Quote: Yes (pages 29-30) and you said that you accepted the innocent being killed in war and said that in some cases people "generally appreciate" those deaths as they were done for a good reason. I've argued that the accidental killing of civilians in war is sometimes inevitable and that war itself is regrettably necessary at times. I used the Allied liberation of Europe from Nazi rule as an example. Do you believe that leaving Hitler alone would have been preferable, or do you know of some other way he could have been effectively dealt with? I've had enough of your juvenile sarcasm and innuendo. Share some of your superior wisdom, and be specific! This was covered on page 28 I believe. Remember the socialists, anarchists and the lefties fought fascism in Spain a long time before WW11, and also remember that Hitler had to declare war on the US, Americans only went to war with him after that. Quote: You also don’t object to the death penalty in principle only that mistakes could be made. This implies that you believe some deaths are moral and others immoral based on what you believe is right and wrong. You said the term ‘pro-life’ was based on the Declaration of Independence. (page 30), were the right to life is ‘sacrosanct’ while admitting that "no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law."(page 30) Thereby admitting that if the law allowed it, it is ok. I have never argued that unjust killing by the state is OK as long as it is legal. "Due process of law" involves proving someone guilty of a capital offense such as murder. As I've noted repeatedly, and you've continually ignored, this cannot be morally equated to killing innocent unborn babies for social or economic expedience. This was covered on page 32 I believe Quote: One of the ‘anti’s’ secular arguments seems to be based on some quasi-legal foundation. In the case of the US the words of the Declaration of Independence were ‘men’ are said to have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Well this and much of the rest of US ‘constitutional’ writing is open to interpretation. I mean the man who wrote those words was a slave owner and today the US government and a vast amount of the American people believe inflicting ‘cruel and unusual punishment" on fellow human beings is not only acceptable but seemingly necessary. What the hell are you talking about, Iraqi prisoner abuse? "A vast amount of the American people" (atrocious grammar reminiscent of George W. Bush) do not consider this scandalous behaviour "acceptable." Regardless, why can't you stick to the subject at hand? But as I indicate it does show how things can be interpreted. In resent polls roughly one in three Americans thought torture acceptable. Quote: Then you have to find the balance within the ideas being expressed. Where the DoI states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" the Constitution has "life, liberty, or property" cannot be taken away "without due process of law". The unalienable rights become very quickly open to the interpretation and prejudices of self-interested people with influence. So what are the definitions of ‘life’, ‘liberty’, ‘happiness’ and ‘property’ and how do they fit within the context of the social and economic framework of modern America? Is life purely about existence, if a person was from birth kept in a soundproofed and windowless room and given only given enough bland food and drink to sustain them but nothing else until they died, would that be having a life? In my view and I think any other sane person except the legally pedantic would answer no. So why have the ‘anti’s’ seemingly latched themselves onto that definition? For most people (including Jefferson) there is meant to be something else, to Jeff one was ‘happiness’ which I would expand to be ‘quality of life’. The other thing for Jeff was liberty, freedom. The ordering of these rights is very significant. Life comes first. Without it, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness are meaningless. And your argument is? Quote: The problem is that the US is a strongly capitalist country and under such a system there will always be economic limits to what a person may wish to do that can also have an effect on a persons quality of life, opportunities, both personal and financial. So what is wrong with the economic system in the US that people weighting up the ‘cost’ of having a child in terms of the limitation on their freedom of action, quality of life and opportunities, feel abortion is the ‘better’ alternative? It could be said that adoption is a way out and I would agree, there are people that cannot have children, and I would hope that this could be used, but again there are social, economic and cultural barriers that need to be addressed. Also the matter of recompense, the person has had to carry a the child, go through the pain of birthing then has ‘their’ property taken away. If market forces were allowed to take over however I think there would soon be a situation where wombs and children would become just another commodity on the market, which I’m not sure the ‘anti’s’ would want. Many adoption agencies subsidize the maternity and delivery expenses of birth mothers, even if they end up choosing to keep their baby. These costs are recovered from nonrefundable fees paid by prospective adoptive parents. If you want to argue that they should be covered by the state, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. So as I’ve asked before, why are they not using them and why are they pregnant in the first place? Quote: So to me until the ‘anti’s’ stop thinking in the lawyers narrow-minded legal definition of life as existence and factor in the whole social and economic context, it would seem to be only a devise to ‘win’ an argument. And to bring in by legal force what they cannot do by reasoned persuasion. In other words it isn’t about helping people just about trying to control them. It's a basic matter of justice: the law should protect the most helpless of all human beings from violence by others. It's the same principle that liberals rightly apply to economic policy. I agree but is stopping abortion while not dealing with the reasons for those abortions being wanted doesn’t seem to be the best way of going about it. Quote: I have consistently and persistently argued for understanding, to find out why these people are acting the way there are, but when I call on you for this understanding you claim that these people are unaffected by any social, cultural or economic influences. You argue that it is all down to their personal responsibility. Then at other times, when it suits your argument, you claim that these people are affected and influenced by social, cultural or economic factors. There's no contradiction here. All of our decisions are influenced by outside factors, but not determined by them. We are not autonomous, but we are free moral agents. But as I’ve said before what are the influences and how much do they determine a persons actions? Quote: It is as I’ve already said a purely negative position, is doesn’t seem to me about helping people it seems more like a craving to dictate, it doesn’t seem like a genuine desire to seek comprehension but seemingly to remain ignorant. I mean if they had positive ideas wouldn’t they have brought them up by now? Instead we just get the situation being blamed on ‘sexual immorality’, ‘sexual hedonism’, ‘the sexual revolution’, ‘sex before marriage’ etc. You can sneer all you want, but I maintain that abortion on demand is both a symptom and a cause of perverse societal values. Our own unbridled pursuit of pleasure without consequence trumps the right of our offpring to live. In turn, unfettered access to abortion further coarsens us to this travesty. You are a prime example of this moral callousness. Here you go again with the slogans "perverse societal values", "unbridled pursuit of pleasure", "moral callousness.". Just more negative statements, as I keep asking why not ask WHY, why is your society like that? Quote: When asked what positive things they would do they seem stumped. The only thing Huck can do is ask me for my proposals, but my views are not the same as his and so it is unlikely that many of my proposals would meet with his approval. Please Huck if you have no ideas just say so, if you do please give them as I have asked, don’t pretend you have some but like a child hide the fact you don’t by saying ‘yours first’. I'm not the one suggesting that proper social engineering will virtually eradicate abortion. This is your premise, so why don't you back it up? This is the point I keep making the ‘anti’s ‘ don’t seem to have any positive idea only negative ones and if you actually read my posts you would already understand what my first step would be. **
Please try and pay attention Huck, as my replies show this has almost all been covered in previous posts. Or is this how the ‘anti’s’ argue by just not engaging, they seem very strong on slogans but not on reasoned debate, they seem to have many negative ideas but few, if any, positive ones. I might have more time for your (and other anti’s) arguments if you actually seemed concerned about looking at the problem rather than ranting and riling against some kind of biblical corruption that you seem to see all around you. I mean at times the language used seems positively unhinged, more at home in a medieval manuscript than on a 21st century computer screen. Even when some ideas about improving things are put forward they show little regard for realities, as if the views were hatched in the cloister of a mediaeval monastery. Is it realistic to say that the solution is for everyone not to have sex until they are married and then be sterilised when children are not wanted and expect it to happen? So Huck we have had your negativity and you blame, we have had your, ‘immoral this’ and your ‘perverse that’, but what about the positive side of your argument when are we to see that?
