South Dakota Bans Abortions

Diomede · March 7, 2006, 1:54pm

[quote]orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
I am very proud of you. Do you consider making a career out of it?

My point is that conflating poverty/welfare/starving children (where do we have starving children, btw?) with the abortion issue is false and unhelpful. Poverty and dependence on welfare are not prevented by the widespread availability of abortion. But this is a convenient straw man… the big, bad conservatives just want to keep the poor people down, so by preventing abortions the poor will be forced to starve. Give me a break.

Further, it is simply unhelpful to lump the issues together. Even if there were some correlation between poverty and abortion-bans, that doesn’t obviate the moral problem of aborting a fetus. It is an argument of utility, which is to say, an amoral argument. But many laws are inconvenient in this respect; most laws have some undesirable effects that must be corrected, but not necessarily through eliminating them.

If it is helpful or not to lump this issues together depends on your agenda. In a complex society such things simply are connected and it is definitely not helpful to ignore those connections when passing laws that actually solve problems.*

To ignore them because they do not fit your agenda (not necessarily your ,nephorm?s, agenda) means to be willfully ignorant and let other people deal with the consequences of those decisions.

Like it or not, poor people have less of a voice in the decision making process and they are under closer surveillance by law enforcement agencies.

By the way the argument may be amoral but the consequences are not, because it reduces human suffering. Not the alleged suffering of a random lump of cells with some potential; real, living, breathing human beings with a fully developed CNS.

PS: * Of course it is helpful to ignore cultural complexity when people start to use such issues to manipulate the unwashed masses… [/quote]

arent we all a random lump of cells with some potential?

nephorm · March 7, 2006, 1:59pm

[quote]orion wrote:
To ignore them because they do not fit your agenda (not necessarily your ,nephorm?s, agenda) means to be willfully ignorant and let other people deal with the consequences of those decisions.
[/quote]

I understand that idea, which is why I’m saying that there is no simple causal correlation.

miniross · March 7, 2006, 2:07pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

You continue to disappoint me.[/quote]

Why, because i have no gradiose notions to which i attach myself to. I

I absolutley insist that there is no right to life. what about the millions of unknown miscarriages each year? Does that embryo have a right to life, then to have it dashed because the host body rejected it?

Life is wonderful, yes, but by no means do you have a right to it.

orion · March 7, 2006, 2:07pm

[quote]Diomede wrote:

arent we all a random lump of cells with some potential?

[/quote]

!!!

orion · March 7, 2006, 2:13pm

[quote]nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
To ignore them because they do not fit your agenda (not necessarily your ,nephorm?s, agenda) means to be willfully ignorant and let other people deal with the consequences of those decisions.

I understand that idea, which is why I’m saying that there is no simple causal correlation. [/quote]

What are your thoughts on situations where some solutions simply feel wrong, but might actually do a lot of good if you analyze the situation in an intellectuel amoral kind of way?

I do not want to go of on a tangent with genetic vs cultural programming but these kinds of conflicts are inevitable.

What feels right, what you instinctively know to be right, might, under the current circumstances be wrong, from a moral point of view.

However it is easy to manipulate people with such issues because any decent persons just “feels” what the “right” solution should be.

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 2:29pm

[quote]miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.[/quote]

Your kidding right?

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 2:31pm

[quote]Diomede wrote:
orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
I am very proud of you. Do you consider making a career out of it?

My point is that conflating poverty/welfare/starving children (where do we have starving children, btw?) with the abortion issue is false and unhelpful. Poverty and dependence on welfare are not prevented by the widespread availability of abortion. But this is a convenient straw man… the big, bad conservatives just want to keep the poor people down, so by preventing abortions the poor will be forced to starve. Give me a break.

Further, it is simply unhelpful to lump the issues together. Even if there were some correlation between poverty and abortion-bans, that doesn’t obviate the moral problem of aborting a fetus. It is an argument of utility, which is to say, an amoral argument. But many laws are inconvenient in this respect; most laws have some undesirable effects that must be corrected, but not necessarily through eliminating them.

