Where do you stand on other controversial issues?

For me, there is a massive difference between killing someone for being a murderer and killing an innocent fetus that was never given an opportunity at life. Now, I'm not saying that the death penalty doesn't have its flaws; it isn't perfect and that's why I'm only in favor for it in extremely severe cases. There is also a fundamental difference between killing terrorists and a life that has done nothing wrong. Unfortunately, some innocent civilians have been killed and that's sad, as you said.

For Obamacare, I don't like it because of the amount of debt it will add to our deficit (some estimate $2 trillion). I would like to see a better solution crafted. But that's a whole new argument and I don't want to derail this thread more than it already has been.

 

WOW... so you see pregnancy as a penalty by comparison? Where is the sanctity of human life that you purport to defend then? Under such a negative connotation, what quality of life do you expect this infant to live? You just limited a human life that you claim to love so much to a justifiable burden.

And, there aren’t many resources available for low income women. There are very few in fact. Unfortunately, “bootstraps” do not work for everybody. The kind of social Darwinism that you have seemed to embrace is cold and unrealistic and, quite frankly, scary.

Hmmm, I can see why you defend fetuses so much. So seem to possess the same level of maturity and gravitas.

 

OK, keep telling yourself that.

 

Thanks, but if i needed repetition of a mantra to maintain my opinions i'd probably be arguing from your side, instead.

 

No, obviously a driver driving drunk with no auto insurance is clearly worse than a female getting pregnant and can't afford it. My point is that the latter can also be considered a reckless act and, therefore, should deal with the consequences. But that's the problem with our society - severe lack of accountability.

There are some foster parents that can't have kids of their own that are great parents. Also, as I mentioned, there are clinics that give out condoms for free or for very cheap.

Irony.

That was almost funny. Almost. I won't have a temper tantrum about being insulted like you, though.

 

Don't you see the incongruity in:

1 - blaming people who DO use contraception and still become pregnant for taking the risk in the first place

and then:

2 - making the above comment?

 

This is an interesting position to take. It is interesting because it puts you in the position to judge who is worthy to live and who is worthy to die.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Your position seems to be that it is alright to kill another human being, born or unborn, so long as it can be rationalized.

Am I incorrect?

 

Wow 7 pages before the wheels started to come off.

I'm going to grab another beer, sit back and enjoy this one.

 

Absolutely not.

First and foremost, if people can't help themselves and have got to have sex, I would prefer to see them try to prevent getting pregnant if they aren't ready. But like with anything, it isn't certain. If they do get pregnant, they should absolutely keep the child because they knew full well going in there was the chance that their action could cause pregnancy.

---------- Post added 20th Jul 2012 at 10:34 PM ----------

If some sick, twisted psycho goes into a movie theater and just goes crazy shooting everyone in sight and kills multiple people, that person undoubtedly deserves the death penalty in my view.

If an innocent child that wasn't asked to be created and was never given an opportunity to make the most of their life is aborted, I think there is a stark contrast between the two.

To me, that isn't judging, it's common sense.

 

Well, all i can say is that women everywhere should thank goodness you were born gay; they will be spared your opinion on their body ever being directly relevant.

 

Oh, please.

Get over yourself.

 

Hmm?

---------- Post added 21st Jul 2012 at 12:46 PM ----------

That wasn't a punch line. I really mean that.

 

That really didn't answer the question; it was an Appeal to Emotion. "Someone did something horrible, and therefore we should murder him." That's an Appeal to Emotion, a logical fallacy.

My interest isn't in your position on abortion. As I said I'm looking for the thread of logic or philosophical underpinning behind your stance. I want to know how you arrived to your position, and how it informs your thinking.

So, I'm going to ask again. Am I incorrect in understanding your position to be that it is alright to kill another human being, born or unborn, so long as it can be rationalized?

 

Yeah, I disagree with that.

But anyway, to answer your question, every instance is different and I think that they need to be looked at clearly. So, yes, in a sense.

---------- Post added 20th Jul 2012 at 11:11 PM ----------

Will do.

But I would recommend you work on your own logic and critical thinking skills before suggesting it to others.

 

I deleted that post to send it to you as a personal message, since it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, but i guess i should have expected what essentially amounts to "you are!" in response.

 

Guys, if you can't refrain from making personal attacks, I'm gonna have to close the thread. It is possible to debate this topic civilly. Let's do so.

 

Okay, so it seems that I understand things correctly then. You are looking at things situation by situation and rationalizing who gets to live and who gets to die.

I'm sure you understand that you aren't alone in holding that view. I would argue that many who oppose you on the abortion issue are also arguing from the same position. The only difference between you and them is that they're rationalizing things differently.

But this leads to a bigger question, perhaps one even more important. Why should you or anyone else get to make these decisions? Why do you think you or anyone else is qualified or capable of deciding who gets to live and who should die?

 

Well, I don't actually make the decision; I form an opinion.

But I would argue that people with high authority have to make decisions in our society. If they didn't, this world and country would be a disaster. Sometimes our decisions are the right ones and sometimes they aren't. We have to live with it.

 

You're old enough to vote and we live in a representative democracy. You help put into power those individuals with "high authority" and therefore are indirectly responsible for the actions and judgments that they make. You determine who to vote for based on the opinions you form, and you attempt to sway others to your thinking based on those opinions. Should they be swayed, you might hope that they vote in a similar manner as you. If enough people vote with you (and there are many who agree with you) then collectively you put into power those with authority to make the decisions.

You are right that someone must ultimately make decisions; at least in our society. Since someone has to make decisions, doesn't it make sense we question how and why they make those decisions?

If you think so, do you want those in power making decisions as you make them, through rationalization?

 

Abortion? Legal in all cases
Death Penalty? In my opinion, it should only be used when there's overwhelming evidence for the reason they're using it for.
No fault divorce? Yes
Stem Cell Research? Yes
Pornography? Yes
Affirmative Action? Yes
Medical Marijuana? Yes
Marijuana legalization? Yes. But for recreational use, I believe that there should be some laws in place that prevent you from driving while high, etc.
Gun Control? Yes
Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)? No
Obamacare? No