ClimbingPanther Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Good food for thought Arch. "Apparent" is an important word there. The conflict is either apparent because it is there yet the conflicted person has not given enough critical thought to see it, OR it is apparent because the observer either does not understand or give the same weight to the reasons behind taking two "apparently" conflicting viewpoints. One of these cases is always true, and we should be careful not to confuse ignorance with acceptable differences of opinion. Not accusing anybody here, but I'd love to hear some opinions from someone who would honestly take the stand I previously stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 if you call me flipper one more time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 i'm agains abortion AND capitol punishment (one stronger than the other...) Â BUT, an argument for "anti-abortion + pro-death penalty" is that abortion kills and innocent life while capitol punishment takes a life of someone that considered guilty (yes, i left 'considered guilty' wide open) Â both take a life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 i'm agains capitol punishment So you're saying you voted Republican? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) Good food for thought Arch. "Apparent" is an important word there. The conflict is either apparent because it is there yet the conflicted person has not given enough critical thought to see it, OR it is apparent because the observer either does not understand or give the same weight to the reasons behind taking two "apparently" conflicting viewpoints. One of these cases is always true, and we should be careful not to confuse ignorance with acceptable differences of opinion. Not accusing anybody here, but I'd love to hear some opinions from someone who would honestly take the stand I previously stated. Â This is an oversimplification; there are not only two outcomes because there are 1) paradoxes and 2) more than one criteria to consider on complex issues. A person's opinion on 2 issues can be conflicted when measured in a certain narrow way, but consistent in other ways. Â In our example of abortion verses designer children: I support a women's right to choose, but would be against a parent choosing sexual orientation for their child. Previous arguments would claim that this is inconsistent...using one measure. But, in my view, the right of the mother (to have or not have children) outweighs the rights of the fetus (to be born or not). I hold this view for many reasons. Society does not benefit from encouraging or forcing people who do not want to be parents to be parents. So too, the environment, which is already under serious population pressure. Â Once the mother DOES want the child, however, then the rights of that child (to be gay, in this case) outweigh the rights of the mother to 'design' her baby. I believe this in large part because there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, so in this case I'd say let the mother adjust to the child, not the other way around. Â As for capital punishment, I'm against, because that is in society's best interest, particularly for the wrongly convicted. I also consider it barbaric. Â Both far Right and far Left love to cook issues down to single criteria for propoganda purposes, but in reality, life is not so simple. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What if two lesbians want to have two gay kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I should have known that the minute I mentioned the 'u' word that fucking buick plesiosaur thing would appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 i'm agains abortion AND capitol punishment (one stronger than the other...) BUT, an argument for "anti-abortion + pro-death penalty" is that abortion kills and innocent life while capitol punishment takes a life of someone that considered guilty (yes, i left 'considered guilty' wide open)  both take a life  Great points..There's a book called "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis that discusses this in depth - He calls it "a consistent ethic of life".....and points out that neither political party has this. He extends it to militarism as well. I think the question of guilty vs. innocent begs the question of "according to who".....that judging this is God's, and not Man's domain.  I think this is especially interesting as a parallel thread about Saddam's hanging is discussing the Barbarism of capital punishment. Why is killing a criminal barbaric, while killing a fetus is a "right". If life is sacred, then all life, babies, criminals....even terrorists is sacred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 what about a man's right to choose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 It was not oversimplification, I chose my words carefully. You even agreed with me. I mentioned giving different weight to the reasonS. Â Therefore your views are apparently conflicting to me because I weigh the issues behind each stance differently than you. This is different than if someone spouts two opinions that don't fit and doesn't give sufficient thought to the apparent conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) In our example of abortion verses designer children: I support a women's right to choose, but would be against a parent choosing sexual orientation for their child. Previous arguments would claim that this is inconsistent...using one measure. But, in my view, the right of the mother (to have or not have children) outweighs the rights of the fetus (to be born or not). I hold this view for many reasons. Society does not benefit from encouraging or forcing people who do not want to be parents to be parents. Â hmmm...interesting.....what is your definition of consensual sex? Edited January 2, 2007 by ericb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flush_Amazing Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 ..what is your definition of consensual sex? Â This pretty much sums it up for me: Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) I think this is especially interesting as a parallel thread about Saddam's hanging is discussing the Barbarism of capital punishment. Why is killing a criminal barbaric, while killing a fetus is a "right". If life is sacred, then all life, babies, criminals....even terrorists is sacred. Â What is 'sacred' is a matter of religiosity, not public policy. Â First of all, aborting a fetus is not killing a baby. A fetus is an embyonic, or potential human, at the early stages not much different from the sperm and egg that produce it. We kill those all the time and no one says boo about it. For some reason, for some people (probably due to religion, in most cases) the moment the sperm successfully pierces the egg everything changes. Four dividing cells and the mother can't say 'hey, that was an accident, I don't to be a parent'? I don't buy it. Aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a baby, which has a life independent of the mother. Not allowing the termination of a pregnancy, however, is essentially forced parenthood. That is a human rights issue if there ever was one, particularly in an overpopulated world. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 hmmm...interesting.....what is your definition of consensual sex? Â I believe in sensual sex without a con. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 what about a man's right to choose? Â Although this is a man's, man's, man's world He wouldn't be nothin' No he wouldn't be nothin' Without his woman Yeaaaah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) You're right. We do agree. Â I doan read so good. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I think this is especially interesting as a parallel thread about Saddam's hanging is discussing the Barbarism of capital punishment. Why is killing a criminal barbaric, while killing a fetus is a "right". If life is sacred, then all life, babies, criminals....even terrorists is sacred. Â What is 'sacred' is a matter of religiosity, not public policy. Â First of all, aborting a fetus is not killing a baby. A fetus is an embyonic, or potential human, at the early stages not much different from the sperm and egg that produce it. We kill those all the time and no one says boo about it. For some reason, for some people (probably due to religion, in most cases) the moment the sperm successfully pierces the egg everything changes. Four dividing cells and the mother can't say 'hey, that was an accident, I don't to be a parent'? I don't buy it. Aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a baby, which has a life independent of the mother. Not allowing the termination of a pregnancy, however, is essentially forced parenthood. That is a human rights issue if there ever was one, particularly in an overpopulated world. Â In your opinion, at what point does the fetus become a human being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Not allowing the termination of a pregnancy, however, is essentially forced parenthood  how did she get pregnant??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 difference between a fetus and a criminal : one has a soul. Â we dont hang people for killing animals. or plants. we qualify murder as taking someone's life, his soul. since the soul only enters the fetus in the last 2 months of a pregnancy, and sometimes in the last few minutes,a removal is barbaric but not murder. Â i do not think women should abort their offsprings. but legislation is not an answer. Â i believe in the course of nature. spoiled rich folks dont. they want a child like a bimmer. they want the best. nobody wants to suffer their choices.you fuck you get kids.. gays want kids. gay is natural. insimination is not. adoption is. Â keep that technology to animal research. Â so i'm pro choice anti abortion. anti killing of humans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 it's not forced parenthood until it's forced fucking.! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 In your opinion, at what point does the fetus become a human being? Â Fuck if I know. I didn't design the species, I'm just one of them. Â The Supreme Court came up with a first trimester compromise. This seems to have worked well to consider the rights of all involved. Â There is only a religious answer to your question. There is no scientific one. Semantically, a fetus is a fetus until it's born. Then it's a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 it's not forced parenthood until it's forced fucking.! Â Lust happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Â how did she get pregnant??? Â You should really speak to your parents about that. I wouldn't want to presume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 it's not forced parenthood until it's forced fucking.! Â Lust happens. Â so does anger...but murder is illegal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.