1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "You said freedom is a "idol" and "a false god"! "
Do you read your own posts? You said freedom is a "idol" and "a false god"! How is my pointing out that the philosophy of the US is based on fundamental rights as a necessary ingredient of a free country "not relevant"? ...[text shortened]... That might be fine for the RCC but it ain't for a free country.
No, I did not. This is what I said:
"You're again presenting the notion of "freedom" as an idol."
Just to be sure:
Stating that "Freedom" as such is an idol or a false god is something completely different and utterly ridiculous. I did not say this. Please read my post carefully.
No1: "You want to force your ideas as to the status of a fetus unto others who do not share them and restrict their basic freedom to procreate or not as a result. That might be fine for the RCC but it ain't for a free country."
.... and you call my reaction stupid ? .... oh brother .... 🙄
I want the prisoners in Guantonamo bay to receive a humane treatment according to the Geneva Convention. Am I therefore "wanting to force my beliefs" on those who disagree with me ?
People have a free choice whether they want to procreate or not, but not after they decided to procreate. You cannot act to procreate and later change your mind and decide to kill the result, the child. If you decide to seperate the act and its purpose then things start to go wrong.
Same thing if you separate the act of eating from its purpose, staying healthy and alive. This does not entail that you cannot enjoy eating as you may well understand. Enjoying eating, however, is not the purpose of eating. Getting fat or thin isn't the purpose of eating either. You cannot decide you do not want to eat after you have eaten and decide you want to undo the act. If you separate the act of eating from its purpose, to stay healthy and alive, things start to go wrong. Why do you think so many women (and men) have an eating disorder ? Ask them how freedom and being forced is part of their disease. You will be surprised to hear how freedom and not being able to be free is an essential issue in their disease.
Being free does not entail doing what you want but doing what is right.
So you see no1, how I value human freedom.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere is yet another option. That is a Culture of Life, Love and Caring for one another.
No! That it embraces a Culture of Torture, Cruelty and Savagery.
The better option is the Culture of Death, in which the mother aborts the fetus that she doesn't intend to love or care for anyway before it becomes a person.
The "trouble" is that you cannot enforce such a culture. Therefore punishment is not an option. Educating people in a loving "Culture of Life" is. Some would call this "brainwashing". I would however prefer to call it learning how to be yourself by accepting your very nature. You were conceived and born to love and to be loved.
Originally posted by ColettiThat is a fairly new development in law and not a positive one in my view. At least those investigations are supposed to be fairly limited in scope. Your's would not be; a child is born with a health problem the investigation starts. Every aspect of the pregnant mother's activities must be investigated to see if something she did was responsible. Husbands, boyfriends, other children, friends, etc. etc. etc. would have to be interrogated as to everything she did while pregnant. You don't see what a totalitarian system that would mean?
Every time you send you kid to school, you are in the same situation. If your kid come bruised and battered, the state can come knocking on you door.
Originally posted by no1marauder
That is a fairly new development in law and not a positive one in my view. At least those investigations are supposed to be fairly limited in scope. Your's would not be; a child is born with a health problem the investigation starts. Every aspect of the pregnant mother's activities must be investigated to see if something she did was responsibl ...[text shortened]... to everything she did while pregnant. You don't see what a totalitarian system that would mean?
You are starting to make sense no1.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEither the State has some duty to protect children or it does not. I think there are clear cases where the State should get involved. Otherwise, you must say parents have the right to do anything they want with their children. I say that there are limits both ways. My answer works. You don't treat the situation any differently than you do a case of child abuse. ( Because that is what it is.)
