| Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit! |
| So I was thinking | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 11 2011, 01:09 AM (1,602 Views) | |
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 17 2011, 06:03 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Kay, you going to offer any opinion of your own or just attack other peoples, your argument anti-anti-abortion so far seems to demand that there's nothing wrong with murdering anyone or anything. Din, you offered nothing to rebutt, that there is such a concept as relativism, or that a human being can attempt to understand another's point of view is not an argument for or against anything. An unfertilized egg has a significant chance of becoming a living being in it's own right, but a fertilized egg is certainly a living being in it's own right. Once an egg is viably fertilised it is a child, no less than the 8yr old Tunisian child you've never met nor ever will meet. Or rather, our justice systems rightly have a whole range of devices to cover the active & passive implications of intent, indeed parole is largely judged based on a persons assessed level of intent or likelihood to reoffend so our societies have come to a conclusion that the degree of wrong in a crime can be exacerbated or justified by the thoughts of the accused, not whether or not the accused considers what they do a crime, but why they did it. If one agrees with such a system - then it is indeed hypocritical to claim that there is no difference between ending the life of that which is life, is considered by the terminator to be life, and that which may induce the creation of said life. In the same way, it is not illegal to get drunk whilst owning a car or the means to buy a car, but it is illegal to start a car whilst drunk. No person has been harmed, no property damaged, but the criminal has the intention of doing something which undoubtedly puts lives in danger. On the nature of the soul; no neurologist, no scientist of any kind yet born has assembled any evidence to support a claim that a soul does or does not exist in one form or any other. The belief that human or any other kind of life has no soul and is merely the crazed product of base physics has no more final state evidence than any other view on the subject, that science can be said to be evolving and progressive says nothing about where it will evolve or progress to. I'll be honest, I cannot even conceive of a discovery of science that could disprove God, or even put the existence of a creating sentience in serious doubt. Whether or not it cares about abortion or not I have no idea and could care less, but happen to think it's wrong for very many reasons, not least because it gives an arbitrary power over the very life of one human being to another. Not that I consider myself to have the right to tell people how to live their lives unless they inflict upon me directly, though I do reserve the right to judge people to have lived their lives badly. Unlike moralising hippies... Funny thought though, do criminals have more rights than children? |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 17 2011, 06:59 PM Post #37 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Yea, I wasn't making another statement, but a challenge. I have not much left to offer beyond that Dag. The anti-abortion idea is based on the sanctity of life. You're saying a compromise is OK, that is willing to give it up. As the saying goes, now we are haggling about the price. The baby in the womb can only function by usig the mother's organs, so it is biologically less, yes. Ethics are different. Children have limited rights, yes, and are legally not responsible for their actions. Criminals are. Exceptions excepted. |
![]() |
|
| Yoshida of Ryūkyū | Jun 17 2011, 07:16 PM Post #38 |
|
Knight of the Round Table
|
Wherever you draw the line of beginning for anything whether it be the universe of life, it will always be totally arbitrary. We are the creators of these 'beginnings'. Conception results in a genetic code inside a cell; these are the instructions or the 'blueprints' for a person. Since analogies are used so much in this thread; is the instructions for a building not yet created the building itself? And is destroying the instructions for that building destroying the building? It would make sense to say that the only thing that is created here is our own labels and definitions. And in considering that, I think it's unreasonable to be dictated by them. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 17 2011, 07:23 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
**I just said I don't see that trying to find a compromise is by necessity hypocritical or 'compromises' the original values, moral life isn't about 1's and 0's. In any course, the pursuit of some 'right' things will result in the doing of some wrongs, such that an assesment must be made and compromise may be necessary. The only argument for abortion I'd consider reasonable is where the likelihood was that upon transplantation from the womb, mother, baby or both would be subject to unreasonable mortal peril. Though I do entertain a notion that perhaps there are grounds for the abortion of creatures so mentally damaged that the only thing that makes them human is their apparent physical form. Trouble with that is until the neurology is sufficiently well understood, the definitions are by necessity approximations and prone to error, though the error might never be known if the children are aborted. A child carried to term can only function by using the mother's, or artificial, organs. It is not biologically less, no. || Relativists only apply relativism to things they don't care much about, it's a useless creed. That something is arbitrary, or realising that it may be or must be, does not render it impotent or pointless. At the moment where the plans are destroyed the building is unaffected. The maintenance of the building and the potential for re-creation and understanding of what went into building it however are severely harmed by said destruction. Destroying the building plans before it is built obviously harms the building, a more appropriate analogy. Shocked blitz? I ne'er started it! |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Jun 17 2011, 07:45 PM Post #40 |
|
Retired Knight
|
I only ask these things to force more defined answer as to the distinctions between these different things and why they should be treated differently. It's not intended as an attack. Just nailing down the underlying reasoning and framework of a set of beliefs. My own opinion is that there is no defined set of moral absolutes regarding abortion or killing. My position would be to go by how people feel about these things. For example, we sympathize with pain and death, so most of us naturally feel bad when an animal is being hurt or killed. So when we kill farm animals for meat, we find it is more moral to kill them as quickly and painlessly as possible, as well having them live in decent conditions while living. It causes us less mental distress that way. Likewise, if people tend to get very upset at the idea of human abortions, it gives weight to the position of making abortions illegal just for their peace-of-mind. In particular, people tend to be much less upset at early term term abortions than late term abortions, so this makes banning late term (partial birth) abortions more beneficial to the psyche than banning other abortions. It helps the case that partial birth abortions are easily avoidable in most cases simply by having the abortion earlier. On the other hand, forcing women to have unwanted children has its own consequences of unwanted mental distress and harm to well-being. Personally, I almost don't mind abortions that are done on a fetus that hasn't developed consciousness or ability to feel pain. I am only very slightly pained by abortions done on conscious pain-feeling fetuses, less pain than I feel for quickly killing farm animals, or boys being circumcised, since any fetus isn't going to have much of any mental capacity. I suppose that may sound strange, but it's my understanding that death is as good as never existing. The only people hurt by death are the people still living. If you could die painlessly, then suddenly reanimate 10 years later, you'd feel you just blinked your eye for a second and everything changed around you. It's not somehow better than just staying dead indefinitely (as in forever, aka, no longer existing). |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 17 2011, 07:56 PM Post #41 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
I suppose where I diverge is in potential and the value of it, I think tomorrow has as much value as today, and reality ten years hence will be as real for everything in it as it feels today. Abstracted, all things sound trite, still, it seems to me that this is in the crime of murder, taking the ability to experience from another, the act in itself is often the same as common assault, or normal practice with some errors, where it becomes a serious crime is in its effect on tomorrow. |
![]() |
|
| Drowningpool | Jun 17 2011, 09:32 PM Post #42 |
|
If only alt f4 could work when the bitch says they're prego |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 17 2011, 09:40 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
coathangers are a batchelors best friend? |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 18 2011, 08:23 AM Post #44 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Kay, I am seperating politics from my moral beliefs, so I can see where you are confused. The Big point is is, and I reckin Pete needs to see this, is that since we are not a theocracy, and not everybody agrees with my take on sanctity of life....Rape and Health of the mother are 2 xceptions I can live with for the greater good. That would eliminate prolly 95% of abortions...that's a good start. When does God give a soul is up to God, which was another big point here. Just cause we form a zygote in a lab does not MAKE God give that zygote a soul. While in general, I would oppose invitro for these ethical issues cause who really knows, again, in politics, there has to be compromises, I don't make a big stink about it but would not cry if outlawed. Animals, on the otherhand, according to the bible, are not made in God's image. So they are different. I know you don't believe that, just giving you the biblical perspective. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 18 2011, 09:59 AM Post #45 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Duh- you are saying you would "only" force your view on 95% of those concerned, as in not 100% but 5% less, because it's no theocracy?
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 18 2011, 11:14 PM Post #46 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
No. It seems pretty clear that the majority of Americans are in favor of that type of legislation. So that is my point....there is no forcing here...it's the general concensus.
|
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Jun 19 2011, 12:16 AM Post #47 |
|
Retired Knight
|
Where on earth did you get the notion that a majority of Americans support that? I swear you guys forget that you're watching Fox News (aka, the 24/7 storytelling channel). A quick search of the polls at Pollingreport reveals:
Not sure how that'll come out, but... 54% in favor of abortion being legal in all or most cases. 42% in favor of abortion being illegal in in all or most cases. I figure most people saying legal in most cases are allowing for making partial birth illegal, while those saying illegal in most cases are allowing for rape, severe birth defects, etc. |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Jun 19 2011, 12:26 AM Post #48 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
Beat me to it.. but, yeah... Long historical trends there with little deviation.... http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx |
![]() |
|
| Yoshida of Ryūkyū | Jun 20 2011, 02:32 AM Post #49 |
|
Knight of the Round Table
|
Agreed. It does not render labels pointless to us a species. We need to create these demarcations in order to survive. Accepting that these definitions are arbitrary and then saying that it is wrong to abort a fetus based on a lacking emotional response is madness and is in opposition to reason. Especially when it is not the general consensus. In a world where we are severely lacking in people, then the aborting of a fetus being illegal would be more reasonable, but otherwise not. That would be in the pursuit of what is 'right'. . I think what was meant before was that to base any argument on religion is weak, as religion is anti-thought/reason. herp derp |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 20 2011, 03:10 AM Post #50 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
lolz.
Expli-K? |
![]() |
|
| Yoshida of Ryūkyū | Jun 20 2011, 03:01 PM Post #51 |
|
Knight of the Round Table
|
Just joshin'. Religion is pr0thought. |
![]() |
|
| tehReal~ChaZZZy | Jun 22 2011, 05:08 AM Post #52 |
|
Prox methinks you'd be considered moderate left here in America but it seems like you're hard right in your county... Interesting... |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 22 2011, 10:58 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
I think he is actually considered to be neither left nor right, but lost. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 22 2011, 06:12 PM Post #54 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Considered by whom? You call compulsory public healthcare "socialist", not "moderate left"... |
![]() |
|
| Abu of Agrabah | Jun 22 2011, 07:18 PM Post #55 |
![]()
Knight of the Round Table
|
Yes, in terms of important matters of the party in comparison to the USA its maybe indeed socialist. Our communist party infact got much things in common with the most extreme right party i vote for, so maybe our political spectrum is a bit smaller then the one in the USA where you are really left or right, guess we are all left in holland but we devide left in right and left again. Anyway, socialist or republican, we in holland at least dont borrow more money then we can pay back. We are the financial masters of the world, no matter if were right or left. Although we got a national debt, its decreasing every year now, cant say that of most 'right' countries. |
![]() |
|
| tehReal~ChaZZZy | Jun 22 2011, 09:19 PM Post #56 |
|
Prox I just re-read your initial post here and indeed it seems that even the 'right' in your country ascribes to socialist mores... Are you considered moderate in your country or more 'hard right'? |
![]() |
|
| Cole Stark of WinterFell | Jun 23 2011, 03:35 AM Post #57 |
|
Retired Knight's Apprentice
|
Please write our extreme left (The President and his minions) and tell them this !! I agree, we RIGHTIES are trying to make them stop Who asks to raise the debt ceiling and has no plan of cutting costs By 2011 we will have a public debt of 70% to our GDP !! Oh.....but im just a righty and dont like Liberals....(Thats True) but the Left wing of America is like that 18 year old givin a Million dollar credit card with a 47% interest rate. And then once its all gone, you get the response " You mean I have to pay this back" Liberals rule
|
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Jun 23 2011, 04:02 AM Post #58 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
Last time the budget was balanced, Cole, was under Clinton. Reagan doubled the national debt, and Bush tripled it. Facts are facts. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 24 2011, 08:04 AM Post #59 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Clinton was brought under control by republican house. Reagan had to rebuild our military. Bush, though I love him in some ways, was a douche for the economy...but he is a kenesian. So go figure. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 24 2011, 08:06 AM Post #60 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
As far as abortion goes....not sureof the polls, but if I am remembering right, every state that has brought this to a vote has passed it with those 3 exceptions, health, rape and incest (which is really rape.) |
![]() |
|
| Chron | Jun 24 2011, 06:31 PM Post #61 |
|
Retired Knight's Apprentice
|
i don't think you should take everything the bible and religion says/does so seriously. and definitely not try to force any sorts of those views upon others which include abortion / gay rights etc. just my opinion |
![]() |
|
| tehReal~ChaZZZy | Jun 24 2011, 07:23 PM Post #62 |
|
President Reagan brought us back from the Carter brink. He inherited an economy with higher unemployment and and much higher double digit inflation. Unemployment peaked at nearly 11% and inflation at nearly 12% during the early years of his terms. Mortgage rates rose to nearly 20%! Reagan was militarily engaged by the world's only other superpower at a time of immense economic weakness. Iran's Islamic revolution had just taken place and under a weak Carter Americans had been held hostage at the embassy for 444 days. President Reagan's deft handling of the Soviet Union broke it and freed hundreds of millions from it's tyranny. Over President Reagan's 2 terms in office he reduced marginal tax rates from 70% to 50% to finally 28% in 1986. His supply side economic policy grew the economy an average of 3.2% over his 2 terms and reduced the debt from 6% of GDP to 2.9% of GDP in his final budget. During Reagan's Presidency his policies helped create over 21 million new jobs and federal revenue rose an average of 8.2%. Consumer as well as investor confidence soared. President Reagan was a once in a lifetime leader who made Americans feel good about America again. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 24 2011, 10:20 PM Post #63 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Does that mean large govt spending creates jobs after all? Or does it only happen if you have high taxes too, like under Reagan?
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 24 2011, 11:33 PM Post #64 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Well, ifI don't take it seriously, why take it at all.? Sorry, just a dumb ass comment on your part. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 24 2011, 11:35 PM Post #65 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Funny. But you see, the lowering of taxes created jobs
|
![]() |
|
| Chron | Jun 25 2011, 12:21 AM Post #66 |
|
Retired Knight's Apprentice
|
you pretty much just answered the question for yourself
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 25 2011, 01:16 AM Post #67 |
|
Master of Spam
|
That's nice, except Reagan actually raised corporate taxes in recession because he spent so much he couldn't find another way to control the deficit. Luckily, the FED completed its crusade against inflation long before elections, and monetary easing along with the deficit spending brought your economy back US public debt before Reagan: 32% of GDP -> 53% after. FED funds rate 19% -> 9% Unemployment dropped by ~3%... all in all, that's a rather Keynesian response.
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 26 2011, 12:12 AM Post #68 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Yup.
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 26 2011, 12:14 AM Post #69 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
HA! Nice try. Supply side econ is Kenesian now? Then sign me up.
|
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 26 2011, 05:47 AM Post #70 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Isn't there already a thread for arguing about economics on such a scale that arguing about them is totally pointless because there are so many factors to consider that a correct solution or assessment of any given situation would consume so many man hours to compile, publish, read, absorb and implement that they'd be completely pointless anyway and be countered by other economic factors since the essence of economics is the struggle to improve one's lot and one's lot cannot be improved infinitely so must be at anothers expense and people would argue anyway because people like to argue whether they know themselves to be right or wrong? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic » |









2:36 PM Jul 11