[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Can a homosexual couples EVER produce life on their own?
.
[/quote]
Well we are close to that KOOKY point of sex only being for creation and is other wise bad . There are many health benefits , physical and mental that come from a healthy sex life . Are you suggesting some one should for go the health benefits because they can not produce a child ?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again pittbull, where is your scientific SOURCE showing the clump of cells is just a ?glob of goo??
[/quote]
Glob of goo would be an observation , it is not exclusively scientific
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.[/quote]
I wasn’t wanted.
In fact I was told I was a “lack of funding” away from not being here today. Thank god both sets of grandparents wouldn’t fund an abortion.
My father left before I was old enough to remember, and I was just an anchor to my mother’s good time.
I’m an infinitely better parent than mine were because I’m home at night, and sober when I am. That’s it. That’s all it takes. I don’t have to be nice to my kids, and I’m STILL a better parent.
You think my daughter will grow up thinking she’d be better off if I have just been vacuumed up rather than survive and try to make a better life for her?[/quote]
Read what I wrote.
I am arguing that a blanket statement like “far more children would make the world a far better place” is ridiculously naive. That’s it. I didn’t say a damn thing about abortion.
I stand by my statement that decreasing abortion would best be accomplished by employing the most effective forms of birth control. It’s unfounded for Kneedragger to argue that NFP is 99% effective and that people shouldn’t have sex if they don’t want children. We are sexual creatures. It had been shown time and time again that NFP and a push for abstinence are unrealistic and ineffective.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Read what I wrote.[/quote]
I did, and I think that is the problem. What you wrote is apparently not what you intended to convey. Because it sure sounds like you are saying “no, only wanted kids with optimal environments make the world a better place.” Which really quickly slides into “better off dead” in an abortion thread.
Now, that may not be what you intended to imply, but it is what you implied.
So is thinking your statement wouldn’t have been taken as it was, in an abortion thread.
There are kids that are just broken from jump street. Born with all the love they could ever need, caring, and a positive and healthy environment, yet still grow up degenerates that ruin the lives of others.
Then there are people that come from nothing, unwanted and emotionally neglected that become brain surgeons and wonderful parents to their kids.
Pretending either of your generalizations are really that dissimilar to each other seems silly. I don’t think either of the generalizations are less naive than the other. Particularly if people want to rebut a clear generalization with the “it doesn’t apply to everyone” stance. Of course it won’t apply to 7 billion individuals equally. You’re both speaking in trends and statistics here.
Well, let’s be honest here, the only way to be 100% sure you don’t get pregnant is to not have sex. That is irrefutable fact.
Agreed. As an advocate for the use of birth control, and someone who was thankful to grow up in a time where it was readily available I agree you are correct that one of the most effective ways to prevent abortion is effective use of birth control. But it’s far, far, far from the only one.
I think your points are largely valid, Beans.
It just really rubs me the wrong way when someone who is staunchly antiabortion makes statements suggesting that more [children] is always better and only promotes the least effective form of birth control (NFP).
That’s all I was trying to say.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I think your points are largely valid, Beans.
It just really rubs me the wrong way when someone who is staunchly antiabortion makes statements suggesting that more [children] is always better and only promotes the least effective form of birth control (NFP).
That’s all I was trying to say.
[/quote]
It’s very understandable to be frustrated. I, even though I agree in principle, often get frustrated with pro-life crowd myself.
Part of it is I don’t think making it illegal solves the underlying issue. The underlying issue is we don’t care about people, unless they meet our notions of “acceptable”. When I say we, I mean humans, and throughout history. We’re really shitty at actually treating others equal. Abortion doesn’t treat the unborn people as equal, seeing as they are innocent.
That said, I’d rather see each of us actually change in our hearts and minds toward abortion. That involves being honest about what it is, being honest about who is actually doing the most suffering, and being honest about what is in fact the ultimate suffering. No, being born poor and unwanted is not easy, fun, healthy or in any way something I would wish on people. But it’s still better than being dead. At least you have a chance, however slight, if you’re alive, of reaching the stars.
So this approach means a soft, slow approach. It means take the gains were you can, and being flexible. Because if the next generation is 10% less likely to get one, and the generation after that 10% less, that is a significant reduction in abortion. So, for example, someone who is unwilling to bend on the rape and incest exceptions rubs me he wrong way. I understand their position, and find it very profound, however I’d not take that option away from an abused mother personally, and think as a strategy for reducing abortion it is a conversation killer in today’s world. I don’t want to kill the conversation, so I’d prefer to fight that battle later, when people don’t celebrate abortion anymore, and come to see it for what it is. If that is tomorrow, next year, or when my great grandkids look back at pro-aborts like we do slave owners, so be it.
I want to see continued progress in the survival of the innocent. If that means I’m dancing with the devil, or compromising morals or rationalizing, or a moral relativist, fine, so be it, as long as we vacuum out one less kid tomorrow than we did today, I’ll bear the brunt of all the names a hard line stance holder wants to call me.
You brought homosexuals into the conversation pitt. So now the only reason to have sex is for health benefits, be they physical and mental? Alright, if you say so.
In the natural world, what is the intent for mammals to have sex?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Can a homosexual couples EVER produce life on their own?[/quote]
Well we are close to that KOOKY point of sex only being for creation and is other wise bad . There are many health benefits , physical and mental that come from a healthy sex life . Are you suggesting some one should for go the health benefits because they can not produce a child ? [/quote]
More accurately, that is your description pitt. You, who has zero scientific knowledge. No one with any education shares your “not exclusively scientific” observation by the way. Why would you suppose that is?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again pittbull, where is your scientific SOURCE showing the clump of cells is just a ?glob of goo??
[/quote]
Glob of goo would be an observation , it is not exclusively scientific
[/quote]
If birth control was the magic solution, why does it fail kpsnap? The literature provided with the artificial hormones tells you there is an accepted failure rate. If birth control was so effective, there would be no pregnancies. When a woman is on birth control and she gets pregnant, where does she go and what do you think she does? She often kills the child through an abortion.
You have a problem with my statements? Alright that is your prerogative. I have one question though. How many forms of NFP are there?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Read what I wrote.
I am arguing that a blanket statement like “far more children would make the world a far better place” is ridiculously naive. That’s it. I didn’t say a damn thing about abortion.
I stand by my statement that decreasing abortion would best be accomplished by employing the most effective forms of birth control. It’s unfounded for Kneedragger to argue that NFP is 99% effective and that people shouldn’t have sex if they don’t want children. We are sexual creatures. It had been shown time and time again that NFP and a push for abstinence are unrealistic and ineffective. [/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]
Can you detail your reasoning behind this?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison.[/quote]
Wouldn’t denying an individual their ability to determine their own fate (I use this phrasing for convenience’s sake, and because I hope y’all recognize what I mean by it) be anti-natural right?
Of course, I’d imagine the fellow is thrown into prison (having his/her natural right stripped off) precisely because he/she did something that violated another’s natural right in some form or fashion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are essentially arguing that all punishment violates natural rights, like you can’t lock up a rapist. Nor, I guess could you defend yourself. [/quote]
Not really. Rather, I’m curious how natural right can incorporate punishment.
Punishing someone requires you to do something to someone-the very opposite of natural rights as described in the post I quote here.
And this really just goes straight back to the question I ask at the start of this post.[/quote]
Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.
If you want to get into punishments for victimless crimes, yeah, I can buy that those are anti-natural rights. [/quote]
A very low percentage of murders are repeat offenders (like 1%). If your goal is to preserve maximum natural rights wouldn’t it make sense to limit their sentence as low as possible to maximize the overall natural rights?
Also how are you weighting the non-mudrer cases against each other? Surely a rape is denying someone their natural rights but for how long? Even if some guy raped 1 woman a day for the rest of his life, him serving life in prison is overall more natural rights denied than if he was free.[/quote]
And what percentage do you think it would be if we didn’t punish murder? Not to mention murders don’t just murder.
And if you think a rape only takes one day from a rape victim, your either dumb or full of shit.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I think your points are largely valid, Beans.
It just really rubs me the wrong way when someone who is staunchly antiabortion makes statements suggesting that more [children] is always better and only promotes the least effective form of birth control (NFP).
That’s all I was trying to say.
[/quote]
Children are ALWAYS a miracle, whether you happen to want one or not. Your whims aren’t what give them value. I hate to break it to you, but you aren’t god and can’t assign value to human lives as you see fit.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If birth control was the magic solution, why does it fail kpsnap?
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was the magic solution. It’s not. I said the method you are pushing is the least effective method.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]
Can you detail your reasoning behind this?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison.[/quote]
Wouldn’t denying an individual their ability to determine their own fate (I use this phrasing for convenience’s sake, and because I hope y’all recognize what I mean by it) be anti-natural right?
Of course, I’d imagine the fellow is thrown into prison (having his/her natural right stripped off) precisely because he/she did something that violated another’s natural right in some form or fashion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are essentially arguing that all punishment violates natural rights, like you can’t lock up a rapist. Nor, I guess could you defend yourself. [/quote]
Not really. Rather, I’m curious how natural right can incorporate punishment.
Punishing someone requires you to do something to someone-the very opposite of natural rights as described in the post I quote here.
And this really just goes straight back to the question I ask at the start of this post.[/quote]
Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.
If you want to get into punishments for victimless crimes, yeah, I can buy that those are anti-natural rights. [/quote]
A very low percentage of murders are repeat offenders (like 1%). If your goal is to preserve maximum natural rights wouldn’t it make sense to limit their sentence as low as possible to maximize the overall natural rights?
Also how are you weighting the non-mudrer cases against each other? Surely a rape is denying someone their natural rights but for how long? Even if some guy raped 1 woman a day for the rest of his life, him serving life in prison is overall more natural rights denied than if he was free.[/quote]
And what percentage do you think it would be if we didn’t punish murder? Not to mention murders don’t just murder.
And if you think a rape only takes one day from a rape victim, your either dumb or full of shit.[/quote]
I didn’t say don’t punish it. What about 5 years in prison? If the repeat offender rate on that was 10% or less wouldn’t you say that’s worth it if the end result is more overall natural rights?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.[/quote]
I really do not think this jives all that well with the post you made to Sulfiandy that I originally responded to.
Specifically- “You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights.”
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing here? Because the criminal committed an action that took away another’s inherent right(s), you decide that their value (whatever that may mean) drops, and so becomes lower than a “normal” person.
If natural rights were meant to be considered in the manner in the quote above, then I’d agree with your argument.
But I thought natural rights was meant to be about the individual possessing certain inherent qualities/rights that can never be taken away from them. Given this stance, I would think that considered natural rights in a societal manner/w.e. you want to call it (I’ve did a 16 hour day today on top of 11+hrs for the last three weeks on average [including weekends!], so my brain is not functioning right and cannot articulate clearly… Which is why I’m willing to gripe and moan in a middle of a fucking post…).
And I don’t think you’ve answered this question yet, which I think is the linchpin of all this-
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]
Can you detail your reasoning behind this?[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]
Can you detail your reasoning behind this?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison.[/quote]
Wouldn’t denying an individual their ability to determine their own fate (I use this phrasing for convenience’s sake, and because I hope y’all recognize what I mean by it) be anti-natural right?
Of course, I’d imagine the fellow is thrown into prison (having his/her natural right stripped off) precisely because he/she did something that violated another’s natural right in some form or fashion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are essentially arguing that all punishment violates natural rights, like you can’t lock up a rapist. Nor, I guess could you defend yourself. [/quote]
Not really. Rather, I’m curious how natural right can incorporate punishment.
Punishing someone requires you to do something to someone-the very opposite of natural rights as described in the post I quote here.
And this really just goes straight back to the question I ask at the start of this post.[/quote]
Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.
If you want to get into punishments for victimless crimes, yeah, I can buy that those are anti-natural rights. [/quote]
A very low percentage of murders are repeat offenders (like 1%). If your goal is to preserve maximum natural rights wouldn’t it make sense to limit their sentence as low as possible to maximize the overall natural rights?
Also how are you weighting the non-mudrer cases against each other? Surely a rape is denying someone their natural rights but for how long? Even if some guy raped 1 woman a day for the rest of his life, him serving life in prison is overall more natural rights denied than if he was free.[/quote]
And what percentage do you think it would be if we didn’t punish murder? Not to mention murders don’t just murder.
And if you think a rape only takes one day from a rape victim, your either dumb or full of shit.[/quote]
I didn’t say don’t punish it. What about 5 years in prison? If the repeat offender rate on that was 10% or less wouldn’t you say that’s worth it if the end result is more overall natural rights?
[/quote]
No and no. Because again, your rights end. The rights of those not violating others are of more value. If we just execute them, isn’t that only violating the right to life of the murderer for like a couple of minutes?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.[/quote]
I really do not think this jives all that well with the post you made to Sulfiandy that I originally responded to.
Specifically- “You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights.”
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing here? Because the criminal committed an action that took away another’s inherent right(s), you decide that their value (whatever that may mean) drops, and so becomes lower than a “normal” person.
If natural rights were meant to be considered in the manner in the quote above, then I’d agree with your argument.
But I thought natural rights was meant to be about the individual possessing certain inherent qualities/rights that can never be taken away from them. Given this stance, I would think that considered natural rights in a societal manner/w.e. you want to call it (I’ve did a 16 hour day today on top of 11+hrs for the last three weeks on average [including weekends!], so my brain is not functioning right and cannot articulate clearly… Which is why I’m willing to gripe and moan in a middle of a fucking post…).
And I don’t think you’ve answered this question yet, which I think is the linchpin of all this-
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]
Can you detail your reasoning behind this?[/quote][/quote]
It all jives as long as the societal justice is merely taking the role an individual who was wronged, would have the moral right to pursue. Like if someone stole your property, you’d have the right to fight them to get it back, if society is taking back stolen property it’s just fulfilling the rights of the violated individual. If a guy tries to rape my daughter, I can beat the shit out of him and tie him to a tree so he’s no longer a threat, so society can too.
Admittedly all law doesn’t follow this rule, and I’ve already mentioned that some laws like victimless ones could be seen as a violation of natural rights.
[quote]magick wrote:
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing here? Because the criminal committed an action that took away another’s inherent right(s), you decide that their value (whatever that may mean) drops, and so becomes lower than a “normal” person.
[/quote]
Punishing someone is not a determination of their inherent value to the world.
That’s why you have to treat your kids certain ways to not fuck up their minds and give them emotional complexes as they get older. The NEED to be punished when they do wrong, they NEED to learn boundaries. But you HAVE to do it in a way that they know it isn’t a judgment of their value. Because it isn’t, it’s judgment of their actions, their choices.
Punishing someone, a criminal in this case, is just that. A punishment. It isn’t revocation of rights protection because they have lessor value as a human, it’s revocation of rights protection because they did something fucking stupid.
I will ask these questions yet again: How many different forms of NFP are there? Where do women often go after synthetic birth control fails?
NFP is the least effective method according to YOUR sources. The method is rather simple; take a sample and look at the mucosal discharge, if an egg happens to be present and more children are desired, green light. If a couple wants to hold off in creating another life just yet then simply put aside the desires for a night or two. Most days in a cycle are a green light regardless because an egg is not even present.
Birth control makes most people believe that sex is for nothing other than their own selfish desires and using others for those needs, they believe that is perfectly acceptable. Why else would you have so many children without their biological father and or mother in the same house?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If birth control was the magic solution, why does it fail kpsnap?
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was the magic solution. It’s not. I said the method you are pushing is the least effective method.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If birth control was the magic solution, why does it fail kpsnap? The literature provided with the artificial hormones tells you there is an accepted failure rate. If birth control was so effective, there would be no pregnancies. When a woman is on birth control and she gets pregnant, where does she go and what do you think she does? She often kills the child through an abortion.
You have a problem with my statements? Alright that is your prerogative. I have one question though. How many forms of NFP are there?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Read what I wrote.
I am arguing that a blanket statement like “far more children would make the world a far better place” is ridiculously naive. That’s it. I didn’t say a damn thing about abortion.
I stand by my statement that decreasing abortion would best be accomplished by employing the most effective forms of birth control. It’s unfounded for Kneedragger to argue that NFP is 99% effective and that people shouldn’t have sex if they don’t want children. We are sexual creatures. It had been shown time and time again that NFP and a push for abstinence are unrealistic and ineffective. [/quote]
[/quote]
The birth control argument sounds good in theory. After all, if you can prevent conception, then there is no need for abortion. However, reality has not bared this out to be true.
Birth control in increasingly reliable forms has never been more available, acceptable, and affordable than it is now yet, there is not a statistically significant drop in abortions. If the birth control argument were true, we would see a comparative ratio between the increase of the use of effective birth control and a drop in the amount of abortions. But that is not what is happening. While birth control usage has increased significantly, the number of abortions annually stays relatively flat.
So birth control is far from the ‘cure’ to abortion that many had hoped it would be. Reality just does not jibe with the theory.