Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 155
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Kenanator, KAM1138,
    here's a statistic that might be relevant to Kenanator's question:
    We did. (see Roe vs Wade).
    Yes, we had an increase, but at first people still believed that while murder was legal, it was still wrong. Over time people adapted their behavior to the new law.

    Looking only at this segment of legalized murders, reports show that the "right to choose" is exercised around 20-25% of the time. I think if you looked at this trend over time, you'd see that in spite of this being legal, it still took society a generations before we considered this to be an "ordinary practice".
    Well, I didn't mean for that analogy to spin off in this direction, but I would note that this is "accepted" by many people with the help of people telling others (primarily very vulnerable young girls) that "its just a few cells." In other words--the girls and women who are most commonly getting abortions are told in no uncertain terms that this is NOT murder. So...I would argue that even in this case, VERY few people are going in saying "Murder is Legal" so I will do it. They do it because they are convinced that it isn't murder, and is in fact--essentially nothing (just a few cells).

    Factually, there is no scientific argument about whether an unborn child is alive--they are clearly living cells, in an early stage of development. They are killed (whether you call it murder or not). The question is whether or not someone justifies this living thing as having value or not. Most people commonly do not place much if any value on a fly's life for example--we kill them without remorse, and that's exactly what many young girls are told to believe--that the unborn child does not have value as a human being, and therefore is ok to kill.

    Now, outside of my views on this, when life begins and the morality, or immorality of this issue, the point is--legalizing "murder"--in whatever form, doesn't make people who wouldn't ordinarily murder someone just run out and do it. In other words, I think that trend of acceptance isn't an accident--but due to a specific campaign intended to convince people of a certain point of view. That mindset didn't just change in a vacuum or on its own.

    In other words, the lack of punishment for doing something might ENABLE them to do it, but it is not in fact the CAUSE of doing it--even if the enabling is effective. People would murder someone because it served some purpose, not merely because murder was legal.

    And now I wish I had used a different analogy.

    KAM
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, I didn't mean for that analogy to spin off in this direction, but I would note that this is "accepted" by many people with the help of people telling others (primarily very vulnerable young girls) that "its just a few cells." ...

    ... Factually, there is no scientific argument about whether an unborn child is alive--they are clearly living cells, in an early stage of development. They are killed (whether you call it murder or not).
    At the time of Row vs Wade I think it was much harder to determine what "life" was than it is today. Today it is very clear that a fetus has distinct DNA which is created at the time of conception. The definition of "person" is more vague, but it's still very clear that this is human life, and not a fly, a frog, a toad, or a piece of cabbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    ... In other words--the girls and women who are most commonly getting abortions are told in no uncertain terms that this is NOT murder. So...I would argue that even in this case, VERY few people are going in saying "Murder is Legal" so I will do it. They do it because they are convinced that it isn't murder, and is in fact--essentially nothing (just a few cells).
    I agree with your analysis here. The fact that we are brainwashed into thinking this is not wrong causes people do things they possibly would consider wrong had they better knowledge of the truth.

    I'm going to go "way liberal" now and take your logical argument to the other extreme (not just to be contrarian, but to explore the limits):
    If we didn't have any laws, could society function
    Assertion:
    Our laws hopefully reflect the "common morality" that we have as a society. Our morality can adapt as laws/decrees from government change. Further examples are assisted suicide, euthanasia, killing criminals, killing less productive members of society, killing people we just don't like, and killing races that we don't like.
    Of course there may be practical reasons for enacting laws too (such as having everyone drive on the same side of the road), but in the example you brought up, people's behavior is based on a combination of both laws and their morals, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    ... The question is whether or not someone justifies this living thing as having value or not. ...
    And this is where the slippery slope begins. If my cost of medical care is too high, if I'm re-tarded, or I can't get a job then I have a lot less value to society as a whole. I might still have value to specific people, but if I'm in one of those classes, I'm not very likely to be able to defend myself. If I haven't been born yet, I will never have any chance for recourse under any existing laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    In other words, the lack of punishment for doing something might ENABLE them to do it, but it is not in fact the CAUSE of doing it--even if the enabling is effective. People would murder someone because it served some purpose, not merely because murder was legal.
    This is an important distinction and one I agree with. Often the cause of behavior is not based on law, but based on a person's needs. For instance: acceptance in a gang might cause a person to commit murder in spite of it being illegal.

