AH: What is your Stance on These Social Issues.

mikom

bluewolf wrote: »

1. Religion:

2. Freedom of Speech:

3. Censorship:

4. Prostitution:

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption:

6. Abortion:

7. Stem-cell research:

8. Euthanasia:

9. Capital Punishment:

10. Marijuana:

11. Other widely-illegal drugs:

Which one is playing in goals?

Suryavarman

Sindri wrote: »

It is not her own fault. Either way you phrase it that could lead to someone being forced to have a child. Lawmakers have to take these things into consideration.

It's not her fault that she had an opportunity to have an abortion for months but decided to leave it till the last minute?

Incompetent how? What are you insinuating. That she should always be wearing a helmet and armbands in case it rains or what?

I'm saying she is incompetent if she can't make a decision on the matter within a couple of months.

Everleigh Ashy Radial wrote: »

hard when abortion is illegal her for a woman to make competent decisions .

If you had paid any attention to the argument you would know that we are discussing when the cut off point for having an abortion should be if it was legal.

Suryavarman

mikom wrote: »

Which one is playing in goals?

Looks like religion is on goal. Capital punishment and marijuana up front could be a lethal combination.

Rothmans

Sindri wrote: »

The woman who is pregnant and will give birth to them will be the one looking after them, unless she decides for adoption. Now if she doesn't/didn't want the child and opted for an abortion only to be told she was not allowed by law, that means the law and the state would be enforcing a law which forced a woman to have a child she did not want.

Not really forcing her to have a child she does not want. She has the ultimate choice on whether to engage in conceiving the child or not. If she chooses to conceive the child, and subsequently changes her mind on what she has done, that can hardly be anyone else's fault, least of all the child that has been conceived.
If the state caused her to be impregnated, then it would be forcing her to have the child, otherwise you're argument makes no rational sense.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's not her fault that she had an opportunity to have an abortion for months but decided to leave it till the last minute?



I'm saying she is incompetent if she can't make a decision on the matter within a couple of months.



If you had paid any attention to the argument you would know that we are discussing when the cut off point for having an abortion should be if it was legal.

haha my point (though i thought it quite obvious )arguing a woman is incompetent when having a late termination in a country where it is illegal is just beyond dumb.just replying in tone of your argument plus there are loads of factors which determine late abortions incompentancy on the womans part i wouls strongly suggest would be way down the list.

Sindri

Rothmans wrote: »

Not really forcing her to have a child she does not want. She has the ultimate choice on whether to engage in conceiving the child or not. If she chooses to conceive the child, and subsequently changes her mind on what she has done, that can hardly be anyone else's fault, least of all the child that has been conceived.
If the state caused her to be impregnated, then it would be forcing her to have the child, otherwise you're argument makes no rational sense.

No your argument takes for granted that she wanted to conceive in the first place. And if she changes her mind, or her circumstances change, and she could not support nor did she wish to put her body through pregnancy then is it your right right to tell her she has to?

Is it your right?

Because that is what you are saying.

And it would be the government forcing her as they legislate the law and if the law was forcing her...2+2=4.

starviewadams

Religion: Believe in it if you want,but should have absolutely nothing to do with the state.

2. Freedom of Speech: Yes.

3. Censorship: No

4. Prostitution:On street?no.As a regulated industry with proper healthcare and immigration checks on sex workers?yes

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Yes,definitely.

6. Abortion: Do you think abortion should be legal? Yes,definitely should be legal up to a certain amount of weeks of pregnancy.

7. Stem-cell research: Yes.

8. Euthanasia: Yes,for terminally ill if they choose.

9. Capital Punishment: No,wrong for a state to kill someone for killing someone else.

10. Marijuana: Legalise away.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Should be legal.Would reduce crime,and improve general health and social exclusion for addicts.

Sindri

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's not her fault that she had an opportunity to have an abortion for months but decided to leave it till the last minute?



I'm saying she is incompetent if she can't make a decision on the matter within a couple of months.



If you had paid any attention to the argument you would know that we are discussing when the cut off point for having an abortion should be if it was legal.

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Which one is playing in goals?

I'm tired and don't get it


re: current discussion, of course the cut off point should be before viability. Why would you want to kill a viable fetus

Sindri

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm tired and don't get it


re: current discussion, of course the cut off point should be before viability. Why would you want to kill a viable fetus

It's not whether you want to or not it's whether a woman should have the right to.

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

It's not whether you want to or not it's whether a woman should have the right to.

she shouldn't, no
make up your mind before then or deal with it

Sindri

bluewolf wrote: »

she shouldn't, no
make up your mind before then or deal with it

But do you see the moral implications of that argument.

It basically tell a woman that she must go through childbirth.

Stinicker

1. Religion: There should be full separation of church and state, end all religious control of Education and tax their earnings.

2. Freedom of Speech: I fully support freedom of speech no matter how wrong the arquement is, I will still support a persons right to say it.

3. Censorship: I am against all manner of censorship except with regard to illegal material.

4. Prostitution: Prostitution should be fully legalised giving the same tax benefits to sex workers as a normal job, tax their earnings and those of the brothel keepers. Ensure mandatory STD testing for the sex workers and protect them and their clients.

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Yes to Marriage. Yes to Adoption by female Homosexuals but not by male Homosexuals. Children ideally should be brought up in a loving caring mothering environment and this role is naturally fulfilled by women wheras men have a different role to play in rearing children. Two gay men should not be allowed to adopt or raise children.

6. Abortion: It should be available to women whose life is threatened by pregnancy otherwise not.

7. Stem-cell research: I am totally in favour of it.

8. Euthanasia: Yes it should be allowed but strictly regulated so that only terminally ill patients can legally kill themselves.

9. Capital Punishment: Yes we should have the death penalty by hanging. There is some people who can never be rehabilitated and whose crimes are just so abhorrent that nothing less than the gallows is fit for their crimes.

10. Marijuana: It should be strictly regulated and controlled and available for those who benefit from its medicinal purposes. Recreational use and possession of a small personal supply should be decriminalized but allow for seizures of it. Taking young lads to court and convicting them of "Drug Possession" is a disgrace and ruins future employment opportunity in many other countries.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Continued prohibition fighting the supplier and not the end user. Drug Gangs and smugglers should be executed if caught importing large amounts of illicit drugs.

Benny_Cake

Sindri wrote: »

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

When I replied to this thread earlier I said that I was against abortion in general. Now I accept that there are a lot of people who sincerely differ with me on that and I can understand that. None of us has all the answers. But as far as I can see you are the only person who has argued that abortion should be available right up to the moment of birth. Now leave aside the issue of whether a woman is competent or not. To abort a fetus who might be 8 months in development is little short of butchery. Even the UK, which has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, restricts it to 24 weeks. So it isn't a question of the competency of the women, it's a question of the human rights of a child, who if born at the same time, would have a good chance of living.

MagicSean

Sindri wrote: »

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

If she has the child and then physically abuses it and murders it is it none of our business then? At what stage does it become society's business? Is it not until she expels the child from her body that it becomes a person with legal rights or does it become a person during it's time in the womb

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

But do you see the moral implications of that argument.

It basically tell a woman that she must go through childbirth.

Eh no it doesn't. She has plenty of time to not have sex, use protection, take the morning after pill, have an early term abortion. If she doesn't do all that, it's her decision to go through childbirth.

PeterIanStaker

1. Religion: Has no place in schools or the Constitution, a fully secular state please & thank you.

2. Freedom of Speech: - yes

3. Censorship: - No

4. Prostitution: Legalise and tax it

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: - Yes, gay rights are human rights.

6. Abortion: - Should be legal and on demand.

7. Stem-cell research: Yes

8. Euthanasia: Yes, in favour.

9. Capital Punishment: Unsure (would seriously like to see Bertie etc hung)

10. Marijuana: - Lealise & tax the sh!t out of it.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Efforts should be made to rehab drug users and educate users about dangers, but if people want to use them, let 'em off.

Sindri

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh no it doesn't. She has plenty of time to not have sex, use protection, take the morning after pill, have an early term abortion. If she doesn't do all that, it's her decision to go through childbirth.

Yeah she has plenty of time but that doesn't mean she has to.

I don't particularly like the idea, but the alternative is what I have already stated.

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

Yeah she has plenty of time but that doesn't mean she has to.

I don't particularly like the idea, but the alternative is what I have already stated.

Nobody said she has to but if she doesn't want to have a child then that's kind of how it works
beyond that point it's avoiding personal responsibility and killing an actual little person

Sindri

MagicSean wrote: »

If she has the child and then physically abuses it and murders it is it none of our business then? At what stage does it become society's business? Is it not until she expels the child from her body that it becomes a person with legal rights or does it become a person during it's time in the womb

I don't understand what you're getting at. This is supreme hyperbolic rubbish. It is not a person until it is born. The right of the (living) woman takes precedent over the right of an unborn child whose life depends upon the already aforementioned (living) woman.

Sindri

Benny_Cake wrote: »

When I replied to this thread earlier I said that I was against abortion in general. Now I accept that there are a lot of people who sincerely differ with me on that and I can understand that. None of us has all the answers. But as far as I can see you are the only person who has argued that abortion should be available right up to the moment of birth. Now leave aside the issue of whether a woman is competent or not. To abort a fetus who might be 8 months in development is little short of butchery. Even the UK, which has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, restricts it to 24 weeks. So it isn't a question of the competency of the women, it's a question of the human rights of a child, who if born at the same time, would have a good chance of living.

It should be a woman's right, from practical measures. Now medically she would be advised to not seek an abortion so late, and I would agree, but practically, it has to be a woman's right, as the alternative is forcing a woman through chid birth.

Some of the reasoning I have heard goes like she should have decided earlier which could be a kin to saying she shouldn't have changed her mind. It is all based on faulty reasoning. If she does not have the choice, then she has no choice, thus she has no right.

you are unbelievable

even in my most rabid pro choice days i wasnt arguing for late term abortions

she has the choice to go through childbirth or not
then she reaches a point of no return because it's developed fetus which is practically a person if it is viable
that's all there is to it

Benny_Cake

Sindri wrote: »

It should be a woman's right, from practical measures. Now medically she would be advised to not seek an abortion so late, and I would agree, but practically, it has to be a woman's right, as the alternative is forcing a woman through chid birth.

Some of the reasoning I have heard goes like she should have decided earlier which could be a kin to saying she shouldn't have changed her mind. It is all based on faulty reasoning. If she does not have the choice, then she has no choice, thus she has no right.

Sometimes there are no right choices, just lesser evils. An abortion at such a late stage that the child could survive outside the womb seems to me a greater evil than forcing a woman to go through childbirth. I would point out that in other countries where abortion is legal, there is always a time limit and there doesn't appear to be any public campaigns in support of the idea that a woman should be allowed and abortion up until the moment of birth.

Sindri

bluewolf wrote: »

you are unbelievable

even in my most rabid pro choice days i wasnt arguing for late term abortions

she has the choice to go through childbirth or not
then she reaches a point of no return because it's developed fetus which is practically a person if it is viable
that's all there is to it

Thanks for the insult. And that is faulty logic.

bluewolf wrote: »

Nobody said she has to but if she doesn't want to have a child then that's kind of how it works
beyond that point it's avoiding personal responsibility and killing an actual little person

You said she has to. That she was responsible for changing her mind (which she is) but that doesn't lessen her right to it.

Practically she must have the right or else she doesn't have the choice.

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

Thanks for the insult. And that is faulty logic.

I didn't insult you anywhere, I said you're unbelievable


she shouldn't have the right at all, i think we are just going in circles now

Suryavarman

Everleigh Ashy Radial wrote: »

haha my point (though i thought it quite obvious )arguing a woman is incompetent when having a late termination in a country where it is illegal is just beyond dumb.just replying in tone of your argument plus there are loads of factors which determine late abortions incompentancy on the womans part i wouls strongly suggest would be way down the list.

Incompetent probably isn't the right term to use and apologies for my tone, abortion arguments do tend to cause people to get agitated

What other factors could cause a woman to change her mind in the late stages of pregnancy?

Sindri wrote: »

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

At this moment in time the record for a premature child surviving is 21 weeks. Presuming that the woman finds out after 4 weeks that she is pregnant, that means she has 17 weeks to decide whether to abort or to keep the child. Do you honestly believe that isn't enough time?

I retract my use of incompetent to describe people making what is obviously a tough decision. I do fail to understand why somebody would leave it so late to have an abortion though.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm tired and don't get it

11 questions in the OP, 11 players in a soccer team. That's how I understood it anyway

Sindri

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't insult you anywhere, I said you're unbelievable


she shouldn't have the right at all, i think we are just going in circles now

If she doesn't have the right then she is not free.

Suryavarman

Sindri wrote: »

If she doesn't have the right then she is not free.

That is some pretty absurd logic there.

Sindri

Suryavarman wrote: »

That is some pretty absurd logic there.

Ehh, no it's very simple. If one does not have a choice in a matter relating to them, then one's free will is impinged upon.

Hence why one would not be free as referring to the post you replied to no choice, then not free.

Benny_Cake

Sindri wrote: »

If she doesn't have the right then she is not free.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom, free choice has consequences. Any abortion law would have to balance the right of the mothers to choose vs the right to life of the child. I can't imagine any medical professional carrying out an abortion in the final weeks of pregnancy and if they did, they wouldn't be fit to do their job.

theg81der

robman60 wrote: »

1. Religion: Not sure haven`t thought about it enough but I suppose its relevant to our culture and history like all the other pomp and ceramony

2. Freedom of Speech: Yes and no, not when it does harm to others or incites hatred but then who would decide that.

3. Censorship: Again yes and no, I would say no if you could rely on parents to watch their children and yes because you can unwittingly stumble upon something disturbbing easily as I have that even as an adult can be traumatic.

4. Prostitution: Probably best legal so you can protect and legislate for it, its not going to change is it.

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Absolutely what on earth gives people the right to say they shouldn`t have equal rights - just because you can`t naturally reproduce? so what about hetro cuiples who can`t? Nonsense!

6. Abortion: No in general because its a slippery slope, would like more focus on prevention first before we give up. Yes if the child is found to have a physical impediment because I would want to be aborted sooner than to be born to suffer.

7. Stem-cell research: No I think but then again if I had or anyone I love had an illness and was hoping for a cure I`m sure I could change my stance.

8. Euthanasia: Yes with very strict criteria.

9. Capital Punishment: Yes when guilt is in no doubt and murder was premeditated or particulatly violent.

10. Marijuana: Yes legalise it.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: No

Sindri

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no such thing as absolute freedom, free choice has consequences. Any abortion law would have to balance the right of the mothers to choose vs the right to life of the child. I can't imagine any medical professional carrying out an abortion in the final weeks of pregnancy and if they did, they wouldn't be fit to do their job.

I know neither could I, but the idea that my post was absurd is in itself absurd. People really don't understand logic. The basis of my argument is the freedom for a person to choose, free will, freedom, choice, you would be right. None of us possess them absolutely, but society must provide the choice, or it provides no choice. I doubt an woman would do so, and as I have said I don't particularly agree with it either, but in regards to the law quite a bit of fuss could be kicked up if such a thing ever occurred.

Sindri

Suryavarman wrote: »

At this moment in time the record for a premature child surviving is 21 weeks. Presuming that the woman finds out after 4 weeks that she is pregnant, that means she has 17 weeks to decide whether to abort or to keep the child. Do you honestly believe that isn't enough time?

I retract my use of incompetent to describe people making what is obviously a tough decision. I do fail to understand why somebody would leave it so late to have an abortion though.

On what basis could a government say when enough time is?

On what grounds could they actually state that a woman must make up her mind within a certain time period.

That logic is absurd.

St.Spodo

1. Religion: The Catholic Church should be entirely removed from their privilege as educators of the children of the nation. Good, moral citizens don't need to be religious. Similarly, it has no place in the constitution.That said, people can delude themselves with religion if they so please.

2. Freedom of Speech: Up until hatred is incited, it's okay.

3. Censorship: It depends on what is being censored. Political criticism and that sort of thing should absolutely be free from censorship. Censorship should still serve the purpose of protecting children et cetera.

4. Prostitution: Legalise it, tax it, give licenses to legitimate prostitutes who are regularly scanned for STD's.

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Totally in favour of it. Live and let live. Can't see how homosexuals raising a child could possibly have a detrimental effect on society. Two loving parents are better than none.

6. Abortion: Should be legalised in the first trimester. An unplanned pregnancy can ruin the life and the prospects of a woman. While the foetus is dependent on the mother, it is not a real person.

7. Stem-cell research: Same as above. Embryos are not humans and as such, I don't believe they should be endowed with human rights. In addition, SCR has the potential to be of immense benefit to humanity and treat a lot of diseases.

8. Euthanasia: Only when someone's condition is incurable and they are in chronic pain.

9. Capital Punishment: Not in favour. Once can't take someone's life and justify it by taking another. Statistically proven not to lower crime rates.

10. Marijuana: It should be legalised. Everyone who wants it has it anyway so we might as well tax it.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: More education about the effects of drugs in schools. Class A drugs should remain illegal.

Benny_Cake

Sindri wrote: »

I know neither could I, but the idea that my post was absurd is in itself absurd. People really don't understand logic. The basis of my argument is the freedom for a person to choose, free will, freedom, choice, you would be right. None of us possess them absolutely, but society must provide the choice, or it provides no choice. I doubt an woman would do so, and as I have said I don't particularly agree with it either, but in regards to the law quite a bit of fuss could be kicked up if such a thing ever occurred.

I'm not saying your post was absurd. But the law will always have to balance competing rights. If it's a question of the right of the woman to choose abortion at ANY stage of a pregnancy, or the right to life of a human being - which I would contend an unborn child in the latter half of pregnancy is, then there can only be one choice. It would be interesting to see if this issue has arisen in other countries with abortion, I suspect not.

Suryavarman

Sindri wrote: »

Ehh, no it's very simple. If one does not have a choice in a matter relating to them, then one's free will is impinged upon.

Hence why one would not be free as referring to the post you replied to no choice, then not free.

The woman does have a choice in the matter. They can choose to abstain from sex, use contraception, abort the foetus before it is viable or have the child. Plenty of choice there.

Sindri wrote: »

On what basis could a government say when enough time is?

On what grounds could they actually state that a woman must make up her mind within a certain time period.

That logic is absurd.

The restrictions could be established on the grounds that a viable foetus is equivalent to a human being

Sindri

Suryavarman wrote: »

The woman does have a choice in the matter. They can choose to abstain from sex, use contraception, abort the foetus before it is viable or have the child. Plenty of choice there.

They can abstain from sex yes, but that is of no concern to the law, nor is the use of contraceptives, they may abort the foetus, yes, or if it gets to a point where they do not wish to have the child yet are forced to, then she does not have a choice. I thought that was self-explanatory. From a legal point of view, literally if this was a legal discussion, which is what I am treating it as, if woman decided not to have the child yet legally she had to, what would we do? And I'm not taking your already stated opinion on the matter as enough. What do we do? What comes first, the foetus, reliant on the mother, or the mother who does not wish to have the child. Of course in very late term abortions the medical advice would be to have the child.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The restrictions could be established on the grounds that a viable foetus is equivalent to a human being

Is it?

And if said foetus is reliant on the mother does the mother not have the choice to do as she wishes.

EDIT

Thank you for the nice debate but I'm not arsed debating any more. We're going no where and I think we should just leave it at that. You made some good points. But I got headache. Thanks

Scanlas The 2nd

Sindri wrote: »

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't insult you anywhere, I said you're unbelievable


she shouldn't have the right at all, i think we are just going in circles now

If she doesn't have the right then she is not free.

Tomorrow I'm going to go for a walk with my axe and I will chop the head off the first person I see. Im allowed to do this because I'm free so free to choose when and where to swing my axe. Otherwise I wouldn't be free.

MagicSean

Sindri wrote: »

I don't understand what you're getting at. This is supreme hyperbolic rubbish. It is not a person until it is born. The right of the (living) woman takes precedent over the right of an unborn child whose life depends upon the already aforementioned (living) woman.

I'm wondering when you consider the child to be a living being. It would seem you don't consider it to be living until it is out of the womb. You seem to believe that the right to life of the unborn child is subservient to the right to not have a baby by the mother. Although why a woman would abort a viable foetus instead of just having a c-section is beyond me.

LenaClaire

Whenever someone asks me that many questions at once all I can think of is this (very NSFW) clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6eTTaY1a6M

IcedOut

I dont think people in a same sex relationship sould be able to adopt children because it wouldnt be fare on the kids and they would be bullied alot

conor.hogan.2

Personal choice, for all of the above.

Rothmans

Sorry Sindri, I completely forgot about this thread. I'll get back to some of your points now.

Sindri wrote: »

I don't understand what you're getting at. This is supreme hyperbolic rubbish. It is not a person until it is born. The right of the (living) woman takes precedent over the right of an unborn child whose life depends upon the already aforementioned (living) woman.

Nope, it is a life from implantation, legally at least (refer to this post).
Therefore, they have equal status.

Suryavarman wrote: »

That is some pretty absurd logic there.

Sindri wrote: »

Ehh, no it's very simple. If one does not have a choice in a matter relating to them, then one's free will is impinged upon.

Hence why one would not be free as referring to the post you replied to no choice, then not free.

That's some pretty absurd logic. So your saying that in the hierarchy of rights, a woman's right to choose (not actually a right btw) is superior to the most fundamental right of all?