That is a fairly new development in law and not a positive one in my view. At least those investigations are supposed to be fairly limited in scope. Your's would not be; a child is born with a health problem the investigation s ...[text shortened]... egnant. You don't see what a totalitarian system that would mean?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou're full of it. You constantly say I'm presenting freedom as a "false god" when what I am presenting is the Lockean, fundamental rights theory on which the US is based. Either that philosophy, which relies on limited government and the supremacy of individual rights, is correct or not. You oppose it and ridicule its reliance on human freedom; I support it and make my arguments accordingly. There's not much middle ground there; you think that freedom is subordinate to a myriad of other considerations and I think it should be restricted only when it comes into direct conflict with another's freedom. That's what I say, that's what Madison, Jefferson, Paine, etc. etc. said: stop presenting it like it's some ridiculous "radical" notion: it's what free societies are based on.
No1: "You said freedom is a "idol" and "a false god"! "
No, I did not. This is what I said:
"You're again presenting the notion of "freedom" as an idol."
Just to be sure:
Stating that "Freedom" as such is an idol or a false god is something completely different and utterly ridiculous. I did not say this. Please read my post carefull ...[text shortened]... ail doing what you want but doing what is right.
So you see no1, how I value human freedom.
The rest of your post only proves my point: YOU say that an unborn child is being "killed" by an abortion, so therefore YOUR opinion MUST be enforced on EVERYBODY else. Whether an unborn child has any rights at all is a hotly debated philosophical, ethical and religious issue with reasonable people coming to vastly different conclusions. But YOUR viewpoint MUST rule over their's and the freedom of a woman over her own body MUST give way. BS. Your vision of "freedom" is the "freedom" to do as you're told. I reject this and I reject your and your ilk's attempt to impose a theocracy in fact. A woman's right to do what she wills with her own body trumps your personal beliefs; Ivanhoe; if you don't like abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!
Ivanhoe: Being free does not entail doing what you want but doing what is right.
That sounds like something out of Orwell. Being free DOES entail doing what you want whether somebody else thinks it's "right" or not. Restrictions on your freedom are limited exceptions, not the rule like you want. You don't understand freedom, you don't understand Locke and you don't understand the basic philosophy of my country. Stop showing your profound ignorance, Ivanhoe or I'll have to start calling you "Anti-American".
😲
Originally posted by ColettiI think brainwashing children with religious gibberish is abuse but i'm not proposing to have them investigated and the children taken away. I mean..who in the right mind tells a child they will go to hell. Pure mental abuse
Either the State has some duty to protect children or it does not. I think there are clear cases where the State should get involved. Otherwise, you must say parents have the right to do anything they want with their children. I say that there are limits both ways. My answer works. You don't treat the situation any differently than you do a case of child abuse. ( Because that is what it is.)
Originally posted by ColettiI can only imagine what a bunch of Calvinists who believe that human nature is "vile" and "depraved" would do in that job. The child abuse system has it is is rife with false accusations and overbearing bureaucrats and judges breaking up families on their notions of what "proper" parental behavior is. Count me out of this inquistion, Coletti.
Either the State has some duty to protect children or it does not. I think there are clear cases where the State should get involved. Otherwise, you must say parents have the right to do anything they want with their children. I say that there are limits both ways. My answer works. You don't treat the situation any differently than you do a case of child abuse. ( Because that is what it is.)
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPfffuuuh, you start name dropping now. I would like to imagine a discussion between the famous people you mentioned and you about the ideas you are presenting to us as "freedom", "rights" and "morality". They would wipe the floor with you No1.
You're full of it. You constantly say I'm presenting freedom as a "false god" when what I am presenting is the Lockean, fundamental rights theory on which the US is based. Either that philosophy, which relies on limited governme ...[text shortened]... Ivanhoe or I'll have to start calling you "Anti-American".
😲
No1: " what I am presenting is the Lockean, fundamental rights theory on which the US is based."
You think you do, but in fact you are presenting modernistic, atheïstic and more or less relativistic interpretations of those ideas. Your modernistic interpretations are the problem, not the Lockean fundamental rights theory on which the US is based.
I do not oppose individual rights. On the contrary, I want to expand them to the unborn, because I consider them as human persons too, with the corresponding rights. In the past many groups of people were denied human rights. The slaves, the Indians, the Jewish people, poor people, women and at present children and particularly unborn children are denied human rights all over the world. They are denied the most basic of all rights, the Right to Live. The State has the duty to enforce the rights of individuals including the rights of the unborn no matter what you and others say, no matter how much you and others try to impose your and their will unto the unborn. You cannot take rights from people, whether they are born or unborn. You still have to accept that notion. If you keep on whining how I try to impose my will on you and other liberals then you should remember how the slave owners whined when they were told to free the slaves. I bet they also were wining about how their opponents wanted to impose their will on them, the poor slave owners. The people who campaigned for the abolishment of slavery did not let themselves be stopped by those whiners. Neither will I let myself be stopped by feminist or liberal whiners in defending the unborn's Right to Live.
Originally posted by no1marauder
You're full of it. You constantly say I'm presenting freedom as a "false god" when what I am presenting is the Lockean, fundamental rights theory on which the US is based. Either that philosophy, which relies on limited government and the supremacy of individual rights, is correct or not. You oppose it and ridicule its reliance on human freedom; ...[text shortened]... owing your profound ignorance, Ivanhoe or I'll have to start calling you "Anti-American".
😲
"Ivanhoe: Being free does not entail doing what you want but doing what is right.
No1: "That sounds like something out of Orwell."
Your interpretation of my ideas is so warped that I sometimes think you deliberately distort them just you can tramp on them. .... but alas ..... I have the impression you really mean what you say.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " Being free DOES entail doing what you want whether somebody else thinks it's "right" or not."
You're full of it. You constantly say I'm presenting freedom as a "false god" when what I am presenting is the Lockean, fundamental rights theory on which the US is based. Either that philosophy, which relies on limited government and the supremacy of individual rights, is correct or not. You oppose it and ridicule its reliance on human freedom; ...[text shortened]... owing your profound ignorance, Ivanhoe or I'll have to start calling you "Anti-American".
😲
What is your opinion about above statement if I would alter it like this:
"Being free DOES entail doing what one wants whether one thinks it's "right" or not."
Originally posted by ivanhoeWho is to judge what the person thinks right, but themselves and themselves only.
No1: " Being free DOES entail doing what you want whether somebody else thinks it's "right" or not."
What is your opinion about above statement if I would alter it like this:
"Being free DOES entail doing what one wants whether one thinks it's "right" or not."
In what way would you enfoce a system that would penalize a person for doing what they thought was wrong? How would you prove this?
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieNyxie: "Who is to judge what the person thinks right, but themselves and themselves only."
Who is to judge what the person thinks right, but themselves and themselves only.
In what way would you enfoce a system that would penalize a person for doing what they thought was wrong? How would you prove this?
Nyxie
I am not sure what you mean.
Nyxie: " In what way would you enfoce a system that would penalize a person for doing what they thought was wrong? How would you prove this?"
Same comment. I am not sure what you mean.
Can you elaborate, please ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI mean what I say.
Nyxie: "Who is to judge what the person thinks right, but themselves and themselves only."
I am not sure what you mean.
Nyxie: " In what way would you enfoce a system that would penalize a person for doing what they thought was wrong? How would you prove this?"
Same comment. I am not sure what you mean.
Can you elaborate, please ?
You changed no1's quote to "one think's is right". How could we judge them against what they thought, and how could you prove it?
Aside from some irrelevant comments from the paranoid - I'll ask again, does the State have any right or duty to protect the interests of minors?
If yes, what prevents the State from merely taking children from parents so they can be educated and raised as the State deems best?
If there should be limited State protection of children - how are the boundaries of the State's powers defined? When does the State's duty to protect children supersede the parents rights?
If you think the State has no right or duty to protect children, then what prevents parents from selling their children - or beating them? Is that simply the right of the parent?
Do children have any rights? They can not sign contracts, they do not have freedom of speech or religion. They do not even have freedom of association. Do "unalienable rights" as defined by the U.S. Declaration of Independence have any application to minors?
(Reasonable responses will be appreciated - but you are all free to be as moronic as you wish - it's a free Internet.)