Anyone know if anyone has every sued their mom for giving them Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Is it possible? The only argument that would make it impossible would be that they were not a legal person when the damages occured. For example, could a black man sue a state that had condoned slavery because as a result he was born poor or into a society where discrimination was prevalent? I bet, however, that someone might be able to sue a doctor for giving their mom some wrong medication that caused them to have birth defects. Just saying that there are undefined areas here. Could the majority of Americans choose to give an unborn fetus legal personhood. I think a liberal would say yes because the definition of personhood for them does not arise from a higher authority. Are there things that liberals generally think are wrong that might not in a particualr instance be pragmatically bad? Sex with a child? Polygamy? Suicide? I’m just asking people to be creative here, I’m not saying sex with a child is not pragmatically bad or that it doesn’t (necessarily) infringe on the rights of individuals, but sex between people of various ages and age differences is legally different in different states.
This is some very interesting stuff. Good points made by several people. Cory 
I do think that homosexuals should be able to have civil unions, they just can’t call it marriage. Marriage is man and woman. Civil Unions will can be man and man, bird and man, man and dog… Heck maybe even NAMBLA will wanna get it on it…
With the sanctity of marriage laws in many states (38 if I recall) it puts this movement in a very interesting position. But hey… Gay people can do what they want, except bastardize normal social conventions. They already ruined the “gay” word. But really… I think its just a way for the weirdos (GLTBA - Gay, Lesbian, Trangender, Bisexual Alliance) to get attention to their “plight”.
I just think abortion is an anomally in the laws. You can be charged with murder for killing a fetus, get benefits for being pregnant, and all sorts of other various things… But then you can kill the kid yourself. Weird. Of course, health of the mother should come into account, but I think that is much, much rarer than its made out to be.
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
This is some very interesting stuff. Good points made by several people. Cory
I do think that homosexuals should be able to have civil unions, they just can’t call it marriage. Marriage is man and woman. Civil Unions will can be man and man, bird and man, man and dog… Heck maybe even NAMBLA will wanna get it on it…[/quote]
If it’s the same thing (civil unions) as marriage, why not just friggin’ call it marriage? What you are holding on to here is a name… nothing more.
This unfortunate paragraph smacks of that special brand of bigotry that we see in Alabama. 
I’m messin’ with ya dude, but seriously… I think the fact that you think gaiety is bastardizing “normal” social conventions is interesting. What is normal? And why is your version so fucking great? Honestly now, I know this might be hard for you to wrap your brain around, but those “weirdos” do have a plight. There’s a reason they have alliances and whatnot – it has nothing to do with destroying the fiber of society as we all know it. It’s tough enough growing up all f’d up emotionally to the point where you question your friggin’ gender, but to have to deal with the rest of the societal pressures when you’re messed up already is too much for some of them. That’s why they seek out other freaks like themselves to get some feeling of belonging somewhere. This is not a bad thing. They are not hurting anyone.
I will definitely agree that abortion laws are somewhat uneven, but I think that’s just a consequence of being laws that have such a large grey area to define and oversee. I’m sure we will see refinements to these laws in the future to “unweird” them a little.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Anyone know if anyone has every sued their mom for giving them Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Is it possible? [/quote]
No. It’s not. At least I haven’t found a case where that has occurred. I did some looking around for it last year because I would love nothing more than to nail my step-sibling’s mother to the fucking wall. Granted, trailer park bitch wouldn’t have anything to take, but it’d be fun to crucify her anyway. Needless to say, I’m not a big fan of her.
There are really two problems with bringing a suit for this. First, you have a problem showing causation. Personally, I think a good lawyer could get around this, especially with a couple of good experts.
What’s the second? ROE V. WADE! Yeah, bet you “it’s just about a woman’s right” people didn’t see that one coming. Basically, since the Court found that the fetus was a part of a mother’s realm of privacy, what she does to it is her own business.
Granted, if you’re a doctor and screw something up that injures a baby, you can be sued for damages - including, as I remember it, wrongful birth in some places. Basically, the argument is that you’d be better off dead. Think about that.
Cory089
Just checking. Are you saying that in Roe v. Wade, the supreme court specifically RULED that an unborn fetus was not a person, or did they just say that the woman’s right to privacy outweighed the state’s rights to control abortion? Someone told me that a poll taken somewhere found that if american’s were asked to vote on the question “is a fetus a person” that it came out 60%+ yes right now. An amendment worded that way might get through, especially considering 3/4 of state legislatures could pass it. 38 out of 50 states already have recently added “sanctity of marriage” laws. On a state basis, over 3/4 of state legislatures are conservative.
