevant religious claptrap? for your edification - i'm no bible banger. in fact, i'm an atheist of long standing. probably longer than you've been alive. though i have certainly studied the bible, as well as a variety of other religious texts, i have no use for the god myth in any of its incarnations. i do, however, appreciate that many of these texts do contain important moral and philosophical teachings mixed in with their mythologies. i would suggest that you study them and expand your world view, but you probably won't. maybe you'll give it a try once your reading comprehension rises above its current third grade level.

 

[undertheice]

I appreciate the way @undertheice and @NLXSK1 have approached their discussion.

i may be a bit long winded at times, but i do appreciate a bit of back and forth that doesn't degenerate into a name calling contest. it isn't that i'm above the occasional insult, it just gets so tedious.

 

[Rrog]

Spare us your superiority droll troll

 

[undertheice]

....and i give you an example of such tedium.

 

[NLXSK1]

to begin with... at no time did i suggest initiating force to inflict my morality on anyone else. in fact, i clearly stated that this is a subject that goes beyond mere legality. its answer lies more in abating society's moral decay than in legislative prohibitions or judicial mandates. we live in a society that is rapidly losing all sense of personal responsibility, favoring a collective responsibility that allows us to heap the blame for our own failures and errors on others. would you consider this a healthy attitude? does this enhance or demean our humanity?

while i certainly agree that the state has no place subsidizing abortion, it should also not be engaging in the social engineering that makes the slaughter not only possible but appear to be a moral positive. the subject of its legality is problematic. the flaw in your reasoning is the notion that right and wrong, having no objective proof, are irrelevant. what is the proof that murder is bad? is there objective evidence that rape or child molestation are wrong? no, in each case we place the needs and desires of the "victim" first. if we consider the needs and desires of the "perpetrator" to be of primary importance, then all of these acts cease to be crimes and might even be seen moral.

each choice we make includes a responsibility for that choice. we often find our choices limited by the needs and desires of others. i can't go racing down the freeway at 110, no matter whether i can drive safely at that speed or not. i may choose to ignore that limitation, but i must take responsibility for that action, including being ticketed, arrested or paying for any damage should i fail to properly control my vehicle. i need food to survive. in order to provide myself with sustenance i must perform some useful task, earn my living and purchase that food. i may choose to avoid all of that and simply force someone else to give me that food, but i should be held responsible for that action and made to repay that other for his unintentional largess. our society relieves many of that responsibility. they are allowed to simply demand what most must labor to acquire. would you consider this a healthy attitude? does this enhance or demean our humanity?

In the first sentence of your response you said that you dont suggest initiating force to inflict your morality on anyone else. By the third paragraph you are talking about ticketing, arresting and otherwise affecting people who drive too fast.

At which point do the rights of the child exceed the rights of the mother?

I dont like Abortion but I dont like restricting other peoples freedoms and I dont like placing judgments upon their decisions what to do with their bodies.

If you tell someone they cant have an abortion, what are their options?

 

[Rrog]

Oh heavens, the tedium... Your ego is insufferable. Spare us oh great one

 

[NLXSK1]

Oh heavens, the tedium... Your ego is insufferable. Spare us oh great one

We are having a discussion here. You are simply being disruptive. It is funny that you put Rob Roy on ignore for trolling you yet you continue to troll other people.

Hypocrisy is not a Buddist trait...

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh heavens, the tedium... Your ego is insufferable. Spare us oh great one

 

[Flaming Pie]

In the first sentence of your response you said that you dont suggest initiating force to inflict your morality on anyone else. By the third paragraph you are talking about ticketing, arresting and otherwise affecting people who drive too fast.

At which point do the rights of the child exceed the rights of the mother?

I dont like Abortion but I dont like restricting other peoples freedoms and I dont like placing judgments upon their decisions what to do with their bodies.

If you tell someone they cant have an abortion, what are their options?

What about the woman's responsibility to be careful who she is with, when she has sex, how she protects her womb from sperm and so on...

Noone inflicted this baby upon the woman in 90% of cases. 47% of abortions are from people who had sex without using Contraceptives. The others used Contraceptives improperly or they failed.

Sex is not something you can engage in without the risk of becoming pregnant.

Life finds a way.

 

[undertheice]

In the first sentence of your response you said that you don't suggest initiating force to inflict your morality on anyone else. By the third paragraph you are talking about ticketing, arresting and otherwise affecting people who drive too fast.

At which point do the rights of the child exceed the rights of the mother?

I don't like Abortion but I don't like restricting other peoples freedoms and I don't like placing judgments upon their decisions what to do with their bodies.

If you tell someone they can't have an abortion, what are their options?

tell me, am i ticketing and arresting anyone? no, it is society that afflicts us with often arbitrary rules and regulations and punishes us when we overstep the bounds of these laws. many times these will have a positive effect, necessary tyrannies inflicted on us by illegitimate authority. those who abide by the societal ethos have no need of these, but we suffer them for the sake of the illusion of security.

as to whose rights exceed whose, i'll give you three scenarios to judge the matter of our rights. in the first you have suspended a man over a cliff, simply because you felt like it. do you have an obligation to hold onto the rope? in the second you have suspended the man because he has threatened you with inescapable violence. do you still have an obligation to hold onto the rope? in the last you have suspended him because you were forced to. what is your obligation now? in every case that rope is burning your hands and you are unsure if you will ever be able to pull the man to safety or if you can even keep yourself from being pulled over the edge. consider these the three scenarios that lead to abortion. you hold the power of life and death due to your own negligence, as a matter of self-protection or through the actions of others. have any of your answers changed? the life is still a life. the pain and danger are just as real. you are just as unsure of your ability to endure the ordeal.

we can't help but judge and it is proper we do. such judgments are how we each come to an understanding of our own sense of morality. as i said before, i don't have an answer. prohibitions don't stop people, as is witnessed by all of the folks on this site, and punishment is problematic due to the grey areas like rape, incest and accident. we, as a society, have gone out of our way to erase stigma of and responsibility for abortion. as long as we value the fleeting pleasure of a sexual encounter above the responsibility for the life it may create there will be no end to the slaughter.


by the way, do you have an apostrophe? i know it's petty of me, but for some reason those missing apostrophes are really bugging me and i end up running through your posts and typing them in.