Jonathancoconut and Blackie Thank you, for backing up my argument. To me this is the problem with taking the ‘anti’s’ argument seriously. They don’t seem to have thought about their position or have reasoned arguments to back them up. I said at the beginning that many ‘anti’s’ have the belief that since they find it wrong they think it should be stopped. It is a negative argument and a blank position. Blackie Is that what you think is an intelligent debate? Do you honestly think that the concise and short ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ is a substitute for a proper discussion? Do you thing such black and white utterances help to bring about true understanding? Are the simple and the simplistic the only level you feel comfortable with? If so I really think you should examine your views (and your reasons for being on a debating forum) because I think you may be part of what I see as the problem with this debate and American politics in general. **
Well, first 'simple' and 'simplistic' are not the same. One is to the point and concise, the other is off the cuff and not usually backed up by any reasonable facts. So you do believe that a simple unsupported ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is a valid contribution to the debate of any given subject? To me that seems simplistic as it is not backed up by any reasoned argument. ** I'm interested in this subject, but after a couple pages of this back and forth gabfest, i start to snooze. So you just wake up to make comments in threads you don’t actually read, then why make the comments? What is you reason to be here or on the forum at all for that matter? You say that the subject interests you, why and in what way? I would like to hear you opinions if that is if you are willing to share them? ** I doubt many others even have my attention span. Do I care? ** If you're alienating your entire potential audience, except for one person on the other side of the issue, then all you're trying to do is impress with your intellect. "Alienating your entire potential audience" Oh no, first Farscape then Firefly and Angel and now I’m being threatened with cancellation??? Ring my agent maybe Fox will take the show. ** It's unfortunate that you are so uncomfortable in your stand that you feel the need to over fortify with so many pages of argument-or as you call it 'debate'. Well since you just admitted you don’t really read them, are you in a position to comment on them? I mean what is my ‘stand’ what parts do you see as being ‘over fortified’? ** Too many things in life are over complicated. Why do you say that and by what criteria do you make the comparisons? ** JC is a young person with an opinion, a simple one, but valid none the less, and he's welcome to his posting of that opinion without your sneering contempt. Wow, you think that was ‘sneering contempt’ you must lead a very sheltered life? ** Your vast vocabulary and obssesion with this issue might intimidate some, but it does nothing for me. You think my vocabulary is vast, you really do have a sheltered life, please try and get out more talk to people and read some books, it is clear that sleeping all the time is not good for you.
No a more serious note, Blackie makes a couple of interesting points Do I believe that pages and pages of your opinion will change anyone's mind more than a simple yes or no? No, I don't. And if you do, you're deluding yourself. An issue as emotional as this is decided by the heart more than the head. ** The first statement makes me wonder how Blackie thinks peoples opinions are formed, I mean if a person has an opinion even a yes or no then there must be some reason why they have that view? Also it needs to be asked if everyone has a simple yes and no answer to every question? Is war right or wrong, well it depends on the war. To tax yes or no, well it depends on the type of tax, whose being taxed and what the money raised is being used for? Religion has it and is it a force for good or bad? To Blackie it would seem these thoughts are an irrelevance, it doesn’t seem to matter how a person comes to have a position, discussion of a subject is in some way silly and shouldn’t be bothered with. Trying to get people to think more deeply about a subject is to him only complicating what should be only be a matter of yes and no, for us or against us. He has his absolute certainty and anyone else is deluded if they even try to ask why he has those views because he will not listen and it will only bores him into sleep. What’s more that’s how he views other people. I think that is sad for any creature that has a self-aware brain one that could deal with rational thought, but he then gives the reason, this subject has nothing to do with having a brain or being able to think, those things they are just another irrelevance this is "decided by the heart". Well fair enough then, how can I argue with that? Well the thing is the heart is just a collection of muscle and has no connection to thinking. So basically a person saying this is claiming they haven’t thought about the subject but, as he says, is basing the viewpoint on their emotions. Let us bring in another part of the anatomy and call it ‘gut feeling’. So we come back to what I said at the beginning the ‘anti’s’ seem to be saying that since they believe it wrong it must be stopped. They might not know why they think it wrong or think about why it is taking place and they don’t care. It is not about trying to understand it is about trying to dictate.
