Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I have actually asked my priest about this topic. His response, and i'm paraphrasing is that this is the moral code that we as Catholics live by. We try spread our word, but never IMPOSE upon others the way we choose to live our lives. Now, I suspect he would be considered a liberal rogue within the church, but the fact remains....... why is it your job joe to impose your morality on everyone else? How can you justify projecting your morality into a codified law that will apply to everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular faith? I am of two minds on this subject; for my own personal decision, I am pro-life, I could not even consider killing a 1 month old. But I don't believe that my beliefs, or that of my church should be applied to all people, free will you know. They should be able to kill their kids at will.

That should explain my thinking. Even though I know you know it. Just an edit for illustration, not trying to be funny.

So why the hypocrisy on trying to impose your morality unto others? If it explains your thought process with honesty, that is.

Ok i will.

That makes more than two of us. Its Friday, lets all enjoy a beer after work.

I'll have one with you - sure.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

W/out sperm there is no fertilization. Put on a darn condom. Slip it on, slip it off. Why should a female have to change her body's hormonal balance for our pleasure?

I dont get what your saying in relation to what it was I was trying to say.

Condoms are less invasive on human physiology vs hormonal pills.

Some people make the idiotic 'spread her legs' argument without considering its us horny men seeking sex for the most part, and we have to give ourselves credit for tricking/convincing enough women to let us check the oil on the engine without proper protection.

So basically this had nothing to do with what I said, but Im guessing the woman are really loving you right now.

Put on a condom, take a pill I dont care but its no secret that both could fail and thats a chance you take when you have sex. So she shouldnt spread her legs and he should keep his pecker in his pant if they arent willing to take on the responsibility of what could happen.

Again. People have sex for recreation and have done so for thousands of years (hence the world's oldest profession).

In a modern society that respects the rights on individuals to make reasonable choices - there is no mandate that forces a woman to go through with a pregnancy as punishment for having sex. Nor should there be.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

Its reasonable and moral to send a criminal to jail,no?

it is reasonable if the "crime" commited is actually, legally defined as such. If someone is considered a criminal because of what you believe to be a crime based upon your religious beliefs, then no, it is not reasonable.

I am curious to what I have said that makes you think Im religious. I am not religious but I think you try to make that claim in a attempt to try to discredit me in someway.

That said you missed the point I was trying to make and that is that Hals comment was not accurate(Morality is not reasonable when its imposed), we as a society impose on people what we deem is right and wrong and we punish them accordingly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you aren't religious why are you promoting a puritanical view of sex - and that somehow a punishment must be applied if someone gets pregnant unintentionally?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[The_Dude 1,142]

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

Its reasonable and moral to send a criminal to jail,no?

it is reasonable if the "crime" commited is actually, legally defined as such. If someone is considered a criminal because of what you believe to be a crime based upon your religious beliefs, then no, it is not reasonable.

I am curious to what I have said that makes you think Im religious. I am not religious but I think you try to make that claim in a attempt to try to discredit me in someway.

That said you missed the point I was trying to make and that is that Hals comment was not accurate(Morality is not reasonable when its imposed), we as a society impose on people what we deem is right and wrong and we punish them accordingly.

Whether or not you are religious is immaterial. But the fact remains, if you judge someone to be a criminal when that judgement is based on a subjective set of morals rather than a codefied law, then it is not reasonable. Whether or not those morals are based on religion or not does not change the fact that it is subjective to your own point of view.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Again. People have sex for recreation and have done so for thousands of years (hence the world's oldest profession).

In a modern society that respects the rights on individuals to make reasonable choices - there is no mandate that forces a woman to go through with a pregnancy as punishment for having sex. Nor should there be.

Again. My major concern is saving the fetus if it doesnt put the mothers life at risk. I dont see that as a punisment for having sex I see it as saving a life.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again. People have sex for recreation and have done so for thousands of years (hence the world's oldest profession).

In a modern society that respects the rights on individuals to make reasonable choices - there is no mandate that forces a woman to go through with a pregnancy as punishment for having sex. Nor should there be.

Again. My major concern is saving the fetus if it doesnt put the mothers life at risk. I dont see that as a punisment for having sex I see it as saving a life.

But it *is* a punishment, because you'd essentially be forcing the woman to undergo a pregnancy against her will - and your only response to that is "well that's what you get for opening your legs".

