Political Crossfire Forums

[anselfir]

Noone has any right to force their subjective morals on another

oh great, let's accept subjectivity and let them be! In fact, why should i care about anythign you say if this is the case? Why should i give a damn about any argument?

[Plodder]

Quote: Noone has any right to force their subjective morals on another
Tell me one law that has not been instituted for moral reasons.

[Selfish_Meme]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Noone has any right to force their subjective morals on another
Tell me one law that has not been instituted for moral reasons.
No standing zones...

[Sailor Moon]

I found a good article on morality that stated that morals ARE the laws we follow, while ethics are what changes the laws for the better.

It read:

http://www.twth.org/aboutus-ethics-morals.html

Man's greatest weapon is his reason.
The highest ethic level would be long-term survival concepts with minimal destruction.

In the modern dictionary we find that ethics are defined as "morals" and morals are defined as "ethics". These two words are not interchangeable.

Morals should be defined as a code of good conduct laid down out of the experience of the race to serve as a uniform yardstick for the conduct of individuals and groups.

Morals are actually laws.

The origin of a moral code comes about when it is discovered through actual experience that some act is more nonsurvival than prosurvival. The prohibition of this act then enters into the customs of the people and may eventually become a law.

In the absence of extended reasoning powers, moral codes, so long as they provide better survival for their group, are a vital and necessary part of any culture.

Morals, however, become burdensome and protested against when they become outmoded. And although a revolt against morals may have as its stated target the fact that the code no longer is as applicable as it once was, revolts against moral codes generally occur because individuals of the group or the group itself has become unethical to a point where it wishes to practice license against these moral codes, not because the codes themselves are unreasonable.

If a moral code were thoroughly reasonable, it could, at the same time, be considered thoroughly ethical. But only at this highest level could the two be called the same. The ultimate in reason is the ultimate in survival.

Ethical conduct includes the adherence to the moral codes of the society in which we live



(I really just love this article, so I have it saved. Its just.. true)

[EugenicHegemony]

oneofthem wrote: Noone has any right to force their subjective morals on another

oh great, let's accept subjectivity and let them be! In fact, why should i care about anythign you say if this is the case? Why should i give a damn about any argument?

The law of aggressing is enough, and your subjective morals are yours; not mine or anyone else's. Laws are made out of respect for your fellow man and just plain control. They have nothing to do with morals. Laws that stem from subjective morality are things such as prohibition, cloning, stem cell, gay marriage, and all that jazz.

[EugenicHegemony]

Sailor Moon wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Thats my point, EH, that ones subjective morals should not be forced onto anothers. The other in question is the preborn human. Just because YOU think its okay, doesnt mean that THEY will.

Noone has any right to force their subjective morals on another, and Jefferson said it best. Live by those common sense guidelines and we'll all live happier independent lives. You don't know what they think and a fetus isn't an independent entity as it's totally dependent on the host (woman) who's carrying it. It's not up to you to make that subjective moral decision, an ignorant parent or a court to force a woman to carry term. If you or another forced birther can't stand the idea of abortion then you never get one. It's as simple as that...

Heres whats even more simple: people are not forced to get pregnant. Therefore, they are not forced to carry a child. I have had an abortion, you know. I hated it, and I was only pro choice because I was so defensive out of my own guilt. Furthermore, like I said before, just because its okay with an adult, doesnt mean its okay with the preborn human. Use common sense, just like you said.

Quote: If you, and people such as you, keep pushing for an authoritarian forced breeding future then that's exactly what you'll get. I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested. Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to murder. The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she has done anything to her uterus. This is the future all you want?

Actually, NOW youre discussing fetal rights, which is not the priority for most pro lifers. Actually the vast majority of us simply want the child to have a fighting chance at life. Dont bring fetal rights into this. Its preposterous, and it will NEVER happen, I can assure you. Youre sounding a little ... paranoid.. no offense, sweetie, but its never going to happen that way. Making abortion, or I reckon assisted abortion illegal, will not give fetuses rights. Thats just silly.

Quote: The U.S. government also made sure that subjective religious morals are the main tenet of the Iraqi Constitution. Control is all that is in everyones future...

Iraq needs some help in the morality department. Have some compassion, please. There are alot of lives at stake there. That doesnt mean its a religious thing, either. Why are you so hostile towards morality, anyways? I'm sorry, but I call em as I see em.

"Iraq needs help in the morality department", says you. Are you the dictator now?

No- but there are plenty of them over there, who need to learn about human rights. Whos dictating Ever notice the voting system they have implemented? Gee!

Quote: Be pro life all you want and don't you dare force your subjective morals on another or that "paranoid" scenario will be the future. I'd like you to tell me what's "paranoid" about it. If you all get your way, and it's made collective authoritarian law then that's the reality you will have created; not paranoia...

Whats authoritaritan about outlawing assisted abortions, while denying fetus rights, therefore allowing womens autonomy ?(the freedom to continue to have abortions, or self induced miscarriages, just as long as theyre not caused by another person)

Yes, saying that this is totalitarian or dictative, is awful and totally off base, and.. in my opinion, utterly paranoid.


Quote: No- but there are plenty of them over there, who need to learn about human rights. Whos dictating Ever notice the voting system they have implemented? Gee!

Their region, their business, and they're not better now that this jingoist government invaded and set up shop.

Quote: Whats authoritaritan about outlawing assisted abortions, while denying fetus rights, therefore allowing womens autonomy ?(the freedom to continue to have abortions, or self induced miscarriages, just as long as theyre not caused by another person)


Everything ans you've yet to been able to refute that future scenario that you (and so many other dictators) want to make authoritarian collective law. The woman (host's rights) supersedes anything that's in her body as it cannot exist without the woman. Unless you want to be a dictator then have at it. Please refute the future scenario that you'll make reality. I love the way you don't want the government to get involved in our private lives, and when it comes to this, you're their cheerleader...

If you, and people such as you, keep pushing for an authoritarian forced breeding future then that's exactly what you'll get. I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested. Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to murder. The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she has done anything to her uterus. This is the future all you want?

[Sailor Moon]

Quote: Quote: No- but there are plenty of them over there, who need to learn about human rights. Whos dictating Ever notice the voting system they have implemented? Gee!

Their region, their business, and they're not better now that this jingoist government invaded and set up shop.

I dont think so, EH. Women being beaten to death in the streets? Women being painted into their homes, and disallowed from their careers as Doctors? I would say that if either of us was an oppressive, exploitative dictator, it was you.

What.. you think those women liked the position they were in before? Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and think about it, for once. Plus- youre totally anti war- and this IS NOT the thread for it- but this war has brought the beginning of ALOT more womens rights to Iraq, including the right to murder their kids, so I really dont know what youre complaining about. I thought you liked that sort of thing...

Quote: Quote: Whats authoritaritan about outlawing assisted abortions, while denying fetus rights, therefore allowing womens autonomy ?(the freedom to continue to have abortions, or self induced miscarriages, just as long as theyre not caused by another person)


Everything ans you've yet to been able to refute that future scenario that you (and so many other dictators) want to make authoritarian collective law. The woman (host's rights) supersedes anything that's in her body as it cannot exist without the woman. Unless you want to be a dictator then have at it. Please refute the future scenario that you'll make reality. I love the way you don't want the government to get involved in our private lives, and when it comes to this, you're their cheerleader...

All laws that are voted on are collective. I really dont GET what part of "majority votes therefore majority rules" you DONT understand....

I do not disagree that HER RIGHTS supercede those of the fetuses, but nobody is FORCING her to birth a baby, even with abortion being illegal. As long as she has autonomy, she can have a miscarriage if she wants to.. Do you really think that the only safe way to lose your baby is to have someone jab it wigh a sharp instrument? There are plenty of means to an end, dearie.. and by the way, you need to cool it, cause its very easy to tell by your (horrendous) typing that youre foaming at the mouth, love...

Quote: If you, and people such as you, keep pushing for an authoritarian forced breeding future then that's exactly what you'll get. I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested. Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to murder. The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she has done anything to her uterus. This is the future all you want?

Dude, you already said that. That doesnt make any sense in the slightest, man, and you need to cool off. This is not what the future has in mind. This never happened in the past, and even in Iraq, this isnt going to happen. We are working very hard at helping out with human rights over there, even with the inclusion of legal abortion. Would you prefer abortion became Legal in Iraq? Or do you think that women in Iraq who abort, contrary to certain laws, should be sent to jail or workcamps, like before? (unless of course her husband or relative does it, then its lessened)

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2405698.html

http://annualreview.law.harvard.edu/population/abortion/IRAQ.abo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/iraq/a/iraqi_women.htm

Learn up, honey, and see how much better off women are.

[EugenicHegemony]

Sailor Moon wrote: Quote: Quote: No- but there are plenty of them over there, who need to learn about human rights. Whos dictating Ever notice the voting system they have implemented? Gee!

Their region, their business, and they're not better now that this jingoist government invaded and set up shop.

I dont think so, EH. Women being beaten to death in the streets? Women being painted into their homes, and disallowed from their careers as Doctors? I would say that if either of us was an oppressive, exploitative dictator, it was you.

What.. you think those women liked the position they were in before? Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and think about it, for once. Plus- youre totally anti war- and this IS NOT the thread for it- but this war has brought the beginning of ALOT more womens rights to Iraq, including the right to murder their kids, so I really dont know what youre complaining about. I thought you liked that sort of thing...

Quote: Quote: Whats authoritaritan about outlawing assisted abortions, while denying fetus rights, therefore allowing womens autonomy ?(the freedom to continue to have abortions, or self induced miscarriages, just as long as theyre not caused by another person)


Everything ans you've yet to been able to refute that future scenario that you (and so many other dictators) want to make authoritarian collective law. The woman (host's rights) supersedes anything that's in her body as it cannot exist without the woman. Unless you want to be a dictator then have at it. Please refute the future scenario that you'll make reality. I love the way you don't want the government to get involved in our private lives, and when it comes to this, you're their cheerleader...

All laws that are voted on are collective. I really dont GET what part of "majority votes therefore majority rules" you DONT understand....

I do not disagree that HER RIGHTS supercede those of the fetuses, but nobody is FORCING her to birth a baby, even with abortion being illegal. As long as she has autonomy, she can have a miscarriage if she wants to.. Do you really think that the only safe way to lose your baby is to have someone jab it wigh a sharp instrument? There are plenty of means to an end, dearie.. and by the way, you need to cool it, cause its very easy to tell by your (horrendous) typing that youre foaming at the mouth, love...

Quote: If you, and people such as you, keep pushing for an authoritarian forced breeding future then that's exactly what you'll get. I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested. Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to murder. The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she has done anything to her uterus. This is the future all you want?

Dude, you already said that. That doesnt make any sense in the slightest, man, and you need to cool off. This is not what the future has in mind. This never happened in the past, and even in Iraq, this isnt going to happen. We are working very hard at helping out with human rights over there, even with the inclusion of legal abortion. Would you prefer abortion became Legal in Iraq? Or do you think that women in Iraq who abort, contrary to certain laws, should be sent to jail or workcamps, like before? (unless of course her husband or relative does it, then its lessened)

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2405698.html

http://annualreview.law.harvard.edu/population/abortion/IRAQ.abo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/iraq/a/iraqi_women.htm

Learn up, honey, and see how much better off women are.

Quote: I dont think so, EH. Women being beaten to death in the streets? Women being painted into their homes, and disallowed from their careers as Doctors? I would say that if either of us was an oppressive, exploitative dictator, it was you.

What.. you think those women liked the position they were in before? Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and think about it, for once. Plus- youre totally anti war- and this IS NOT the thread for it- but this war has brought the beginning of ALOT more womens rights to Iraq, including the right to murder their kids, so I really dont know what youre complaining about. I thought you liked that sort of thing...


The U.S.G. never cared before, and they don't now. The U.S.G. has been doing business in Iraq for a long time, and never once had a problem looking the other way. They just have interests in that region and now control it. As for woman's rights: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. Your going to defend that imperialistic invasion now, huh... They're slaves under U.S.G. rule.

Quote: All laws that are voted on are collective. I really dont GET what part of "majority votes therefore majority rules" you DONT understand....

Only laws that get added to the USC or every state are wholly collective. Majority rule is Mob rule, and no one has any right to aggress on another. I guess you like the idea of prohibition by the state as long as you get your way.

