Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Again, 'choice' is part of the responsibility. You make it sound like a consequence- something a bit different. But I would like to know how one can control something you don't want people doing... which is technically- none of anyone's business other than they themselves doing the deed unless you're somehow in on it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

When did I say thaT? I asked some simple questions. Someone should be able to answer them.

[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?

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?

Now which situation are we talking about not wanting her kids? In the absence of clarrification, I will address both. Clearly Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her kids to satisfy her boyfriends desire not to have them, that was murder. That was her intention. In the case of a woman getting an abortion, if she gets one simply because she doesn't want kids, that is legal, but whether or not it is moral is really up to her. You are certainly within your rights to share your opinion, but at the end of the day, it is just that your opinion. I don't see why you can't just condemn the act, but support individual freedom to make the choice. Do you lose sleep at night because of abortions? Are you unable to feed your family because of abortions?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

Again, 'choice' is part of the responsibility. You make it sound like a consequence- something a bit different. But I would like to know how one can control something you don't want people doing... which is technically- none of anyone's business other than they themselves doing the deed unless you're somehow in on it.

Its not anyone's business if they want to have sex. It is when they want to kill an individual.

[Peikko 1,575]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

[The_Dude 1,142]

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.

Again, 'choice' is part of the responsibility. You make it sound like a consequence- something a bit different. But I would like to know how one can control something you don't want people doing... which is technically- none of anyone's business other than they themselves doing the deed unless you're somehow in on it.

Its not anyone's business if they want to have sex. It is when they want to kill an individual.

That is true. A couple is certainly entitled to have any kind of kinky sex in their house that they want to. They cannot however go to a pub, pick up a stranger for even kinkier sex and then shoot them. That my friend is illegal. Now if the woman got pregnant and didnt' want to have the child, then it is nobody's business whether she has an abortion or not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

When did I say thaT? I asked some simple questions. Someone should be able to answer them.

The fact that you asked those questions implies what she said.

[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?

Now which situation are we talking about not wanting her kids? In the absence of clarrification, I will address both. Clearly Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her kids to satisfy her boyfriends desire not to have them, that was murder. That was her intention. In the case of a woman getting an abortion, if she gets one simply because she doesn't want kids, that is legal, but whether or not it is moral is really up to her. You are certainly within your rights to share your opinion, but at the end of the day, it is just that your opinion. I don't see why you can't just condemn the act, but support individual freedom to make the choice. Do you lose sleep at night because of abortions? Are you unable to feed your family because of abortions?

it wouldn't matter to you if I lost sleep over it.

It was murder because her intention was to kill her kids? What if someone has an abortion because her boyfriend didn't want it? You're saying that morality is up to the person it is moral to. So, why can't we kill people and not be looked down apon (even if the law puts us in prison)?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

What if the law says it is one day?

[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?

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?

Now which situation are we talking about not wanting her kids? In the absence of clarrification, I will address both. Clearly Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her kids to satisfy her boyfriends desire not to have them, that was murder. That was her intention. In the case of a woman getting an abortion, if she gets one simply because she doesn't want kids, that is legal, but whether or not it is moral is really up to her. You are certainly within your rights to share your opinion, but at the end of the day, it is just that your opinion. I don't see why you can't just condemn the act, but support individual freedom to make the choice. Do you lose sleep at night because of abortions? Are you unable to feed your family because of abortions?

it wouldn't matter to you if I lost sleep over it.

It was murder because her intention was to kill her kids? What if someone has an abortion because her boyfriend didn't want it? You're saying that morality is up to the person it is moral to. So, why can't we kill people and not be looked down apon (even if the law puts us in prison)?

Really, thats the point your trying to make. You really would be better off taking a philosophy course to learn some critical thinking.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

[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.

When did I say thaT? I asked some simple questions. Someone should be able to answer them.

Yes, you did. You baldly stated that you can't understand how someone can find murder bad if they are not religious. The only difference between a religious person and someone else, is that a religious person believes that the consequences of their actions are ultimately judged by a 'higher' power whereas someone without religions believes these consequences are only judged in the here and now. What's so hard to understand Joe?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[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?

Now which situation are we talking about not wanting her kids? In the absence of clarrification, I will address both. Clearly Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her kids to satisfy her boyfriends desire not to have them, that was murder. That was her intention. In the case of a woman getting an abortion, if she gets one simply because she doesn't want kids, that is legal, but whether or not it is moral is really up to her. You are certainly within your rights to share your opinion, but at the end of the day, it is just that your opinion. I don't see why you can't just condemn the act, but support individual freedom to make the choice. Do you lose sleep at night because of abortions? Are you unable to feed your family because of abortions?

it wouldn't matter to you if I lost sleep over it.

It was murder because her intention was to kill her kids? What if someone has an abortion because her boyfriend didn't want it? You're saying that morality is up to the person it is moral to. So, why can't we kill people and not be looked down apon (even if the law puts us in prison)?

Really, thats the point your trying to make. You really would be better off taking a philosophy course to learn some critical thinking.

Resorting to the copout answer early today.

[Peikko 1,575]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

Very circular, a fetus is not a baby, nor is it an individual. Keep chasing your tail Joe, it's fun to watch