If it is helpful or not to lump this issues together depends on your agenda. In a complex society such things simply are connected and it is definitely not helpful to ignore those connections when passing laws that actually solve problems.*

To ignore them because they do not fit your agenda (not necessarily your ,nephorm?s, agenda) means to be willfully ignorant and let other people deal with the consequences of those decisions.

Like it or not, poor people have less of a voice in the decision making process and they are under closer surveillance by law enforcement agencies.

By the way the argument may be amoral but the consequences are not, because it reduces human suffering. Not the alleged suffering of a random lump of cells with some potential; real, living, breathing human beings with a fully developed CNS.

PS: * Of course it is helpful to ignore cultural complexity when people start to use such issues to manipulate the unwashed masses…

arent we all a random lump of cells with some potential?

[/quote]

Judging from the folks I see at Walmart the random lump of cells thing fits. They don’t appear to have much potential. If breathing wasn’t an involuntary response they’d be dead.

Headhunter · March 7, 2006, 2:39pm

[quote]miniross wrote:
ZEB wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

You continue to disappoint me.

Why, because i have no gradiose notions to which i attach myself to. I

I absolutley insist that there is no right to life. what about the millions of unknown miscarriages each year? Does that embryo have a right to life, then to have it dashed because the host body rejected it?

Life is wonderful, yes, but by no means do you have a right to it.[/quote]

You poor little confused ‘dyslexic’ man: If you do not have a right to your life, then there are no rights at all. We are each ‘endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

An embryo has the DNA structure of a human. It is a person. It therefore has all the rights that all of us who happened to be born already have secured. Abortion is the murder of a human. It is the negation of rights. It is simply Satanic evil.

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 2:40pm

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.

It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.

That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…

SICK!

Zeb, you’re a loathsome piece of shit.

Do you know anyone who’s had an abortion? Do you know how difficult the decision was, how it stays with you the rest of your life?

Who the fuck are you to be judging anyone, you closed-minded, reactionary little bag of fear?
[/quote]

If you could possibly look farther than your own political agenda or in your case, your own warped sense of morality, you might want to take the time to notice that ZEB is not judging anyone. He is judging a behavior. Big difference. We all sin. We can all be forgiven. Maybe you should research some of our faith sometime. You’d find out that while we think abortion is wrong, we wait with open arms to forgive, console and help those who have had to deal with this and a good many other issues. We’re such pricks.

ZEB · March 7, 2006, 2:41pm

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Zeb, you’re a loathsome piece of shit.[/quote]

This is par for the course for harris447. You have no class and you never will.

You can never argue a point without attempting to make it personal.

Yes, I happen to know two women who had abortions. One about 10 years ago, the other 6 or 7 years ago. They both regret it and have been through therapy because of it.

Nice right they have huh?

This is just one more “right” that the liberals have given us. That has turned out to be a huge black eye on not only our country but the many women who have a conscience.

[quote]Who the fuck are you to be judging anyone, you closed-minded, reactionary little bag of fear?
[/quote]

I judged the system that allows such things, and that system is wrong.

I’m also someone who is concerned about the unborn child. I think that that child represents more than just a “tissue” to be disgarded because someone made a mistake.

As for your constant personal attacks: They remind me of someone who has a great deal of Internet courage. Which as you know speaks volumes for your character.

Keep it up as this is expected from someone of your caliber.

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 2:42pm

[quote]orion wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

Religion.

Human life is holy you know. Sacred. Unless, of course, they happen to pray to the wrong God, drive a car on Sabbath, something unforgivable like that…

The idea that a fetus is a human being (and human life being sacred) only makes sense if you believe that human beings have a soul, which is by its very nature a religious idea.[/quote]

Maybe you could stay on topic. Abortion. Religion doesn’t necessarily enter into the equation. Kind of like when you stubbed your toe this morning, that wasn’t Bush’s fault, but you want to blame him anyway.

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 2:43pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.

It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.

That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…

SICK!

Are all of you just as vocal when it comes to adoption and wellfare?[/quote]

Who are all of you?

ZEB · March 7, 2006, 2:47pm

[quote]btm62 wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

Your kidding right?[/quote]

No he’s not kidding!

miniross happens to be one of the kinder Atheists too.

Check out some of harris and pookies comments…

They will send a chill down your back.

