|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 82 of 254:
| 
Mar 8 19:26 UTC 2006 |
re resp:78: What do you mean by "narrow-minded"? How do you
distinguish between "narrow-minded" morals and morals with which you
agree?
I think that all people acquire moral beliefs throughout their lives,
with their most basic beliefs beginning in their youth. All people
have some beliefs that are instilled in them as children by their
parents or other adults, and which will never change. All people have
some beliefs which change through the rest of their lives.
It is possible for anyone to be trained (or come by) reasonable,
workable, useful morals, which collectively I will define as "good".
Anyone can come to have "bad" morals as well (which lack those
characteristics). It is possible for anyone to have good or bad
morals, regardless of their religious background. I am sure all of us
know people from both groups who are good people and also people from
both who are not so good.
|
jep
|
|
response 83 of 254:
|
Mar 8 19:26 UTC 2006 |
(Wow, an abortion item is moving away from abortion. I am not sure
I've seen that happen very often before.)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 84 of 254:
|
Mar 8 19:35 UTC 2006 |
resp:83 well, religion/morality came into it, and that's pretty much the
other stand-by for us. ;)
|
klg
|
|
response 85 of 254:
|
Mar 8 20:13 UTC 2006 |
Curl - Your reply to #2 did not respond to the question.
|
keesan
|
|
response 86 of 254:
|
Mar 8 20:25 UTC 2006 |
John, why would you help a child or a woman before a helpless man?
Conception is the fusing of two living cells to make one living cell with the
same total number of chromosomes. Death is the destruction of one or more
living cells, that need not be independent of other cells (body cells die and
are replaced continuously). Death of an organism is the end of its ability
to function as a unified whole, leading to the death shortly after of all the
individual cells (loss of ability to function and integrity).
|
cyklone
|
|
response 87 of 254:
|
Mar 8 21:46 UTC 2006 |
Re #85: Now if you'd just apply your new-found powers of perception to your
own "answers."
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 254:
|
Mar 8 22:19 UTC 2006 |
re #58
The piece of your equation that you're missing is the "blame" factor. The
person would save the toddler and then have the blame of the blastulas' deaths
put on the parents through some spin on magic show scriptures gobbledygook.
|
richard
|
|
response 89 of 254:
|
Mar 8 22:33 UTC 2006 |
Those persons who hijacked the jets and flew them into the WTC and the
Pentagon on 9/11 were basing their moral decisions on their religion, on what
they were TOLD BY OTHERS should be their morality. I would argue that if they
had not been religious, if they had developed their morality based on their
own instincts, that they would not have decided to become kamikazes.
|
tod
|
|
response 90 of 254:
|
Mar 8 22:39 UTC 2006 |
Do you believe GW prays before every major decision?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 254:
|
Mar 8 23:29 UTC 2006 |
I think Timothy McVeigh thought up his morality pretty much on his own,
though perhaps with a little encouragement. Can't blame that one on religion.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 92 of 254:
|
Mar 8 23:39 UTC 2006 |
sure you can, HE WAS CATHOLIC!
|
tod
|
|
response 93 of 254:
|
Mar 8 23:46 UTC 2006 |
Turner Diaries and Jolt cola as I understand it.
Plus, it didn't help we buried those fuckers alive and then the VA didn't want
to admit we could get PTSD after that kind of horrendous shit. Believe me,
it had no links to morality being thought up..
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/marine_b/marine_b_refs/n55en071/Testimony_bradf
ord
_0507gulf.htm
|
klg
|
|
response 94 of 254:
|
Mar 9 01:35 UTC 2006 |
So, according to RW's theory, Josef Stalin - despite the millions he had
killed - must have been a very moral person, inasmuch as he was an
athiest and all.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 254:
|
Mar 9 02:40 UTC 2006 |
At least he wasn't a religious tyrant, but he was a tyrant still. He didn't
get his countrymen to follow him by appealing to their religion, but to their
sense of survival. Same with Saddam. Tyrants use whatever means they have at
hand to exercise their tyrrany. So....what's the point?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 96 of 254:
|
Mar 9 14:05 UTC 2006 |
>At least he wasn't a religious tyrant,
Oh, yes, thank goodness--that would have been really *really* bad...
|
jep
|
|
response 97 of 254:
|
Mar 9 14:08 UTC 2006 |
re resp:86: I would help a child before a man because it seems obvious
to me that a child should come first. A child is less likely to be
able to help himself. Children are to be protected by adults.
