Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1823242526272829 LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 566
  1. #541  
    What sort of solution ,are you proposing than ?
  2. #542  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    What sort of solution ,are you proposing than ?
    I do not agree with the premise that abortion restrictions are simply "dictating what (people) can or not do with their body parts". I believe that the fetus is a separate and distinct human being in an early stage of development. Since I believe that to be true, the interests of that separate and distinct human being must be taken into account. That human being's interest in being allowed to live outweigh any other interests (in most cases).
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #543  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I do not agree with the premise that abortion restrictions are simply "dictating what (people) can or not do with their body parts". I believe that the fetus is a separate and distinct human being in an early stage of development. Since I believe that to be true, the interests of that separate and distinct human being must be taken into account. That human being's interest in being allowed to live outweigh any other interests (in most cases).
    [I do not think that this is responsive to Mtreosexual's question....]

    ....but I do not have any problem with it as far as it goes. However, it stops where the problem begins. "In most" cases, what you say may be true. However, it dismisses the hard cases. How do you propose to deal with the exceptions? Who do you want to make the hard decisions about those cases? Suppose that the physician concludes that he must make a choice between the life of the "infant" and that of the mother. Would you consider choosing the life of the mother to be "infanticide?" Who do you want to make the decision?

    However, you may feel about it, that is what the controversy is about. Do you have a proposal about the hard cases?
  4. #544  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    [I do not think that this is responsive to Mtreosexual's question....]
    It was not intended to be. As I said, I reject the premise under which I thought it to have been asked.
    ....but I do not have any problem with it as far as it goes. However, it stops where the problem begins. "In most" cases, what you say may be true. However, it dismisses the hard cases. How do you propose to deal with the exceptions? Who do you want to make the hard decisions about those cases? Suppose that the physician concludes that he must make a choice between the life of the "infant" and that of the mother. Would you consider choosing the life of the mother to be "infanticide?" Who do you want to make the decision?

    However, you may feel about it, that is what the controversy is about. Do you have a proposal about the hard cases?
    I feel provisions can be made in the law to allow for abortion in the "hard cases". I don't claim to be an absolutist on this. The slavery analogy is very close, but imperfect. I take issue with your statement that, "that is what the controversy is about," though. I think the "hard case" argument is a straw man. For example, there have been proposals to ban "partial-birth" abortions that include exception clauses for the mother's health - despite the fact that the AMA says the procedure is never medically necessary. Even these proposals have been opposed by the so-called pro-choice side. Clearly they will countenance no limits.

    Perhaps we could tackle the less hard cases first?
    Last edited by phurth; 10/08/2005 at 11:25 AM.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. #545  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It was not intended to be. As I said, I reject the premise under which I thought it to have been asked.I feel provisions can be made in the law to allow for abortion in the "hard cases". I don't claim to be an absolutist on this. The slavery analogy is very close, but imperfect. I take issue with your statement that, "that is what the controversy is about," though. I think the "hard case" argument is a straw man. For example, there have been proposals to ban "partial-birth" abortions that include exception clauses for the mother's health - despite the fact that the AMA says the procedure is never medically necessary. Even these proposals have been opposed by the so-called pro-choice side. Clearly they will countenance no limits.

    Perhaps we could tackle the less hard cases first?
    I would suggest that the left is as anxious to have the government silent as the right is to have it involved. I would argue that infanticide by physicians is not a big enough problem to require a special legal prohibition.

    In any case, I give up, you win.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/08/2005 at 10:56 PM.
  6. #546  
    phurth,

    I'm curious. To which of your other religious beliefs would you like to force the rest of us to follow?
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  7. #547  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    phurth,

    I'm curious. To which of your other religious beliefs would you like to force the rest of us to follow?
    Don't kill. Don't steal. I'm pretty satisfied with just those two.

    My religious beliefs are beside the point on this issue, as I stated earlier on.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8. #548  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Is that your experience? I would call that growing up. I am glad that you made it without any accidents.
    Some of it was my experience. I developed a sense of self-control prior to advancing down the continuum. I have however, observed others who did not fair as well. Of course, they did not have the benefit of your tutorial.
  9. #549  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    phurth,

    I'm curious. To which of your other religious beliefs would you like to force the rest of us to follow?
    I'm not phurth, but I'd like to address this question.

    It is not a matter of forcing religious beliefs on anyone. Rather it is a matter of understanding the effect laws have on the citizenry, then employing them accordingly.

    What effect do laws have on the citizenry?

    Laws have two and only two functions: 1) establish expectations; and 2) enable evaluation

    Any law indicates to those under its scope what behavior is desirable or undesirable. Further, the law advises those under its scope of the consequences of acting outside of those expectations. But there is nothing about the law that "causes' the desirable behavior to be manifest (or the undesirable to be restrained). Only to the extent that people want to avoid the consequences of breaking the law does the law effect behavior.

    My favorite example is the traffic light. There is nothing about the red light that causes vehicles to stop. It is only the drivers' expectation of experiencing either the likely collision, and/or the financial penalty that causes them to apply the brake. And, when a driver is not concerned with either of those outcomes, he or she will not stop.

    Given those limitations on laws, How should laws be formulated?

    Laws are enacted that will influence people, through a system of rewards and penalties, to behave in the desirable manner.

    And, this is where I (finally) address your questions. Whether it is one's religious beliefs, one's philosophical understanding, or one's anything else, "desirable behavior" derives from some sort of belief system.

    I qualify on most people's scale as "religious." However, the views I hold are not held because they are the tenets of christianity. Rather, I hold them because it is and has been my observation the lifestyle advocated in the Bible leads to a healthy, wealthy existence. I desire that for my self and for others. So, I seek to persuade and influence others to consider it.

    That those views are asociated with Christianity is no reason to dismiss them out of hand. So, allow me to turn the question on you to ask:

    If a given practice leads to quality of life, why does it matter that the practice is considered "religious" or of "religious" origin?

    And, truthfully, the question should be , why does it matter that the practice is of christian origin? There are "religious" practices that are gladly accepted (meditation, fung shwei (sp?) come to mind)?
  10. #550  
    shopharim,

    It would seem that our (mine and a fundamentalist's) perspective of the meaning of "quality of life" differs vastly. A subjective phrase apparently.

    The bush admins/right wing legal fight against my state's right to die and medical marajuana laws flys squarely in the face of oregonians so-called quality of life IMHO. Not saying that you support these anti-states rights efforts, but simply making a point that my "quality of life" may not mirror yours. And then.....who's to say which philosophy we are all forced to adhere to???
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  11. #551  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    shopharim,

    It would seem that our (mine and a fundamentalist's) perspective of the meaning of "quality of life" differs vastly. A subjective phrase apparently.
    Thanks for the label! Now that I know what I am, I can alter all my other views to match your preconceived notions!
    The bush admins/right wing legal fight against my state's right to die and medical marajuana laws flys squarely in the face of oregonians so-called quality of life IMHO. Not saying that you support these anti-states rights efforts, but simply making a point that my "quality of life" may not mirror yours.
    For the record, I do oppose assisted suicide, but don't really have a strong opinion on medical marijuana. In either case, I think it should be up to your state to choose - just as it should be up to the individual states to decide the legality of abortion.
    And then.....who's to say which philosophy we are all forced to adhere to???
    The people do, through their elected representatives.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  12. #552  
    Tell that to bush & co.

    Use of fundamentalist was for arguments sake only. I don't know $hit about you, except for your backwards views.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  13. #553  
    And a pleasant good day to you, too!
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  14. #554  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I qualify on most people's scale as "religious." However, the views I hold are not held because they are the tenets of christianity. Rather, I hold them because it is and has been my observation the lifestyle advocated in the Bible leads to a healthy, wealthy existence.
    Much could be said about this and many other posts here, but alas, I will be away for two weeks, vacation in the Mediterranean sun. So don't think the fact that I don't post (regularly) means that have given up on you or that I agree with you...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #555  
    Have fun and enjoy clulup!
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  16. #556  
    Have a delightful time, clulup. We'll keep the debating fires warm until you return. If you find any transitional forms on the beach, name one after me
  17. #557  
    Phurth,

    Most cases of abortion are a result of ignorance , poor planning ,illetracy . If people responsible for performing the act resulting in a fetus, do not feel safe or comfortable with the fact ,that they will not be able to provide , affection , love and the whole process of raising them to be good citizens, what than is wrong ,in just saying ,no in the begining?

    Similar holds true in situation with fetuses with severe congenital anamolies , who a re at a risk of hardly making through the childhood.
    Abortion resistance in these case is not different from allowing Terry Schiavo to live.

    Survival of the fittest is nature 's best explanation.This phenomenon is seen in birds where some kill there weaklings at an early age.
    Medical expenses spent in taking care of above , should rather be used for unfortunate poor but medically salvagable children.

    I respect your faith & belief , and that seems to be tilting your thinking , otherwise you seem to be a fairly rational person.
  18. #558  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Phurth,

    Most cases of abortion are a result of ignorance , poor planning ,illetracy . If people responsible for performing the act resulting in a fetus, do not feel safe or comfortable with the fact ,that they will not be able to provide , affection , love and the whole process of raising them to be good citizens, what than is wrong ,in just saying ,no in the begining?
    As sympathetic as one may be for those conditions, what is wrong is a failure to take responsibility for one's acts and the life one has created. However one may feel about the right to do so, it is hard to believe that it is right. While I will not hold the poor, the ignorant, and the naive to the same standard to which I will hold myself, neither will I forgive anti-life decisions and acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Similar holds true in situation with fetuses with severe congenital anamolies , who are at a risk of hardly making through the childhood.
    Abortion resistance in these case is not different from allowing Terry Schiavo to live.
    Perhaps. I suggest that one can easily draw several distinctions. First, the best that can be said about a human being is that he spread joy. I know lots of people who have "severe congenital anomalies," who have done that. While I am not prepared to judge any who have terminated pregnancies in such circumstances, I am grateful to many who did not.