I’m thankful to God that folks like these will never be in power in the US.

nephorm · March 7, 2006, 3:03pm

[quote]orion wrote:
What are your thoughts on situations where some solutions simply feel wrong, but might actually do a lot of good if you analyze the situation in an intellectuel amoral kind of way?
[/quote]

Ah, you remind me of Machivelli’s take on Giovanpagolo Baglioni… and that men very rarely know to be completely good or completely wicked, despite the benefits accrued by such a stance.

Personally, I feel that there are things that are good and bad, and that these are naturally so. If you were to show that any thing held to be moral was to man’s detriment, I would have to agree with you that the thing was conventionally, but not naturally, held to be moral.

But since man does not live in an optimum way, and since we can easily make the argument that society is corrupted and separated from the true principles that ought to govern it, then we can also say that some immoral things may be necessary to restore order, or to help bring man back to the good. What the boundaries for such action would be is a very complex and difficult topic, and I simply don’t agree that abortion contributes to the betterment of man. It may be convenient for him, or expedient, but I do not think that it leads him toward the good.

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 3:06pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

Your kidding right?

No he’s not kidding!

miniross happens to be one of the kinder Atheists too.

Check out some of harris and pookies comments…

They will send a chill down your back.

I’m thankful to God that folks like these will never be in power in the US.

:)[/quote]

Pookie and miniross are hardly worth a listen. (As I’m sure many could say about myself also.) so be it. However, their insight seems to be limited to that of a shock dj. Harris has his moments. Its very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint on this issue. I do try. Its hard not to let anger seep in. That too is very frustrating.

harris447 · March 7, 2006, 3:06pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Zeb, you’re a loathsome piece of shit.

This is par for the course for harris447. You have no class and you never will.

You can never argue a point without attempting to make it personal.

Do you know anyone who’s had an abortion? Do you know how difficult the decision was, how it stays with you the rest of your life?

Yes, I happen to know two women who had abortions. One about 10 years ago, the other 6 or 7 years ago. They both regret it and have been through therapy because of it.

Nice right they have huh?

This is just one more “right” that the liberals have given us. That has turned out to be a huge black eye on not only our country but the many women who have a conscience.

Who the fuck are you to be judging anyone, you closed-minded, reactionary little bag of fear?

I judged the system that allows such things, and that system is wrong.

I’m also someone who is concerned about the unborn child. I think that that child represents more than just a “tissue” to be disgarded because someone made a mistake.

As for your constant personal attacks: They remind me of someone who has a great deal of Internet courage. Which as you know speaks volumes for your character.

Keep it up as this is expected from someone of your caliber.[/quote]

The whole “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing is such bullshit.

So, should we allow gay couples to adopt these unwanted children?

orion · March 7, 2006, 3:13pm

[quote]btm62 wrote:
orion wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

Religion.

Human life is holy you know. Sacred. Unless, of course, they happen to pray to the wrong God, drive a car on Sabbath, something unforgivable like that…

The idea that a fetus is a human being (and human life being sacred) only makes sense if you believe that human beings have a soul, which is by its very nature a religious idea.

Maybe you could stay on topic. Abortion. Religion doesn’t necessarily enter into the equation. Kind of like when you stubbed your toe this morning, that wasn’t Bush’s fault, but you want to blame him anyway. [/quote]

I am staying on topic, my level of abstraction is probably higher than yours.

That is easy since I do not invest that much emotional energy in that ideas.

The idea that there is more to humans than the body and the live that we have is by its very nature religious.

You could also call it mystical or spiritual, to which I would respond with:

Well then religion is organized spirituality…

The attempt to narrow such issues down, so that they seem to be completely unrelated to everything else that goes on in society and as if the people making certain claims did not have a religious agenda…

Ah, come on, it is me that muddies the water?

Hardly…

orion · March 7, 2006, 3:34pm

[quote]nephorm wrote:
What the boundaries for such action would be is a very complex and difficult topic, and I simply don’t agree that abortion contributes to the betterment of man. It may be convenient for him, or expedient, but I do not think that it leads him toward the good.[/quote]

Maybe it prevents people to stray to the dark side. Would that not be enough?

A social safety valve?

btm62 · March 7, 2006, 4:01pm

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote: