Originally posted by wibUgh, not this bad argument again.
You have every right to be against abortion. You have every right to bring your views to the public sphere and shout them as loud as you like.
What you don't have the right to do is impose your beliefs on others through legislation. And through the use of legislation begin imposing legal penalties against those who have an abortion.
Legislation is all about imposing beliefs on others. It is silly to claim that only the religious are currently doing this, or that the religious should lose their right to do this. If people sincerely believe something is morally wrong, how can you expect them not to vote against it at the polls?
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI never claimed only the religious are imposing their beliefs or legislation on others. You stated that, not me.
Ugh, not this bad argument again.
Legislation is all about imposing beliefs on others. It is silly to claim that only the religious are currently doing this, or that the religious should lose their right to do this. If people sincerely believe something is morally wrong, how can you expect them not to vote against it at the polls?
And I expect people to be decent Americans and not meddle in the private lives of other tax paying, law abiding citizens. But perhaps I expect too much?
1 edit
Originally posted by wibAs for the abortion statement, you're incorrect. Murder takes the life, and violates a basic human right, of another human being. Abortion does not.
Good point. Yes, to my knowledge marrying more than one person is illegal in the US. For awhile law enforcement looked the other way, but in the last few years people have been prosecuted for it.
I disagree with that law. People have many different religious practices and customs in the US, and I say as long as no one is harmed they should be left ...[text shortened]... of my points of view are going to derive from my culture and life here. It can't be helped. 🙂[/b]
A fetus is a human being - scientifically and philosophically. If the right to life belongs to human beings as a class, then the unborn child has it.
You could argue (as some do) that the right to life does not automatically belong to human beings, but only to persons (i.e. beings with intellect and will). But then you would have to concede that newborn infants and severely mentally handicapped people do not have the intrinsic right to life either.
You believe it's murder, I consider it to be a private medical procedure between a doctor and patient. So there's no point in discussing that.
Maybe there were people 150 years ago who believed slavery was a private affair between the master and the slave. What would you say to them?
EDIT: I don't realistically think I will convince you to change your views. But perhaps you can see why I am so passionate about this and why I cannot simply stay silent. To me, that makes me no different from the Germans who did nothing (but could have) under the Third Reich. Simply because our legal systems say that some beings do not have a right to life does not make it right in my book.
Originally posted by wibThanks. I was just responding to the statement in the previous post.
No, that is not fair to infer or state. Child molestation is a crime. You have every right to report a crime if you see one being committed or believe one is being committed.
Child molestation is a non-consenting violation of another person's body. No human being has to tolerate that. Even if it's considered part of some religious "ritual" no one should have to be subjected to physical/sexual abuse.
It's a crime. It should be reported.
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerAh, I see, you're confusing personal morality with democracy and the right to exert influence over matters in the workplace, the former of which has nothing at all to do with parecon: I thought my links made it clear that I was talking about industrial democracy on the factory-floor...the issue of whether abortion equates to child molestation or not has very little to do with the issue of proportionality of influence in the workplace. In terms of most projections of guild socialism, such a conflict of rights would properly fall to either local communes, or to the vestiges of the state which takes their shape in the National Commune.
I am affected every time I hear of an unborn child being killed in the womb.
If I don't have the right to intervene in one, I don't have the right to intervene in the other.
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/guildgram.GIF
Originally posted by AmauroteAh, ok. Must've missed that sub-thread.
Ah, I see, you're confusing personal morality with democracy and the right to exert influence over matters in the workplace, the former of which has nothing at all to do with parecon: I thought my links made it clear that I was talking about industrial democracy on the factory-floor...the issue of whether abortion equates to child molestation or not has ve ...[text shortened]... tional Commune.
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/guildgram.GIF
Cheers,
LH
Ok, what liberals believe is that government should be a tool for the people. Whereas, conservatives believe that government should a tool against the people.
That is why democrats are labelled "tax and spend" liberals, because they believe that the taxes raised should be put to use for the betterment of our society. The repbulican'ts believe that taxes should be used to build up the military so no body can push us around and we can push people around all over the world. Republicans believe that everyman should me left to sink or swim on his own with no assistance from anyone. Of course, most that believe that are part of the old-boy-network, so they have never had to do anything on their own.
Of course these are very broad descriptions, but the original post was very broad as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerBe careful. Not all construals of personhood take full autonomy as criterial. Many views distinguish being a person from being a full-fledged moral agent. The former is necessary and sufficient for having rights, the latter is necessary and sufficient for having both rights and obligations. Not every notion of personhood is subject to the counterexamples you rightly bring up.
You could argue (as some do) that the right to life does not automatically belong to human beings, but only to [b]persons (i.e. beings with intellect and will). But then you would have to concede that newborn infants and severely mentally handicapped people do not have the intrinsic right to life either.
You believe it's murder, I conside egal systems say that some beings do not have a right to life does not make it right in my book.[/b]
Originally posted by mokkoHmm.... Let's evaluate this....
Liberal = freedom?
Hmmmmm from what I've seen........
Liberal=taxes + taxes + more taxes
Liberal = overspending
Liberal = complete mismanagements of funds
Liberal = free = at the cost of the working class
Liberal = more government involvement/ control
1) I don't know about you, but my taxes were lower when Clinton was in office.
2) The feds had a record surpluss of money when Clinton left office. It is now a record deficit. So who is the spendthrift?
3) See above.
4) I think you are mistaking the Republicans for that one. The Demorcrats are actually on the side of the working man whether he realizes it or not.
5) More government programs to help you, less government control of your life.
If you care to post some more idiocy feel free, after all it is a few country.
Originally posted by bbarrAlright. What definition of 'person' would not have intellect and will as essential attributes?
Be careful. Not all construals of personhood take full autonomy as criterial. Many views distinguish being a person from being a full-fledged moral agent. The former is necessary and sufficient for having rights, the latter is necessary and sufficient for having both rights and obligations. Not every notion of personhood is subject to the counterexamples you rightly bring up.
Originally posted by lucifershammerA person could have the capacity for suffering, rudimentary rationality and rudimentary self-consciousness without having a fully autonomous will. Not all human beings have these properties. Normal human infants and the vast majority of the mentally disabled human beings, as well as many types of non-human animals do have these properties.
Alright. What definition of 'person' would not have intellect and will as essential attributes?
Originally posted by CliffLandinCanadian vs. American
Hmm.... Let's evaluate this....
1) I don't know about you, but my taxes were lower when Clinton was in office.
2) The feds had a record surpluss of money when Clinton left office. It is now a record deficit. So who is the spendthrift?
3) See above.
4) I think you are mistaking the Republicans for that one. The Demorcrats are actually on the ...[text shortened]... of your life.
If you care to post some more idiocy feel free, after all it is a few country.
Completely different systems.
Province of Alberta - 7% GST - Conservative
Rest of Canada 7% GST + 11-15 % PST - Liberal.