Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rat mothers
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 292 (304088)
04-13-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pink sasquatch
04-13-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Backpedaling, eh?
quote:
Perhaps if more posters on this forum tried to engage in discussion rather than dredge up pointless arguements, they would see the kind of common ground you mention, and maybe come to a better understanding and acceptance of each other's position.
Indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-13-2006 12:55 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by tsig, posted 04-15-2006 5:07 PM nator has replied
 Message 79 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-16-2006 2:43 PM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 47 of 292 (304179)
04-14-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by macaroniandcheese
04-13-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Living like rats.
You just admited that by stating that you want abortion because you do not want to further the poputlation. That is not a medical decision, but a personal one that plays games with life.
um. no. you're having some trouble with words again. i said right now i'm not interested in furthering the population. right now. i have no business trying to raise a child. i live on $800 a month; i work part time; i go to school full time; i will be in school for the next 6 years easily. right now my interests are in furthering my education. but i have no direct desire to see the human species fail as you seem to suggest.
Right, so it's not a medical decision, like I said.
unlike men, if we get our tubes tied, it's permanent.
I was told my operation would eventually be permanet.
thanks to our dear male-centered health system that doesn't even bother to find out women's specific heart disease related needs.
???? Oh right, woman are unimportant, I forgot.
nothing that has to do with humanity is objective. but your experience is no more objective or valuable than my experience.
Yea, but somehow your view made it become legal. If our views hold equal validity, then why is your view legal?
Clearly it is playing games with life, just to get laid.
you don't have an abortion because you wanted to have sex.
Yes you do.
you have an abortion because your birth control method(s) failed.
I am pretty sure that every form of over the counter birth control, and ones prescribed also do not come with a 100% garuntee. So it's always a risk. You want to use abortion as birth control, which to me is the worst form of abortion.
or because your boyfriend started beating you and you couldn't imagine bringing his child into the world.
That's right punish your boyfriend with abortion, that'll show him. Besides it is 100% his right?
or because you were raped and your sanity has run away because you are still being occupied by your attacker.
To me, this is a good reason to have an abortion.
or because your birth control method failed and you are too poor to care for your child (btw. prenatal care is ridiculously expensive so don't tell me about adoption. besides.
This assumes you have a right to intercourse.
If I put a boiler in incorrectly, I will have to go back and fix it. The law does not allow me to go back and uninstall it, and give the customer their money back.
Having intercourse is like signing a contract agreement.
besides. no one adopts american children anymore and the process is so difficult that your child is more likely to end up in a foster home especially if there's anything 'wrong' with it).
or because you're 16 (or worse) and your fundie parents never taught you how to use birth control and now they've convinced you to have an abortion so that they aren't embarrassed to walk into church with you or picket at the abortion clinic with you. did you know the average age of abortion patients in texas is 18? the AVERAGE!
OMG, intercourse is sounding worse, and worse.
Are you describing your situation, or the whole worlds?
Because you did mention that the decision was a subjective one, but you turn it into a subjective one, by speaking for everyone else.
i can honestly say that i don't really have a problem with abortion for any reason because it's not my business to go snooping into other peoples' medical records. no one should even know a woman is pregnant unless she wants them to, much less if she is considering having an abortion. these dedicated, conspicuous abortion clinics are a hazard.
This is where you are wrong.
Maybe we shouldn't even know these women are alive.
shhhh! I have a life in my uterus, don't tell anyone so I can dispose of it. I find that line of thinking a bit on the sick side.
nonetheless. way back when, when abortion was illegal, desperate women with no options were forced to seek out 'doctors' who should be called butchers to help them. they often left them bleeding, infected, and often dead.
And we should legalize heroin, to prevent people form getting bad stuff.
We should also legalize murder, so that nothing happens to the murderer, we don't want them getting hurt now, do we?
That is an illogical train of thought, or reasoning why abortion should be legal.
why not the experience of her doctor?
By your own definition, it is not a medical decision.
You don't need a doctor to tell you are poor, and do not want to further the population.
Exactly, but life is life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2006 12:18 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 11:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 48 of 292 (304183)
04-14-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
04-13-2006 3:25 PM


Re: Living like rats.
If you object to a restating of your words and believe I have taken them out of context, then please explain exactly how this was done.
The discussion from the other thread, from before crash posted his pictures, and the point I was trying to make was that, there is no fundemental difference between a fetus, and a born child, in regards that they both rely on an outside source for survival.
This is a point that has been argued to me on this forum. That a zygote, or a fetus, is not life, because it cannot survive on it's own. Well neither can a born infant.
The word offspring is clearly different than fetus. Offspring, as I read it in the dictionary refers to something that is already born. Fetus is not. So in this discussion we shouldn't be confusing the 2, and bluring definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-13-2006 3:25 PM nator has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 49 of 292 (304202)
04-14-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by macaroniandcheese
04-13-2006 1:09 PM


not just medical...
but the simple fact is that he ignores real debate and jumps on other people with language games. turnabout is fair play.
Honestly, RiverRat seems to be the only one here trying to have a real debate, and you seem to be the one playing language games - you repeatedly argue that abortion is a "medical decision" that should only be made by those with "medical expertise", that is, unless you are a pregnant woman, in which case you can also make that decision for completely non-medical reasons:
i said right now i'm not interested in furthering the population. right now. i have no business trying to raise a child. i live on $800 a month; i work part time; i go to school full time; i will be in school for the next 6 years easily. right now my interests are in furthering my education.
What part of your (hypothetical) decision to have an abortion is medical? Where did you consult a medical doctor with medical expertise in your decision?
It is simply not a logical argument that: because abortions are medically necessary for some patients, you should be permitted to have an abortion for reasons of finance, personal ideas of social responsibility, and convenience.
but really. unless you think that non-medically trained legislators should be making decisions for american women, i have no need to discuss this with you.
Honestly, this argument seems quite silly, since all anti-abortion laws/bills have an "unless medically necessary" exception. Your medically-necessary argument makes zero sense in trying to counter a system which would allow medically-necessary abortions.
As you yourself have demonstrated, the decision to have an abortion is not just a medical one; and in many cases (probably most cases) has nothing to do with a medical condition.
Therefore, "non-medically trained legislators" should consider laws regulating abortion, since it is a complicated issue, one with implications for morality and personal freedom - you know, the same sort of issues that "non-medically trained legislators" pass laws on all the time, such as anti-rape, anti-domestic-violence, and pro-choice laws.
If legislators didn't think about these issues, they wouldn't be doing their job, and you would likely complain quite vocally about it.
____
And an aside: I notice you brought up the bogus feminist propaganda schtick regarding women's health again:
thanks to our dear male-centered health system that doesn't even bother to find out women's specific heart disease related needs.
I had previously demonstrated to you that this was quite false: A quick limited PubMed search shows that there are over 265,000 articles on heart disease that have a component involving female-specific health - this represents roughly 41% of the total number of heart disease studies. If you limit the results to the past five years, the number rises to 47%.
Continuing to use these old yarns lessens the strength of your argument. Next thing, you'll be telling me there is no funding for breast cancer research...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2006 1:09 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 11:43 AM pink sasquatch has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 50 of 292 (304203)
04-14-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by riVeRraT
04-14-2006 9:14 AM


Re: Living like rats.
Yea, but somehow your view made it become legal. If our views hold equal validity, then why is your view legal?
Clearly it is playing games with life, just to get laid.
because your view infringes on my view when my view does not force you to get an abortion. but then you don't have a uterus and really don't have an opinion.
You want to use abortion as birth control, which to me is the worst form of abortion.
bitch piss moan.
That's right punish your boyfriend with abortion, that'll show him. Besides it is 100% his right?
no genius. you leave his ass and free yourself of his wretched seed.
To me, this is a good reason to have an abortion.
thanks. especially considering the reading i've been doing about rape lately. i'm doing a paper on the bosnian and rwandan genocides...
This assumes you have a right to intercourse.
If I put a boiler in incorrectly, I will have to go back and fix it. The law does not allow me to go back and uninstall it, and give the customer their money back.
Having intercourse is like signing a contract agreement.
that's insane. i have a right to intercourse. marriage is a contract that was invented to transfer property between men. part of that property was the woman in the marriage. if she had had sex then she was used property. it's hardly different now. your idea that i should only be having sex in marriage is posterity of this process. you, your traditions, and whomever's god have no right to tell me what i can and can't do with my body. moreover. it's none of your business. and it's none of the government's business.
OMG, intercourse is sounding worse, and worse.
Are you describing your situation, or the whole worlds?
Because you did mention that the decision was a subjective one, but you turn it into a subjective one, by speaking for everyone else.
i'm describing situations i have seen before me. i have not had an abortion.
This is where you are wrong.
Maybe we shouldn't even know these women are alive.
shhhh! I have a life in my uterus, don't tell anyone so I can dispose of it. I find that line of thinking a bit on the sick side.
you're disgusting. really. have you read the constitution?
do you understand what is involved in a discussion of legality?
And we should legalize heroin, to prevent people form getting bad stuff.
We should also legalize murder, so that nothing happens to the murderer, we don't want them getting hurt now, do we?
That is an illogical train of thought, or reasoning why abortion should be legal.
wtf?
abortion is ending a pregnancy.
it's not murder; it's not a drug.
By your own definition, it is not a medical decision.
You don't need a doctor to tell you are poor, and do not want to further the population.
Exactly, but life is life.
it is a medical procedure. and only the advice of a doctor should be taken when considering what to do about your own subjective reality.
i have no idea what the last line is for. you're starting to talk to yourself i think. but nonetheless. i certainly don't need your advice or that of james dobson and his mindless automotons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 04-14-2006 9:14 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by riVeRraT, posted 04-16-2006 7:31 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 51 of 292 (304208)
04-14-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by pink sasquatch
04-14-2006 11:10 AM