Balbus' vacuous droning about the "need" for abortion and its "societal causes" vividly illustrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of what George Will calls our "therapuetic" culture. This 1997 commentary is no less apt today: Barbarism goes to the prom Birth and death of baby in bathroom should give pause to moral tutors -- even in today's abortion cullture by George Will [size=+2]A[/size]ccording to a friend, 18-year-old Melissa Drexler paused in front of the mirror in the bathroom to touch up her makeup before rejoining her date on the dance floor at the prom. She had just tossed her 6-pound, 6-ounce baby boy into a trash bin next to the bloodstained stall in the bathroom where she had given birth. "She seemed to be enjoying herself," said a classmate about Drexler's postpartum dancing. Medical examiners have determined that the baby was alive during the birthing process, which occurred early in the prom. He was soon discovered by a maintenance worker who thought the trash bag was unusually heavy. Unsuccessful attempts were made to resuscitate him. Believe it or not, much may depend on whether it can be determined that the baby died before the umbilical cord was cut. Or whether the air sacs in his lungs inflated, indicating that he breathed, however briefly, independent of his mother. Drexler may be charged with something. Maybe murder. Maybe endangering a child. (Maybe conducting a partial-birth abortion at a prom without a license?) Who taught Drexler to think, or not think, in a way that caused her to regard her newborn as disposable trash? Many people and things, no doubt. She may have come from a less than attentive home environment. An assistant prosecutor says family members did not know she was pregnant. She has grown up in a society that does not stress deferral of gratification, and it's not her fault that the baby arrived during the prom, for Pete's sake. She has come of age in a society where condom-dispensing schools teach sex education in the modern manner, which has been well-described as plumbing for hedonists. If she is like millions of other young adults, she has spent thousands of hours watching movies and television programs not designed to suggest that sexuality has morally complex dimensions and serious consequences. If she is like millions of other young adults, she has pumped into her ears thousands of hours of coarsening lyrics of popular music. And she certainly has grown up in a social atmosphere saturated with opinion leaders' collaboration with the political program of reducing abortion to a mere "choice," like choosing to smoke a cigarette. However, foremost among the moral tutors who prepared Drexler to act as she did is the Supreme Court. By pretending in Roe v. Wade not to know when life begins, the Court encouraged looking away from the stark fact that abortion kills something. Ignoring elementary science, the Court said, preposterously, that a fetus is "potential life." But as Walker Percy, an M.D. as well as a novelist, wrote, it is a commonplace of modern biology that life begins "when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that henceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism." Percy continued: "The onset of the individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science. How much more convenient if we lived in the 13th Century, when no one knew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life were legitimate." Biology does not allow the abortion argument to be about, or anyone to be agnostic about, when life begins. Conscientious people can disagree about the appropriate moral and legal status to be accorded the life that abortion ends. But science complicates -- to say no more -- the "pro-choice" movement's project of making the world safe for the likes of Drexler, the project of presenting the ending of an inconvenient young life as akin to a bowel movement. Pregnancy is a continuum. What begins at conception will, if there is not natural misfortune or deliberate attack, become a child. If it becomes a child at a prom, it must be attacked quickly, lest the whole night be a bummer. The barbarism at the prom is being termed a "tragedy" calling for "compassion" all around. No, an earthquake is a tragedy. This was an act of wickedness -- a wicked choice -- and a society incapable of anger about it is simply decadent. Perhaps the brevity of the life of Ms. Drexler's son will accelerate the transformation of the nation's vague unrest into vivid consciousness that today's abortion culture, with its casual creation and destruction of life, is evil.
The posts are interesting since they so brilliantly seems to back up my thesis that the ‘anti’s’ do not want to engage. Oh they can rant they can rail, they have repetitious slogans they can endlessly recycle, they can scream no and preach about the wicked and the evil, but ask them to actually debate their views in a rational and reasonable way and from the evidence so far they are stumped. Blackie has only bluster and Huck once more can only sight other peoples words that repeat the same old arguments that have gone before, the ones that still remain wanting (plus the same old slogans as ‘hedonists’ gets yet another airing). Hiding from engagement is negative like much of the ‘anti’s’ stance, in a lot of ways it reminds me of those pathetic people that claim to be ‘anarchists’ but no nothing about the subject except that they want to ‘destroy’. ** Well since Blackie and Huck seem frightened to engage I have only George Will’s piece. He seems to argue that four things have caused this woman to commit the action she took. However since he gives no evidence of direct links or a detailed history of the situation and other background material I can only assume that he is using the incident to push certain prejudices he already harbours. Education ("teach sex education in the modern manner, which has been well-described as plumbing for hedonists") Popular Culture Television and Film ("watching movies and television programs not designed to suggest that sexuality has morally complex dimensions and serious consequences") music ("coarsening lyrics of popular music") The type of society ("a social atmosphere") The availability of abortion ("Roe v. Wade") The problem is that he - in line with the normal ‘anti’ practices - likes to be negative, he rants well against things but seems to have no solutions. I did a search on google to see if he had anything positive to say on how these things could be reformed or improved but there was nothing. So can the anti’s tell me - How they will improve the level and type of education supplied in the US? From what I’ve heard, from many Americans here, education levels are often low and resources have been cut. He implies that the sex education taught now is new (modern) so is he calling for a return to and old form of SE and if so what was it? ** As to popular culture (television, film, music) the US is a very capitalist society and most popular culture is based on and financed by the market. Would anti’s want to limit the markets influence, bring in censorship? ** As to the type of society that the US has, what would you want and how would you accomplish it? ** As to abortion why does it seem to be wanted?
Please my dear Blackie, try and calm down, you tell me I’m doing my ‘cause’ no good but you do your own no good when you babble like this, you just come across as a bit deranged. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage in this thread and that is fine you don’t have to and I’m sure people will make up their own mind if it is fear or an inability to engage that is the reason. But before you go can you tell us where those posts are in which you say you do ‘debate abortion’ on the forums? I had a quick look in your past posts and couldn’t see them.
I’m shocked I was always lead to believe that this subject was a big issue in the US and was strongly debated. I have been told that for many Americans this is the ONLY reason they vote for the Republicans?? So I thought that the ‘anti’s’ case must be very good. But when given the chance to put forth their views they end up bringing very little of worth to the table. Oh they wish to stop abortion I get that and as I said at the beginning I’d like a world were it wasn’t wanted, but for them stopping it seems to be the be all and end all of their idea. They seem unclear as to why abortion is wanted besides some belief that people that want one must be hedonistic immoral sinners. Asked why they think this and they seem not to know, asked how they can be helped and they again don’t seem to have any positive or realistic ideas. They have some vague idea that there could be a cultural, social and economics dimension to the problem but pushed about it and they mumble about ‘wickedness’ or cite the lyrics of rap singers. But even then they don’t have any realistic ideas of what to do and if pushed just become silent or abusive. I said earlier that I would have more respect for the ‘anti’s’ if they seemed to be actually wanted to deal with the problem, actually seemed to be seeking some understanding. But this is not the impression I get here these people are not fighting for a better future or to help people, it seems more like a craving for power, the power to control, that kind of power is not about understanding or helping it is about dictating. It is the kind of attitude that is most commonly associated with dogmatic religious and political ideologies. Those kinds of people hate debate or questions. They thrive in ignorance and the simplistic. So it is not surprising they don’t wish to discuss their views. What is surprising, and shocking, is that so many Americans seem to allow them to get away with it.
Thanks Balbus for bringing some sense and clarity to this thread, I gave up even bothering to respond to it some time ago because of the closed-minded nature of most of the contributions. People tend not to want to openly discuss and debate the problem but rather to enforce their dogmatic doctrine on others.
Thank you Shownet There seems to be a fundamental problem here and I think the subject has moved on from the question of abortion to the question of how the ‘anti’s’ are presenting (or rather clouding or clocking) their argument. Also I wonder why so many Americans seem to be letting them get away with it. ** First there seems to be no wish for understanding amongst the ‘anti’s’, Huck for instance seems not to need to ask why because he claims he already knows why – Q Why do women that have abortions? A Because they are immoral hedonists. Q Why do you say that? A Because they are having an abortion Q Why are they pregnant in the first place? A Because they are immoral hedonists. Q Why do you say that? A Because they are pregnant Q Does society have anything to do with it? A yes because it is immoral and hedonistic, but the main problem is the immoral hedonists. I mean this is not a debate it is a sermon by a dogmatic priest. Pushed to explain why he thinks them immoral hedonists he seems confused by the question they just are and if that fact is not obvious to you then you must be an immoral hedonist as well. It is an old trick try to defend someone accused of witchcraft and you become accused of it, try to defend someone accused of communism and you became accused of being a communist. Is this the reason why these bigots have become so strong in the US with so weak an argument, is it just fear of being accused of being ‘evil’? ** There must be some ‘pro-life’ person out there that has a reasoned argument on this subject that doesn’t rely in the end on some semi-religious mumbo jumbo and can argue in it a coherent way? If not I suppose I declare this thread dead.
Balbus, Once again, why don't you explain how "society" is responsible for people who choose to routinely engage in sexual activity apart from anything resembling a committed relationship and with no intention whatsoever of caring for any children they might conceive in the process? I realize that sophomoric mockery is much easier and more entertaining, but it hardly passes for "reasoned debate." Please enlighten us all with your profound insight.
Society is very responsible for who people are today. The culture you grow up in has HUGE impact on the person you become. Take the same exact child, same exact parents even and raise them in the U.S or raise them in the middle east, or raise them in south america. That child will be a completely different person depending on his surroundings, his culture, his society.
Because if you want to fix the abortion problem, you need to go a little deeper and find the root of the problem. Cut a weed off at the tip and it still grows. Pull it out by the roots and it's gone for good. Why are there so many unwanted pregnancies? How can we fix this? Why are many of these in lower classes? How do we fix this? Why are children engaging in sexual activity so irresponsibly? How can fix this? Making abortion illegal won't stop these problems. It will just give rise to unwanted and neglected children who in turn will carry that same cycle out to their children, and their's, over and over through the generations. A rise in unwanted children will cause a rise in crime, welfare recepients, and the poor. Stop the need for abortion and you will stop abortions. How? I don't have all the answers, but I definitely think it is a better way to approach the issue.
37 pages... damn The abortion issue is BUNK! And it is 1 reason why the united states will always be a hypocritical state, that upholds nothing it preaches... Seperation of church and state? Yeah, right. We'll never have seperation of church and state till the people stop voting for candidates soley based on their religious beliefs. You cannot take a stand on the abortion issue unless you believe that human life is superior to other forms of life... and I, for one, do not believe that... this is why i refuse to take any real stance on abortion... this is why the abortion issue is bunk... get a bunch of people's panties in a bundle because of some dead human cells... the ones who refuse to let any form of human life go... because they stand on some higher moral ground, supposidly... but what about when the baby is out of the womb? What do they get than? They get jack shit! Who cares if the mother cant afford a child, or another child... who care sif the parents are homeless and the child will grow up poverty stricken, probably end up in prison in a few years... republicans preach how much they love human life, but as soon as that babies out of the womb, they got shit for it... its on its own than. Im not going to vote on a candidate over this lame ass issue... i refuse to, because its BUNK. Human life is not sacred, im sorry... Stop being a religious zealot, and vote for a candidate because of something other than his assinine religious beliefs.
