-
can any of them be put back in the bottle ?
anti gunners think we can outlaw all guns and they will disappear.
anti druggers think the drug war might actually succeed some day.
anti abortioners think they can put that back in the bottle too.
when will anyone realize these issues are all the same, impossible to stop.
if there is no way you will give up your freedom, how can you expect others to give up theirs??
-
Is there a purpose to this other than generating inflammatory statements?
-
You're comparing apples and oranges...
Or more specifically, behaviors and inanimate objects.
Why do we think that we can stop murder, or rape, or tyranny?
I hate fatalism.
-
Dear Thorn,
Can you explain the abolition of slavery in various countries?
Or if you think that liberty (or license) somehow just won't be stopped, can you explain why behavior is so heavily regulated in so many parts of the world?
Regarding abortion, I am told that exposure (abandoning unwanted infants, so they would die of cold, hunger and thirst) was eventually outlawed in the Roman Empire. Isn't this analogous?
-
if there is no way you will give up your freedom, how can you expect others to give up theirs??
The people who are attempting to turn America into a socialist hell hole believe their freedom is intrinsically different from that of the commoners: they're the vanguard, the élite, the special exceptions.
-
i just wonder what the rest of you would think, i should have explained but wanted a few gut reactions first.
this guy i know is totally against guns. well totally non violent, and with guns existing he;s not against rights but would rather see them all go away.
so i say to him sure, you think you can just round up all the guns and make them go away and he says "sure"
and i think he believes that. and then so i say well how cna you think we couldn't also get rid of drugs and make abortion illegal also? "
and his reply was what got me thinking i should see how some of you felt.
"that's genie is out of the bottle"
he and i beleive many , think outlawing some of these things is possible while for others it isnt.
NOW= i do hear some of you, the abortion issue is a bit different, and is comparable to slavery in some respects, regardless, i would have left it out myself but it was part of the original statement by my friend, and i believe this to be too often the liberal mindset.
that drugs and abortion won't go away, but guns will.
lets call it this way= drugs won't go away so should be legalized, but guns should be taken away because we can round them all up and end gun violence.
(let's hold our breath as the idiot liberal mentality has no concept of a gun's usefulness in the hands of a 98 lb woman against a 250 lb man)
so what i am getting at is this = we got two sides at a loggerhead over stupid issues, each thinking they can make the other go away.
we made drugs illegal here, so it is produced clandestine, or smuggled in.
the same would and does hold true for guns.
point being i laughed pretty hard when this guy told me guns could be removed from the earth, but other things couldn't be.
at the same time , so many people seem to think certain drugs can be removed from the world, but no matter what guns will exist. equally laughable. a compelete joke. herb is practically legal in CA already.
then you factor in alcohol, caffeine and nicotine remain legal.
personally i feel if drugs were legal, crime would drop so radically gun laws would become practically irrelevant.
you wouldnt have kids in gangs in turf wars, oine of the biggest killers in CA, and primary reason for many of our laws- when a young idiot shoots someone here, even if the shooting wasn't drug dealing related, you can bet his ownership of a gun is.
it is incredibly obvious gun control does very little to stop crime, and does nothing but scare the public.
why can't anyone agree to some sort of trade off. realize we got 2 losing battles, call it a tie.
-
Is there a purpose to this other than generating inflammatory statements?
Nope, I don't think there is. He's looking to stir the pot.
-
He's looking to stir the pot.
AND...
Isn't that - ultimately - what participation in any Internet Forum is all about?
-
Drugs and guns will never go away. Anyone with some basic chemical and machining knowledge can make either.
Abortions will probably never go away, either. There will always be backalley abortions, beating the woman in the stomach, etc.
-
^^^^
jefnvk is absolutely correct.
[preaching to the choir]
Human beings will acquire what ever goods and services they desire at whatever price they deem provides value for cost. The only thing making a good or service illegal does is to raise the price by decreasing the number of suppliers. That prices some folks out of the market for sure but also makes it so that those who want the good bad enough but don't have the price commit other crimes to get the price.
Making goods and services illegal also insures that government gets to hire more enforcers to enforce the laws that make things illegal.
It's not about crime or morality - it's all about control. You can't control an honest man as someone said (Ayn Rand???)
