Another propaganda in the tool bag of a pre-pick and chooser. From Crime to disease trying to gauge the unpredictable and killing as a result. Why don't you focus your efforts on abstinence and stop toying with life like its a science experiment. This falls under the category of the false promise of a disease free society.Quote by: minorwork
I already explained it earlier. Drugs are a substance of which legality and availability equals more users and abusers. But no I don't equate punishing violators of a reasonable law with the pre-determination of a life born in a hard spot. Adoption is available. Abstinence and protection are a plus. Why is the sick and disturbing the solution to societies issues?
First, and this is not an attack, but Japan is a country in Asia so dont think one region is like all regions (most americans think we are the world and there is nothing but evil outside), in Indonesia its different, and Indonesia is part of Asia.
Personally, I love Japan, I LOVE IT, I think its a wonderful culture and I just feel "at home" there, South Korea is (for me) similar but not "as" nice. But I think its really important to point out, if you think "Japan" is equal to the rest of Asia you are wrong, Asia is a continent with various nations all with different cultures and the level of oxytocin is completely irrelevant when pointing this out (take Indonesia and see how open they are about Abortion, or Malaysia or..... you get the point).
Actually, they are quite open, in my experience, about birth control in Malaysia (a muslim nation), but I only know about the more modern areas regarding this so we probably have the other side of the scale as well, just as we got Texas "The third world country State" in the U.S.
First of all, we do recognize the difference in society between eating an animal and humans if this is where you are going with this. Its called canibalism. But needless killing of animals is another issue. But I didn't create the distinction of canibalism vs eating animals but I think that its a good and right thing.
On the subject of man coming from monkeys. At what point of development did the monkey realize that it was naked? Or was nakedness also an invention of a few tribal leaders who were losing fur?
Last edited by An American 1st; 15th October 2010 at 02:13 PM.
Animal rights is loosely related to the moral questions you're working on, but monkey business over human origins goes in the creationism versus evolution thread.
[do not respond]
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
He was trying to make an comparison; so it was in context! But I guess I'll save it for the other thread!
That's the problem with these debates. Nobody can agree on anything subjective. I'm convinced the only way to get anywhere is idendify the objective milestones and go from there. We can identify fertilization, implantation, first heartbeat, first brain activity, birth, grade school, high school, adulthood, senility, coma, etc. We can identify all the objective milestones is a persons life. All that remains is to decide what rights go with each objective milestone. Have at it!
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
(A nonsensical position)
Religious people do tend to frighten easily...
That's one argument, a similar (and possibly better, or equally good) argument is that it could prevent needless suffering by ending the life before it ever begins. I'm not seeing why you have a problem with this, or why you consider it scary.
Don't you use spell check? It's "succeed." Anyways, there may be no way to be 100% absolutely positive but there are some pretty good indicators of what will or will not be a good childhood. A mother who doesn't want to be your mother definitely won't make for a good childhood.
*responsibility. And yes, but we're now talking about a woman's right to choose. Perhaps she doesn't want to live through the misery of carrying a child to term, only to give it up?
Nobody is saying everyone with a hard life should be slaughtered, but abortion isn't the same thing as murder. This is an argument for why abortion might be a good thing in some cases, not an argument for eugenics or forced abortions or something equally sinister.
Is this something you can prove?
If you need to know my position on these issues simply read my post. You have not defaulted them. So why should I process the same exact arguments all over again to you? As to what your positions and resonings are, thats what is not known!
I agree, that's why when I comment on a thread, I usually mention what parts may or may not be objective and subjective.That's the problem with these debates. Nobody can agree on anything subjective. I'm convinced the only way to get anywhere is idendify the objective milestones and go from there. We can identify fertilization, implantation, first heartbeat, first brain activity, birth, grade school, high school, adulthood, senility, coma, etc. We can identify all the objective milestones is a persons life. All that remains is to decide what rights go with each objective milestone. Have at it!
In my own threads, I try to define a few words at first so people don't get confused.
To me, it can't be about any of these subjective things. I don't need to justify abortion by the possibility of them being criminals (which I do find to be a stupid argument). A fetus simply has to have permission to be in the woman's body and as soon as a woman may find it not permissible, well that's her choice.
How do you figure that it is a reasonable law? Alcohol, cigarettes, and other over-the-counters are okay, but nothing else, and that's reasonable?
Again, apparently the legality and availability of bearing children in poor circumstances equals more criminals. Still not seeing the difference between this and the legality and availability of drugs equaling more criminals. I understand one choice is made by the individual and the other by the parent, but that doesn't change the outcome does it?
Well yeah, deep southern Asia tends to be much more religious with abrahamic faiths which again goes back to my thought that the pro-life and pro-choice debate is largely a religious and cultural one over oxytocin levels.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks