I look at it this way: There are two kinds of women, concerning this issue. One, the religious types, want to ban abortion. Ostensibly, because the Bible/religion forbids it. The other, the so-called liberals, or non-religious, demand control over their own reproductive cycle (assuming they are not just trying to make a feminist issue out of it, but are sincere). Personally, I am much more inclined to side with the latter.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who is Responsible for Murdering over 40 Million people?
- Thread starter version77
- Start date
Quote from version77:
What a lot of compassion you have RunningonEmpty.
It's okay to butcher a few million unborn babies each year?
40 MILLION IN 20 YEARS (We need a reminder here)...
No, it isn't. Removing a few cells is fine, though.
Seems I have read that nature favors having the child over saving
mommy as lots of women die during childbirth. Especially in pre-historic times?
I am not in favor of late term abortions. Too risky for the mother. I was referring to spontaneous abortions much earlier than that. Also, I vaguely remember a prof telling my class that the majority of (human) conceptions end in spontaneous abortion within 48 hours of conception. Maybe you can lobby someone to put a stop to that.
But that's a really nice, punitve tone there. Sounds like you rather enjoy the thought of women dying in childbirth. Lots of them.
Let's see... You mention women wanting to hear from someone
with a more sophisticated understanding of reproduction and yet
in the sentence before it you say pregnancy is equal to carrying
a "watermelon" in your "gut" for 9 months and then say
"shit it out your ass". Wow, what sophistication created this smart talk?
Don't confuse vulgarity with lack of sophistication. Since your arguments are so emotion based, figured that you needed something to bring your empathy online. Not working, I see. And I still think women don't want to hear from you. Just a hunch.
And if you think "babymaker" is childish, prudish (your issue?) or
evasive then that is your psychological problem, not mine.
Yeah. Ok. 'Uterus' is quicker to type, though. People who object to cute or oblique, avoidant terminology are not usually the prudish ones.
I will change it so you won't feel so bad (sic) about it:
If a woman wants to put a hanger up her vagina into her uterus
and kill her baby, then so be it. Her choice. Bad choice. Can kill you.
So can carrying the fetus to term, as you pointed out above.
Quite the gamble. Dumb as hell too.
Basically, you're saying you would sacrifice the living and their needs for your ideas/ideals (and yes, they are only your ideals, not to be confused with reality). Now you're on the same page as every other dictator in history. (And that is the other side of the 'destruction of future potential/world savior' argument. Potential isn't always positive, is it? Maybe WW III was averted by a timely abortion, or perhaps another Holocaust.)
One more thing. You mention taking an actual cue from nature.
Where else in nature do animals abort their babies with medical intruments?
Show me another animal that does this beside humans.
The point was that nature favors the existing, proven, viable over the potential, unproven, nonviable. Since nature got us to our present state of evolution, presumably that is the productive, progressive way to go, i.e. favor the etc. etc.. Your statement is irrelevant.
I can't believe I wasted my time writing this. Should never have made the first post. I must have a touch of OCD, because I fully recognize the futility of arguing these topics. Must have been your self-righteous, off-hand dismissal of the emotional and physical welfare of other viable human beings that got me going.
You sound like a hardened little bugger. All sentiment, no mercy.
Well, back to stock screening.
When it all really boils down to it; morality is a personal construct. It doesn't become a social construct until the members of a given society, or social group, collectively agree upon the necessity to make it one.Quote from loufah:
1) Is there anything that is inherently immoral, or is all morality a societal construct?
There are plenty of examples of immorality, even if they are defined within a societal construct, that aren't governed by society (marital infidelity, chronic intoxication, intra-personal betrayals of trust, sexual promiscuity, etc.). All of these examples, while they might lack social penalties, carry the weight of punishment and retribution on a personal and intra-personal level; whether it be physical, emotional, or psychological. So I believe the answer is yes; there is such a thing as inherent immorality.
That depends upon the type of government and the level of acceptance of it's legitimacy by the society that it governs. There are no perfect governments and no perfect societies. The problem comes when the majority (or perceived majority) dictate and enforce the laws over the minority (or perceived minority) to the point of oppression; in many cases, to the point that it contradicts the premise for which any given law was written for to begin with.2) Is it acceptable or unacceptable that the majority of a society (or the government elected by the majority) get to dictate the laws for the entire society?
I think another good question is: Is it acceptable or unacceptable for lawyers to dictate the laws for the entire society?
Nice post-
Really, the whole issue about abortion isn't about its' morality, because I think that all of us who would allow abortion abd all that would make it a crime would agree on that taking a life is wrong.
Where the big disagreement comes is where do you call it 'life'. So maybe the arguement becomes a scientific one ? And I believe that the conservatives would rather be respectful of life and say at conception vs a liberal view of whenever.
We should both compromise and give a little and decide at a certain point. At survival outside the womb or at a certain point in time would be examples....
Really, the whole issue about abortion isn't about its' morality, because I think that all of us who would allow abortion abd all that would make it a crime would agree on that taking a life is wrong.
Where the big disagreement comes is where do you call it 'life'. So maybe the arguement becomes a scientific one ? And I believe that the conservatives would rather be respectful of life and say at conception vs a liberal view of whenever.
We should both compromise and give a little and decide at a certain point. At survival outside the womb or at a certain point in time would be examples....
Quote from loufah:
We've almost arrived at two points that I'd like to see discussed, if people are willing:
1) Is there anything that is inherently immoral, or is all morality a societal construct?
2) Is it acceptable or unacceptable that the majority of a society (or the government elected by the majority) get to dictate the laws for the entire society?
1) If you do not believe in God or Absolutes then all morality is subjective.
2) Yes the majority should rule unless we do not like what they rule. Since we are a leftist minority we will then attempt to appoint judges who agree with us. We will then get all pissed when the religious right has a backlash and attempts (possibly succesfully) to reverse course and appoint conservatives to the bench. Thereby doing an end around against our tactics that worked for decades. We succesfully politicized the judiciary and now we will pay. But we will have Chuck Schumer get all indignant about it.
Quote from jem:
1) If you do not believe in God or Absolutes then all morality is subjective.
2) Yes the majority should rule unless we do not like what they rule. Since we are a leftist minority we will then attempt to appoint judges who agree with us. We will then get all pissed when the religious right has a backlash and attempts (possibly succesfully) to reverse course and appoint conservatives to the bench. Thereby doing an end around against our tactics that worked for decades. We succesfully politicized the judiciary and now we will pay. But we will have Chuck Schumer get all indignant about it.
ideals of morality change. at one time these things were ideas of morality. were they absolute?
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with any woman while she
is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem
is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is
an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God
if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to
all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
Hey I did not say the old testament or the New Testament or any particular God. I just stated that if you do not believe in God, and therefore natural law or absolutes, you must conclude that all morality is subjective. You might not like the statement but to contribute to the debate perhaps you may wish to state why I was incorrect. I am sure that there must be an argument. I am not even sure my thesis is correct.
By the way Justice Scalia said this about majority rule.
c) Majority Rule: Part and parcel of this neutrality is the quantitative rule of the majority. The will of the majority is the source of authority, not any presumed truths concerning the person, rights, morality and even less, faith. The government is blind to faith, morality and inherent rights of the person. The person has no intrinsic rights that are presumed. The same were surrendered on entry into the social civil contract. Such presumed rights would contravene the authority and rule of the majority. Whatever they be, they are given by the majority, e.g., the Bill of Rights. Scalia: "The whole theory of democracy, my dear fellow, is that the majority rules, that is the whole theory of it. You protect minorities only because the majority determines that there are certain minorities or certain minority positions that deserve protection. Thus in the United States Constitution we have removed from the majoritarian system of democracy the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and a few other freedoms that are named in the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of that is that the people themselves, that is to say the majority, agree to the rights of the minority on those subjects -- but not on other subjects. If you want minority rights on other subjects, you must persuade the majority that you desire those minority rights. Or else you take up arms and conquer the majority. I mean you may always do that, of course."10
Scalia concludes his answer with this telling remark: "The minority loses, except to the extent that the majority, in its document of government, has agreed to accord the minority rights. Otherwise you do not want a democracy, you want a king to decide what is right."11
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/newnino.htm
This article compared Scalia to Yogi Berra.
By the way Justice Scalia said this about majority rule.
c) Majority Rule: Part and parcel of this neutrality is the quantitative rule of the majority. The will of the majority is the source of authority, not any presumed truths concerning the person, rights, morality and even less, faith. The government is blind to faith, morality and inherent rights of the person. The person has no intrinsic rights that are presumed. The same were surrendered on entry into the social civil contract. Such presumed rights would contravene the authority and rule of the majority. Whatever they be, they are given by the majority, e.g., the Bill of Rights. Scalia: "The whole theory of democracy, my dear fellow, is that the majority rules, that is the whole theory of it. You protect minorities only because the majority determines that there are certain minorities or certain minority positions that deserve protection. Thus in the United States Constitution we have removed from the majoritarian system of democracy the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and a few other freedoms that are named in the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of that is that the people themselves, that is to say the majority, agree to the rights of the minority on those subjects -- but not on other subjects. If you want minority rights on other subjects, you must persuade the majority that you desire those minority rights. Or else you take up arms and conquer the majority. I mean you may always do that, of course."10
Scalia concludes his answer with this telling remark: "The minority loses, except to the extent that the majority, in its document of government, has agreed to accord the minority rights. Otherwise you do not want a democracy, you want a king to decide what is right."11
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/newnino.htm
This article compared Scalia to Yogi Berra.
Who says it is? I am not saying my view of morality deserves more consideration in our democracy than yours or Al Sharptons. I do not even know of what my own version of legislated morality would be. But I do know that laws are frequently made to enforce the moral views of the majority. Always have always have always will.
As I have said before that is one of the reasons murder is not condoned. It is why many drugs are considered controlled substances. It is why prostitution is illegal in many places. It is why alcohol is legal in many places while hard drugs are not. It is the will of the majority. That will is frequently formed by morality. And morality is frequently formed by peoples religious beliefs.
As I have said before that is one of the reasons murder is not condoned. It is why many drugs are considered controlled substances. It is why prostitution is illegal in many places. It is why alcohol is legal in many places while hard drugs are not. It is the will of the majority. That will is frequently formed by morality. And morality is frequently formed by peoples religious beliefs.