[/preaching to the choir]
-
Most laws are just transparent excuses for the protection-racket state to jail, surveil, "protect", and tax us and provide government jobs for voters and their families. The state creates the crime. The only agreements a society needs to be civilized is 1) to not encroach on other persons or their property and 2) do all you have agreed to do. (Maybury)
Beyond that, virtually all laws create phony crimes requiring more money, cops and courts. Examples: money laundering, prostitution, gambling, self-medicating, tax evasion, drunk-driving, possession of "X" for sale, etc.
All laws prohibiting the possession of common objects should be repealed.
All laws prohibiting behavior that does no direct harm to others should be repealed.
As jefnvk pointed out, the guns genie is "out of the bottle". They are very low-tech.
As to real crime, it will never go away, but that doesn't mean that harmed persons aren't due restitution.
-
nice, some of you are getting the point.
typical the people who think some of this stuff can be made to go away think i am just stirring a pot.
i am trying to get people to come to a compromise
-
Unnecessary laws to control our behavior will never go away. Let's make no effort to stop them.
Me so funny and profound.
-
The problem is agreeing on what behaviors cause no harm to others.
Those who fear guns see even a target pistol as a detriment to society, by promoting shooting as a safe and enjoyable activity that harms no one. After all, guns kill people.
Those that oppose drugs have been convinced that just trying a drug-any street drug-one time will lead the purest person to commit degrading sex acts and atrocities.
And since we cannot agree on the definition of human life and when it begins, what one person considers the disposal of unwanted tissue is cold-blooded murder to another.
And let us not forget the Christian concept of "saving the soul". Isn't it better to constrain someone's personal freedom to commit self-destructive behavior if it will prevent eternal damnation? If removing the existence of temptation sees more people to heaven, then restricting the rights of adults to do as they please isn't really a restriction, it's actually an expansion of freedom. (I don't think Orwell was alluding just to government in 1984.)
But if you can get people to agree on make constitutes "direct harm", then...
-
And since we cannot agree on the definition of human life and when it begins
then how can we have laws against murder?
-
Because we agree that a life outside the womb is human. The law distinguishes between abortion and infanticide.
-
then how can we have laws against murder?
Because we agree that a life outside the womb is human.
Who does? The Netherlands is practising involuntary euthanasia. Why don't we? If we stop agreeing that life outside the womb is human, will we stop protecting other types of human life? In any case, everyone agrees that fetuses are human. It is now supposed that they are not "persons."
The Supreme Court abandoned its duty in Roe v Wade, when it said, "We don't know what life is, so you will have to decide for yourself." How can they decide murder cases when they don't know what life is?
How many laws will we repeal, just because some people disagree with them? By this standard, slavery should never have been banned.
-
All of which is my point. We cannot agree on what behaviors affect only ourselves. And we cannot let the behavior of others go by without attempting to "correct" it.
-
That's your point? You didn't make it very clearly, if at all.
-
By this standard, slavery should never have been banned.
Red herring. In the case of slavery, there is a very real victim of the crime being committed. The same could be said for involuntary euthanasia and (depending on your view) abortion.
-
We cannot agree on what behaviors affect only ourselves.
But isn't this belief predicated on buying into the culture of victimhood?
-
Red herring. In the case of slavery, there is a very real victim of the crime being committed. The same could be said for involuntary euthanasia and (depending on your view) abortion.
So it's a red herring from your point of view, but not mine? Funny way to argue.
A fetus, an embryo, a zygote, a blastocyst; whatever we choose to call it, to say that it is not a "very real victim" is to reject all we have learned about preborn life with the aid of modern medical technology. The tools that tell us about the child's heartbeat, brain activity, sensation of pain, and so on. It is akin to Ron Reagan, Jr.'s rant about embryonic stem cells. Mr. Reagan's reasoning was that "it doesn't look or act human, therefore it's a lower form of life we can exploit for our ends." Well, that has been said about a lot of people in the past few-hundred years - Africans, Aborigines, etc. This reasoning rejects the DNA molecule, that tells us this form of life is human, and unique from its mother, or any other specimen. It rejects the only bright line we have to mark the beginning of a new life - conception. Implantation, viability, birth; none of these make any sense as indicators of the beginning of life.