[quote]hspder wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
- Let’s remove marriage from the realm of law, and let the government give tax breaks for anything it wants to that pragmatically improves society.
Yap, that is exactly what I was thinking too.[/quote]
I guessing that you guys haven’t been married yet. Marriage is not about tax breaks. It’s something we do to provide a measure of security to another person… financial and emotional security. There HAS to be governmental involvement in this, there has to be a penalty of some kind for breaking the contract, or otherwise the promise and the security has no substance.
[quote]2) Abortion. Good points about smoking and alcohol. I’ll have to think about that, but can’t someone who intentionally kills another’s fetus be charged with murder (or some crime) in most states.
I believe that’s true, yes. However, that’s very different, because it is very easy to argue that murdering the fetus also causes extreme harm (psychological and maybe also physical) to the mother too. So even if the fetus is not considered a person per se, the mother is also harmed and she is definitely a person. Hence it is a clear crime.[/quote]
Nothing to add here. Good stuff.
Hmm… This is something that a judge should have no authority over. A woman’s body is just that. We can argue about when life begins til we’re blue in the face, but how can we expect a judge to a)have enough time to do this in the first place, b)be wise enough to know when a particular abortion incident is a good/bad idea, c)not let their own personal beliefs interfere with any decision at all. This is the problem with laying things down to one supposedly impartial person’s decision. In my opinion, we should be using our judges for less, not more, than we are already.
[quote]I’ll leave you with a thought:
Forbidding something decreases the control you have over it because it sends it to the underworld, where it’s much harder to enforce. By tolerating something you let it surface and can therefore influence it more directly - and influence is much more powerful than control.[/quote]
This is a good point. I can tell y’all of the nightmarish abortion stories of young women (this is long ago) who felt they had nowhere to turn, so they sought out a pseudo-doctor or shoved mustard bottles up themselves. I can remember a case where a teenager decided that a nice douche of shaken soda water followed by bleach and then rinse, repeat several more times ought to do the trick. As I recall, she died. Maybe this is Darwinism at its finest, but I feel that we should care more about the fucking people that are here already instead of engaging in this unborn child worship that so many of us have fallen into. Newsflash: one ejaculation contains 50 million plus sperm. That’s like the population of several nations that I just blew into a old gym sock. Who’s crying for all of my unborn children now?
mertdawg,
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
makkun
Thanks for taking the time to supply evidence. By the way, I was not trying to use the study I recalled to show that homosexuals are more likely to be pedopiliacs at all! I basically described a cause of homosexuality that was partly genetic, partly developmental and partly experiential which tends to be true of just about every trait expressed by just about every organism on earth. The hypothalmus study was not good (statistical) science and people need to be discouraged from pushing through crappy science like that. [/quote]
I know you did not mean that. But as for studies, my point was mostly that there still has been found no home-hitting “explanation” for homosexuality. But if you read the discussions on the these threads, you find about everyone of them ranging from “disease” and “sin” to “life-style choice”. None of which are in the end relevant, and tend to polarize but rather bring further the discussion. As for the 85% claim - although this is has been one of my pet subjects for like 15 years, I’ve never run into that one before.
Makkun
hspder,
[quote]hspder wrote:
makkun wrote:
I support gay marriage for a variety of reasons. I understand though that there is reservation against gay marriage as it challenges our understanding of family structures;
Great post, makkun!
You know what? I think we basically need to redefine the state’s part in marriage. Namely what we call it. Government should stick to Civil Unions.
I’ll see if I can explain it, let me know if I was able to:
I do not disagree with the tax aspect of marriage - because as seen in many countries, governments can easily give tax breaks to people that live together, and further breaks to people that have kids. I believe such tax breaks are essential, since living together reduces housing problems, but should be completer gender and hence orientation blind, and not be dependent on marriage - or even civil union.
…
So, Government unites, Churches marry.
Now, does this means I’m against gay marriage? Not at all. As hypochritical that may sound to some, there are plenty of churches that have deciced to ignore the “homosexuality is an abomination” part of the Bible/Torah and hapilly marry gays. And it’s not my business - or anyone’s business - to judge that.
Except for “moral offense” and the general principle of the “changing” thing that would make conservatives very upset at this proposal, the only people that could be upset because they would no longer be able to get married would be the atheists and agnostics who would refuse to go to church. However, honestly, if an atheist or agnostic sees value in marriage over civil union, I really think that they’re simply lying to themselves about their belief system and need to have their head checked.
[/quote]
Great post. I have been thinking for a long time that legal and financial benefits should be boosted for people with children, not people who are married. I think your concept would be quite realistic and fair, but unfortunately will not find a majority just yet. But let’s hope.
Makkun
Oh, boy. Just got to this thread, and tried to read everything quickly. A few things I should point out.
First conservatism and liberalism are differing political philosophies, not an indication of good and evil. We should not decide whether or not people are good based on their political beliefs. Everyone has their political beliefs because they believe it is better the other philosophies.
Second, I keep seeing the terms right wing and left wing thrown out like anyone conservative or liberal is automatically a wing. Interestingly when I was younger I understood the wings to be the extremists. I doubt anyone on this forum is an extremist.
I would bring up more, but the complaints are innumerable.
As far as the original question, the two issues seem to be the only moral issues because you watch too much tv. They are currently the most inflammatory issues of the day.
Now first the gay issue. I don’t really care what any couple do. If a couple wants to live a gay lifestyle, none of my business.
As far as calling it marriage, they can call it whatever they want, as I am not the word police. If a couple has a civil union, or some sort of uniting ceremony, legally recognized or not, they can call it a marriage all they want. My problem is not that they are wanting to get married, but some are demanding that others accept it. I don’t know if I can really agree with that.
Telling a person they have to accept another’s lifestyle they consider wrong is forcing your beliefs on them. So the problem to me is not the fact they want to get married, but that they want to force others to accept it.
Next on to the abortion issue. This is a little more complex, but some basics are involved. First there is no such of a thing as an “accident” when it comes to pregnancy.
“Oops, I tripped and fell on Johnny’s dick.” Doesn’t happen. So all pregnancies are a result of the actions of two people. (Please understand that rape is another issue, and not what I am talking about.)
Pro-abortionists do care about the pregnant person, and anti-abortionists also care, believing that abortion is murder.
Well if we look at it, we see two separate beings temporarily living in a semi-symbiotic relationship. (I hope everyone followed that.) They are not one organism, but two. This can be proven simply by looking at the DNA. So the question is who has more rights.
People ask when life begins, but that is the wrong statement as anything that grows like a fetus is alive. But at what point does it become human. I cannot believe that a fertilized egg, of which is one cell, can be considered human. It is a human cell, but not a human in my opinion.
But is it human a day before birth? It is still abortable at this time, but I have to say it is fully human. (One religion believes a child does not get a soul until 5 years of age, so I wonder if they would consider abortion legal until the fifth birthday.) Now it has to be defined exactly at what point do we call it human.
Well if we follow that when a doctor says brain dead is dead, then the brain is the most important issue here. The nervous system starts to develop after 2 weeks, and by day 30, there are measurable brainwaves. So I believe that an abortion cannot take place once 30 days of development, and also think subtracting 5 just to be on the safe side is correct, so I would say that I might agree with abortion up to 25 days after impregnation. But this pretty much only leaves the day after pill.
Can anyone tell I have put serious thought to this issue? I don’t take any belief just because someone tells me to, or because of a political party or religion.
Now as far as the poor, the Christians have done a lot for the poor. Many do not understand that a tithe means a tenth, so to properly tithe is to give a tenth of your income. But a tithe is not a requirement. To quote Dave Ramsey “It makes no difference when it comes to getting into heaven.” (I may have paraphrased.)
The church has a large social organization, such as the Catholic social services, among other things.
Also as the Church teaches giving, Christians are very good at giving. Many of them believe it is their obligation to give.
Now as far as who they give to, while they tend to donate well, they are often most likely to assist a poor person within their church. They also are more likely to support businesses owned by people within their church. So for a smart Christian, belonging to a church can be profitable. (Though I am fairly certain that if people get the opinion that you are in church only to benefit from networking, it might not bode well.)
If I were not an Atheist, I probably would have joined a church. And could get up early on Sundays that is. (Sunday church is actually a punishment for drinking on Saturday night.)
Now being conservative is different then being Christian. Also being a Republican is different then being a conservative. I am only one of those, and only because my logic leads me to believe many conservative ideas make more sense then liberal ones. (American conservatives and liberals that is.)
Mertdawg (and others),
Many good posts. Mert, a response to this:
"mertdawg wrote:
- Let’s remove marriage from the realm of law, and let the government give tax breaks for anything it wants to that pragmatically improves society."
Why should we remove marriage from the realm of law?
I don’t see a reason here - it has been enshrined in law and serves its purpose. Legal recognition of the union promotes that union, because it privileges that relationship above others, which is good for the community.
There is no ‘pragmatic’ reason to dissolve an institution and its legal recognition that predates the country’s laws itself. In fact, ‘pragmatic’ wouldn’t be the right term at all - it would be ‘radical’ to do such a thing.
Hspdr,
“…but can’t someone who intentionally kills another’s fetus be charged with murder (or some crime) in most states.”
Yes, in California.
“I’d be comfortable with that as long as the judges were picked on the base that they needed to be comfortable with abortion and have no predisposition (moral or otherwise) against or for it.”
First, this request would be absolutely impossible to fulfill. There is no such judge, and no such person.
Second, you’re s placing an incredible amount of discretion over life and death in the hands of a sole decision maker. Granted, the judge would be bound by rules and precedent (presumably), but an issue like abortion - which is influenced by medical, cultural, religious, and historical knowledge and belief systems - should not be determined by judicial fiat.
That’s why, in my view, that abortion is left to the state legislatures. There are many uneven opinions on the value of abortion - there’s no national consensus and never has been. California would obviously approach it much differently than Texas. And that is the way it should be.
As for my own stance on abortion, I am a pragmatic opponent of abortion. I’m not a wailing protester of abortion clinics, rather I have decided that there is no perfect answer but we should err on the side of promoting, protecting, and preserving life.
Abortion involves one central question - only one, but it is a very, very difficult one to answer - at what point does the state step in to protect the integrity of a child’s life?
It has nothing to do with women’s rights - none. It has everything to do with the status of the child.
There is no magic partition to determine the validity of the child’s life - after all, how would the ‘life begins at conception’ folks treat an early miscarriage? Should the mother be investigated for possible manslaughter?
Nor do I accept the idea that an abortion is essentially some weird property matter in which a woman lays claim to her fetus as chattels - “my body and I do what I want with it”. That smacks of the old slavery argument, and I won’t endorse it.
So with no clear answer - and there are more things to debate, I went the short route - I’d rather a culture and government default to a position of trying to vigorously advocate the dignity of the human being. Seems to me the dividends of that attitude assist us in the effort of creating a more humane, less atomized society that values a life rather than extinguishes it.
It should be noted that I once considered ‘pro-choice’ to be the way to go, but even when I did, I thought Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mertdawg (and others),
Many good posts. Mert, a response to this:
"mertdawg wrote:
- Let’s remove marriage from the realm of law, and let the government give tax breaks for anything it wants to that pragmatically improves society."
Why should we remove marriage from the realm of law?
I don’t see a reason here - it has been enshrined in law and serves its purpose. Legal recognition of the union promotes that union, because it privileges that relationship above others, which is good for the community.
There is no ‘pragmatic’ reason to dissolve an institution and its legal recognition that predates the country’s laws itself. In fact, ‘pragmatic’ wouldn’t be the right term at all - it would be ‘radical’ to do such a thing.[/quote]
Yes, but how can we satisfy the under 1% of the population who may want to enter into a Gay marriage unless we change the entire institution?
Come on now, you are not being tolerant!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mertdawg (and others),
Yes, but how can we satisfy the under 1% of the population who may want to enter into a Gay marriage unless we change the entire institution?
Come on now, you are not being tolerant!
[/quote]
To be sure, the best research we have shows that 1/2 to 1% of the population is gay.
Zeb: I want to make this clear. I believe that homosexual sex and abortion are sins and those who commit them risk (broad definition) damnation, hellfire or worse! And liberals shouldn’t care, its my right right.
Theological argument follows. Please note, theoligical conjecture is paranthesized. Not intended for Atheists:
(The big problem is that American protestantism failed America just like papism failed western Europe. Why-Romans worship the Pope who by his own title is antichrist, and protestants worship an inanimate object called the bible. 10,000 denominations and sects of protestantism? Do you think that the Holy Spirit is guiding American protestantism? Long gone buddy. God’s morals are destined to fall from any humanly derived government even if it’s started on moral principals of people who honestly believe in God (and pretend to know what worship is) and it just seems that we’re better off with a secular state.)
Anyway, can you visualize a path that would actually move America back toward morals derived from a higher authority? Why fight for secular marriage when you can put your energy into something that (saves souls like getting people to become God fearing in the first place). Can’t you feel the dream of a Secularly Moral America die? Its dead. Give it up and (save whatever souls you can in these last days).
mertdawg:
If you are going to play writer, at least quote me accurately! Show me one of my posts, just one where I say, or even imply, that Homosexuality is a sin?
My arguments against homosexual marriage have never been rooted in religion. Are you so narrow that you cannot see any other reasons for opposing such a thing? Did religion scare you as a young child and now you see religion behind every argument?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg:
If you are going to play writer, at least quote me accurately! Show me one of my posts, just one where I say, or even imply, that Homosexuality is a sin?
My arguments against homosexual marriage have never been rooted in religion. Are you so narrow that you cannot see any other reasons for opposing such a thing? Did religion scare you as a young child and now you see religion behind every argument?
[/quote]
I said it’s a sin. Not you. But you place intrinsic value in the “institution of marriage”. Where does that come from? If its a human invention than who cares?
Religion (as a term used to describe the body of Christ-the Church) never scared me, but the empty shells of a church that are protestantism and papism inspire a chill as would a dead carcass.
[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH7 wrote:
the republicans are actually not pro life, but pro birth. They don’t give a shit if a baby dies a week after it’s born.[/quote]
I nominate this statement as the most ignorant sentence spouted on these forums. Tell me you really not this ignorant. I can’t even say it without sounding ignornant “Rebublicans don’t give a shit if a baby dies a week after it’s born”. Yep, that’s us. We don’t care if all babies die. Fucking idiot…
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I guessing that you guys haven’t been married yet. Marriage is not about tax breaks. It’s something we do to provide a measure of security to another person… financial and emotional security. There HAS to be governmental involvement in this, there has to be a penalty of some kind for breaking the contract, or otherwise the promise and the security has no substance.
[/quote]
Maybe you misunderstood us - what I was saying - and I believe mertdawg was saying too - is that there would be Civil Unions, which are contracts, which can have contractual obligations and exit clauses…
Again, my problem is not with the concept of marriage, but with the word and the religious charge it contains, which polarizes people. The government would still give all the rights and obligations attached to marriage today, but only name it differently to remove said religious charge.
The “Church Marriage” would be a cerimony with no legal implications, only religious ones, with religiously-charged vows for the people who believe in them.
Actually, I used a couple of the things about “weirdos” and “plights” to illustrate the silliness of it all. If they want to have a club, they can. I don’t care. Don’t force it down my throat.
What is normal? This is one of the most assinine questions I hear asked by freakos. Normal is what most people do and is accepted by societal norms. Sure, you can twist and contort it and make limitations and argue the good, bad, indifference of it all. But like in statistics, use your t-test and determine if that behavior is an outlier and if it is. Don’t inclue it in your data. Because its not accurate and will skew it all.
And if civil unions and marriages are the exact same? Why won’t gays just take what they have if its the same? Why fight most everyone for a name? 74% of states have passed laws over a single word, even Hawaii. Sounds like the argument isn’t about practical matters, but just the name of something.
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Sounds like the argument isn’t about practical matters, but just the name of something.[/quote]
No, it’s about acceptance and tolerance, two concepts you obviously don’t understand.
Because if you did, you’d understand too how a word can be charged with such intensity, its use - or lack of it - has a lot of acceptance and tolerance - or lack of it - associated.
And, in a free country, where you cannot force people to tolerate and accept (as evidenced by proud bigots like yourself) and where you cannot remove the thousands of years of history that gave the word that charge, the only way, in my opinion, to get around the problem is to take the word out of the law and put it where it belongs - in this case, in Churches.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I guessing that you guys haven’t been married yet. Marriage is not about tax breaks. It’s something we do to provide a measure of security to another person… financial and emotional security. There HAS to be governmental involvement in this, there has to be a penalty of some kind for breaking the contract, or otherwise the promise and the security has no substance.
[/quote]
I am married, but for two people to say “we’re married” in today’s America has been trivialized. It’s pretty easy to say and doesn’t require that much introspection considering the divorce rate et. al. If the government deals with civil unions and the churches with marriages, then to say we’re married regains its spiritual implications.