 

[NLXSK1]

What about the woman's responsibility to be careful who she is with, when she has sex, how she protects her womb from sperm and so on...

Noone inflicted this baby upon the woman in 90% of cases. 47% of abortions are from people who had sex without using Contraceptives. The others used Contraceptives improperly or they failed.

Sex is not something you can engage in without the risk of becoming pregnant.

Life finds a way.

You just jumped right back into morality. Today Abortion is legal. You seem to indicate that you see something wrong with it. Who is to say a woman isnt careful with who she is with and/or how she protects herself? Is there going to be a hearing in every case? Will they be televised?

Maybe people think you drive too fast or drink too much or do drugs they dont like you to do like smoke Marijuana. Do you agree that marijuana should be illegal because some people dont like it or you using it?

If you want freedom, you have to understand that other people want freedoms as well.

Based on this my philosopy is that drugs should be legal, prostitution legal, any medically approved treatment legal.

However, the flip side is that you are responsible for your body and what you put into it.

There should be education but not legislation. And that includes Abortion which the government has no business being involved in.

 

[NLXSK1]

tell me, am i ticketing and arresting anyone? no, it is society that afflicts us with often arbitrary rules and regulations and punishes us when we overstep the bounds of these laws. many times these will have a positive effect, necessary tyrannies inflicted on us by illegitimate authority. those who abide by the societal ethos have no need of these, but we suffer them for the sake of the illusion of security.

as to whose rights exceed whose, i'll give you three scenarios to judge the matter of our rights. in the first you have suspended a man over a cliff, simply because you felt like it. do you have an obligation to hold onto the rope? in the second you have suspended the man because he has threatened you with inescapable violence. do you still have an obligation to hold onto the rope? in the last you have suspended him because you were forced to. what is your obligation now? in every case that rope is burning your hands and you are unsure if you will ever be able to pull the man to safety or if you can even keep yourself from being pulled over the edge. consider these the three scenarios that lead to abortion. you hold the power of life and death due to your own negligence, as a matter of self-protection or through the actions of others. have any of your answers changed? the life is still a life. the pain and danger are just as real. you are just as unsure of your ability to endure the ordeal.

we can't help but judge and it is proper we do. such judgments are how we each come to an understanding of our own sense of morality. as i said before, i don't have an answer. prohibitions don't stop people, as is witnessed by all of the folks on this site, and punishment is problematic due to the grey areas like rape, incest and accident. we, as a society, have gone out of our way to erase stigma of and responsibility for abortion. as long as we value the fleeting pleasure of a sexual encounter above the responsibility for the life it may create there will be no end to the slaughter.


by the way, do you have an apostrophe? i know it's petty of me, but for some reason those missing apostrophes are really bugging me and i end up running through your posts and typing them in.

Again, you have decided abortion is wrong in your morality. You did not address how your morality trumps anyone elses morality. I long ago stopped worrying about perfect english on the internet. You are smart enough to figure out where the apostrophies go, lets leave it at that.

You cannot suspend a man off a cliff because you are infringing on his rights.

 

[undertheice]

We are having a discussion here. You are simply being disruptive. It is funny that you put Rob Roy on ignore for trolling you yet you continue to troll other people.

Hypocrisy is not a Buddist trait...

we endure these children because there is no escaping them. responding to them is like swatting at a cloud of gnats, an exercise in futility. yes; i sometime flail away at them, but it's more for fun than for any rational purpose. i have yet to decide whether this one is just another little bucky wanna-be or the sock puppet of some other childish twit. either way, i don't suppose it really matters.

 

[Flaming Pie]

You just jumped right back into morality. Today Abortion is legal. You seem to indicate that you see something wrong with it. Who is to say a woman isnt careful with who she is with and/or how she protects herself? Is there going to be a hearing in every case? Will they be televised?

Maybe people think you drive too fast or drink too much or do drugs they dont like you to do like smoke Marijuana. Do you agree that marijuana should be illegal because some people dont like it or you using it?

If you want freedom, you have to understand that other people want freedoms as well.

Based on this my philosopy is that drugs should be legal, prostitution legal, any medically approved treatment legal.

However, the flip side is that you are responsible for your body and what you put into it.

There should be education but not legislation. And that includes Abortion which the government has no business being involved in.

I am simply stating the facts. Those are abortion statistics and warnings on contraceptives.

Using contraceptives requires maturity and cooperation both partners to ensure the 99.9% success of them. Some contraceptives are less effective.

I personally will be explaining this to my daughter when she hits 11-12. The only 100% way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence.

The next 99.9% way involves the responsibility of using certain contraceptives properly. That requires a responsible partner. Having a young immature partner can reduce the efficiency of the contraceptive.

Unprotected Sex should be avoided unless you are married.

Sex ed and parents should be sharing that with every child.

 

[Rrog]

Pretty extensively debated, this whole abortion thing.

What I find quite telling is the broad sweeping generalization that someone is so great as to cast the rest of us as gnats in comparison