Just what I thought, you don't know what you are talking about.
So, you want to prevent unwanted "murders"/abortions, but you are against birth control???
Face it, you just want to tell people what to do just like all the other of your clan. You could care less about life or death.
What's your solution? Sex is only allowed in marriage or when raping young boys?
#getlaid
Solution to what? I don't have a problem. I didn't say you can't be involved in using the morning after pill. Did I? You asked me for its use and I gave it. You can and will do want you want. As for me, I would never choose to do so.
Do you think your grandparents or greatparents thought the day would come for abortion on demand?
Nope. But then, in their day there was a certain stigma attached to getting pregnant without first being married. Times change . . .
As for the morning after pill I believe that it induces a woman to start her menstrual cycle upon it's use, thus eliminating the possibility of a pregnancy occurring after having unprotected sex which may have led to conception. I also seem to recall a discussion wherein it is not exactly like popping some Tylenol, either. Also done without the aid of google, so feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
Brent, just because abortion on demand was not thought of as a possibility a few generations ago, does not mean that what you are bringing forth will find it's way to legislatures around the globe any time soon. Hell, abortion as a procedure did not really become all that safe for the woman until the 1930's anyway, so it is not surprising that it was not exactly commonplace, regardless of social mores at the time.
GTA, you really need to get off the whole "raping boys" meme. It has been conclusively shown that the rate of offending amongst Catholic priests (and other denominations, as well) was/is no higher than other occupations that work in close proximity with youth (teachers, coaches, etc.). It is nothing more than a cheap shot that has no basis in reality.
doc·u·men·ta·ry
/ˌdäkyəˈment(ə)rē/
Adjective
Consisting of official pieces of written, printed, or other matter.
Noun
A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report.
Morning after pill. Without googling it, my understanding is it a pill that prevents life after intercourse, just like other pills that prevent life before intercourse. The morning after pill is suppose to be even stronger and designed to fight a potential pregnancy. Why would I be in favour of it?
I'm sorry, I thought "why would I be in favour of it?" meant you were against it?
Mark, why is it "hatespeak" to posit a religious point of view, yet you give GTA a pass when he posts about child molesting clergy?
What's your solution? Sex is only allowed in marriage or when raping young boys?
Given the data available, is this not also hatespeak?
Just curious, but also helping to kick start this muthah . . .
Couple things on that..
You pointed out that molesting children is no more prevalent in the clergy than other child-based occupations. Funny thing about that is, it really rankles me more when this is a group of LITERALLY holier than thou folk doing it. You wanna say you're at a higher standard, you get harder judgement when you fall. On that note, don't pull this bullshit of "Well, the true clergy would claim to be no more, or even less so" shit.
Hatespeak that I'm talking about is directed towards a race, sex, culture (you know, prejudice and bigotry). "Occupation" does not qualify.
aaahh, but are Catholic priests not an identifiable group?
Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group
And I don't know that it is more egregious when it a clergyman involved, beyond the whole "higher standard" you bring up. violating the trust of a child is disgusting no matter who does it. But I will not argue the point.
What rankles me is people who use the abuse scandal as simply another means of demonizing the Church as a whole, to the exclusion of caring for those who were hurt by it. The Church has, in recent years, acknowledged it's faults in this regard and has taken steps to ensure that it does not happen in the future. It is also caring for those affected by this tragedy.
Where are the people screaming for reform of our teaching methods and school boards because of teachers who molest? Or our Hockey Leagues? If anything comes of a new revelation it's on the back page the next day. But the Church? Stretch into days and weeks if possible. Rank hypocrisy . . . in general, not on your part.
After reading this, and looking at my 18 month daughter. I can not fathom how any human being on this planet would conclude that that a fetus and a living and breathing entity are one in the same.
I will not address the whole point of life issue but I'm with Jah, PM me if you see people "throwing" out babies.
aaahh, but are Catholic priests not an identifiable group?
Choice vs not choice - also, don't try the "choose gay" or "called by god" stuff either
Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group
And I don't know that it is more egregious when it a clergyman involved, beyond the whole "higher standard" you bring up. violating the trust of a child is disgusting no matter who does it. But I will not argue the point.
Good decision
What rankles me is people who use the abuse scandal as simply another means of demonizing the Church as a whole, to the exclusion of caring for those who were hurt by it. The Church has, in recent years, acknowledged it's faults in this regard and has taken steps to ensure that it does not happen in the future. It is also caring for those affected by this tragedy.