    Second, while I respect the right of Terry Schiavo to end what little was left of her life, with the protection of, but without the interference of, the state, I suggest that that is different from someone deciding to end the life of an infant who has not yet seen any of its life and has no choice in the matter. While I do not trust the state to make these intimate decisions, however shortened Terry Schiavo's life may have been, she had some joy and some choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Survival of the fittest is nature 's best explanation. This phenomenon is seen in birds where some kill there weaklings at an early age.
    Medical expenses spent in taking care of above, should rather be used for unfortunate poor but medically salvagable children.
    I am prepared to do triage. I can make hard choices. However, until forced to such a choice I will cherish every spark of life, however fragile. No society in the history of the world has been so equipped to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    I respect your faith & belief , and that seems to be tilting your thinking, otherwise you seem to be a fairly rational person.
    If I am a "true believer," it is that I believe that life is the greatest manifestation of the creator. Whatever others may do, I must cherish it and foster it. While I will protect the rights of others to disagree with me and do what little is in my power to protect them from state violence, I am not prepared to disparage the least of life to do so. While I do not want the state to make these intimate decisions, that does not mean that I will not judge harshly those that I think make them callously. The desire to be free of state coercion imposes a great burden for responsible exercise of that freedom.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/09/2005 at 07:59 PM.
  19. #559  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Phurth,

    Most cases of abortion are a result of ignorance , poor planning ,illetracy . If people responsible for performing the act resulting in a fetus, do not feel safe or comfortable with the fact ,that they will not be able to provide , affection , love and the whole process of raising them to be good citizens, what than is wrong ,in just saying ,no in the begining?
    As I've already said, irrespective of my religious beliefs I have come to the conclusion that the developing fetus is a separate and distinct human being in an early stage of development. It is simply wrong to kill anyone for any but the most extreme reason (punishment for capital crimes, for example). You (and most abortion supporters) do not accept that the fetus is a seperate and distinct human being, thus you do not come to the same conclusion as I. I understand your reasoning - I used to be pro-choice. After a lot of deliberation, study and life experience I have come to disagree with one of the basic assumptions of the pro-choice argument.
    Similar holds true in situation with fetuses with severe congenital anamolies , who a re at a risk of hardly making through the childhood.
    Abortion resistance in these case is not different from allowing Terry Schiavo to live.
    There are certainly cases where terminating a pregnancy is the best, most merciful option. I've said previously that I'm not an absolutist on this issue. Having said that, I'm not sure I'd necessarily draw the line in the same place as you, but essentially we agree on this.
    Survival of the fittest is nature 's best explanation.This phenomenon is seen in birds where some kill there weaklings at an early age.
    Medical expenses spent in taking care of above , should rather be used for unfortunate poor but medically salvagable children.
    On this, however, I could not disagree with you more. Perhaps we should eat them after we kill them? Some animals do this, too. I'm being absurd of course, but no more absurd than your statement sounds to me. Where does civilization start and the jungle end? Clearly I draw that line in a different place than you. Medical spending is not a zero sum game where every dollar spend on one person means another goes without.
    I respect your faith & belief , and that seems to be tilting your thinking , otherwise you seem to be a fairly rational person.
    I appreciate that (it beats "fundamentalist" ). Yes I believe. Yes that belief gives me a moral lighthouse to steer toward. The opinions I have on this particular issue are rooted in two ideas that do not require religious faith, though: 1) the fetus is a defenseless, distinct human being 2) civilized societies do not kill defenseless human beings except under extraordinary circumstances.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  20. #560  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    ...The desire to be free of state coercion imposes a great burden for responsible exercise of that freedom.
    Absolutely. I once presented a lecture (sermon in "church" terms) entitled:

    Liberty - Responsibility = Deformity

    The analogy in scripture is of a body consisting of a collective of individuals. We all have a role to play. And we are all interdependent. We each have the right to opt not to perform our role. But in so doing, we jeopardize the well-being of the whole.

    This model assumes we have a shared understanding of "well-being" and that we share an equal desire to maintain that well-being.

    Our constitution relies on such a shared vision. Our nation, though, is struggling with what "well-being" is. Until we resolve that question, the tension will continue. If we are not careful, though, the brutal arbtirator known as the "STATE" will settle that for us.

Posting Permissions