Abortion

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Write4U, May 19, 2019.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,060
    Back to abortion:

    disambiguation:
    My position

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    my take)
    a) Abortion is murder
    b) parents have the right to murder their own children
    c) people who murder their own children are mentally ill
    d) the state, as it currently exists has no justifiable say in the matter.

    Those children/babies/ zygotes do not belong to the state, they belong to their parents, and those who assume the responsibility of assuring the safety and comfort of the child/baby.

    If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.

    What we seem to get from politicians is unfunded mandates, needless regulations, and the braying of jackasses.
    If they want the right to interfere with people's personal decisions, then they should first earn that right!

    ......................
    that being "said"(posted)
    I would not choose to impose my view on anyone else
    (one of the reasons that we do not discuss it in the family)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,259
    It's still unclear whether you are stating unfortunate facts or whether you are stating your opinion.

    This is contradictory.
    If it's murder, it's a crime, by definition.
    If it's simply killing, then it's not necessarily a crime.


    So are you saying you agree that parents have the right to kill their children?
    Or are you simply acknowledging the fact, despite personally considering it murder?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,060
    opinion----------yep

    I suspect/surmise, etc...
    That the recipient of the action might not appreciate your distinctions.

    call it what you will-----------kill is ok with me
    taking another life is always taking another life
    are there really any sane justifications?
    (I just prefer to leave the politics and courts out of it, and still call it murder)
    (the word is more loaded than kill----which voices a deeper opinion)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,259
    Well, other than the obvious?

    Your skin cells are alive but there's no crime in killing them.
    Cells of the zygote, or fetus, like skin cells, can't survive without the host.

    So the line between non-viable life and viable life is fuzzy. Some people just draw it in a different place.
     
  8. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,399
    So you'r not for a womans right to choose... correct.???

    So what was you'r pont when you suggested to you'r sons that they shoud thank ther mother for not having the abortion... an what was ther replys.???
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,060
    No
    not correct
    (why in hell would you assume that?)

    it ain't my choice
    ............
    have you read the supreme court justices opinions published with roe v wade ?
    .............
    that being asked..................................................................
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,399
    Ok... got it... you are for a womans right to choose.!!!

    So you'r for a womans right to choose unless the government steps up to the plate an chooses for her.???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,060
    Not with the government that we have!

    .............
    (your above could use the ' repositioned)
    thusly
    "your and woman's"
     
  12. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,399
    You woudnt say what you'r sons replies were when you told 'em that they shoud thank ther mother for not having the abortion... but im guessin that they was just as confused about you'r position on a womans right to choose as you are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,060
    I'm not confused.
     
  14. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,399
    Sculptor --- "If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.

    So you are for a womans right to choose... full stop... even if politicians step up to the plate.???
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,831
    Not really. Sustainable commerce is quite possible.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,831
    The way things stand now - yes. You cannot build an economy on debt unless you assume the ability to repay will increase forever.
    Probably not. Their agenda at the end of the day is to make money; I suspect yours is similar.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,677
    The sustainability really is a bit of a illusion and needs a growing base of consumers combined with the product, no matter what it happens to be not lasting as long as it used to

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,259
    Yes. We call that civilization.
    What is your suggested alternative?
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,677
    You might not like this

    First - do not buy / sell money

    Second - a limit on ownership of money

    Third - each person limited to owning one company and each company can only have shares issued to those who work for the company. A company set up to sell shoes cannot have multiple names ie WE SELL SHOES cannot have another shop called SHOES SOLD HERE

    How often have you gotten poor service and thought will go to the other shop and find out later both owned same person

    That's enough to go on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,259
    Money is nothing more than a standardized unit for bartering.
    Eliminate money and you simply agree on how many chickens are worth getting your lawn mowed.

    What is does not do, is change the fundamental engine of civilization, which is that we need to each do work, so that we can get goods from others that we cant produce ourselves because we are busy doing our own work.

    And a civilization must grow. If it doesn't grow, then people will be out of work, therefore out of a supply of tradable labour/goods, therefore unable to provide the essentials of civilization. That would result in each family working to get their own needs met, and we would become units even smaller than tribes (tribes are cooperative, tiny civilizations).

    And we could only sustain that if there are about 99.99% fewer of us.


    That has been tried. It has not worked.


    Been tried. You are either talking about communism or fascism, depending on the details.

    What history has taught us is that the only workable economy is a free market economy of supply and demand.

    Yes, it's broken - but it's less broken than the other systems.
     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,677
    Never said eliminate money

    Don't buy / sell money

    Probably and of course my answer did miss many details

    Not sure it has

    Only work economy countered by but it's less broken

    OK find a economy which is less less broken

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,831
    Since we don't have it now, it's not really an illusion so much as it's nonexistent.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,708
    Here are two scenarios for our conservative friends to contemplate:

    1. A man is dying of bone cancer and needs a marrow transplant. Nobody in his immediate family is a compatible donor, but there is a cousin who could donate his marrow. The cousin, however, refuses to donate some of his marrow. He says that he has had a dream that he might not survive the anesthetic applied if the procedure to extract some of his marrow is carried out. There is no medical basis to think there is any great risk to the cousin, bone marrow extractions being routine surgical procedures. It is certain that without the transplant, the cancer patient will not survive, and it is extremely unlikely that another compatible donor can be found in time to save him.

    Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the cousin in this case to undergo the procedure to donate some of his bone marrow to the cancer patient? Bear in mind that a man's life is at stake here and all life is sacred, as you tell us it is in the case of abortion.

    2. A mother has a young child - 3 or 4 years old - with a heart problem. Due to a number of factors, this child can only be kept alive by physically connecting the child to the mother, so that the mother's heart can essentially act as a temporary pump for the child's blood. The child will almost certainly die if the procedure is not performed.

    Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the mother in this case to be connected to the child, so as to keep the child alive? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the connection would need to be maintained for 9 months. Bear in mind that the child's life is at stake and all life is sacred.

    Question: would it make any difference if it was the child's father who was to be connected in scenario 2 instead of the mother?
     
    Michael 345 and sculptor like this.

Share This Page