I think I've pretty much laid out my opinion of the church and all its failings without needing to lean on the pedophilia.
Where are the people screaming for reform of our teaching methods and school boards because of teachers who molest? Or our Hockey Leagues? If anything comes of a new revelation it's on the back page the next day. But the Church? Stretch into days and weeks if possible. Rank hypocrisy . . . in general, not on your part.
Again, I think it is the perception that these people in the church are supposed to be held to a higher standard, by their own vocational choice (there's that word again).
Disgusting . . . hope gets a long time to contemplate his crimes. As for your daughter, she is no different now (genetically speaking, than she was in the womb. the only real difference is one of geography.
Again, I think it is the perception that these people in the church are supposed to be held to a higher standard, by their own vocational choice (there's that word again).
Mark
I see . . . so, hatespeak for thee, but not for we. As long as we are clear.
As for your comment about pedophilia, a case can be made that that is not a "choice" either.
Disgusting . . . hope gets a long time to contemplate his crimes. As for your daughter, she is no different now (genetically speaking, than she was in the womb. the only real difference is one of geography.
Georgraphy, size, complexity, viability, sentience, recognition, you know... but just geography.
Georgraphy, size, complexity, viability, sentience, recognition, you know... but just geography.
Mark
Viability? Please tell me that you do not think an 18 month old can survive on it's own . . .
Complexity? Was his DNA somehow altered by the birthing process? I don't think so, so he is just as complex after birth as before.
Recognition? Babies in utero respond to their Mother's voice, but also to their Father's. They do so differently than they do with others.
Sentience? Watch Silent Scream. Further, is a newborn as "sentient" as a 6 yr. old?
Size? Now you're just fucking with me, aren't you?
And I am pretty sure I understand where you're coming from, Mark. In many ways we see eye to eye on various issues, but on certain key questions we will always differ. Like this Goznell character that the Mill linked to. We can both agree that, as monstrous as his crimes were, he should not be put to death.
Simply put, it is my belief that abortion is wrong, and that some form of limits need to be placed on access if we, as a nation, want to talk about Human Rights and be taken seriously. Brent seems to think that this latest diatribe on abortion is where we are heading, but I disagree. I see a day where there will be some form of legislation surrounding abortion in this country. I also think that, like all good compromises, it will please no one.
Simply put, it is my belief that abortion is wrong, and that some form of limits need to be placed on access if we, as a nation, want to talk about Human Rights and be taken seriously. Brent seems to think that this latest diatribe on abortion is where we are heading, but I disagree. I see a day where there will be some form of legislation surrounding abortion in this country. I also think that, like all good compromises, it will please no one.
There is some form of legislation around abortion in this country. Further, Brent is about one bad day away from this guy....
Further, when I said;
"Recognition" earlier, I wasn't talking about it the way you took it, I meant it as "we don't see them as human".
DNA does not = complexity. My hair will have the same DNA as my entire body. My hair is less complex than me.
Viability - if you feed and water a child, it will survive. A fetus of 8 weeks ain't gonna last on gerber food and milk.
But if the Mother continues to eat and thereby feed the child, it will be just fine.
An unborn child, and a newborn one, are BOTH dependent on someone else for nourishment. The only difference is in the means of delivery, and the type of food. A newborn won't do too well on Steak and Baked Potato either.
You are factually incorrect about abortion law. The Supreme court struck down our previous legislation in it's entirety and sent the whole issue back to Parliament for action. Successive Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers have not seen fit to address the issue, knowing that the divisiveness of the procees would cost them votes, and possibly an election victory. There is no Federal statute governing abortion in Canada.
But if the Mother continues to eat and thereby feed the child, it will be just fine.
An unborn child, and a newborn one, are BOTH dependent on someone else for nourishment. The only difference is in the means of delivery, and the type of food. A newborn won't do too well on Steak and Baked Potato either.
You are factually incorrect about abortion law. The Supreme court struck down our previous legislation in it's entirety and sent the whole issue back to Parliament for action. Successive Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers have not seen fit to address the issue, knowing that the divisiveness of the procees would cost them votes, and possibly an election victory. There is no Federal statute governing abortion in Canada.
Replace "legislation" with a "policy" and I'm close enough... and it basically reads:
"Hey, you old fucks with dicks, it isn't your decision, get fucked kindly, and stop trying to control other people because of your made up man in the sky. Asswipes."
Funny how you fall back on "close enough" when it suits you . . . but no, you are not. What you are is wrong. There is no law in this country with regard to abortion.
As for old fucks and their dicks, it doesn't have anything to do with that, either . . . and the fact that you are falling back on familiar territory is heartening.
Lastly, don't worry, the made up man in the sky forgives you . . . it's kind of His thing.
Enjoy your weekend. I am going to start loading up on some Havana Club 7 yr. old Rum. See ya . . .
Disgusting . . . hope gets a long time to contemplate his crimes. As for your daughter, she is no different now (genetically speaking, than she was in the womb. the only real difference is one of geography.
I do agree milo, but I'm a kid person and she is my daughter so I'm a little biased on that one. As for the genetic question, it brings a to mind an article I read recently. Little off topic but still some what relevant
Funny how you fall back on "close enough" when it suits you . . . but no, you are not. What you are is wrong. There is no law in this country with regard to abortion.
As for old fucks and their dicks, it doesn't have anything to do with that, either . . . and the fact that you are falling back on familiar territory is heartening.
Lastly, don't worry, the made up man in the sky forgives you . . . it's kind of His thing.
Enjoy your weekend. I am going to start loading up on some Havana Club 7 yr. old Rum. See ya . . .
Make believe forgiveness? Not needed, but it did remind me of a great little song quote...
"They tell me I'm forgiven if I ask to be,
I think permission oughta come that easily,
I'm piling cores up underneath this apple tree and singing
Oh! Lordy have mercy on me".
Let's face it, society defines the morals. Fetus isn't a person, abortion isn't murder. Sure, people have individual morals and values, but I prefer the ones I made up myself vs the ones that were brainwashed into me.
There's a mental exercise were you are to picture yourself born in a different time, in a different place. If this was ancient greek, you'd be tossing deformed babies away because their particular group of pointy hat experts deemed it "Right".
There is 0% way you can say that the old fucks and their dicks (and let's extrapolate, anyone, man woman, old or young who is not currently considering an abortion) don't play into this. All these fucking people that say abortion is wrong, and that it shouldn't be allowed are pretentious assholes who need to shut their fucking mouth. Bottom line, it's up to the persons in the situation. Take god out of it (and I'll take out Mr. clean and Mickey Mouse since they're all on par), and it has NOTHING to do with anyone not currently expecting.
Now, if you want an interesting debate, let's talk about the morals of the choice of abortion when there is dissent between the two genetic contributors (the parents to be)! How does one divvy up the decision making, if at all? Maybe a new thread.
Yeah I read that article too. I think that you own your genes. I think in this case, as there was no prior agreement for the deceased to donate or the doctor to "harvest" the cells, the descendants might have some marginal claim. As for the present day. I used to do product testing, and have done so for a medical study on one occasion. When I participated, I was required to sign off that any discoveries made through the use of any genetic material they may take (blood samples) were the property of the Company in question, and that my compensation would constitute "full and final payment" for same. Pretty sure that is standard language now in medical research now.
Make believe forgiveness? Not needed, but it did remind me of a great little song quote...
"They tell me I'm forgiven if I ask to be,
I think permission oughta come that easily,
I'm piling cores up underneath this apple tree and singing
Oh! Lordy have mercy on me".
Let's face it, society defines the morals. Fetus isn't a person, abortion isn't murder. Sure, people have individual morals and values, but I prefer the ones I made up myself vs the ones that were brainwashed into me.
There's a mental exercise were you are to picture yourself born in a different time, in a different place. If this was ancient greek, you'd be tossing deformed babies away because their particular group of pointy hat experts deemed it "Right".
There is 0% way you can say that the old fucks and their dicks (and let's extrapolate, anyone, man woman, old or young who is not currently considering an abortion) don't play into this. All these fucking people that say abortion is wrong, and that it shouldn't be allowed are pretentious assholes who need to shut their fucking mouth. Bottom line, it's up to the persons in the situation. Take god out of it (and I'll take out Mr. clean and Mickey Mouse since they're all on par), and it has NOTHING to do with anyone not currently expecting.
Now, if you want an interesting debate, let's talk about the morals of the choice of abortion when there is dissent between the two genetic contributors (the parents to be)! How does one divvy up the decision making, if at all? Maybe a new thread.
Mark
But you see, that is wher my position wins. I assign the same Rights to the unborn child as I do to the Mother and Father. In that instance, it no longer matters what the Father wants, nor the Mother, as the right of the child to life becomes paramount. See? totally avoids your specious little argument.
Let's face it, society defines the morals. Fetus isn't a person, abortion isn't murder. Sure, people have individual morals and values, but I prefer the ones I made up myself
This troubles me . . . what happens when you change your mind? Sorry, but I prefer my morals to be a little less "flexible". Right and wrong are real concepts, not some ephemeral idea that changes like the length of a woman's skirt.
With regard to children I kind of like this:
The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually;
The child that is hungry must be fed; the child that is sick must be nursed; the child that is backward must be helped; the delinquent child must be reclaimed; and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored;
The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress;
The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation;
The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of fellow men.
You will note that the UN mentions "spirituality" in the first point.
Your right in the fact Milo that there was no consent on Henrietta's part. I did consent to giving my genes when my wife and I decided to have children but the 2 have similarities in an that who owns the genetic property. Of children or adults(deceased) thus constituting "ownership" Do I own my wife's fetus? I think moms everywhere would way in on that one. To me this is about ADULTS making personal choices about their lives. Yeah I might not agree and I might even think less of you for taking a certain path but at the end of the day I will defend your right to make that choice (whatever it may be)
Lets look at the other end of the life spectrum. Should assisted suicide be legal? If I wanna die on my own terms regardless of the reasons. Who are YOU to say no?
Life is about choices and everyone makes their own. That I think is a right every human being/soul has.
But you see, that is wher my position wins. I assign the same Rights to the unborn child as I do to the Mother and Father. In that instance, it no longer matters what the Father wants, nor the Mother, as the right of the child to life becomes paramount. See? totally avoids your specious little argument.
You're applying human rights to a thing that is not a human in our society. You're not right, you're a victim of bad semantics.
Let's face it, society defines the morals. Fetus isn't a person, abortion isn't murder. Sure, people have individual morals and values, but I prefer the ones I made up myself
This troubles me . . . what happens when you change your mind? Sorry, but I prefer my morals to be a little less "flexible". Right and wrong are real concepts, not some ephemeral idea that changes like the length of a woman's skirt.
Here's the problem with your argument. Right and wrong are real concepts, but they are fluid, they DO change to some degree. It is wrong to kill someone, but it is heroic to kill someone on a murdering spree. If I shoot a crazy man about to kill three innocents, I'm a hero. If I'm a doctor that kills a man that happens to be a perfect match for three people in desperate need for transplants, I'm a monster.
Times change, needs change, and when people hold on to a text 2000 years old, it become irrelevant, at best an impediment, and at worst dangerous. It gets worse when they preach to their zombie horde about things not addressed in that particular text (abortion, stem cells, etc etc).
Think of the time of JC and his beard crew (which, is a damned funny name for the apostles when you consider they were a bunch of dudes that left the wives / life behind to all hang out together).
- No medical knowledge per se, limited resources. Things like premarital sex would spread disease and cause multiple children which strains what is available. No sex before marriage is a pretty solid idea.
- I am thy god, fuck all the others - well, if you have different sets of rules, that hardly makes any of them worthwhile
- Don't kill. Killing bad, people take a long time to manufacture and train until they are useful. At that time, they needed all the soldiers, carpenters, etc they had.
- Don't steal - it could get you killed
- Listen to mom and dad - we've brainwashed them well and good, so you do so too... makes it easier for us.
- Don't be a hater about your neighbour's wife (could get you killed) or stuff (don't kill us because we have the pointy hats, and usually the biggest shiniest stuff).
Religion was the crowd control of the time... useless now.
Our day and age? People have a moral obligation to be enviro-conscious, we recycle, minimize, and changed how we do things. No commandment on that. People needed to make more morals around modern technology and / or trends. Don't drive drunk, don't talk on your cell in the movies, don't do drugs. All of these things are modern morals... and they will change. We get teleporters? Who cares if you drink yourself stupid? We figure out a green garbage disposal? Fuck it! Styrofoam is back baby.
I should make my own 10 commandments....
With regard to children I kind of like this:
The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually;
The child that is hungry must be fed; the child that is sick must be nursed; the child that is backward must be helped; the delinquent child must be reclaimed; and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored;
The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress;
The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation;
The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of fellow men.
You will note that the UN mentions "spirituality" in the first point.
Another mental exercise.
You're in the Louvre, and there is a catastrophic fire... you have time to save the Mona Lisa (arguably the greatest artistic accomplishment of mankind), or one 6 month old baby.
Comments
Should extend the option of abortion until the age of 4-5.....decades old
Mark
Solution to what? I don't have a problem. I didn't say you can't be involved in using the morning after pill. Did I? You asked me for its use and I gave it. You can and will do want you want. As for me, I would never choose to do so.
Nope. But then, in their day there was a certain stigma attached to getting pregnant without first being married. Times change . . .
As for the morning after pill I believe that it induces a woman to start her menstrual cycle upon it's use, thus eliminating the possibility of a pregnancy occurring after having unprotected sex which may have led to conception. I also seem to recall a discussion wherein it is not exactly like popping some Tylenol, either. Also done without the aid of google, so feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
Brent, just because abortion on demand was not thought of as a possibility a few generations ago, does not mean that what you are bringing forth will find it's way to legislatures around the globe any time soon. Hell, abortion as a procedure did not really become all that safe for the woman until the 1930's anyway, so it is not surprising that it was not exactly commonplace, regardless of social mores at the time.
doc·u·men·ta·ry
/ˌdäkyəˈment(ə)rē/
Adjective
Consisting of official pieces of written, printed, or other matter.
Noun
A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report.
I'm sorry, I thought "why would I be in favour of it?" meant you were against it?
I am entirely saddened that this thread lost steam so quickly. I was very excited by the avenues this could have explored.
Mark
What's your solution? Sex is only allowed in marriage or when raping young boys?
Given the data available, is this not also hatespeak?
Just curious, but also helping to kick start this muthah . . .
Couple things on that..
You pointed out that molesting children is no more prevalent in the clergy than other child-based occupations. Funny thing about that is, it really rankles me more when this is a group of LITERALLY holier than thou folk doing it. You wanna say you're at a higher standard, you get harder judgement when you fall. On that note, don't pull this bullshit of "Well, the true clergy would claim to be no more, or even less so" shit.
Hatespeak that I'm talking about is directed towards a race, sex, culture (you know, prejudice and bigotry). "Occupation" does not qualify.
Mark
Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group
And I don't know that it is more egregious when it a clergyman involved, beyond the whole "higher standard" you bring up. violating the trust of a child is disgusting no matter who does it. But I will not argue the point.
What rankles me is people who use the abuse scandal as simply another means of demonizing the Church as a whole, to the exclusion of caring for those who were hurt by it. The Church has, in recent years, acknowledged it's faults in this regard and has taken steps to ensure that it does not happen in the future. It is also caring for those affected by this tragedy.
Where are the people screaming for reform of our teaching methods and school boards because of teachers who molest? Or our Hockey Leagues? If anything comes of a new revelation it's on the back page the next day. But the Church? Stretch into days and weeks if possible. Rank hypocrisy . . . in general, not on your part.
I will not address the whole point of life issue but I'm with Jah, PM me if you see people "throwing" out babies.
Philadelphia abortion doctor guilty in 3 babies' deaths - World - CBC News
Read this, if you have any empathy for human life you probably won't finish it.
Again, I think it is the perception that these people in the church are supposed to be held to a higher standard, by their own vocational choice (there's that word again).
Mark
I see . . . so, hatespeak for thee, but not for we. As long as we are clear.
As for your comment about pedophilia, a case can be made that that is not a "choice" either.
Georgraphy, size, complexity, viability, sentience, recognition, you know... but just geography.
Mark
Sigh, how do you make a good point and pull a phillivey in one post?
Yes, there could be a case made that pedophilia has a certain degree of compulsion to it.
But you had this quaint little quote about the hatespeak all lined up and completely missed my point.
Mark
Viability? Please tell me that you do not think an 18 month old can survive on it's own . . .
Complexity? Was his DNA somehow altered by the birthing process? I don't think so, so he is just as complex after birth as before.
Recognition? Babies in utero respond to their Mother's voice, but also to their Father's. They do so differently than they do with others.
Sentience? Watch Silent Scream. Further, is a newborn as "sentient" as a 6 yr. old?
Size? Now you're just fucking with me, aren't you?
And I am pretty sure I understand where you're coming from, Mark. In many ways we see eye to eye on various issues, but on certain key questions we will always differ. Like this Goznell character that the Mill linked to. We can both agree that, as monstrous as his crimes were, he should not be put to death.
There is some form of legislation around abortion in this country. Further, Brent is about one bad day away from this guy....
Further, when I said;
"Recognition" earlier, I wasn't talking about it the way you took it, I meant it as "we don't see them as human".
DNA does not = complexity. My hair will have the same DNA as my entire body. My hair is less complex than me.
Viability - if you feed and water a child, it will survive. A fetus of 8 weeks ain't gonna last on gerber food and milk.
Mark
An unborn child, and a newborn one, are BOTH dependent on someone else for nourishment. The only difference is in the means of delivery, and the type of food. A newborn won't do too well on Steak and Baked Potato either.
You are factually incorrect about abortion law. The Supreme court struck down our previous legislation in it's entirety and sent the whole issue back to Parliament for action. Successive Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers have not seen fit to address the issue, knowing that the divisiveness of the procees would cost them votes, and possibly an election victory. There is no Federal statute governing abortion in Canada.
Replace "legislation" with a "policy" and I'm close enough... and it basically reads:
"Hey, you old fucks with dicks, it isn't your decision, get fucked kindly, and stop trying to control other people because of your made up man in the sky. Asswipes."
Mark
As for old fucks and their dicks, it doesn't have anything to do with that, either . . . and the fact that you are falling back on familiar territory is heartening.
Lastly, don't worry, the made up man in the sky forgives you . . . it's kind of His thing.
Enjoy your weekend. I am going to start loading up on some Havana Club 7 yr. old Rum. See ya . . .
I do agree milo, but I'm a kid person and she is my daughter so I'm a little biased on that one. As for the genetic question, it brings a to mind an article I read recently. Little off topic but still some what relevant
Henrietta Lacks formally recognised as source of HeLa research cells | Science | theguardian.com
So who owns your genes? You or your ancestors/descendants?
Make believe forgiveness? Not needed, but it did remind me of a great little song quote...
"They tell me I'm forgiven if I ask to be,
I think permission oughta come that easily,
I'm piling cores up underneath this apple tree and singing
Oh! Lordy have mercy on me".
Let's face it, society defines the morals. Fetus isn't a person, abortion isn't murder. Sure, people have individual morals and values, but I prefer the ones I made up myself vs the ones that were brainwashed into me.
There's a mental exercise were you are to picture yourself born in a different time, in a different place. If this was ancient greek, you'd be tossing deformed babies away because their particular group of pointy hat experts deemed it "Right".
There is 0% way you can say that the old fucks and their dicks (and let's extrapolate, anyone, man woman, old or young who is not currently considering an abortion) don't play into this. All these fucking people that say abortion is wrong, and that it shouldn't be allowed are pretentious assholes who need to shut their fucking mouth. Bottom line, it's up to the persons in the situation. Take god out of it (and I'll take out Mr. clean and Mickey Mouse since they're all on par), and it has NOTHING to do with anyone not currently expecting.
Now, if you want an interesting debate, let's talk about the morals of the choice of abortion when there is dissent between the two genetic contributors (the parents to be)! How does one divvy up the decision making, if at all? Maybe a new thread.
Mark
But you see, that is wher my position wins. I assign the same Rights to the unborn child as I do to the Mother and Father. In that instance, it no longer matters what the Father wants, nor the Mother, as the right of the child to life becomes paramount. See? totally avoids your specious little argument.
Let's face it, society defines the morals. Fetus isn't a person, abortion isn't murder. Sure, people have individual morals and values, but I prefer the ones I made up myself
This troubles me . . . what happens when you change your mind? Sorry, but I prefer my morals to be a little less "flexible". Right and wrong are real concepts, not some ephemeral idea that changes like the length of a woman's skirt.
With regard to children I kind of like this:
The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually;
The child that is hungry must be fed; the child that is sick must be nursed; the child that is backward must be helped; the delinquent child must be reclaimed; and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored;
The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress;
The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation;
The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of fellow men.
You will note that the UN mentions "spirituality" in the first point.
Lets look at the other end of the life spectrum. Should assisted suicide be legal? If I wanna die on my own terms regardless of the reasons. Who are YOU to say no?
Life is about choices and everyone makes their own. That I think is a right every human being/soul has.
Another mental exercise.
You're in the Louvre, and there is a catastrophic fire... you have time to save the Mona Lisa (arguably the greatest artistic accomplishment of mankind), or one 6 month old baby.
What's more important?
Mark