Originally posted by whodeySpeed limits protect other people. If I don't care enough for my own safety, then so be it. It is of no business of the federal government.
I never mentioned God have I?
I think that if certain behavoirs have statistically bad outcomes then such behavoir should be discouraged whether it is gambling or prostituting yourself etc. and it is my view that making them illegal discourages such behavior. As I said, all high risk behavoirs will continue, however, the state need not endorse it by not ...[text shortened]... zed, I need not wear a safety belt when I drive, in fact, why have a speed limit? Am I correct?
Take a good look at prohibition. I don't feel I need to say more on the matter. And yes I find no reason for marijuana to be illegal. Its far less dangerous than alcohol. Legalize it and regulate it. I personally hate the stuff but its not my place to tell any of you that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke it just because I don't think you should. Prostitution has "statistically bad outcomes" due to the fact that it is a crime. I have established many reasons why its just as frivolous as not being able to buy alcohol until a certain hour on sunday here in NY state. Take away the fact that its a crime, and other crimes won't go hand in hand with it.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes I find them objectionable, but I never said they should be made criminal.
[b]I assume you also find adultery and fornication morally objectionable and would want criminal laws against them, too by your "logic".
I find fornication risky behavior but not as risky as prostitution on average, therefore, it is of less concern. However, I might consider changing the laws regarding adultery. I think that marriage is not only an emotional commitment, it is also a legal one. I then find it odd that when other legal agreements are agreed upon legal charges can usually be brought against the party violating their previous agreements, however, with marriage it is not the case. Add to that the outrageously high divorce rate into the mix and we wind up with innocent children being flung into the mire and we can sit back and watch society suffering as a whole on many levels as a result. As a society we have the right to sit back and watch more of the same or take steps to change what is wrong with the system. Now am I advocating throwing every adulterer behind bars? No, but I am advocating is finding a way for people to think long and hard about possible reprocutions for their behavior.
Originally posted by zakkwylderIf you buy into the myth that there is such a thing as "safe sex" then I understand your position.
If you are referring to prostitution protecting other people, then I highly doubt you've understood a damn thing both no1 and myself have posted. You might want to go over that material again.
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosSure, I have any number of sources. Here is a representative quote from the neurologist Julius Korein, from his 1997 article "Ontogenesis of the Brain in the Human Organism: Definitions of Life and Death of the Human Being and Person", Advances in Bioethics 2: pgs. 1-74.
I am not debating Gazzaniga nor McMahan. I am debating with you. Can you give me physical evidence or some other rationale that causes you to state, babies "develop minds late in gestation" and "early fetuses...lack the capacity for consciousness"? If you cite one or both of the above authors...great!
Neurons in the cortical plate first begin to form cortical synapses at about 20 weeks. These neurons then form synaptic connections between other intracerebral structures such as the thalamus and the brain stem, resulting in sensory reception and more patterned spontaneous and induced motor activity. Cortical EEG activity can be first recorded at about 21-22 weeks after fertilization; the blink-startle response, with eyes opening, to auditory stimuli can be demonstrated at 24 weeks; and cortical sensory evoked potentials appear at about 25-27 weeks...Major components of cerebral function including aspects of consciousness (sentience) are unequivocally present in the fetus after 28 weeks of fetal age. The onset of the fundamental core of brain function...can be identified between the limits of about 20 to 28 weeks.
My question for you: Over 90% of abortions in the U.S. are performed within the first trimester. Do you have any reason to think that fetuses younger than 12 weeks have any mentality at all? In particular, do you have any reason to think that fetuses younger than 12 weeks have the capacity for conscious experiences?
Originally posted by whodeyYou said certain things should be made "illegal". What did you mean by that if you weren't saying they should be subject to penalties? That the State should pass a law just saying it's "immoral" for you to do X?
Now I never mentioned penalties now did I? I am simply saying that the state should take the position that it is "wrong" to act in a certain way.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIf someone finds that their partner has violated the marriage contract by committing adultery, they can file for divorce. That seems an appropriate remedy for that particular breach of contract. BTW, do you feel that innocent children are helped when parents who have animosity towards each other are forced to remain together? Would you outlaw divorce as well?
Yes I find them objectionable, but I never said they should be made criminal.
I find fornication risky behavior but not as risky as prostitution on average, therefore, it is of less concern. However, I might consider changing the laws regarding adultery. I think that marriage is not only an emotional commitment, it is also a legal one. I then find it ...[text shortened]... finding a way for people to think long and hard about possible reprocutions for their behavior.
You continue to duck and dodge, so I'll ask you specific questions and maybe you'll answer them for a change:
1) Should adultery and/or fornication be made a crime under the "public safety" rationale you put forth above?:
2) If yes to either one, what penalty should the State impose for committing these crimes?;
3) What other personal, sexual behaviors do you think should be crimes? Consensual sodomy? Homosexual acts?;
4) What limits, IF ANY, do you think the State has in enacting laws regulating the sexual behavior of adult human beings? Could they mandate that women have sex every three days because reproduction is necessary for the State to exist?
As I said, other countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia share your view that personal sexual behavior is a worthy subject of the coercive power of the State. So that's the company you keep.
Originally posted by whodeyYou believe that a person's sex life is equally a legitimate concern of the people who run the State as the speed limits on public highways? 🙄
Sex gets increasingly riskier the more partners you have. As a society, we have the right attempt to curb high risk behaviors that end up effecing society at large such as prostitution or speeding in your car etc, etc. Of course simply driving a car is risky, however, it gets proportionally less safe the faster you go. Are you then in favor of doing away with speed limits as well?
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's an interesting analogy: freeways vs. the boudoir. Perhaps the state should issue a license for having sex and also require that holders undergo exams to make sure they are "roadworthy"? And let's not forget insurance. If someone wishes to engage in sex, they will need to have sex insurance, for those unexpected emergencies like unplanned pregnancies, STDs and worse. You know, with all the aborted, unwanted and illegitimate children, and all the AIDs and STDs in the world, perhaps treating sex the way we treat driving wouldn't be such a bad idea.
You believe that a person's sex life is equally a legitimate concern of the people who run the State as the speed limits on public highways? 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhen one rejects the concept of Natural Rights and embraces all-encompassing paternalistic notions of what our rulers can do to us for our own good like whodey does, anything becomes possible.
That's an interesting analogy: freeways vs. the boudoir. Perhaps the state should issue a license for having sex and also require that holders undergo exams to make sure they are "roadworthy"? And let's not forget insurance. If someone wishes to engage in sex, they will need to have sex insurance, for those unexpected emergencies like unplanned p ...[text shortened]... Ds in the world, perhaps treating sex the way we treat driving wouldn't be such a bad idea.