Abortion

[Tipsy]

Tipsy- that's a rather dirty tactic to compare that which you're arguing against with something like Brave New World. It's absolutely not nessicary for a completely secular society.

And religion should play no part in the goverment. It's been written, said, and quoted many times by many of the crafters of the US gov't that the government is to remain free from religious control. It's based on secular logic. While the society that created it is not secular, the society is not the government, not the gov't the society.

If there are flaws in the constitution, they need to be fixed. It's a living document, and prone to well-thought out change.

Well there is a reason I am comparing it to Brave New World. The thing is as we have talked about before, no matter how hard we try, religion is going to influence our leaders, voters, etc, no matter how hard we try to seperate church and state. I used Brave New World because that accomplishes a secular government through the only way possible, the irradication of religion other than the Ford, which really isn't a religion (except in those camps that were set up for places not worth 'settling').

As for this, I do believe for society to agree with you that 'human life' is not valuable, but mind is. You've got to wipe out the three main religions and such which was done in Brave New World in the war before the A.F started after A.D.

As for the constitution being needed to be fixed, I really doubt that anytime that America is still a free nation that the inalienable right to life will be taken out of the consitution.

I do realize Brave New World is a bit extreme, but it is the best example I could think of.

 

[Xenoce]

I used Brave New World because that accomplishes a secular government through the only way possible, the irradication of religion other than the Ford, which really isn't a religion (except in those camps that were set up for places not worth 'settling').

While I don't believe that the eradication of religion is a bad thing, and doubt it will need "eradication" (IMO, it will die out with the passing of time, if the information age is not disrupted too severely with such things as peak oil.), I still think that it is possible to have a secular government while religion is still present.

Of course people are influenced by their beliefs, to remove that, you's have to put some sort of intelligent machines in charge of everything. But some level of objectivity and secular logic is possible by everyone, and, while not perfect, a gov't can be free (enough) of religion to the point that it can be completely secular by anyone on the planet.

At least, I believe it possible. Weather or not it actually can be done remains to be seen. The next couple hundred years should be telling.

As for this, I do believe for society to agree with you that 'human life' is not valuable, but mind is. You've got to wipe out the three main religions and such which was done in Brave New World in the war before the A.F started after A.D.

Look around you- This concept is in practice in every place in the world. People hunt, and justify it by saying they're "just animals," therefore it's okay. For thousands of years people have taken many lives to support their few- That's the way it is on every level of the food chain save for the producers/decomposers.

There are two (primary) reasons for this, both related.

1) Ego
2) We're smarter then them/They're dumb animals/we care more- All of these equate to, "It's a lesser evil to kill a lesser mind."

Of course, wars/murderers notwithistanding, people generally don't kill each other- We usually have respect for somoene who is out intellectual equal (or at least on the general plane as us.)

As for the constitution being needed to be fixed, I really doubt that anytime that America is still a free nation that the inalienable right to life will be taken out of the consitution.

How horrible that sounds. Well, I said it. I should've phrased that much more carefully. I just ment that the mind, I believe, should be in the constitution with an emphasis on it more heavily then just life itself. Life is meaningless without a mind to enjoy it.

Of course, I'm biased by my secular utilitatianism.

 

[Tipsy]

Of course people are influenced by their beliefs, to remove that, you's have to put some sort of intelligent machines in charge of everything. But some level of objectivity and secular logic is possible by everyone, and, while not perfect, a gov't can be free (enough) of religion to the point that it can be completely secular by anyone on the planet.

The point of this is, as long as you have people who are even semi-devoutly religious, they are going to be voting with religion as a priority. An obvious example of this is me voting for Bush along with numerous others because of his stance on his 'moral issues'.

Look around you- This concept is in practice in every place in the world. People hunt, and justify it by saying they're "just animals," therefore it's okay. For thousands of years people have taken many lives to support their few- That's the way it is on every level of the food chain save for the producers/decomposers.

There are two (primary) reasons for this, both related.

1) Ego
2) We're smarter then them/They're dumb animals/we care more- All of these equate to, "It's a lesser evil to kill a lesser mind."

From a strictly religious point of view, it is wrong to kill any human because they have souls. This is completely debatable and the only reason I mention it is because as long as their are as I put it before, semi-devout religious people, people are going to see it this way.

 

[Lizardbreath]

The thing is, in the society we live in today, as soon as you are 'human', which to me I stated with that three point thing, your are given rights in this world, and one of those are to life.