While some consider it an anachronism, I consider it is a man's duty,
in a dangerous situation, to sacrifice himself for a woman. That would
hold true for either myself or another man in that type of situation.
|
richard
|
|
response 98 of 254:
|
Mar 9 15:42 UTC 2006 |
#94 Actually Stalin wasn't always an atheist. As a boy he was I believe a
catholic and in a town very strictly controlled by the church. When he grew
up and became educated, it was his deep feeling of being repressed by the
church that led him to communism. Therefore one can argue that maybe Stalin
would not have grown up so embittered had he been raised as an athiest, which
he was not.
|
richard
|
|
response 99 of 254:
|
Mar 9 15:49 UTC 2006 |
And I never said that atheists cornered the market on morality. I just
believe that most people have good instincts naturally, and that in general
it is safer to trust those instincts IMO than to base moral decisions entirely
on what other people tell you, be those other people priests OR atheists.
|
jep
|
|
response 100 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:13 UTC 2006 |
There's an interesting story which is pertinent to the abortion
question, that I came across on Yahoo News. It's about a guy who's
starting a legal campaign to allow men who don't want to be a father to
opt out of the financial responsibility for supporting their child.
Here's the link I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_on_re_us/fatherhood_suit
A group called National Center for Men is backing the campaign.
The lawsuit was filed in district court in Michigan.
I'm against the guy's position. Both parents should be responsible for
their child. If this concept were to become law, it couldn't help but
to cause more abortions. I wouldn't like that.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 101 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:20 UTC 2006 |
I believe a man should only be allowed to opt out of child support in
cases of rape and incest....in other words, damn near never.
Along the same mentality of if you're against abortion you just want to
punish sluts; if you support abortion rights and oppose this lawsuit,
then you might just want to punish men for fathering children.
|
richard
|
|
response 102 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:25 UTC 2006 |
If the mother has her own financial resources and is willing to sign a legal
document releasing the father from all paternal responsibilities, then why
not? In a free country, consenting adults get to make these decisions, not
the government. This is another case of JEP wanting morality imposed on
people of free will by one institution or another.
|
richard
|
|
response 103 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:27 UTC 2006 |
And since a man can donate his sperm to a sperm bank and end up being a father
without even knowing it, let alone having to support the child, why shouldn't
he be able to opt out in this other circumstance?
|
edina
|
|
response 104 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:36 UTC 2006 |
So let me get this straight. Couple has one night stand. They are both
willing participants. She gets pregnant. She doesn't believe in abortion.
He doesn't want to be a father. He should get to opt out?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 105 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:41 UTC 2006 |
>starting a legal campaign to allow men who don't want to be a father to
>opt out of the financial responsibility for supporting their child.
"The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among
abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended
pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial
responsibilities of fatherhood."
Yeah, great. Guys get to have fun, gals get to "choose" from three
extremely difficult options.
Jerk. Wear a condom next time, or get yourself snipped. $500/month is
cheap compared to the responsibility and difficulty of raising a child.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 106 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:43 UTC 2006 |
resp:102 Richard, read the whole response- note the part where JEP says
he's AGAINST the guy's position.
It's again, grey. What if a man and a woman enter a relationship wherein
he flat out says he does NOT want kids, and she agrees... only to turn
around and stop taking the pill, put pin holes in the condoms, whatever?
He didn't want the child- but now she's pregnant. Should he be held
responsible?
Turn it around- she says she doesn't want kids- and he agrees, and then
sabotages the birth control. Should she be held responsible, ie carry
the child to term?
And how can we tell the difference between an 'act of God' (i.e. they
did everything necessary to avoid pregnancy and still ended up with it)
and sabotage?
That said, I do think that pro-life people should be chanting for all
men to be held responsible for the children they create. What the angry
side of me thinks is that the men in the above suit are likely to be
pro-life, but they don't want to be responsible- placing the entire
burden on the woman.
|