So Mak, are tobacco and alcohol choices or not?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
This is the argument we seem to inevitably devolve into, we spend pages upon pages discussing what it is to be human, and no realistic solutions are provided.
We can all agree that reducing abortion rates would be a good thing - now how do we do it? Is there a better way than education and access to contraception?[/quote]
Let me guess, we need to spend a couple billion a year to find that one 12 year old who hasn’t heard of contraception. “Education.” Perhaps you mean mailing off a supply of rubbers to our children monthly, with instructions on alternative sex such as dry-humping.
You’re of the type who broke our moral culture in the first place. You’ve no real voice in this topic. You and the ephrems of the west have failed. You destroyed the family. You destroyed our demographic future. You destoyed communities of poor, and of the recently liberated. You destroyed prudence. You destroyed self-control. You destroyed public expectations and valuable social tools such as shame. Yet, you still think you have anything of any value to add? You’ve nothing to offer but vile and despicable ‘solutions’ to problems created by your own leftist claptrap. No thanks. [/quote]
At one time in our history:
The sale of birth control was outlawed in some places, even to married couples.
Couples needed to get a blood test to get married.
Divorce was more difficult to obtain.
Living with a person of the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage was a criminal offense.
Homosexual behavior was a criminal offense. But so was oral sex between a man and a woman.
In some places, these laws are technically still on the books, but not enforced.
Do you think our society would be better if these laws were put back into place or enforced in places where they are still on the books?
Do you think that it is okay for a judge to decide if a couple should get divorced?
Do you think police should be able to knock on a door and demand that a man and woman in the same household produce a valid marriage certificate?
I’m just curious what you would do to bring back the good old days.
Let’s assume we ban birth control and removing sex education from the schools. This might prevent vaginal intercourse. But you don’t think kids will try oral sex or anal sex? Both of these would be unprotected which could lead to STDs, so you this won’t necessarily stop the spread of STDs. And then there’s the rape drug. Guy gives a girl the drug, has unprotected sex, she gets pregnant and doesn’t have a clue who the father is.
These are the realities that Mak and I both know about. And we were both teenagers - we know that parents prohibiting something is just a “dare” to go try it. I’ve heard more than one story about good Christian girls going off to Bible camp and giving it away like candy. The guys I knew who attended Bible camp ALWAYS looked forward to going because they knew they would be getting laid. Regularly.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So Mak, are tobacco and alcohol choices or not? [/quote]
You are focusing on something that has nothing to do with the point I was making. You’ll get a response when you decide to read.
Kneed and Maka-The up and down quote box argument was fun for two seconds and then I got so fucking pissed trying to look for replies to my question that I’d post on the SIDE of the text box just to get both of you if I could.
For everyone else;
I’ve seen several interesting claims without proof:
-
Back alley abortions increase where abortions are legalized.
-
Homicide rates, which dropped since 1995, are suspected to be connected to the abortion legalization.
These are both correlation and the sources on both sides are suspect, so does anyone have a better-than-usual source?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Kneed and Maka-The up and down quote box argument was fun for two seconds and then I got so fucking pissed trying to look for replies to my question that I’d post on the SIDE of the text box just to get both of you if I could.[/quote]
I’m sticking to convention and posting at the bottom of the quote pile. Take it up with Mr. I-want-to-be-a-special-snowflake.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Kneed and Maka-The up and down quote box argument was fun for two seconds and then I got so fucking pissed trying to look for replies to my question that I’d post on the SIDE of the text box just to get both of you if I could.[/quote]
I’m sticking to convention and posting at the bottom of the quote pile. Take it up with Mr. I-want-to-be-a-special-snowflake.[/quote]
Hey! Be nice! He is a special snowflake.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let me guess, we need to spend a couple billion a year to find that one 12 year old who hasn’t heard of contraception. “Education.” Perhaps you mean mailing off a supply of rubbers to our children monthly, with instructions on alternative sex such as dry-humping.
You’re of the type who broke our moral culture in the first place. You’ve no real voice in this topic. You and the ephrems of the west have failed. You destroyed the family. You destroyed our demographic future. You destoyed communities of poor, and of the recently liberated. You destroyed prudence. You destroyed self-control. You destroyed public expectations and valuable social tools such as shame. Yet, you still think you have anything of any value to add? You’ve nothing to offer but vile and despicable ‘solutions’ to problems created by your own leftist claptrap. No thanks. [/quote]
Let me ask a more simple question. As a social libertarian, I too am probably somewhat “responsible” for all these horrors of which you speak. But libertarianism has always, ALWAYS preached personal responisibility. That’s the whole point - get rid of a nanny government and replace it with personal responsibility. So answer me this: how is trying to get rid of government involvement in our lives, personal lives no less, in favor of increased personal responsibility a bad thing?
So you typed the words and now I can not read?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So Mak, are tobacco and alcohol choices or not? [/quote]
You are focusing on something that has nothing to do with the point I was making. You’ll get a response when you decide to read.[/quote]
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let me guess, we need to spend a couple billion a year to find that one 12 year old who hasn’t heard of contraception. “Education.” Perhaps you mean mailing off a supply of rubbers to our children monthly, with instructions on alternative sex such as dry-humping.
You’re of the type who broke our moral culture in the first place. You’ve no real voice in this topic. You and the ephrems of the west have failed. You destroyed the family. You destroyed our demographic future. You destoyed communities of poor, and of the recently liberated. You destroyed prudence. You destroyed self-control. You destroyed public expectations and valuable social tools such as shame. Yet, you still think you have anything of any value to add? You’ve nothing to offer but vile and despicable ‘solutions’ to problems created by your own leftist claptrap. No thanks. [/quote]
Let me ask a more simple question. As a social libertarian, I too am probably somewhat “responsible” for all these horrors of which you speak. But libertarianism has always, ALWAYS preached personal responisibility.[/quote]
Libertarianism is more repugnant than leftism. At least the leftist understood what the breakdown of the traditional family, morals, and norms would bring. And they argued for it, used it, and cheered it on. Can’t say they’re stupid.
Meanwhile, libertarians are still repeating the same stupid social liberalism mantra. Congrats, you helped the left shape the perfect culture, the most needy of citizens, for an enduring nanny state. One which can’t be reigned in by any real measure–even in the face of soaring deficits. Libertarianism was still-born when it tried to merge social liberalism with market liberalism. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Libertarians talk out of both sides of their mouth, for no more than 10 seconds (if that) about morality and shameful behavior. “Well, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do. But if you’re going to, don’t let anyone make you feel bad for doing it! Hyuck-hyuck!” The smallest government will always be possible with a prudent and highly conservative people. No less. Libertarianism is the indirect big-government philosophy of the incredibly short-sighted and stubbornly ignorant.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
If the pregnancy is unwanted by both man and woman the choice is clear. If the pregnancy is unwanted by the woman and not the man, the man can’t force the woman to continue the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unwanted by the man and not the woman, it happens that the man forces the woman to have an abortion, but still it’s up to the woman to decide what happens.
Not you. Not me. Not anyone but the woman in question.
Men are not the protectors of society, and are not hardwired to do so. Men will protect their family, but it’s presumptuous and arrogant of you to assume that you know what’s good for society. Protect your genes and loved ones, and leave it at that.
[/quote]
Sure, sure. Men will and usually do protect their families. When I said protect, I mean in the case of preventing someone from being killed. I was thinking that if you saw a homeless man, and he was being beaten to death, you’d try to prevent it? [/quote]
So now a man is equal to a zygote?
[/quote]
Are they both humans?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
This is the argument we seem to inevitably devolve into, we spend pages upon pages discussing what it is to be human, and no realistic solutions are provided.
We can all agree that reducing abortion rates would be a good thing - now how do we do it? Is there a better way than education and access to contraception?[/quote]
Yes, education and responsibility.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat, Sloth et al, why don’t you just come out and say, “I don’t care what any of you think. I don’t care about what women want, and i don’t care about their reproductive rights. I find a clump of cells far more important that all of that.”
Hopefully that’ll cut this thread short.[/quote]
I am sorry if I seemed that I didn’t care about what any of you think, but I am trying to learn by asking questions and figuring it out.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
This is the argument we seem to inevitably devolve into, we spend pages upon pages discussing what it is to be human, and no realistic solutions are provided.
We can all agree that reducing abortion rates would be a good thing - now how do we do it? Is there a better way than education and access to contraception?[/quote]
Yes, education and responsibility.[/quote]
And access to contraception fits in here where? You are still following an idealistic road, making some very false assumptions about the basic nature of man.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let me guess, we need to spend a couple billion a year to find that one 12 year old who hasn’t heard of contraception. “Education.” Perhaps you mean mailing off a supply of rubbers to our children monthly, with instructions on alternative sex such as dry-humping.
You’re of the type who broke our moral culture in the first place. You’ve no real voice in this topic. You and the ephrems of the west have failed. You destroyed the family. You destroyed our demographic future. You destoyed communities of poor, and of the recently liberated. You destroyed prudence. You destroyed self-control. You destroyed public expectations and valuable social tools such as shame. Yet, you still think you have anything of any value to add? You’ve nothing to offer but vile and despicable ‘solutions’ to problems created by your own leftist claptrap. No thanks. [/quote]
Let me ask a more simple question. As a social libertarian, I too am probably somewhat “responsible” for all these horrors of which you speak. But libertarianism has always, ALWAYS preached personal responisibility.[/quote]
Libertarianism is more repugnant than leftism. At least the leftist understood what the breakdown of the traditional family, morals, and norms would bring. And they argued for it, used it, and cheered it on. Can’t say they’re stupid.
Meanwhile, libertarians are still repeating the same stupid social liberalism mantra. Congrats, you helped the left shape the perfect culture, the most needy of citizens, for an enduring nanny state. One which can’t be reigned in by any real measure–even in the face of soaring deficits. Libertarianism was still-born when it tried to merge social liberalism with market liberalism. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Libertarians talk out of both sides of their mouth, for no more than 10 seconds (if that) about morality and shameful behavior. “Well, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do. But if you’re going to, don’t let anyone make you feel bad for doing it! Hyuck-hyuck!” [i]The smallest government will always be possible with a prudent and highly conservative people.[/i] No less. Libertarianism is the indirect big-government philosophy of the incredibly short-sighted and stubbornly ignorant.[/quote]
What I am getting from this response is that many liberal policies, such as making divorce easier, access to birth control, sex education, and abortion, have resulted in these problems. In starting this thread, Mak has tried to propose solutions to limit these problems, particularly the problem of abortion. He has suggested that sex education and access to birth control would help reduce abortions. You obviously disagree. Let’s explore that issue.
Do you see the part that I both bolded and italicized? That’s called personal responsibility. Did I mention that I believe in personal responsibility? I believe I did. So we agree on that. The problem is, we disagree on how to achieve this goal. You seem to think that government regulation and/or societal “shame” will ultimately lead to personal responsibility. I believe the opposite. How do I know? History. Remember Prohibition? It was an abysmal failure and accomplished none of the objectives it sought. In fact, it increased crime. Question: why did a law that regulated an aspect of private life with goal of promoting morality and less crim - the consumption of alcohol - fail, and result in more crime (and perhaps less morality)? Follow up question: Why do you think that laws/public “shaming” of other aspects of our private life would somehow produce a different result?
My friend Scott gave this speech, portions are paraphrased.
In todays society and even in the debate we are having revolves around two key subjects. Number one, is truth true? Is truth a real thing, or is it just a personal preference? Like deciding, chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream. The second issue is what makes people valuable? Are people valuable by virtue for what they are, OR are they only trait acquired and instrumentally valuable? Meaning they are valuable for what they can do functionally?
In ‘Practical Ethics’ by Dr. Peter Sanger(sp?), he teaches at Princeton I believe he is a chair of bio-ethics there, in his book he makes the case that an infant should not be considered a person with rights, until 30 days after birth. Even disabled infants can be killed on the spot by the attending physician. He is teaching hundreds of kids every year to think just like he does, that being valuable as humans is purely instrumental. With no self awareness, then you do not count as a human being. And large numbers of people are buying into him. The second problem is people believe that truth cannot be known, on any subject, especially a moral one. There is a great degree of moral skepticism, a belief that says ‘Look, if something is moral, it is simply a personal opinion.’ If you are telling me that abortion is a personal choice and removing the moral issue, then it would be like chocolate or vanilla ice cream. or even alcohol and tobacco Until you look at abortion honestly, you believe it is one of many opinions. That is the kind of culture we are in. So how do we bring moral clarity to the issue of abortion, this includes embryonic stem cell research/therapy and cloning?
So you can understand what you are saying when you are pro-choice, I simply ask three things: one, what are the unborn?
Secondly, what makes humans valuable in the first place? Are they valuable intrinsically or are people only valuable because of some acquired property?
And third, what is our duty?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
This is the argument we seem to inevitably devolve into, we spend pages upon pages discussing what it is to be human, and no realistic solutions are provided.
We can all agree that reducing abortion rates would be a good thing - now how do we do it? Is there a better way than education and access to contraception?[/quote]
Yes, education and responsibility.[/quote]
And access to contraception fits in here where? You are still following an idealistic road, making some very false assumptions about the basic nature of man.[/quote]
"So you can understand what you are saying when you are pro-choice, I simply ask three things: one, what are the unborn?
Secondly, what makes humans valuable in the first place? Are they valuable intrinsically or are people only valuable because of some acquired property?
And third, what is our duty? "
These question’s answers will in no way help you reduce abortion because you need large amounts of people to buy into the same answer, and you are not going to get anywhere close to the same answer from even small groups to those questions.
The truth is, if someone was able to pull a fetus out at 4 weeks and suspend it right there at that stage for the rest of it’s life, I wouldn’t consider it my equal in terms of being a living human. If they pulled it out a two weeks, and kept it alive for 30 years at the two week stage, I really wouldn’t consider it an equal in terms of deserving of rights. It seems to me that a great ape or a dolfin would have hundreds of times more awareness and right to life than a two week fetus being suspended at that stage for 30 years. This may seem like a straw argument because fetuses have the potential to grow, but many on here are arguing that even without potential taken into consideration, a fetus deserves equal rights. This is my argument that it doesn’t.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The truth is, if someone was able to pull a fetus out at 4 weeks and suspend it right there at that stage for the rest of it’s life, I wouldn’t consider it my equal in terms of being a living human. If they pulled it out a two weeks, and kept it alive for 30 years at the two week stage, I really wouldn’t consider it an equal in terms of deserving of rights. It seems to me that a great ape or a dolfin would have hundreds of times more awareness and right to life than a two week fetus being suspended at that stage for 30 years. This may seem like a straw argument because fetuses have the potential to grow, but many on here are arguing that even without potential taken into consideration, a fetus deserves equal rights. This is my argument that it doesn’t. [/quote]
This thread was never about rights, it was about reducing unnecessary surgery. I thought both sides could at least agree on that, but the pro-life crowd (it seems) is more about absolute control than solutions.
Take note of how morally bankrupt lefties are. They’re now hellbent on making sure your 12 year old has condomns. Provided by the taxpayer, of course. There really was a slippery slope. Still is. But, hopefully, we won’t see the bottom of it before we toss their opinions aside like the rubbish they’ve turned out to be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Take note of how morally bankrupt lefties are. They’re now hellbent on making sure your 12 year old has condomns. Provided by the taxpayer, of course. There really was a slippery slope. Still is. But, hopefully, we won’t see the bottom of it before we toss their opinions aside like the rubbish they’ve turned out to be. [/quote]
So where is your solution? You’ve still offered nothing that could realistically work now that the right to abortion is entrenched in American society.
Whine more.