Quote: I do not disagree that HER RIGHTS supercede those of the fetuses, but nobody is FORCING her to birth a baby, even with abortion being illegal.


You say that the woman (host) supersedes what exists inside her, and then you say if abortion is illegal that she'll still be able to abort. That makes zero sense.

Quote: That doesnt make any sense in the slightest, man, and you need to cool off. This is not what the future has in mind. This never happened in the past, and even in Iraq, this isnt going to happen.

Why doesn't it make sense if abortion is illegal, and considered murder then it will be prosecuted as such. I'll post it again and you can address it in it's entirety.

If you, and people such as you, keep pushing for an authoritarian forced breeding future then that's exactly what you'll get. I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested. Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to murder. The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she has done anything to her uterus. This is the future all you want?

What are those links supposed to show me? All this link proves is that it's an authoritarian law when abortion is made illegal: http://annualreview.law.harvard.edu/population/abortion/IRAQ.abo.htm

[Sailor Moon]

Thats it. I'm sorry, hun, but I cant debate with someone who seems so paranoid. This is over. I refuse to answer your question 16 zillon times, just to be asked once more.

Good Luck, youre ignored.

[EugenicHegemony]

Sailor Moon wrote: Thats it. I'm sorry, hun, but I cant debate with someone who seems so paranoid. This is over. I refuse to answer your question 16 zillon times, just to be asked once more.

Good Luck, youre ignored.
If you answered it then I'd be satisfied. Ignorance is bliss, babe...

[Sailor Moon]

I clicked the little link up there to read this...

I am not ignorant. I am not going to argue with you, its counterproductive. The End. Dont call me names.

[steen]

Well, it is the "Coward's Retreat."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coward

[SpellJammer]

whatnotwho wrote: I'm pro life but the main issue for me is the lack of responsibility for one's actions. With all the means of birth control available, it's irresponsible for anyone to become pregnant who doesn't choose to.
Abortion is just another tool to fix the ignorance of both sexes and fuels the idea with our youth that sex is just a social game we can play with no consequences.
That's exactly how SpellJammer feels, he had to put other religoun because he's of his own spiritual beliefs not confined to a specific religoun. Though it involves devil-worship.

And to SpellJammer the weak are far more disgusting then the evil, evil is just a means, weakness isn't. Weakness offers nothing valuable, nothing hopeful, and ceartainly nothing "good". And to legalize and un-criminalize abortion is to encourage weakness. Because instead of thinking ahead of time, and taking the nesscarey precautions to avoid pregnancy, they not only murder an innocent child over thier own mistakes, but furthermore act as if they are not at any fault and dub the victim a parasite with a smug smirk on thier face.. People need to re-learn that actions have reactions, though SpellJammer would not ban abortion outright, as there are exseptions where it could be nesscarey, and it DOES help the economy.. but he would require reasonings as to why they're getting an abortion.. and the reasoning could increase the penalty anywhere from higher tax rates to prison-time.. (and not know brokeback moutain prisons either, SpellJammer's prisons would be the real deal where you work like a dog and sleep in a musty old jail cell where rats and roaches pick fights with you regularly..)

[EugenicHegemony]

SpellJammer wrote: whatnotwho wrote: I'm pro life but the main issue for me is the lack of responsibility for one's actions. With all the means of birth control available, it's irresponsible for anyone to become pregnant who doesn't choose to.
Abortion is just another tool to fix the ignorance of both sexes and fuels the idea with our youth that sex is just a social game we can play with no consequences.
That's exactly how SpellJammer feels, he had to put other religoun because he's of his own spiritual beliefs not confined to a specific religoun. Though it involves devil-worship.