I suppose when you say, "very real victim," you mean one that can be seen and heard, and empathized with. In effect, if the victim's plight doesn't tug at my heart-strings, then he can be ignored. Again, we are left with the same subjectivism as Roe v. Wade - laws based on feelings, guesses, and public perception. No thank you.
-
ARGH! i should have left this 2 genies. abortion is way too complicated.
-
You grow in wisdom, child.
Boot to the head!
-
I've always tried to adopt a libertarian view: if it doesn't directly harm someone else, there should be no law against it. Let's run a few down:
-You want to own guns? Fine... just owning (even carrying) doesn't hurt anyone...
-You want to smoke (be it tobacco or marijuana)? Fine... just doing so doesn't hurt others
*And let's stop the "second hand smoke" debate, or the "operating a vehicle while under the influence" issue (there're laws against that, and they make sense)...*
-You want to hire a prostitute? Well... she's setting the price, and it isn't causing anyone harm...
*This is assuming someone who decides to work as a prostitute on their own, not something that's forced...*
Nice and easy, right? Abortion is the one issue (to me) that is impossible to solve using this reasoning: you can argue "infringment" either way (allowing abortion infringes the child, outlawing it infringes the woman)...
-
Abortion is the one issue (to me) that is impossible to solve using this reasoning: you can argue "infringment" either way
Yes, HR, one can argue anything. But if the preborn are human persons, then what's to argue? Furthermore, how can a woman be "infringed" if she chose to have sex in the first place? Yes, I know, "What about rape?" Well, rape shouldn't lead us to murder an innocent third party.
The point being, the significant question is whether the preborn are human persons. If they are, a mother has no more right to kill her child than I do.
Should I even go into the life-of-the-mother debate?
-
Hunter Rose, yes. i feel about the same.
abortion shouldnt have been in the thread, totally sidetracked the point, but i was starting from what i heard verbatim. i knew from the beginning it would be a problem but oh well.
it only fits the argument to pro abortion people. actually to them it should work really well.
they want to kill their babies, we want to be able to kill anyone who tries to kill us.
my personal belief is if people cared enough, we wouldnt need anti abortion laws, people simply would choose not to have them. in the meantime, the baby is spared this life and goes to Heaven, the mother takes her chances on being forgiven.
-
>But if the preborn are human persons, then what's to argue? Furthermore, how can a woman be "infringed" if she chose to have sex in the first place? Yes, I know, "What about rape?" Well, rape shouldn't lead us to murder an innocent third party.<
Which is where we hit the major brick wall: do we "murder an innocent third party", or "condemn a woman to endure 9 months of pregnancy in addition to the rape"?
This is not an issue that will EVER be resolved, as long as there are humans on Earth.
Now, just to play Devil's Advocate here... what about a woman who would be handicapped by a pregnancy, and uses every possible form of birth control, yet still gets pregnant (failure of condom, sponge, whatever)? Shouldn't she have a right to terminate the pregnancy (assume it's caught in the first month)? Maybe by having ready access to a "morning after pill"? And think about it hard, because I know the person in question. And PLEASE refrain from religious reasoning: she isn't Christian...
-
Maybe by having ready access to a "morning after pill"?
From what I understand, the morning after pill does its thing before it is positive that the fertilized egg is going to split and grow. So, in my opinion, it is OK. However, once the egg splits, and starts to grow, then any abortion should be completely off the table. Unless we get into another scenario, in which the mother will die as a result of giving birth, in which case abortion may be OK.
However, for actions, there are consequences. Choosing to have sex has the wide known potential consequence of pregnancy, even with known preventative measures. Just saying that the pregnancy is something you don't wan't, I don't think is justification enough.
-
>However, for actions, there are consequences. Choosing to have sex has the wide known potential consequence of pregnancy, even with known preventative measures. Just saying that the pregnancy is something you don't wan't, I don't think is justification enough.<
Ok... so we have a young woman, married, who would be crippled by a pregnancy. One last piece of info (which I forgot to add): the doctors would NOT preform any type surgery that would render her unable to have kids (tubal ligation, etc) because she may change her mind about having kids. Are you saying that this woman, shouldn't have the right to an abortion if whatever birth control was available didn't work?
-
do we "murder an innocent third party", or "condemn a woman to endure 9 months of pregnancy in addition to the rape"?
You cannot be serious. Rape is awful. To be reminded of this rape every day for nine months is a terrible thing to bear. I also acknowledge the awful choice of raising the child of your tormenter, or giving him up for adoption. But surely this is preferrable to the murder of the innocent. Remember, this discussion assumes the unborn child is a human person. If it were otherwise, who would care what happens to a clump of cells in someone else's body?
Moreover, who is "condemning" this woman to pregnancy? It is the rapist, not the law that forbids abortion.
-
>Moreover, who is "condemning" this woman to pregnancy? It is the rapist, not the law that forbids abortion.<
OK... so the law would be an excessory after the fact?
My wife also pointed out a possible twist: what about a child that's raped? Would the resulting baby be any less human? Should the raped child be forced to endure the torment of a prgnancy?
And here, I'm NOT playing Devil's Advocate: BOTH sides need to stop being absolutist. The pro-choice crowd wants abortion on demand, the pro-life wants every abortion made illegal. In this one issue, compromise needs to happen (and never will)...
-
I have often thought on the issue of abortion, though as a male, I can never have one (yet). IMHO, we as a society should apply the same criterion for the beginning of human life as we do for the end. That being brain function. If a person is dead when the brain no longer works, then prior to the brain working, the mass of tissue is not yet a person.
I fear this would please neither side in this debate, but such is life.
-
HR,
What is an excessory? Why would we use the age of your mother, and/or whether she was raped, to determine whether the law protected your life? Do you think I will feel more sorry for a child than an adult, so I will change my mind? Perhaps you base your politics on your mushy little feelings, but I don't.
The law can do nothing to reverse rape or its consequences. If the law allowed abortion in this case, it would only permit the mother to become not only a rape victim but a murderer as well. This is not a solution to the problem. There is no solution.
The pro-life side is absolutist you say? Well forgive us if we go to extremes to see that we don't have a class of people that can be murdered with impunity. I suppose the abolitionists were absolutists as well.
-
Ya know... I think I'm going to leave this part of the thread alone now. It's been stated that the abortion issue shouldn't have been there, and it makes normally rational people rather irrational
-
HR,
Don't go until I try to explain why abortion is not a morally valid option for your friend. Let's summarize her position, which is a terrible one. She wants to have a fulfilling romantic relationship and enjoy sex, yet the only way she can do it, without harm to herself, is to be prepared to kill any child that might result. This is one of those cruel hands we are so often dealt in life, much like rape. Killing one's own child is not the solution here. Unless this woman is willing to endure this handicap you speak of, she must not have children. She wouldn't be the first person in history who has suffered for his or her offspring, and wouldn't be the last to endure childlessness.
Nor would she be the first to endure abstinence. It is a hard principle, but one forced on us by nature, that sexual intercourse must never be embarked upon if one is not willing to accept the likely consequences of pregnancy.
Out of time, I'll get back to you.
-
Heh... I was baiting on this one, Fistful. Just for those not paying attention, let me outline the person's situation:
-she has a back problem, that would mean carrying a child to term would leave her crippled
-no doctor was willing to preform any form of surgical "sterilization" on her when she was younger (often claiming she "might change her mind"), and can't afford such now
-she's happily married
Now I should point something out here: this is NOT simply a "friend". The above is my wife...
>Don't go until I try to explain why abortion is not a morally valid option for your friend. Let's summarize her position, which is a terrible one. She wants to have a fulfilling romantic relationship and enjoy sex, yet the only way she can do it, without harm to herself, is to be prepared to kill any child that might result. This is one of those cruel hands we are so often dealt in life, much like rape. Killing one's own child is not the solution here. Unless this woman is willing to endure this handicap you speak of, she must not have children. She wouldn't be the first person in history who has suffered for his or her offspring, and wouldn't be the last to endure childlessness.
Nor would she be the first to endure abstinence. It is a hard principle, but one forced on us by nature, that sexual intercourse must never be embarked upon if one is not willing to accept the likely consequences of pregnancy.<
Ok... so my wife and I, because we're "not willing to accept the consequences", should accept that we need to block one of the most fundamental drives of the human animal, because your moral stance is that life begins at conception? That this wonderful woman should instead be forced to live her life alone (maybe as a nun?), because she physically CAN'T ENDURE A PREGNANCY???
Compassionate.
-
If those who argue so much against abortion weren't also so opposed to contraception, it might make their position more palatable.