Sindri wrote: »

I know neither could I, but the idea that my post was absurd is in itself absurd. People really don't understand logic. The basis of my argument is the freedom for a person to choose, free will, freedom, choice, you would be right. None of us possess them absolutely, but society must provide the choice, or it provides no choice. I doubt an woman would do so, and as I have said I don't particularly agree with it either, but in regards to the law quite a bit of fuss could be kicked up if such a thing ever occurred.

Refer to my above point.

Sindri wrote: »

On what basis could a government say when enough time is?

From viability inside the womb, as opposed to outside. Simply letting nature take its course without outside interference.

On what grounds could they actually state that a woman must make up her mind within a certain time period.


That logic is absurd.

Well, luckily for, abortion is illegal here within pretty much any time frame, so you needn't worry about that :pac:

Sindri

@Rothman

Sorry couldn't be arsed quoting you and sorting through all that as I haven't slept in about 20 hours and am drunk but I did read it but I'm going to bed soon anyway.


I'll try to clarify my point.

If a woman, after the legal time limit in which it is legal to abort a child, decided she wished to abort the child, for what ever reason, and she could not legally do so what privilege, right, moral implications would be infringed if she was legally unable to do so? There have been responses along the lines like it is her own fault, but the law cannot take into account that she should have if she decides not to. If such a situation, unlikely as it is, were to transpire, and lawmakers should take such a possible occurrence, into account, as the absolute cluster **** it would cause.

Now that's the reasoning. The argument against is based on that it is her fault and the mother should have the child.

There is little reasoning to the argument against which can be seen as fallacious in any fallacy you choose as it is based on a moral superiority or on an emotional or religious basis. My argument is based on a practical solution.

As if she was told she had to have the child, as under the law she would be directed to, then she would be forced to have a child she did not want and as I have said that would be a cluster**** and I have yet to hear an argument rationally put forward such a suggestion that can take into account the fact that a woman would be directed under law to have a child. Rather the reply is she shouldv'e made up her mind sooner. Which solves nothing.

I am unsure of how coherent or logical this post is, as I am drunk, so if it needs to be firther clarified or replied to it won't be until I have had some sleep ad am less intoxicated.Thank you for your paitience.:)

Rothmans

Sindri wrote: »

@Rothman

Sorry couldn't be arsed quoting you and sorting through all that as I haven't slept in about 20 hours and am drunk but I did read it but I'm going to bed soon anyway.


I'll try to clarify my point.

If a woman, after the legal time limit in which it is legal to abort a child, decided she wished to abort the child, for what ever reason, and she could not legally do so what privilege, right, moral implications would be infringed if she was legally unable to do so? There have been responses along the lines like it is her own fault, but the law cannot take into account that she should have if she decides not to. If such a situation, unlikely as it is, were to transpire, and lawmakers should take such a possible occurrence, into account, as the absolute cluster **** it would cause.

Now that's the reasoning. The argument against is based on that it is her fault and the mother should have the child.

There is little reasoning to the argument against which can be seen as fallacious in any fallacy you choose as it is based on a moral superiority or on an emotional or religious basis. My argument is based on a practical solution.

As if she was told she had to have the child, as under the law she would be directed to, then she would be forced to have a child she did not want and as I have said that would be a cluster**** and I have yet to hear an argument rationally put forward such a suggestion that can take into account the fact that a woman would be directed under law to have a child. Rather the reply is she shouldv'e made up her mind sooner. Which solves nothing.

I am unsure of how coherent or logical this post is, as I am drunk, so if it needs to be firther clarified or replied to it won't be until I have had some sleep ad am less intoxicated.Thank you for your paitience.:)

I guess this is what your argument boils down to.
However, I could never agree that what is 'practical' in such situations is the right or moral thing to do, especially where the issue revolves around human life.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I'm an evangelical Christian. I don't want or expect any Government to promote Christianity. That's a job for Christians.

A job that you consistently fail at given you never do it. The sole extent of your promotion of Christianity on these forums is to keep saying... over and over... that being a christian is based on reason and rationality. When asked to discuss or adumbrate that reasoning however you run a country mile and find another thread to parrot the same claim on.

philologos wrote: »

Personally, I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I think that children are best raised with a mum and a dad.

Another claim you make but never back up in any way other than by repetition. The fact is that no one on these fora, much less yourself, has outlined a single disadvantage of same sex parenting over opposite sex parenting. Nor has anyone listed a single important and required benefit to children that is received from one sex that is somehow precluded the other.

