Abortion

[Napoleon Ier]

You're not a facist - as you say, you believe in free trade and capitalism (difficult for a genuine fascist to believe in either).

But your Achilles heel, Nap, is this religious/cultish nonsense.
Thats the only reason you're against abortion. Have the guts to admit it.

Yes, he may not be a fascist, but he sure is totalitarian when it comes to social issues.

No, I believe individual rights. You have a serious misconception of the abortion debate. If I perceive the foetus to be human, then surely it is incompatible with a free society for his rights to be ignored?

Of course, the death penalty I advocate is merely a temporary, deterrent (and hence justified) measure. It's really of no relevance, however. Let's forget, it was half facetious in any case...

Now, social issues and economic are intrinsically related...a minimum wage (blatant arbitrary restriction of capitalist acts between consenting parties), social or economic? Eh, snorri? Is it, furthermore, any co-incidence that free societies have always economically been free, as well? To subjugate individuals economically is to subjugate them socially. The two fields are indissociable. The freedom to establish trading relations with whom I wish, if they consent, is justified in the same way as the freedom for you to have sexual relations with whomever you want to,if they consent. The moral grounds are the same-economic issues are a mere, blurred subset of social freedoms.

On the issue of gay rights, I've explained countless times how marriage isn't a right but a societal, collective grant, a social institution which only normal couples can access. Paraphilic couples, (be they homosexual, incestuous, bestial, paedophilic, or whatever) cannot access it. It isn't, in short, a rights issue.

Now, were I to impose a Catholic state, snorri, you would be banned from taking the Lord's name in vain, masturbating, eating meat on fridays during Lent, viewing pornography, and forced to attend regular Mass, confess your sins, say ten Hail Marys ever night and go on pilgrimage once a year.

But I don't advocate that...I only advocate a free society which is by nature and necessarily respectful of individual rights. There's room for disagreement within that (I recognise the rights of the foetus, differ on the issue of society's right to stable instituions of marriage...), but fundamentally, I am libertarian, you are, sadly not.

I support people's rights to do as they please so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights to do the same, you, however, have delusional dreams of a common societal good toward which resources and labor are collectively and if necessary coercivelly. directed.

Ah, more bullshit from you. Ignoring the actual points.

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

The fact is I do...hence, you have no justification for calling me totalitarian. My God snorri, are you drunk or something? It's like I'm arguing with a retard here...did you even read my post? The wholepoint was to prove that pro-life and libertarian views are compatile, not that abortion is wrong.

[tzor]

Well, whatever. It's like setting up an IED by a roadside. You're not sure imperialist capitalist western american pigs will get blown to bits by it, but you bloody well hope it will if they come past it.

No it's not. It's more like not providing food and shelter to someone passing by your house. Or refusing to donate an organ when you are discovered to be a donor match. It is therefore not an action but a lack of action. The use of the morning after pill in this sense is like locking the door to ensure the person won't break in.

You might argue this is a case of negligent homicide but even then it's a hard argument to make.

[jiminski]

I see...so there are no rights? So laws against murder, are, for you, wrong?

Please shut up and pick up a book, you waste of oxygen, your pathetic attempts at looking like you can debate a point are embarrassing you and painful for me to read.

hehe you always resort to a little tantrum in prose, when you are losing! Calm down and you may find an argument through the settling red-mists of hate filled nonsense.

[MeDeFe]

Of course, the death penalty I advocate is merely a temporary, deterrent (and hence justified) measure. It's really of no relevance, however. Let's forget, it was half facetious in any case...

I was always under the impression that death is pretty final and can be quite relevant to the people involved, anyway, so you're saying the death penalty is quite alright as a deterrent as long as it does not become lawful permanently. Or did I misunderstand something there?
If I did not, why's it ok for the state to kill people at one point in time but not at an other?

[suggs]

please do not resort to gibberish as a debating tool.

...and its goodbye from Suggs.

[tzor]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

[jiminski]

please do not resort to gibberish as a debating tool.

...and its goodbye from Suggs.

hehe not you Suggsy! you use gibberish as an intellectual scalpel! and also just for the damn, glorious sake of Gibber!

[suggs]

All praise Gibber, for he has provided me with all my best convos.

[Napoleon Ier]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Now watch as this rare and unique specimen of snorrarsis hollandis fudges an attempt at making moral relativism justify abortion and the holocaust but not the holocaust for the 21st century.

[MeDeFe]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

[Napoleon Ier]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

Then there are of course also the ones who consider jews as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

[got tonkaed]

I dont think anyone denies that if it was eventually understood somehow that life began at conception that there would be a lot wrong with abortion. nor do i think that the most pro-choice oriented advocate hopes that more people would get abortions.

Having said all that, there just isnt really any reason other than the ease of applying it as a starting point of beginning life at conception. Someone once put it as, since its the first time there was something that there was not, its the only point worth using as a starter. This just really isnt persuasive enough to essentially force people into a lifestyle choice that in some cases (though certainly not every case) something not planned for (planned in the sense that precautions were taken in order to avoid pregnancy, not oops i didnt realize you could get pregnant if you had unprotected sex) that drastically alters the course of someone who is currently living.

Until we can know more the human condition and more about the nature of some of the things that make us human (something that in the case of the fetus would be almost impossible to figure out) there is no need to attribute equality with living human beings, over what amounts to something of a religious notion of a soul, that likewise isnt something we can grasp entirely.

As a result i think the dehumanization process...something pretty complex, is an awful analogy to use here, since as you suggest if it is anything it is a sin of activity. Dehumanization as a matter of course requires activity and yet a few posts ago you essentially took a stance that a preemptive move toward allowing the "life" to begin was not as much a sin of activity but a sin of inactivity. Its awful hard to suggest you can dehumanize something which lacks so many characteristics of the human condition, that such comparisons seem reaching at best.

[suggs]

So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't get it. Western and Nothern Europe have the lowest abortion-rates and also the most liberal policies, while the countries with the most strict policies have the highest rates.

Wouldn't you conclude from that that the best way to reduce abortion-rates is making it legal?

The link is education. Most countries with very strict anti-abortion rules also dissalow sex education.

Education is the answer.

With education, we must decide, as a society, the absolute bounds of acceptability. The law should only reinforce those bounds. Abortion will always be tricky, because there is a wide range of feelings on just what is OK. That alone ... the mere fact that so many thinking, caring and even people of faith (I don't just mention Christians) can have varied opinions... is enough to raise real doubts as to the wisdom of having the government decide these issues.

Further, it is real easy to think you know the answers, think you know what is right, what you would do "if"... BUT, when you find yourself having to make these decisions, the picture often changes. (in ALL directions!)

[got tonkaed]

So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

In as far as i have any say on the issue, i am pro-choice.

[jiminski]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Now watch as this rare and unique specimen of snorrarsis hollandis fudges an attempt at making moral relativism justify abortion and the holocaust but not the holocaust for the 21st century.

well it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel....

quote a few random philosophers out of context and call 'game'! good tactic ... I am sure Snorri won;t be able to evade that peace of genius and I forgot the pat on the back from the blindly faithful, searching for an ally.

This is not about the embryo being 'human' it is clearly not but it 'may' have the potential to be so. What this is about is your perception that at the point of conception the collection of cells has a soul.

You believe, we do not! but in your belief you sentence millions of children to impoverished and pain-filled lives!
Damn your arrogance! Damn your sanctimony! Damn your desire to be right' in the face of this wrong!
Because through all, you Damn them!


And for what? the lie of bliss in the afterlife? hah! what a joke! Some of these poor little souls are so damaged that 'Paradise' would be cheap folly; the offer at never-ending pain, in an unrepairable psyche!

Christ forgive them! for they know not what they talk about!

[suggs]

So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

In as far as i have any say on the issue, i am pro-choice.

You still had to caveat it. Fair play to yer, squire!

[Napoleon Ier]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Now watch as this rare and unique specimen of snorrarsis hollandis fudges an attempt at making moral relativism justify abortion and the holocaust but not the holocaust for the 21st century.

well it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel....

quote a few random philosophers out of context and call 'game'! good tactic ... I am sure Snorri won;t be able to evade that peace of genius and I forgot the pat on the back from the blindly faithful, searching for an ally.

This is not about the embryo being 'human' it is clearly not but it 'may' have the potential to be so. What this is about is your perception that at the point of conception the collection of cells has a soul.

You believe, we do not! but in your belief you sentence millions of children to impoverished and pain-filled lives!
Damn your arrogance! Damn your sanctimony! Damn your desire to be right' in the face of this wrong!
Because through all, you Damn them!


And for what? the lie of bliss in the afterlife? hah! what a joke! Some of these poor little souls are so damaged that 'Paradise' would be cheap folly; the offer at never-ending pain, in an unrepairable psyche!

Christ forgive them! for they know not what they talk about!

Surely though, some standard by which we can measure personhood must exist...for if, as you have deluded yourself into thinking with your patronizing politically correct nonsense, it is only if you accept some vague notion of a "soul" that you can define a human, then all killing is legitimized?

[got tonkaed]

So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

In as far as i have any say on the issue, i am pro-choice.

You still had to caveat it. Fair play to yer, squire!

If anything, i am often consistent to a fault...

[PLAYER57832]

So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

Yes, there is.

It is called having one standard for one's self ... and accepting that not everyone else believes in the same morals. One can be seriously opposed to an activity, but still not think laws are the answer.

[MeDeFe]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

Then there are of course also the ones who consider jews as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

And for what reasons would you consider an adult jew as a non-person? With a fetus it's fairly easy, a complete lack of self-consciousness is one reason why a fetus might not be considered a person. Go back to the very early fetal or the embryonal stages and there's not even a nervous system to perceive anything with, much less any thought processes without a brain. But tell me, why would you not consider a jew a person?

[Napoleon Ier]

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

Then there are of course also the ones who consider jews as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

And for what reasons would you consider an adult jew as a non-person? With a fetus it's fairly easy, a complete lack of self-consciousness is one reason why a fetus might not be considered a person. Go back to the very early fetal or the embryonal stages and there's not even a nervous system to perceive anything with, much less any thought processes without a brain. But tell me, why would you not consider a jew a person?

Why would you, by the standards given in the above definition, not consider an adult comatose a human?

[got tonkaed]

So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

Yes, there is.

It is called having one standard for one's self ... and accepting that not everyone else believes in the same morals. One can be seriously opposed to an activity, but still not think laws are the answer.

I think suggs was more just trying to get me to a position...its sort of a forum game we play, where i post a bunch or even a post about an issue and suggs tries to get me to make a definitive statement...which i attempt to not do.

You can join if youd like, but its mostly a two person game (though sometimes some other people play too).

[got tonkaed]

Why would you, by the standards given in the above definition, not consider an adult comatose a human?

While i would still consider the person human (though i think this is less relevant when you bring up the distinction of something once it is out of the womb) I would have far less of a problem ending the life of a person who will never regain consciousness, than a person who still does.

Since thats what your question should be, and not what your question actually is.

[jiminski]

Surely though, some standard by which we can measure personhood must exist...for if, as you have deluded yourself into thinking with your patronizing politically correct nonsense, it is only if you accept some vague notion of a "soul" that you can define a human, then all killing is legitimized?

gibberish.. you take vast leaps in order to get where you wish to get to. There being no soul makes all murder legitimate, silly boy!
I understand that your life is based upon faith in an intellectually untenable proposition, however you should try not to let it infect all of your debating. If you do this, you undermine the validity of the debate. It becomes all one way traffic punctuated by your ill-conceived rants and professing that knowing a few superficially impressive phrases, gives you intellectual superiority.. .. Well perhaps you are, in fact, smarter than you appear to be here! You must try to prove it and not expect that just because you say it and have a little hissy-fit that it is justified to all.

Frankly all i see is anger, frustration and very little ability to express what you are talking about.