Re: not just medical...
Honestly, this argument seems quite silly, since all anti-abortion laws/bills have an "unless medically necessary" exception. Your medically-necessary argument makes zero sense in trying to counter a system which would allow medically-necessary abortions.
you're terribly optimistic. you really think that they're just going to trust that you and your doctor find it to me necessary? no. there's going to be some rich, white, greasy republican overseeing abortion requests. oh you have diabetes? that's okay. you can have a baby.
As you yourself have demonstrated, the decision to have an abortion is not just a medical one; and in many cases (probably most cases) has nothing to do with a medical condition.
immaterial. it places an undue burden on me to have to prove to an outside authority that it's medically necessary because it demands that i disclose my medical condition and let someone else view my medical records. moreover, it forces this invasion of my medical privacy on me simply because i am a woman and happen to have a uterus.
Therefore, "non-medically trained legislators" should consider laws regulating abortion, since it is a complicated issue, one with implications for morality and personal freedom - you know, the same sort of issues that "non-medically trained legislators" pass laws on all the time, such as anti-rape, anti-domestic-violence, and pro-choice laws.
the supreme court no longer accepts laws that separate people because of their attributes when the evidence is based on morality.
the point is that this is simply an inpossibly constitutionally unsound discussion. morality is subjective and the rights of one person recognized by the state end at the rights of another person recognized by the state. a fetus is not recognized by the state. until the fetus could in fact survive on its own, it is either a part of my body or a tapeworm. (btw. i am opposed to the scott peterson law in case you were wondering. i think it's dreadful.) the state has no vested interest in a fetus that cannot survive on its own. so maybe restrict abortions within the last 2 months to medically necessary. otherwise, you're forcing your own outdated morality on my person and my medical privacy.
And an aside: I notice you brought up the bogus feminist propaganda schtick regarding women's health again:... I had previously demonstrated to you that this was quite false: A quick limited PubMed search shows that there are over 265,000 articles on heart disease that have a component involving female-specific health - this represents roughly 41% of the total number of heart disease studies. If you limit the results to the past five years, the number rises to 47%.
Continuing to use these old yarns lessens the strength of your argument. Next thing, you'll be telling me there is no funding for breast cancer research...
it's all new information. yes, we are making strides. but only in very specific areas. and very slowly.
prove to me it's bogus. i see only removal being considered for most female health problems. breast cancer, endometriosis, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer... and there has been little research in areas of medicine that affect both men and women into how it may affect women differently. only recently has there been any information on how different heart disease is in women. and at the same time, there has been lots of misinformation about how depression affects men because it is seen as a woman's disorder. men respond very differently to depression and none of the commercials and none of the awareness pamphlets have the information about their symptoms.
so you demonstrate that its bogus.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2006 11:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 11:10 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 3:18 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 52 of 292 (304213)
04-14-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
04-12-2006 7:06 PM


ooh look at this!
BBC NEWS | Health | Stress sparks 'male foetus death'
A woman's body may actively kill off weaker male foetuses during times of stress, research suggests.
that's awesome.
also, did you see the research last year that suggested that male children are more likely to be born when the man is present following conception?
travelling dads make girl babies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 04-12-2006 7:06 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by EZscience, posted 04-14-2006 12:41 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 53 of 292 (304220)
04-14-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by macaroniandcheese
04-14-2006 12:12 PM


I like this part:
quote:
Dr Catalano said: "These findings demonstrate yet again that we need not go to museums of natural history to find evidence of natural selection.
"Indeed things as common and immediate as the gender and health of our children show its effects."
...precisely what we are trying to convince the fossil-doubters on so many threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 12:12 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 54 of 292 (304257)
04-14-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by macaroniandcheese
04-14-2006 11:43 AM


