Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Of course adultery should be illegal!
Why would it not be other than to cater for those who want to do it?
-
No :D
-
No.
-
How about you define what your fundamentals are, Grant? There are, I have found, very few fundamental truths in life, much as I would like there to be. Whose fundamentals would this legal system derive from? And of what fundamentals do you speak? That all life is precious? That there are certain rights inherent in being human? Discuss.
I agree! There are a very few fundamental truths. I think the ones we can agree on are:
Do not murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal, and
Do not commit perjury.fundamentalism:A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. church and state. the two should never ever mix.
I agree, again! We should be intolerant of murderers, adulterers, thieves and liars. And the state should not be allowed to interfere with that intolerance. Just as the church should not be able to interfere with the correct administration of justice.
Wow! That was refreshing! Thanks :)
-
Anybody can speak for the child. That's free speech for you.
THANKS! :)
But nevertheless, nobody else gets to decide for the mother.
I know.
I don't want to claim that the life of a foetus isn't also worthy of consideration -- but that, too, is up to the mother (at least until the foetus reaches the point of independent viability, when other solutions become possible).
There are always other options at every stage of a pregnancy. Abortion - deliberately ending the life of a baby - is never necessary.
As with the cases of suicide and euthanasia, the opinions of (and the emotional effects on) other people may be worth considering, but should not ever be allowed to override the decision of the person whose body and life are involved, if that person is able to make a decision. That's self-determination for you.
The ability to make a decision does not justify the action. The law needs to judge right from wrong, not preference from preference. And as always you ignore the fact that it is someone else's life you are deciding for.
(i.e.: A right to free speech doesn't entail any right to be listened to. The right to self-determination is much more important. And a foetus is not (yet) capable of self-determination.)
What is self determination and how does one test for it? You have invented a definition of person and are willing to act on that definition to the exclusion of the rights of others.
... though perhaps that should be, "Anyone can pretend to speak for the child". Anyone under the impression they were actually speaking for an unborn child would either have to have teh mad mind-reading skillz, or else be seriously deluded.
I'm willing to bet that every scientific test you can imagine will show a baby reacting adversely to the introduction of alien objects into his living space and will do everything he can to avoid being killed. It is enough for me to speak out on the fact that people are being killed. I don't have to pretend that they agree with what I say or that I have got their mind.
-
Yeesh. Grant, la-la-land is on the line. They're interested in how you got so divorced from reality.
Reality is that abortion ends the life of a person. Reality is that ending abortion will end the state sanctioned termination of human lives. Reality is that we already have people who break the law. Reality is that a good legal system would not cater for the choices people claim as their right to make.
I know this is not reality, but do not pretend that I don't understand that.
Anyway. I have a question for you: in this utopian/authoritarian future of yours, where the apple-cheeked milkmaids skip merrily and submissively to their antenatal classes for the good of das Vaterland, what should happen to the women who undergo the newly illegal abortions? Do they all get sent to jail for murder? I'm interested in how you think that should work, in practical terms.
No.
-
I must comment, Grant, that despite you being a little more aggressive with your persistence in driving some points home than is normally acceptable you have managed to seem polite all the same, even when being 'attacked'. even though I have obviously contrary world views to yours, this politeness is appreciated.
I thank thee, good sir :)
I have found that one needs to be ultra polite coming from where I come from or else one gets banned fairly quickly. It's probably better that way :)
in concert with the 'pro-life' and definition of baby in t'other thread and a possible lack of disclosure regarding whether a religious belief drives these views I would be concerned that such 'control' would come from a slightly fundamentalist sector....
Oh. What would be the problem with having fundamentals as the basis of a legal system? Do you know what the fundamentals are?
I hope your week is better than your weekend.
-
Anorak:
Women have been ending unwanted pregnancies for millennia. I don't mean to sound flippant, I'm just stating a fact.
Sometimes their methods worked well; the women didn't die or become infertile.You are being flippant and you are stating a fact. Another fact is that men have been committing rape for a long time. We do not condone something just because people have always done it.
If you want to take away the legal rights of women to choose whether or not they can end a pregnancy safely, you will force your daughters, sisters, friends, coworkers and lovers to risk infection, infertility or death.
That's utter clap-trap. In fact the dangers of having an abortion by even the safest means far outweigh the risk of not. Regardless of risk there is never an excuse to end the life of a baby for the sake of convenience.
How about trusting women to know what is right and best for them and their bodies?
Would you allow men the same freedom? Then we could do away with every law we have for anything....
You may not approve of abortion. You may even think abortionists and their clients are murderers. That is your right.
THANKS! :)
But don't try to say this is an "essential human concern that we all share", because it won't be you hemorrhaging on a motel floor.
You're arguing the consequences. It is not right to say that we continue to commit great evil in order to avoid a difficult situation in the future. It is right to decide what is right and act accordingly. Who knows, perhaps the bleak picture of the future you imagine will not come to pass.
-
Deborah:
Forced pregnancy is no happier a situation than infertility.
What is forced about a pregnancy? Is it not the parent's responsibility to deal with that which they have produced? The choice to terminate, even the thought of it as an option, is an instant sign of a lack of due diligence and responsibility.
As you should be first to point out pregnancy is a privilege, not a right and never a right to kill.
-
Jackie:
If you wish to make people feel guilty about choosing abortion, call it murder. Call it infanticide. Call it whatever you like. But remember, that ultimately, it is not your body. It is not your womb. It is not your call.
No, it is not anyone else's decision. Full responsibility lies with those responsible whether they be the woman, the doctor, the father, the family or the government.
You missed one important factor. Who speaks for the child?