Ohio Chatter DEV

QuakerOats

HitsRus;1841198 wrote:A person who killed a puppy was recently convicted under Goddard's law and sentenced to a year in prison.. a dog has more rights than a human fetus.

Sick.

Same with disturbing a turtle EGG on the beach ...........massive fines and imprisonment. Some have lost all sense of the sanctity of human life, which is incredibly troubling for civilization.

Heretic

QuakerOats;1841233 wrote:Some opinions are far more valid than other opinions. And facts can even be more valid than opinions.

Spoken by the bottom rung of the opinion tree.

ppaw1999

This still seems simplistic. If only those with personal experience have a right to set the cultural standard (ie, force their "opinions" on others), you still don't make a case that those who don't own guns should have a say in the law, or that those who have never been on trial for murder should have any say on capital punishment.

Is this what you think? Do you genuinely believe that those without personal experience are incapable of discussing a topic, even at a morally philosophical level?

For example, I don't have urges toward pedophilia, but I daresay I wouldn't leave legislation for acting on such impulses to those who do exclusively.

That is not at all what I am trying to say. As a male I cannot get pregnant. I can say that under no circumstance I would have an abortion. That can be my personal opinion. In reality as a male I can not say what I would do in a certain situation that is an impossibility for me. I cannot get pregnant. If I could get pregnant I would hope that I would be morally strong enough not to get an abortion but since I can't get pregnant I cannot say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't. Can you? If you are not a woman how can you honestly answer that? As far as being a pedophile, male or female we know what our actions would be. Both sexes can be and should be opposed to this immoral behavior. There is no question that this should be totally illegal. There is no disagreement with the vast majority of the population. When it comes to abortions I believe a woman should have complete say so over her body. She is the one that has to live with the consequences and she is the only one that knows her personal circumstances. I cannot with a clear conscious tell a woman what to do with her body. Guns and murder is not gender specific. Getting pregnant is. Having guns and murder is not gender specific. Both sexes can have an informed opinion on these topics. Only one sex can get pregnant and have a 100% factual opinion.

ppaw1999

QuakerOats;1841233 wrote:Some opinions are far more valid than other opinions. And facts can even be more valid than opinions.

Who are you to judge which opinions and facts are more valid? You think the links you cherry pick and post are the most valid because they agree with your personal opinions? That's not being hypocritical?

QuakerOats

Heretic;1841260 wrote:Spoken by the bottom rung of the opinion tree.

Yet, still followed by many apparently. Thanks

QuakerOats

ppaw1999;1841265 wrote:Who are you to judge which opinions and facts are more valid? You think the links you cherry pick and post are the most valid because they agree with your personal opinions? That's not being hypocritical?

God gifted us with a brain and conscience to form opinions, discern fact from fiction, and make judgments.

Take care.

ppaw1999

QuakerOats;1841300 wrote:God gifted us with a brain and conscience to form opinions, discern fact from fiction, and make judgments.

Take care.

Shame on you for wasting God's gift:huh:

QuakerOats

I'm pretty sure his guidance to us Catholics is to value life, including the innocent unborn.

CenterBHSFan

There needs to be some sort of male activity along with female activity in order for a pregnancy to happen, because it just doesn't spontaneously happen.

Aside from medical "emergencies", rape and incest:

Abortions happen to remove either a life-changing burden or a financial burden, or both. For me, it's pure idiocy for a pregnant woman to have the right to dictate to another person whether they have a right to influence her decision to end that pregnancy or to keep them in financial chains, disregarding the fact that both bodies were needed to create the pregnancy to begin with. I have never understood why people are supportive of selective tyranny in such a manner. "It's a woman's body and her choice" until she goes after your paycheck, then it's the man's responsibility, too. Magical jackassery.
And now we know, at least partly, why there are beta males. They're so used to being conditioned to being irrelevant (except for their munniez, that's important stuff right there) that they accept it as easily as the air that they breath.

What a joke.

CenterBHSFan

I'd be much more inclined to have more free access to pregnancy prevention than anything else.

[video=youtube;sjpGBEPYv80][/video]

Heretic

QuakerOats;1841329 wrote:I'm pretty sure his guidance to us Catholics is to value life, including the innocent unborn.

Ah, Catholics. Home of the pedo-priests and their higher-ups who are more concerned with covering up their crimes than actually providing justice to their victims. A real bastion of morality!

ppaw1999

QuakerOats;1841329 wrote:I'm pretty sure his guidance to us Catholics is to value life, including the innocent unborn.

Excellent! If your conviction is that strong than pony-up. Instead of screaming thou shall not abort than give another option. I'm sure that if you offer to support the innocent unborn and pay for all expenses you will have several takers. God will bless you!

BoatShoes

HitsRus;1841198 wrote:A person who killed a puppy was recently convicted under Goddard's law and sentenced to a year in prison.. a dog has more rights than a human fetus.

Do you believe that a married mother of two who has an abortion for reason that she got pregnant but simply does not want anymore children should be charged with aggravated murder and given the death penalty or life in prison as she would if she purposely and knowingly killed her post-natal children?

BRF

Heretic;1841349 wrote:Ah, Catholics. Home of the pedo-priests and their higher-ups who are more concerned with covering up their crimes than actually providing justice to their victims. A real bastion of morality!

So anyone who is Catholic is bad?

HitsRus

BoatShoes;1841363 wrote:Do you believe that a married mother of two who has an abortion for reason that she got pregnant but simply does not want anymore children should be charged with aggravated murder and given the death penalty or life in prison as she would if she purposely and knowingly killed her post-natal children?

Personally, Yes. Practically, no.

Now before you say/ask, 'do I think people who have had abortions are murders?'...absolutely not, given the cultural norms of the past half century.

But I do think your argument of as to when 'rights' are 'vested' and at what point the mother is 'sovereign" versus the State, is a bit of an equivocation. After all, is the line at heart beat, or brain waves, or 'higher' cortical functions....is that at day 150 of the pregnancy or 151?...or 160...or 180?
IMO what should be done, given the secular nature of our society, is to move arbitrary date to well back from where there is a question, but still allow the mother a sufficient grace period...say 100 days/3 months to terminate the pregnancy without prosecution. Given that there are multiple ways, methods, and procedures to prevent pregnancy, including but not exclusively, sterilization, birth control, the morning after pill, abstinence, ...a shorter grace period should be sufficient for any indecisiveness, and be morally acceptable to enough of the population to make the continuation of wasting energy and resources fighting about this issue to be a moot point.

In the case of the woman that you cited, if she has two children and doesn't want anymore, she could get her tubes tied, her husband could get a vasectomy, they could use birth control, but above all, accept the risks of pregnancy that go along a priori with having sex.

O-Trap

ppaw1999;1841263 wrote:That is not at all what I am trying to say. As a male I cannot get pregnant. I can say that under no circumstance I would have an abortion. That can be my personal opinion. In reality as a male I can not say what I would do in a certain situation that is an impossibility for me. I cannot get pregnant. If I could get pregnant I would hope that I would be morally strong enough not to get an abortion but since I can't get pregnant I cannot say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't. Can you? If you are not a woman how can you honestly answer that? As far as being a pedophile, male or female we know what our actions would be. Both sexes can be and should be opposed to this immoral behavior. There is no question that this should be totally illegal. There is no disagreement with the vast majority of the population. When it comes to abortions I believe a woman should have complete say so over her body. She is the one that has to live with the consequences and she is the only one that knows her personal circumstances. I cannot with a clear conscious tell a woman what to do with her body. Guns and murder is not gender specific. Getting pregnant is. Having guns and murder is not gender specific. Both sexes can have an informed opinion on these topics. Only one sex can get pregnant and have a 100% factual opinion.

I appreciate the civility with which you clarified your position.

I would still contend that one can, indeed, know whether or not one would do so, even if one doesn't ever end up in that position. I will do my best to articulate the reason on two levels:

First, the cognitive level: I can draw on how I make decisions to say whether or not I have that brand of assurance. If I root my decisions for such moral dilemmas in reason or ethical conviction, and NOT on an emotional appeal (regardless of how strong), then I can say with some level of assurance that I either would or would not take a certain action. It has less to do with an existential knowledge of the position and more to do with the existential knowledge of how I make decisions.

Second, the comparative level: It is still really not so different from the other examples. If I've never been in the position that a person was when he killed a man, how can I know that I wouldn't have done the same? What of a man who raped a woman? Can I know with solid conviction that I would have been able to resist such urges, which seemingly compelled him to do so?

I would submit I can, even if only based on the first level mentioned.

QuakerOats;1841329 wrote:I'm pretty sure his guidance to us Catholics is to value life, including the innocent unborn.

Well, per Humanae Vitae, birth control is also an absence of valuing life, is it not? That the increase of an immediate family (and, by extension, God's own family) is to be considered carefully, but not interfered with by artificial means. Per the document (if memory serves), while this includes abortion, it also includes prophylactics, contraceptive pills, and even elective procedures.

Is this not the case?

BRF;1841414 wrote:So anyone who is Catholic is bad?

I think he was more pointing at the glass house of the Roman Church. Not necessarily suggesting that everyone inside is bad.

O-Trap

HitsRus;1841415 wrote:In the case of the woman that you cited, if she has two children and doesn't want anymore, she could get her tubes tied, her husband could get a vasectomy, they could use birth control, but above all, accept the risks of pregnancy that go along a priori with having sex.

So, ultimately, if a married couple is adamantly opposed to having more children, abstinence is the best practice?

Theoretically correct, I suppose. However, with every example you've given of measures one can take, I know personal examples where they've failed.

Con_Alma

"...above all, accept the risks of pregnancy that go along with having sex"

That about sums it up.

...or abstain.

ppaw1999

As usual O-trap makes some very good points. My only answer is to give a scenario that would be male specific. Let's say that women controlled the legislative branch of our government. Let's also say that the majority of them are in favor of reducing population growth. They are considering passing a bill that if a man father's a child he must then be castrated. Father no children then no castration. Women would have an opinion on this bill. Just like a male can have an opinion on abortion. In this case a woman will not be castrated just like a man will not have an abortion. Having a majority vote in the House and Senate it will up to the women if this bill is to pass. So if it did pass what would you guys do? Father a child and abort your personal "baby" or keep your "baby" and not father a child.

Con_Alma

ppaw1999;1841437 wrote:As usual O-trap makes some very good points. My only answer is to give a scenario that would be male specific. Let's say that women controlled the legislative branch of our government. Let's also say that the majority of them are in favor of reducing population growth. They are considering passing a bill that if a man father's a child he must then be castrated. Father no children then no castration. Women would have an opinion on this bill. Just like a male can have an opinion on abortion. In this case a woman will not be castrated just like a man will not have an abortion. Having a majority vote in the House and Senate it will up to the women if this bill is to pass. So if it did pass what would you guys do? Father a child and abort your personal "baby" or keep your "baby" and not father a child.

If my wife and I wanted children in that scenario I would father a child and abort my personal "baby".

If we didn't want children I would keep my "baby".

Heretic

BRF;1841414 wrote:So anyone who is Catholic is bad?

Now that's crazy talk. Like saying all Muslims are bad because some are terrorists.

However, when there's plenty of examples of corruption and hypocrisy involving people high up in the order, I'm not going to look at them as any bastion of morality to follow. But I could say that about all religion. There are good tenets and such, but the leaders tend to be self-serving douches.

Heretic

Con_Alma;1841431 wrote:"...above all, accept the risks of pregnancy that go along with having sex"

That about sums it up.

...or abstain.

If that's your view, then you follow it. Just like others will follow their views and everyone will be happy!

Con_Alma

Heretic;1841449 wrote:If that's your view, then you follow it. Just like others will follow their views and everyone will be happy!

My view is to follow the law. If that were the law I would follow it.

Since it's not the law I don't take that approach.

I hope others do in fact follow their views. I might suggest they consider the ramifications of doing so in advance and be ready for the outcomes that exist.

BRF

Heretic;1841448 wrote:Now that's crazy talk. Like saying all Muslims are bad because some are terrorists.

Thanks for clarifying. I read your statement and was thinking the Muslim thing, too.

O-Trap

ppaw1999;1841437 wrote:As usual O-trap makes some very good points. My only answer is to give a scenario that would be male specific. Let's say that women controlled the legislative branch of our government. Let's also say that the majority of them are in favor of reducing population growth. They are considering passing a bill that if a man father's a child he must then be castrated. Father no children then no castration. Women would have an opinion on this bill. Just like a male can have an opinion on abortion. In this case a woman will not be castrated just like a man will not have an abortion. Having a majority vote in the House and Senate it will up to the women if this bill is to pass. So if it did pass what would you guys do? Father a child and abort your personal "baby" or keep your "baby" and not father a child.

Were such a case to take place, I would oppose the bill, but not because it was come up with by a Congress the majority of which was female, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge a woman's right to have just as much a vote on any particular piece of legislation. Whether or not it affects them directly doesn't mean they can't form a logical argument for or against it just as well as a man might.

And that, I would submit, is where any justifiable form of legislation should come from, anyway (and I would argue that very little legislation is actually justifiable): From the building of a logical construct to either support or detract from it, and from it being subjected to scrutiny. I don't think personal experience needs to come into play at all.

Con_Alma;1841450 wrote:My view is to follow the law. If that were the law I would follow it.

Since it's not the law I don't take that approach.

I hope others do in fact follow their views. I might suggest they consider the ramifications of doing so in advance and be ready for the outcomes that exist.

Certainly, that last part is something that needs to be considered.

I would ask, though: Is your view to follow the law, regardless of whether or not you think the law is immoral?

I'm not really meaning to provoke an argument. Just curious about your statement and the possible implications pertaining to your moral hierarchy.

BRF;1841454 wrote:Thanks for clarifying. I read your statement and was thinking the Muslim thing, too.

Perhaps this wouldn't be a bad parallel for some on here who sarcastically refer to Islam as a religion of peace. I wonder if they might lay the same brand of condemnation on the Catholic Church for the actions of a small percentage.

Archive

International Women's Day