-
And now, I'm leaving the topic of "abortion" out of this. Sorry about the thread hijack, OP...
-
Anti-bubba,
The issues of abortion and birth control are often one and the same. Except for Catholics who oppose birth control for its own sake (which is a seperate issue), anti-abortionists only oppose those forms of birth control that we believe kills a fertilized egg, which is a human being. This is called "consistency."
Hunter Rose,
You keep upping the emotional ante on your lines of argument. Do you think I or my arguments will dissolve into a puddle of pity and tell you that murdering your own child is ok for you, since your life is so hard? Or do you wish to make me, and my position, appear pitiless? You question my compassion because I would not allow you to murder an infant. A very sad trick your heart is playing on you.
I do not feel baited one bit. Am I to shrink in embarassment that it is your wife we've discussed? Why? Do you think I am ashamed to see my beliefs affect the lives of others? I hope I am not so shallow. I have blocked my "most fundamental drive" for 28 years, until I married, and I know how awful it is to contemplate life without that. Even so, sex is not a right, nor a physical need. But this is not about my moral stance, sir, but the life of your own flesh and blood. It is about a concept basic to society and to morality - the protection of innocent life, especially that of infants. This is certainly not something anti-abortionists have dreamt up to complicate your life.
Again, you blame anti-abortionists for the hard facts of life. Pregnancy is not a condition we can simply switch off, and sex is how it occurs. If every legislative goal that I had came to pass, I would not be forcing this condition on your wife. It is not my fault, and I cannot do anything about it. But I can attempt to keep this from being a justification for murdering innocent children. Perhaps murder seems a strong word. So be it. This is a life-and-death issue, and I must call a spade what it is.
-
If those who argue so much against abortion weren't also so opposed to contraception, it might make their position more palatable.
Who is saying that? The only person I have ever heard say that is real hardline Catholics. Unless, of course, anyone against abortion is automatically a right-wing religious nut.
-
I should address abortion to save the life of the mother. I am open on this point, and can still be argued into one or the other camp. I am married, but have no children yet, and can certainly understand the pain of losing my wife, only to gain a child that I will have to raise by myself. Yet isn't it the primary characteristic of a parent to put thier child first, even to the point of death? In what other scenario would we find it acceptable for a man or woman to allow their child to die, to save their own life? Additionally, allowing a pregnancy to come to term is not to kill the mother. It is only to allow the child to live, with the knowledge that the mother will probably die in the process, as nature takes its course. Aborting the child, however, kills one party for certain.
-
Ok... third time, then I simply unsub the thread...
Fistful (and others)... drop the bloody point of abortion! The OP has already stated that he shouldn't have included it. I've said (a couple times now) that *I'M* dropping it. You feel the need to continue it, and continue arguing that one person's morals trump another's. We could go on with it forever... and neither of us change the other's mind. So let's get back to the OP's oringinal point...
-
Thanks, Blackburn, I love you, too. I wonder what you find so funny about infanticide and people desperate enough to consider it.
Hunter Rose,
Now you want to talk about one person's morals trumping another's - after you have spent the last few posts insisting on your own moral beliefs. Well, you've opened another off-topic can of worms.
-
Fistful, that's essentially what ANY discussion of abortion becomes: "my morals and definitions trump yours!"...
You be guided by yours, I'll be guided by mine, and we'll call it even. And that'll be all for me, since we can't get back onto the Ops topic...
-
But this topic is so much meatier.
Was there something about drugs and guns or something? Oh, yeah. I remember now. So since drugs and guns will never go away, they should be legal. What was the cost-benefit analysis of illegal drugs, again, compared to guns?
that's essentially what ANY discussion of abortion becomes: "my morals and definitions trump yours!"...
Oh, you mean like most discussions about most serious topics? So, morals are not relevant, or what? We can't agree on moral issues, so there's no point in arguing? What are you saying?
-
So, morals are not relevant, or what? We can't agree on moral issues, so there's no point in arguing?
Often times, the people bringing up that morals cannot be used in abortion arguments, are the same that argue that something a political enemt is doing is immoral. In other words, morals are only good in an argument if they are my morals.
*Not saying anyone here has argued this way, but it is a trend I notice in mainstream politics. One shot: We should not debate abortion on your morals, the next screeen: This is an immoral war, we should leave immediately.