What children need is love, nurturing, education and stability, to name a few things, and providing the stability that is afforded by legal marriage promotes that. So if one were actually concerned for the well being of children then one really does not have any grounds for preventing parents of such children from marrying.

nozzferrahhtoo

robman60 wrote: »

1. Religion: Do you think religion has any place in documents like the constitution

Not at all. Entirely unsubstantiated claims have no place in politics, education or science and should be dismissed until they are substantiated and their use and application resisted in every way.

robman60 wrote: »

2. Freedom of Speech: Do you think there should be 100% free speech

Yes, and people should also be made pay the price for espousing stupid, harmful or damaging things while using their freedom of speech.

robman60 wrote: »

3. Censorship: Do you believe there should be any censorship of the internet or other media?

No. See 2.

robman60 wrote: »

4. Prostitution: Do you think prostitution should be legal?

Legal and regulated, taxed and afforded all the benefits of medical and worker safety that you and I enjoy.

robman60 wrote: »

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Do you think gay couples shoould be allowed marry and have equal marriage rights to heterosexual couples? Furthermore, do you think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children?

Yes to all. I see no argument against allowing legal unions of same sex people, nor do I see a single benefit to children of opposite sex parenting that is somehow precluded same sex parenting.

robman60 wrote: »

6. Abortion: Do you think abortion should be legal? Are there certain circumstances in which it should be legal? Please elaborate on when it should/shouldn't be legal in your opinion.

Absolutely, I see no argument for affording any legal or moral concerns, or assigning rights to, a fetus before 20 weeks of development.

robman60 wrote: »

7. Stem-cell research: Do you favour the use of human embryos for stem cell research, which results in the destruction of the human embryo with the goal of medical cures.

Sure. See 6.

robman60 wrote: »

8. Euthanasia: Do you think voluntary euthanasia should be allowed?

Very much so.

robman60 wrote: »

9. Capital Punishment: Are you in favour of the death penalty? Elaborate on when you feel it is/isn't appropriate in your opinion.

It has never been an issue I have invested that much thought into. My gut says no but I fully intend to explore the issue intellectually at some point. I have not had the chance to date.

robman60 wrote: »

10. Marijuana: Are you in favour of the legalisation of marijuana for all adults?

Yes. Legal, regulated, taxed and subject to all the industry standards of quality assurance that any other legal product is.

Scanlas The 2nd

Sindri wrote: »

@Rothman

Sorry couldn't be arsed quoting you and sorting through all that as I haven't slept in about 20 hours and am drunk but I did read it but I'm going to bed soon anyway.


I'll try to clarify my point.

If a woman, after the legal time limit in which it is legal to abort a child, decided she wished to abort the child, for what ever reason, and she could not legally do so what privilege, right, moral implications would be infringed if she was legally unable to do so? There have been responses along the lines like it is her own fault, but the law cannot take into account that she should have if she decides not to. If such a situation, unlikely as it is, were to transpire, and lawmakers should take such a possible occurrence, into account, as the absolute cluster **** it would cause.

Now that's the reasoning. The argument against is based on that it is her fault and the mother should have the child.

There is little reasoning to the argument against which can be seen as fallacious in any fallacy you choose as it is based on a moral superiority or on an emotional or religious basis. My argument is based on a practical solution.

As if she was told she had to have the child, as under the law she would be directed to, then she would be forced to have a child she did not want and as I have said that would be a cluster**** and I have yet to hear an argument rationally put forward such a suggestion that can take into account the fact that a woman would be directed under law to have a child. Rather the reply is she shouldv'e made up her mind sooner. Which solves nothing.

I am unsure of how coherent or logical this post is, as I am drunk, so if it needs to be firther clarified or replied to it won't be until I have had some sleep ad am less intoxicated.Thank you for your paitience.:)

All that doesn't matter, when the baby/foetus is old enough to suffer it is clear cut murder imo, none of your rights for choice or whatever even come close in importance. Your right to choice is worth sh1t compared to a baby's right to life. What about the baby's right to choice. Your life is no more important than the baby's.

MagicSean

Sindri, the responses aren't based in it being her own fault so she shouldnt have choice. The responses are based on the belief that after a certain time period a foetus becomes a person so it is no longer abortion, it is murder. Once the foetus is viable outside the womb it's right to life becomes more important than the mothers right not to be inconvenienced.