Re: not just medical...
you really think that they're just going to trust that you and your doctor find it to me necessary? no. there's going to be some rich, white, greasy republican overseeing abortion requests.
Yep. His name is "The Man". Give me a break.
If the law gives authority to a medical doctor's decision, I don't see where the rich white greasy republican comes in, unless he is your doctor. There are many procedure/treatments that are only legal within the prescription of a medical doctor, and I don't see any greasy white figures lurking in the shadows controlling them...
Do you have insight into how medically-necessary clauses in laws/bills are actually written? If so, please share that insight and sources - I'd be interested...
Otherwise, stop pointing fingers at a mythical greasy(?) republican. (Again, it weakens your argument.)
immaterial. it places an undue burden on me to have to prove to an outside authority that it's medically necessary because it demands that i disclose my medical condition and let someone else view my medical records.
- So, are you taking back your argument that medical expertise is required in the judgement? Now you seem to be leaving the decision solely up to the patient - again, your medical argument has been thrown out the window.
- And again, you are arguing for the allowance of non-medically-necessary abortions, so your appeals to medical conditions seem quite dishonest.
so maybe restrict abortions within the last 2 months to medically necessary. otherwise, you're forcing your own outdated morality on my person and my medical privacy.
So it is okay to restrict abortions then, when it comes to the last two months. It is okay to invade someone's precious privacy and potentially require them to jump through some bureacratic hoops to acquire an abortion.
It is okay for you to place your outdated morality on others with the arbitrary cut-off of two months pre-birth.
How is this any different from what you are so vehemently arguing against?
it's all new information. yes, we are making strides. but only in very specific areas. and very slowly.
Not so new: The PubMed records start in 1963. Since 1963, 41% of heart disease articles include a female-specific component.
prove to me it's bogus.
I thought I provided some pretty good evidence. Here's some more:
I looked at all health articles in the Pubmed database since 1925:
25% had a male-specific component
31% had a female-specific component
Does this, praytell, sound at all like the "dear male-centered health system that doesn't even bother to find out women's specific heart disease related needs" that you describe?
i see only removal being considered for most female health problems. breast cancer, endometriosis, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer...
You are describing treatment of cancer, not "female health problems" - and removal is no longer the "only" option - again you have outdated information. Removal is also a standard treatment for prostate cancer (and most other cancers), so your argument that this is a female-specific problem is very problematic.
In fact, breast cancer research is disproportionally over-funded relative to other cancers (relative to the number effected), including those that effect both sexes (such as lung cancer, which kills far more women than breast cancer each year). In this case, the fever to fund a female-specific health problem has overshadowed research that could help a much larger base of people (and women).
Since you yourself point out that male-specific disparities exist in the health care system, it is very poor of you to characterize the medical establishment as "male-centered", when it fact it caters more to female-specific health problems than male-specific health problems.
I actually agree with you as far as the endpoints of your arguments (pro-choice, pro-sex-specific-health-research), but the arguments you are making are illogical and at times absurd, and you assuming things that are shown to be false with thirty seconds of research.
It is because I agree with the endpoints of your arguments that I am confronting you, since RiverRat seemed to be making a heck of a lot more sense than you were...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 11:43 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 3:30 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 55 of 292 (304260)
04-14-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by pink sasquatch
04-14-2006 3:18 PM


Re: not just medical...
So it is okay to restrict abortions then, when it comes to the last two months. It is okay to invade someone's precious privacy and potentially require them to jump through some bureacratic hoops to acquire an abortion.
It is okay for you to place your outdated morality on others with the arbitrary cut-off of two months pre-birth.
How is this any different from what you are so vehemently arguing against?
no not really. but since everyone is so intent on it...
but it places a burden on seeing when a patient is in her last two months so it's right out anyways.
I actually agree with you as far as the endpoints of your arguments (pro-choice, pro-sex-specific-health-research), but the arguments you are making are illogical and at times absurd, and you assuming things that are shown to be false with thirty seconds of research.
It is because I agree with the endpoints of your arguments that I am confronting you, since RiverRat seemed to be making a heck of a lot more sense than you were...
the problem is that my main argument is that the government should not know that i am pregnant much less what i decide to do about it. there is NO INTEREST that is vested enough to investigate my medical records save for communicable disease. pregnancy (while i view it as a disease) does not meet that standard.
but no one listens to me when i say that.
i'm not interest in decisions really. i'm interested in who has a credible voice with regard to a medical procedure. that is only the doctor performing that specific procedure and the patient receiving it. the decision and its cause are immaterial.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2006 03:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 3:18 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 3:56 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 56 of 292 (304266)
04-14-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by macaroniandcheese
04-14-2006 3:30 PM


Re: not just medical...
no not really. but since everyone is so intent on it...
but it places a burden on seeing when a patient is in her last two months so it's right out anyways.
So then why the hell are you making the argument!?!?! This is exactly why I'm pointing out the inconsistent nature of your pro-choice arguments...
there is NO INTEREST that is vested enough to investigate my medical records save for communicable disease.
but no one listens to me when i say that.
I've noticed you stated that, but it was also buried under a bunch of off-tangent points.
The thing you need to realize is that to others there is AN INTEREST vested enough to investigate your medical records: they see abortion (and euthanasia, and assisted-suicide) as murder. Now you may not agree that it is murder, but no amount of arguing for privacy of medical records is going to dissuade those who believe that it is murder.
i'm not interest in decisions really. i'm interested in who has a credible voice with regard to a medical procedure.
It may be a medical procedure, but it is one with strong moral and spiritual implications. Recognize that abortion is primarily a moral issue to the majority of people in this country - it is, as a moral issue, not a medical one, that abortion is thrust into the legislature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 3:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 4:20 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 57 of 292 (304272)
04-14-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by pink sasquatch
04-14-2006 3:56 PM


Re: not just medical...
i guess the biggest problem is that i don't see it as a moral question AT ALL. if anything, the moral question is that a woman has the right to make decisions that affect her life that no one else has the right to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 3:56 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 4:27 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 58 of 292 (304274)
04-14-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by macaroniandcheese
04-14-2006 4:20 PM


Re: not just medical... another scenario...
i guess the biggest problem is that i don't see it as a moral question AT ALL.
You don't, but most do. And many would see the fact that you don't see it as a moral decision as indication that you are not to be trusted when it comes to such decisions/issues.
Let me throw out a hypothetical scenario:
What if the law allowed parents to commit infanticide under the supervision of a doctor, to "put their children to sleep", as long as their child was less than three years old?
Would you want a law enacted to protect those children, or would you leave it up to the morality of each parent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 4:20 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 5:11 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 59 of 292 (304281)
04-14-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by pink sasquatch
04-14-2006 4:27 PM


Re: not just medical... another scenario...
i don't think morality has a place in law immaterial of the moral issues of an argument. i think that's what you're missing in my standing.
should parents be able to practice medically guided infanticide? no. because of the evidenced effects of the practice on other children. this is assuming a study on such a thing that would find such results. but then the state has a vested interest in maintaining a present population of living children. should we have a cull and replace option for very ill or mentally inferior children? no. that's illegal under the geneva conventions. it's eugenics and a crime against humanity. and if it isn't, it will be after i finish my doctoral thesis.
law outside of morality is very simple and people just have problems with the fact that they improperly feel their morality is superior to well-reasoned law.
people are crazy.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2006 05:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 4:27 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-14-2006 5:38 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 60 of 292 (304296)
04-14-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by macaroniandcheese
04-14-2006 5:11 PM


Re: not just medical... another scenario...
i don't think morality has a place in law immaterial of the moral issues of an argument. i think that's what you're missing in my standing.
Perhaps you could rephrase - right now I am definitely missing something because your statement above seems like language-game doublespeak; as in, "there is no place for morality in law except when there is a place for morality".
should parents be able to practice medically guided infanticide? no. because of the evidenced effects of the practice on other children. this is assuming a study on such a thing that would find such results.
What if studies showed the opposite - that other children were unaffected, or positively affected, by medically-guided infanticide on other children? Should a law be enacted to prevent that infanticide?
should we have a cull and replace option for very ill or mentally inferior children? no. that's illegal under the geneva conventions. it's eugenics and a crime against humanity. and if it isn't, it will be after i finish my doctoral thesis.
Why is it illegal? Why is it a crime against humanity? Why are you so absolutely sure that this is so heinous that you might just devote your doctoral work to it?
Specifically.
law outside of morality is very simple and people just have problems with the fact that they improperly feel their morality is superior to well-reasoned law.
Is there "law outside of morality"? Really, is there such a thing? Can you come up with a law that is truly separate of morality?
people are crazy.
Actually - you are the one that seems crazy, or at least completely arbitrary in your distinctions...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 5:11 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2006 6:51 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024