    I guess I struggle with things like people saying "you can't legislate morality" yet that model has worked for thousands of years. When our laws do not reflect a common morality, our society degrades eventually to the point of self destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    And now I wish I had used a different analogy.
    Ha ha! Yep, I took full advantage of your choice of analogy too.
    My goal here is just to raise awareness and to get people to think a little.
    (Now I'm waiting for the "left" to "return the favor" to me!)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, in fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regularly engaged in questionable, if not criminal practices. These are HIGHLY regulated entities...or they supposedly are. Clearly there was a breakdown in the effective regulation.

    But what's the answer "More regulation." Well, actually, these GSEs were cited for various violations. There isn't a lack of Regulation--there is a lack of consequences. ...
    I guess this is the point where my "standing in on the liberal side" ends here. I think we need "just enough" government to function and that too much or too complicated government inevitably results in waste (if not worse).

    The related topic of government trying to do complicated things makes me wonder whether we will ever get efficient at identifying terrorists. My belief is the short answer is no, but that we need to keep trying and learn from our mistakes.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    At the time of Row vs Wade I think it was much harder to determine what "life" was than it is today. Today it is very clear that a fetus has distinct DNA which is created at the time of conception. The definition of "person" is more vague, but it's still very clear that this is human life, and not a fly, a frog, a toad, or a piece of cabbage.
    Yes, I'm eager to see where the self appointed Champions of science are on this? Not only it is human--it is unique. Regardless of your opinion of when life begins (although it seems pretty clear), aborting a child is insuring that what will be a person like you and I, will die.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I agree with your analysis here. The fact that we are brainwashed into thinking this is not wrong causes people do things they possibly would consider wrong had they better knowledge of the truth.
    That's the really disturbing part when you think about the people who try to convince people (often vulnerable young girls) of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm going to go "way liberal" now and take your logical argument to the other extreme (not just to be contrarian, but to explore the limits):
    If we didn't have any laws, could society function
    Assertion:
    Our laws hopefully reflect the "common morality" that we have as a society. Our morality can adapt as laws/decrees from government change. Further examples are assisted suicide, euthanasia, killing criminals, killing less productive members of society, killing people we just don't like, and killing races that we don't like.
    Of course there may be practical reasons for enacting laws too (such as having everyone drive on the same side of the road), but in the example you brought up, people's behavior is based on a combination of both laws and their morals, right?
    I think it is clear that morality is at least one component. Of course there are people who have crusaded to try and foist the idea that morality is not to be any part of the law, or even be relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    And this is where the slippery slope begins. If my cost of medical care is too high, if I'm re-tarded, or I can't get a job then I have a lot less value to society as a whole. I might still have value to specific people, but if I'm in one of those classes, I'm not very likely to be able to defend myself. If I haven't been born yet, I will never have any chance for recourse under any existing laws.

    This is an important distinction and one I agree with. Often the cause of behavior is not based on law, but based on a person's needs. For instance: acceptance in a gang might cause a person to commit murder in spite of it being illegal.

    I guess I struggle with things like people saying "you can't legislate morality" yet that model has worked for thousands of years. When our laws do not reflect a common morality, our society degrades eventually to the point of self destruction.
    That's surely something people should consider when these anti-morality crusaders start talking. Of course, many of them would be happy to foist their "moral" choices on you--that's ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Ha ha! Yep, I took full advantage of your choice of analogy too.
    My goal here is just to raise awareness and to get people to think a little.
    (Now I'm waiting for the "left" to "return the favor" to me!)
    I'm not bothered by it, but at the same time, I didn't want to get too deep into it myself--in this thread.

    KAM
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I guess you're against masturbating too.
    I'm not sure how this is relevant. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    What happens to the kid after it's born and it's family can't afford health insurance and food? Since you're not for government involvement in our lives, I guess you're condemning that unique human to death.
    By that reasoning, since none of us can predict the future, then perhaps none of us should have children and we can just let our race die off.

    In reality, each person should be responsible for their potential to create human life and accept that responsibility when they are ready.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Death penalty for horrific crimes? Against it because it is a unique human being?
    I'm not sure that a death penalty actually deters crime. Some people commit crimes (ie: terrorism in hopes of achieving death). I suspect there could be more redemptive value in allowing such people to live and to think about or see the consequences of their actions.

    In the case of rape, it would be interesting if the assailant could be charged for murder if the victim chose to abort rather than carry the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    All I ask of people is to be completely consistent--if you are against the destruction of human life, you must be against the destruction of all human life. If not, then you're admitting all human life just isn't all important.
    I actually agree with you, but there are additional situations you have not yet considered: Killing a person in self defense or an act of war are situations come to my mind. (I hope I never find myself in such a situation.)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #46  
    Zelgo, the supporting of a newborn's life and the death penalty for horrific crimes is not a problem of justification for the majority of people. Look it up in the Bible - the need to support the life of the innocents. Look it up on the other topic. Both are clearly covered and done so in a consistent manner.

    What does masturbating have to do with this? More meaningless trash.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I guess you're against masturbating too.

    What happens to the kid after it's born and it's family can't afford health insurance and food? Since you're not for government involvement in our lives, I guess you're condemning that unique human to death.

    Death penalty for horrific crimes? Against it because it is a unique human being?

    All I ask of people is to be completely consistent--if you are against the destruction of human life, you must be against the destruction of all human life. If not, then you're admitting all human life just isn't all important.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm not sure how this is relevant. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit.
    I sure hope he's not trying to insinuate that wasted sperm is a wasted potential life.

    Either way, is this where Bayre intended this thread to go?
    Just call me Berd.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    ... Either way, is this where Bayre intended this thread to go?
    I'm happy to acquiesce as BAYRE or other readers here wish. Speaking of BAYRE , how are those wounds healing? (We're starting to miss you here!)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I guess you're against masturbating too.
    Are you under the impression that you have a point here. If so--do try and make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    What happens to the kid after it's born and it's family can't afford health insurance and food? Since you're not for government involvement in our lives, I guess you're condemning that unique human to death.
    Your claim here--like all your created assumptions is idiotic, and I'm a bit tired of this constant attempt to distort my positions with your pathetic statements. You really aren't very good at arguing you know.

    First--there is this thing called Adoption--it works pretty well. Second, there are many ways that people can avoid getting Pregnant--taking responsibility for their own actions.

    Your lack of thinking here is getting annoying. Lack of government involvement in our lives...means that I condemn children to death? Well, that again is an idiotic statement. You're lack of ability to avoid ridiculous hyperbole is really making it hard to deal with you.

    You don't seem to have any concept of personal responsibility, which leads you to make ridiculous, disconnected statements such as this.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Death penalty for horrific crimes? Against it because it is a unique human being?
    Death Penalty? Are you imagining that I said anything about the Death Penalty. Do make an effort to make SOME sense, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    All I ask of people is to be completely consistent--if you are against the destruction of human life, you must be against the destruction of all human life. If not, then you're admitting all human life just isn't all important.
    Consistent? You must be joking. I presume you are trying (poorly) to make the connection between the death penalty and abortion. Let me point out how totally irrational your argument (if that is what we can call it) is. An innocent unborn child being ripped from its mothers womb, vs killing a criminal who has chosen to harm others willingly. Guilty vs innocent--is that too hard of a concept for you to understand?

    If you are interested in my personal views, just ask.

    KAM
  10. #50  
    Let me add to KAM's response that while I disfavor the death penalty, a substantially large percentage of Americans don't share my position. I didn't bother to defend against your assertion from beyond my position. Our society believes in punishment for crimes and we believe this is a necessary part of maintaining a functioning society. I can't equate killing an innocent and defenseless person with a death sentence that society has imposed on someone found guilty of a heinous crime by his/her peers.

    If the death penalty bothers you (which it should), how much more should the killing of innocent and defenseless future members of our society bother you? I implore you to take these matters up with your elected representatives and enact change against these injustices!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, I'm eager to see where the self appointed Champions of science are on this? Not only it is human--it is unique. Regardless of your opinion of when life begins (although it seems pretty clear), aborting a child is insuring that what will be a person like you and I, will die.

    KAM
    So, when this fetus, whose rights you are protecting, grows up, possibly becomes gay, and wants to get married and/or join the military, are you still going to protect his/her rights?
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    "Deregulation" is an ignorant scapegoat--a massive dumbing down of the situation, and ignoring the actual causes. I know it works for propaganda purposes, but it isn't accurate.

    KAM
    And I think denying what has happened in recent history is ignorant. Please see my previous post.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, when this fetus, whose rights you are protecting, grows up, possibly becomes gay, and wants to get married and/or join the military, are you still going to protect his/her rights?
    Why do all roads for liberals lead back to gay rights?

    *This is not meant to be an aggressive comment, nor am I attacking anyone personally.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, when this fetus, whose rights you are protecting, grows up, possibly becomes gay, and wants to get married and/or join the military, are you still going to protect his/her rights?
    Of course we need to protect the rights of all our citizens. I guess your question really is whether marriage between two humans of the same sex is a right or not. I don't see marriage itself as a right, but as something that some people do. A sort of close analogy would be adopting a child. If you are saying there are rights associated with marriage and that same-sex couples would like to enjoy that same set of rights, I this should be encouraged and decided on based on the will of the people represented by our government. In order to be totally fair, I might argue that civil union between two people of opposite sex (shacking up for legal purposes) should also be allowed.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, when this fetus, whose rights you are protecting, grows up, possibly becomes gay, and wants to get married and/or join the military, are you still going to protect his/her rights?
    As I've said many times--I believe the government is required to provide equal rights.

    Let's see if you can be as consistent and agree that at least theoretically, this unborn child has even the most basic right--to not be killed.

    Let's really see who values "rights" and who doesn't shall we.

    KAM
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    And I think denying what has happened in recent history is ignorant. Please see my previous post.
    Yes, so please tell that to all your leftist friends who are not only ignoring recent history, but willfully distorting it.

    KAM
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Why do all roads for liberals lead back to gay rights?

    *This is not meant to be an aggressive comment, nor am I attacking anyone personally.
    Why are conservative all for individual rights except for when it applies to gays?
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    As I've said many times--I believe the government is required to provide equal rights.

    Let's see if you can be as consistent and agree that at least theoretically, this unborn child has even the most basic right--to not be killed.

    Let's really see who values "rights" and who doesn't shall we.

    KAM
    I am not the one pounding my chest for the rights of fetuses, you are. I merely asked a question. As for my beliefs, I think the woman has the right to choose whether or not she can provide for a child in its best interest. I am very consistent in my beliefs this issue, just as I am for my support of the death penalty. To me, believing in one and not the other is a little hypocritical on both sides.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Why are conservative all for individual rights except for when it applies to gays?
    You'd have to ask those who hold that view.

    KAM
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I am not the one pounding my chest for the rights of fetuses, you are.
    Actually, Sudoer brought up Abortion, and talked about it much more extensively than me so you're wrong, and that you've focused on me would be flattering, if it wasn't so creepy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I merely asked a question.
    And I answered it. Of course, you really intended to foist your statement onto me, and I didn't want to play along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    As for my beliefs, I think the woman has the right to choose whether or not she can provide for a child in its best interest. I am very consistent in my beliefs this issue, just as I am for my support of the death penalty. To me, believing in one and not the other is a little hypocritical on both sides.
    Really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you in favor of government taking care of the people? Why should a poor woman in this predicament have to make a choice because she can't care for a child? Why wouldn't the government (in your way of thinking) step in to provide for them (which they do by the way).

    If it is just a matter of providing care, then that's easily solved--adoption. A woman can walk away from that child and have no further responsibility to care for him or her.

    You mentioned "in its best interest." Let's be clear here--one part of this equation of "best interest" is that this unborn child would be killed. Is it in the best interest of a child to be prevented from being born in your view?

    If that is your view, then on what basis does anyone make that determination for another? Do you think that one person has the right to end an innocent life?

    KAM
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions