Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[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.

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?

Why can't you see that the woman who drove the car with her kids still inside into the river and drown them has nothing to do with you either?

[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?

Why can't you see that the woman who drove the car with her kids still inside into the river and drown them has nothing to do with you either?

Are you seriously that disconnected from reality? Despite your efforts, there is no correlation between the two.

[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.

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?

Why can't you see that the woman who drove the car with her kids still inside into the river and drown them has nothing to do with you either?

Are you seriously that disconnected from reality? Despite your efforts, there is no correlation between the two.

Absolutely there is. Why should she have to be punished with kids if she feels she doesn't want them?

[_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.

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

Yes true, if only we could get them to open there eyes.

[Peikko 1,575]

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).

Yes true, if only we could get them to open there eyes.

Poppycock.

[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.

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

Yes true, if only we could get them to open there eyes.

The conclussion is drawn because that is a moral judgement based upon a religious ideal. Not a bad thing per se, but can you really say that you independently came to the conclussion that murder was bad without the aide of some sort of religious or religious based literature?

Joe.... that is insane and illogical. You are comparing an insane woman who killed her children to keep her boyfriend to a legal procedure. I propose this again, why can't you hold your personal beliefs to your own decisions and let others decide for themselves?

[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?

There is a difference between responsibility and punishment.

Yeah but on this topic - you seem to believe that responsiblity ought to be imposed (hence I call it punishment).

I believe responsibility comes from giving the individual the freedom to do what is in their own best interests.

[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).

Yes true, if only we could get them to open there eyes.

The conclussion is drawn because that is a moral judgement based upon a religious ideal. Not a bad thing per se, but can you really say that you independently came to the conclussion that murder was bad without the aide of some sort of religious or religious based literature?

Joe.... that is insane and illogical. You are comparing an insane woman who killed her children to keep her boyfriend to a legal procedure. I propose this again, why can't you hold your personal beliefs to your own decisions and let others decide for themselves?

So how does an atheist know that murder is bad?

What if she didn't do it for any other reason than just not wanting her kids?

[Peikko 1,575]

Joe, are you really that naive? Truthfully?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Joe, are you really that naive? Truthfully?

You didn't answer my questions

[Peikko 1,575]

I can't believe that you are that devoid of critical thinking skills that you can suggest that ethics and morality can only be derived from some notion of sin against a 'higher' power.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Responsibility also includes making choices not to continue with the pregnancy if it were to occur.

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.

Nor will there be, likely.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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).

Yes true, if only we could get them to open there eyes.

Open our eyes to what?

That using religious morality about sex is immaterial to whether or not you are personally religious?

No $hit.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

It might not be reasonable to you to accept that the reasoning behind individual issues can be different in applicability from one example to the next because they are exactly that- different.

[_Simpson_ 250]

That brings us back to you trying to force your set of morality on those.

That bring us back to the point I was trying to make all along. Society forces its sets of morality on people as long as the laws permit. Laws as they stand dont yet permit this, that said I would like to give a shout out to Ireland.

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?

We should only be concerned if it directly affects us, disagree! I think criminals in Ohio should go to jail and I would be up in arms about that too if they werent convicting them.

When is a abortion a better choice than adoption and why?

Edited October 16, 2009 by _Simpson_