And to SpellJammer the weak are far more disgusting then the evil, evil is just a means, weakness isn't. Weakness offers nothing valuable, nothing hopeful, and ceartainly nothing "good". And to legalize and un-criminalize abortion is to encourage weakness. Because instead of thinking ahead of time, and taking the nesscarey precautions to avoid pregnancy, they not only murder an innocent child over thier own mistakes, but furthermore act as if they are not at any fault and dub the victim a parasite with a smug smirk on thier face.. People need to re-learn that actions have reactions, though SpellJammer would not ban abortion outright, as there are exseptions where it could be nesscarey, and it DOES help the economy.. but he would require reasonings as to why they're getting an abortion.. and the reasoning could increase the penalty anywhere from higher tax rates to prison-time.. (and not know brokeback moutain prisons either, SpellJammer's prisons would be the real deal where you work like a dog and sleep in a musty old jail cell where rats and roaches pick fights with you regularly..)

Great it's SpellJammer who speaks in the third person. Glad to see you made it over here from www.itsallpolitcs.com This is a superior site, and EugenicHegemony still can't figure out why you speak in the 3rd person. :lol: You're a funny chap, let me trell ya. Cheerio and pip pip...

Oh, and Abortion is a Subjective Moral issue. :wink:

[SpellJammer]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Great it's SpellJammer who speaks in the third person. Glad to see you made it over here from www.itsallpolitcs.com This is a superior site, and EugenicHegemony still can't figure out why you speak in the 3rd person. :lol: You're a funny chap, let me trell ya. Cheerio and pip pip...

Oh, and Abortion is a Subjective Moral issue. :wink:
SpellJammer is going to guess you're HomoU?

[EugenicHegemony]

SpellJammer wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Great it's SpellJammer who speaks in the third person. Glad to see you made it over here from www.itsallpolitcs.com This is a superior site, and EugenicHegemony still can't figure out why you speak in the 3rd person. :lol: You're a funny chap, let me trell ya. Cheerio and pip pip...

Oh, and Abortion is a Subjective Moral issue. :wink:
SpellJammer is going to guess you're HomoU?

Spelljammer would be wrong as HomoUnirversalis isn't here yet, and I use the same user name (everywhere). :wink: .. Remember when I made that Instant Run-Off voting thread, and you said something to the effect of "You'll pay for this EugenicHegemony" as you didn't want the masses to be able to have the power of real choice? Boy, you were pissed. :lol:

*edit* Here it is: SpellJammer wrote:
You'll pay for this EugenicHegemony!
Not in favour, it gives too much power to the simpletons of society, like they know anything about anything. They're so busy worrying about how nice thier car looks or what the latest fashion sense is, that they have no idea of what the president they vote for would accomplish. (Or lack thereoff) while in office. And sense democrats RELY on the idiot vote (And more often then not democrats are liberal), this gives the liberals too much power. They have too much as it is, they don't need any more.. :lol: Whatever you say SpellJammer.

That's right, I forgot you're a partisan hatebreeder. That "And more often then not democrats are liberal), this gives the liberals too much power." made zero sense. :lol:

See ya on the boards and there are a bunch from there coming here also. I'm a networking fool....

[Sailor Moon]

I dunno, from all that I just read, I would say SpellJammer was right on the money.... :lol:

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: and not know brokeback moutain prisons either, SpellJammer's prisons would be the real deal where you work like a dog and sleep in a musty old jail cell where rats and roaches pick fights with you regularly..

Oh, my dearest spelljammer, are you so frustrated with the conditions you have to live in whilst in your mother's cellar that you now wish to force them on anyone in prison (which in your perfect world, would all be liberals)?
Don't worry, my-boy.. Jesus loves you.

Quote: All laws that are voted on are collective. I really dont GET what part of "majority votes therefore majority rules" you DONT understand....

Yet, in a modern democracy, there have been set certain 'undemocratic' rules. Per example "protecting the minority". By this standard, an individual deserves to be protected likewise, from the oppression of the government and make, independently, a choice whether or not she wants to have a baby. It is my greatest doubt that any one human being can look into the life of another and make the best decision for them. Autonomy, responsibility, freedom... Are these not the values that we wish to ring into the 21st century?

Mr U

[Sailor Moon]

Sorry, hun- (HU) but I consider 40 million babies to be a much larger "minority" number requiring some form of protection than the less than 50 women who died in both 1972 AND 1973....

[SpellJammer]

HomoU, don't you have a life or something instead of wasting your time following SpellJammer around like a lost puppy?

And Sailor Moon, you once again show your wisdom and grace, SpellJammer's heart is fluttering.. :wink: