You are clearly not very rational or egalitarian. If I was a pedophile, and was arguing abortion from a purely pedophilic stance, I’d support abortion, as to allow free love. Why don’t you oppose abortion to give you more potential sexual partners. The children that you claim I am attracted to would grow into adults you would be attracted too.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to argue your position. In most democracies, your opinion that the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a sentient woman will likely be opposed by the majority of voters. I will be amongst the voters supporting a woman’s right to control her own body.
A pregnant woman is not a slaveholder. Some things simply are relative. I’ll make a deal with you. I will not force you to get an abortion. I ask you, in turn, to not force your ‘morality’ on a pregnant woman. Arguments about other subjects (i.e. rape and murder) are different arguments with different legal backgrounds and must be debated and judged on their own merits and circumstances.
Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.
No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences. They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have. You are confusing thought and action. Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups. Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.
My point exactly. Laws against abortion would not enforce my morality on you.
“Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~MLK Jr.
That was not your point, you were trying to assert that people are trying to force an opinion on you. Your statement here is disingenuous, laws against abortion would not force me to change my opinion, and since I’m not a woman they would not directly influence my behavior. But they would provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against women seeking abortions, hence would be forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.
Laws afainst rape provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against rapists, hence forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.
This is not a legitimate comparison. Rape constitutes one person forcing themselves sexually on another person. In other words, they are taking something from that person without consent. Abortion does no such thing and no rational argument can be made that it does. It specifically is based on a woman’s free choice.
Nulono - 12 January 2009 05:46 PM
They would force women who desired an abortion to either act illegally, or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
They force men to either act illegally or not rape anyone.
They require that men not violate another person’s free will and provide sanctions if they do. Again, the comparison is not valid.
Nulono - 12 January 2009 05:46 PM
Legalized rape would allow men to chose in matters relating to their own body and do not injure you, other than possibly offending your puritan sense of morality, but that’s your problem.
You haven’t a leg to stand on.
Nulono - 12 January 2009 05:46 PM
In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.
The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.
If you really are a feminist supporter, as you have claimed, why don’t you spend your efforts trying to get better sex education in the schools, and making abortions as infrequent as possible by spreading information about effective means of contraception?
Because abortion is the leading cause of death in America.
Your opinion, based on a false assumption.
Nulono - 12 January 2009 05:46 PM
[quote burt]In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.
The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.
Don’t hold your breath.
I will no longer respond to your posts on abortion, you are showing yourself as a johnny one note who can’t make a coherent case in support of his belief and so keeps changing the subject, not responding to legitimate points or questions, and generally behaving like an ideological fundamentalist idiot.
Unless, of course, Salt Creek is right and you are currently serving time for raping a 15 year old girl.
Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.
Murder is immoral.
While I agree with McC:
McCreason - 12 January 2009 10:02 PM
He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.
What some people won’t do for attention.
it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.” It is an entirely relative offense.
Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.
What makes a homidice murder? In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful. So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder. Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago. And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty. Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.
No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”
Indeed, there was a fascinating article in one of last year’s New Yorker’s by Jarad Diamond, discussing a person he knew in New Guinea, one of whose uncles was killed by a person from another clan so it became his obligation to avenge the killing by killing the person who had killed his uncle. He had to plan a war, gain allies (who had their own axes to grind), make sure that everybody got paid off, and etc. In the end it took a number of years to accomplish and involved 17 deaths. All culturally sanctioned and considered part of a moral obligation.
Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.
Murder is immoral.
While I agree with McC:
McCreason - 12 January 2009 10:02 PM
He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.
What some people won’t do for attention.
it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.” It is an entirely relative offense.
Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.
What makes a homidice murder? In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful. So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder. Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago. And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty. Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.
No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”
Indeed, there was a fascinating article in one of last year’s New Yorker’s by Jarad Diamond, discussing a person he knew in New Guinea, one of whose uncles was killed by a person from another clan so it became his obligation to avenge the killing by killing the person who had killed his uncle. He had to plan a war, gain allies (who had their own axes to grind), make sure that everybody got paid off, and etc. In the end it took a number of years to accomplish and involved 17 deaths. All culturally sanctioned and considered part of a moral obligation.
Cultures can be wrong. Throwing babies off cliffs, burning “witches”, and the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe were all once “culturally sanctioned”.