- Life after childbirth. Even the supreme court justices in Roe Vs. Wade concluded that the Constitution does not allow a state or federal institution to infringe on the right for a women to choose to take on the responsibility of having a baby. Primarily because it defeats a women's right to life,liberty, and hapiness.

Though I understand what you are saying, my entire argument is based on the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations which is held more important in today's society over any single man's opinion.

-Your entire argument was shot down in the supreme court in Roe vs. Wade. Not to mention that neither documents specifically site abortion as being wrong.

Had to bring this back up. Bored.

 

[TheJanitor]

An obvious example of this is me voting for Bush along with numerous others because of his stance on his 'moral issues'.

So rather than you vote for someone who would run the country better...

I really can't be arsed reading the whole of this thread again but I must wonder why are you so focused on definitions of life ect when they vary so much that it is not hard to find some that will fit both your views. What do 15 yr old mothers do? What if the baby would kill the mother, or have extreme defects that the mother doesn't want it to live a life of pain, where the child cannot function in well in society, and needs certain apparatus to sustain it's life. The constitution doesn't tell us what's going through a mothers mind when she considers abortion.

 

[Tipsy]

Life after childbirth. Even the supreme court justices in Roe Vs. Wade concluded that the Constitution does not allow a state or federal institution to infringe on the right for a women to choose to take on the responsibility of having a baby. Primarily because it defeats a women's right to life,liberty, and hapiness.

Life after childbirth has absolutely nothing to do with Roe vs Wade when in reality they concluded, to quote Justice Blackmun (who wrote the majority opinion for the case), “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.†The justification used to allow abortion was actually stated later in the majority opinion when Justice Blackmun wrote, "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense alone."

Your entire argument was shot down in the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade. Not to mention that neither documents specifically site abortion as being wrong.

Let’s look at the conclusions your precious court case got. The Constitutional justifications that were used to allow the decision of Roe vs Wade in district court and the supreme court, to quote Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion again, “this right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.â€

So once again we will look at this. The fourteenth amendment deals with procedural limitations and guarantees life, liberty, and property without government interference. However, even though we are guaranteed such rights the government can infringe upon our life, liberty, or property as long as the government gives notice and allows an opportunity for all sides to be heard. There is not a single place in the Constitution that mentions privacy, and every action done by the government does invade privacy.

The ninth amendment is the more ironic justification. It would probably even be funny how they used the ninth amendment if didn’t involve something so grim. The Ninth Amendment was used to show a Constitutional base for an unmentioned right to privacy that gives you the right to terminate your pregnancy. Yet when the Ninth Amendment was used to justify the unmentioned right to privacy, the justice turns completely around and justifies abortion because unborn babies are not specifically mentioned! Can that be any more ironic?

Not to mention the whole ‘potential’ vs ‘full’ life thing that they came up with itself violates the Constitution.

Your entire argument was shot down in the supreme court in Roe vs. Wade.

Most of my argument was never even argued at the Supreme Court case so I fail to see how something not argued could be ‘shot down’.

Not to mention that neither documents specifically site abortion as being wrong.

Show me where the text of the privacy rights are and then use that as a point.

I really can't be arsed reading the whole of this thread again but I must wonder why are you so focused on definitions of life ect when they vary so much that it is not hard to find some that will fit both your views

I believe abortion is murder, lizardbreath believes it is not. It is sort of hard to find a compromise between those two.

So rather than you vote for someone who would run the country better...

It all depends on what you consider is ‘better’ for the country.

 

[Zerglite]

which would you prefer, abortion, or an Orphan.

personally... if i found out i was going to have a kid.... nevermind

lets just hope i never have to actually deal with that.

 

[TheJanitor]

It all depends on what you consider is ‘better’ for the country.

Well spending 160 mil on 'encouraging marriage' while saving money by:

The budget proposes the elimination of 128 programs, 65 this year and 63 over the course of the next five. While most are small, and the total amount of funding involved, $4.9 billion, is a small fraction of the $2.3 trillion budget, the selection of targets nonetheless lays out the social priorities of the Bush administration. Nearly all the programs to be eliminated serve children, the poor, the sick, those living in public housing—

Hell, wait that doesn't even make sense in a religious point of view. But if spending money on bullshit like that helps him win the election... If someone who didn't share your faith, ran for president and was 10x better than the rest of the candidates the Christians probably would still vote for whoever seemed 'christian' disreguarding if they are fit or not to run the country.

I believe abortion is murder, lizardbreath believes it is not. It is sort of hard to find a compromise between those two.

I was talking about when someone gave a definition of life suiting their view then someone else found another one which opposed it. I don't live in America and couldn't care less about the constitution, neither could the majourity of the world, so is there anyway Tipsy and Lizardbreath could avoid quoting pieces out of it to try prove their points/views?

 

[Lizardbreath]

It's an american debate.

In the long run I believe it is wrong to force women to have a child especially since statistics have shown that Abortion reduces poverty& crime.
Not to mention the emotional effects of an orphaned/neglected/abused children who aren't loved by their mother's who didn't want to have them in the first place. Tipsy thinks we should force women to have the kids and then give them up for adoption. What if the mother doesn't and then abuses/neglects the child? All because somebody else thinks it is morally wrong for her to do this. In the long run; it is not your baby tipsy, you don't have to have it, therefore it is not your say to tell others what to do with regards to their own bodies.

 

[TheJanitor]

It's an american debate.

Not neccessarily, I'll put it nicer though. I want to hear a debate that applies to everyone, with logic, with things that matter to the majourity of people not excluding everyone but Americans. To participate in the debate you two are currently haveing at the moment I'd have to read the constitution which doesn't affect me directly in the slightest. Undead, and Xenoce have managed this quite well, and I believe you two can aswell. There are circumstances that I think abortion should be considered in. That is my view on the subject as of now.

 

[Tipsy]

Well spending 160 mil on 'encouraging marriage' while saving money by:

The budget proposes the elimination of 128 programs, 65 this year and 63 over the course of the next five. While most are small, and the total amount of funding involved, $4.9 billion, is a small fraction of the $2.3 trillion budget, the selection of targets nonetheless lays out the social priorities of the Bush administration. Nearly all the programs to be eliminated serve children, the poor, the sick, those living in public housing—

Hell, wait that doesn't even make sense in a religious point of view. But if spending money on bullshit like that helps him win the election...

Well the easier thing you could have pointed out that is obviously against my beliefs is the death penalty, which Bush supports, but your example works too. The last election, and probably most elections I will ever be voting in, will be a choice of the lesser of two evils. Whether I vote Democrat or Republican (or third party), I am fairly certain that one of the aspects of the candidate doesn't line up with my line of thinking and will pretty much fail the country in my opinion. Point out any issue that will save the life of an average of 1.5 million people per year that would come closer to completion by voting Kerry rather than Bush. It all comes down to I could care less about the money, the power, or the dominance of the United States, all I want from the president is to give peace to this country and make the country a better place. Perhaps there is no bigger issue at the moment that could make the country a better peace than by working towards saving an average of 1.5 million innocents every year.

If someone who didn't share your faith, ran for president and was 10x better than the rest of the candidates the Christians probably would still vote for whoever seemed 'christian' disreguarding if they are fit or not to run the country.

Well if there was a president that was 10x better than the other candidate than I would vote for him. For example, I voted for Bush who is Methodist (does not share my faith), while not voting for Kerry, who is a follower of my faith, Catholicism. All it comes down to is I care more about the right to life over money.

I was talking about when someone gave a definition of life suiting their view then someone else found another one which opposed it. I don't live in America and couldn't care less about the constitution, neither could the majourity of the world, so is there anyway Tipsy and Lizardbreath could avoid quoting pieces out of it to try prove their points/views?

It's mostly that the last 8 or so pages have been more of a debate on Roe vs Wade more than abortion itself. Most of the reasons not specific to the Constitution of the United States and Roe vs Wade can be found in the first few pages of the thread.

In the long run I believe it is wrong to force women to have a child especially since statistics have shown that Abortion reduces poverty& crime.

Condemning people for crimes they have not yet committed, or taking away their life to stop others... I'm not going to support that. Reducing poverty by killing people in it, I wonder why the 12% of people in the United States below the poverty line haven't been rounded up and killed.

Not to mention the emotional effects of an orphaned/neglected/abused children who aren't loved by their mother's who didn't want to have them in the first place. Tipsy thinks we should force women to have the kids and then give them up for adoption.

Oh yes, let's dwell on the what ifs. What if one baby is a genius that solves world hunger. What if one baby becomes the next president and creates world peace. I would rather exist poorly than not exist. Others probably not exist than exist poorly. That shows one thing, we don't know what the baby would want, so we have no right to take something away from it without its' consent. Hell, I don't think we have the right to take life away from anyone, whether it is an innocent baby or a genocidal maniac who kills millions. I think we should force people to respect the gift of life, no more, no less.

What if the mother doesn't and then abuses/neglects the child? All because somebody else thinks it is morally wrong for her to do this. In the long run; it is not your baby tipsy, you don't have to have it, therefore it is not your say to tell others what to do with regards to their own bodies.

Well if the mother abuses and neglects her child then she will be commuting a crime, have her baby taken away from her, and probably receive punishment. And you are right, it isn't my baby. But then again, it is not the mother's baby either. The baby belongs to no one other than itself. You have no right to take away its' life which [legally] belongs to no one other than the baby. I don't have the right to force anyone to do anything with their body, and I also don't have the right to kill someone. I also don't have the right to stop someone from committing the reproductive process by having sex.

 

[Lizardbreath]

If the baby doesn't have a right to think for itself and refute/do anything about it. It is therefore a thing, not a person.

 

[TheJanitor]

It all comes down to I could care less about the money, the power, or the dominance of the United States, all I want from the president is to give peace to this country and make the country a better place. Perhaps there is no bigger issue at the moment that could make the country a better peace than by working towards saving an average of 1.5 million innocents every year.

How would kerry cause 1.5 million people to die?

All it comes down to is I care more about the right to life over money.

?

 

[Tipsy]

If the baby doesn't have a right to think for itself and refute/do anything about it. It is therefore a thing, not a person.

How does that give you the right to kill it. In most democratic countries (that’s for you thejanitor), it is illegal to discriminate based on age or physical characteristics. And of course an unborn baby is a human because as it has been pointed out before, it is genetically identical to a human.

How would Kerry cause 1.5 million people to die? ?

There are (on average) 1.5 million abortions per year in the United States alone. Not voting against Kerry who supported abortion would work against making abortion illegal.

 

[TroiK-]

No right to kill an innocent being Period...... COVER YOUR WANG BEFORE YOU BANG That is what condoms are for...... Stop killing your kids...

 

[TheJanitor]

There are (on average) 1.5 million abortions per year in the United States alone. Not voting against Kerry who supported abortion would work against making abortion illegal.

When a woman cannot get a abortion in the U.S she will go else where.

 

[Tipsy]

When a woman cannot get a abortion in the U.S she will go else where.

I believe the 'you've got to start somewhere' argument applies here. Either way, as long as what I believe is legalized murders aren't done in the United State I think it would make it a better place.

 

[TheJanitor]

I believe the 'you've got to start somewhere' argument applies here. Either way, as long as what I believe is legalized murders aren't done in the United State I think it would make it a better place.

Not all countries are going to follow suit. Couldn't you of found someone better to vote for that's Anti abortion. Religion tries to stop people from using condoms, people not using them causes this problem in the first place =/.

 

[Tipsy]

Not all countries are going to follow suit. Couldn't you of found someone better to vote for that's Anti abortion. Religion tries to stop people from using condoms, people not using them causes this problem in the first place =/.

You're right, not all countries are going to make abortion illegal, and my primary goal is to make the United States a better place with this. If abortion is made illegal and it saves even one life that otherwise would have been murdered, it would be worth everything. All I can hope is that in other countries, good people step up and stop the legalized murder in their home. And no, there was no one better, if I had voted for a third party candidate who was against abortion, the odds are nearly nonexistent that he would be elected. And what is it with the problem is not using contraceptives? The problem is having sex and then not accepting the responsibility and consequences that comes with it.

 

[TheJanitor]

And what is it with the problem is not using contraceptives? The problem is having sex and then not accepting the responsibility and consequences that comes with it.

No one is going to get people to stop having sex, so... it would be a great help if religion didn't condem contraception. I remember Raya posting a article about schools only teaching abstainment because of religious issues. I'll have to try find it. Here's a random shitty quote:

Kids need the right information to help protect themselves. The US has more than double the teenage pregnancy rate of any western industrialized country, with more than a million teenagers becoming pregnant each year.(2) Teenagers have the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) of any age group, with one in four young people contracting an STD by the age of 21.(3) STDs, including HIV, can damage teenagers' health and reproductive ability. And there is still no cure for AIDS.

Now I'm going to say; crappy abstinence only programs don't work. It's obvious why they want them, it doesn't matter, they don't teach kids what they really need to know then they act surprised when they end up with a baby or STD's. There's not logic in programs like that, they just don't work.

Its critics see this provision as thinly disguised Christian moralism which is at best paternalistic, and at worst a sure-fire way of endangering lives by failing to place sufficient emphasis on condoms.

Shitty sex ed links up with abortion. It would help if he tried to stop the Cause intead of making it worse.