[_Simpson_ 250]

Again. People have sex for recreation and have done so for thousands of years (hence the world's oldest profession).

In a modern society that respects the rights on individuals to make reasonable choices - there is no mandate that forces a woman to go through with a pregnancy as punishment for having sex. Nor should there be.

Again. My major concern is saving the fetus if it doesnt put the mothers life at risk. I dont see that as a punisment for having sex I see it as saving a life.

But it *is* a punishment, because you'd essentially be forcing the woman to undergo a pregnancy against her will - and your only response to that is "well that's what you get for opening your legs".

Well thats what you get for opening your legs??? Thats not what I said!, not even close, I get your being a little sarcastic here but thats really dishonest what your doing here, after all this discussion we have had here you have to know by now that my concern is with the fetus and that I dont want people having sex if there not willing to take responsibility of there actions.

[Peikko 1,575]

You don't have to say it, that's what it boils down to. You can't protect the fetus in isolation Simpson, it just isn't possible.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again. People have sex for recreation and have done so for thousands of years (hence the world's oldest profession).

In a modern society that respects the rights on individuals to make reasonable choices - there is no mandate that forces a woman to go through with a pregnancy as punishment for having sex. Nor should there be.

Again. My major concern is saving the fetus if it doesnt put the mothers life at risk. I dont see that as a punisment for having sex I see it as saving a life.

But it *is* a punishment, because you'd essentially be forcing the woman to undergo a pregnancy against her will - and your only response to that is "well that's what you get for opening your legs".

Well thats what you get for opening your legs??? Thats not what I said!, not even close, I get your being a little sarcastic here but thats really dishonest what your doing here, after all this discussion we have had here you have to know by now that my concern is with the fetus and that I dont want people having sex if there not willing to take responsibility of there actions.

It doesn't matter if you used those exact words - the meaning is exactly the same.

You are still saying that a woman should be forced to undergo an unwanted pregancy if she chooses to have sex for pleasure. Quite simply, you have a puritanical attitude towards human sexuality.

As to taking responsibility it could be reasonably argued that aborting a fetus is one way of doing that. Not the only one of course, but still a viable personal choice.

[The_Dude 1,142]

As to taking responsibility it could be reasonably argued that aborting a fetus is one way of doing that. Not the only one of course, but still a viable personal choice.

I think that is what this whole thing boils down to.... whether you accept that statement or not. It seems quite simple and logical, however morality whether it is based upon religion or not seems to cloud that logic.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If you aren't religious why are you promoting a puritanical view of sex - and that somehow a punishment must be applied if someone gets pregnant unintentionally?

There is a difference between responsibility and punishment.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Whether or not you are religious is immaterial

I know that, it kind of goes without saying, religion came up in this discussion because you tried to write me of as religious.

if you judge someone to be a criminal when that judgement is based on a subjective set of morals rather than a codefied law, then it is not reasonable.

So basically, a person who breaks the law is a criminal. I agree. I dont see a abortion doctor as a murderer or a criminal. I think what he/she is doing is morally wrong, and sure thats subjective. I seek to change the laws within the laws, you wont see me out there bombing a abortion clinic.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Whether or not you are religious is immaterial

I know that, it kind of goes without saying, religion came up in this discussion because you tried to write me of as religious.

if you judge someone to be a criminal when that judgement is based on a subjective set of morals rather than a codefied law, then it is not reasonable.

So basically, a person who breaks the law is a criminal. I agree. I dont see a abortion doctor as a murderer or a criminal. I think what he/she is doing is morally wrong, and sure thats subjective. I seek to change the laws within the laws, you wont see me out there bombing a abortion clinic.

The problem is that if you're against murder - you're religious (in their eyes).

[The_Dude 1,142]

Whether or not you are religious is immaterial

I know that, it kind of goes without saying, religion came up in this discussion because you tried to write me of as religious.

if you judge someone to be a criminal when that judgement is based on a subjective set of morals rather than a codefied law, then it is not reasonable.

So basically, a person who breaks the law is a criminal. I agree. I dont see a abortion doctor as a murderer or a criminal. I think what he/she is doing is morally wrong, and sure thats subjective. I seek to change the laws within the laws, you wont see me out there bombing a abortion clinic.

That brings us back to you trying to force your set of morality on those. Why can't you simply accept that a woman in Ohio getting an abortion because she cannot properly care for the child, and has no desire to carry it to term to give it up for adoption has NOTHING to do with you?