View Poll Results: Since reading or participating in the abortion threads

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • My views have changed to completely against abortion

    2 4.08%
  • My views have change to slightly more against abortion

    6 12.24%
  • My views have not changed at all on abortion

    35 71.43%
  • My views have changed to slightly more in favor of abortion

    2 4.08%
  • My views have changes to completely in favor of abortion

    4 8.16%
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 104

Thread: Why are you here?

  1. #81
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    If you think abortion is murder - which pro-lifers do - then why would you not want to "regulate" murder?
    I don't think abortion is murder. In fact, I'm 100% certain it's not murder, since it is legal and murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

    murder - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


    What you mean to say is not "murder". What you really mean is "immorally killing a human". If someone thinks abortion is immorally killing of a human, then they might want to regulate it. Not always though. Some people don't believe in regulating morality.

    But it's definitely not murder as per the definition of the word.

    BTW, IMO, murder is not always immoral, but that's another discussion entirely.




    I've never really understood the assertion that personal views of abortion don't have to be expressed in one's political views of the same issue. Unless you are an anarchist or something.
    I'm an "or something". As I clearly mentioned:

    yes, my views have been altered, but probably not in a way that most people would readily understand given the emotionally-driven nature of the subject matter
    I doubt that I'll be proven wrong about that, but I like you, Dav, so I'll give it a shot.

    Above I mentioned that some people don't believe in regulating morality. And that's true. But I'm not really one of them. I believe that it's up to a very local region to define the morality that they see fit for that region. I'm talking regions smaller than states. I believe that it is someone's right to live in a region that has an equivalent moral structure to that which they themselves have so long as that morality is agreed upon by the majority of people within that region. A micro-level pure democracy.

    I feel that if a town in Texas wants to ban abortions, and give the death penalty to people who get abortions in that town, so be it.

    Hell, I think that a town should have the right to outlaw free speech if it's decided by a direct democracy.

    If people in that highly localized region do not like the rules and regs of that region, they should get the **** out of that region.


    Conversely, if a local region decides they want to make abortions mandatory for pregnant women in that region who fail to meet a certain set of standards, more power to them. Slaughter the zygotes to their heart's content.

    If people in that region do not like the rules and regs in that region, they should get the **** out of that region.

    And I would choose to live in neither of these regions.

    But I'm of the belief that morality is a product of humanities nature as a social animal. I don't believe in a universal morality, but I do believe that morality is a drive within humans that is a product of evolution. Unfortunately, due to the intelligence of humans, we've overextended our reach with regards to morality to include "outsiders" (humans outside of our own "tribe"). We seek to enforce our morality upon others, and this is done by all sides of the political divide.


    I like to point out to pro-choicers who claim that pro-lifers are enforcing their morality that the pro-choice movement is essentially doing the same by forcing pro-lifers to live in a region that has legalized something they find abhorrently immoral. Pro-choicers are enforcing their morality (that is is better to live in such a region) upon the pro-lifers.

    So, I've come to the conclusion that no matter what, somebody's going to be forcing another person to acquiesce to their moral code, regardless of what the decision is.

    I find this to be immoral, yet unavoidable.

    But it can be minimized. To do that, we need only keep such social issues to the most local of levels. It creates the option for people of all stripes to live within the same country without having to compromise their morals.

    Unfortunately, there will always exist people on both sides that wish to force their morality down everyone else's throats. They will not be content to keep things localized. They are, in fact, the majority. They just differ on which morality they want to shove down everyone's throats.

    But the fact that people are inherently inclined to be domineering over others, especially those they disagree with, doesn't change my principles on the matter.

    Ironically, for a person who doesn't believe in any rigid, set-in-stone morality, I follow a very rigid, set-in-stone set of morals for my own behavior. This is not a contradiction when you realize that not believing in a universal morality doesn't mean one cannot have very strong morals.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 01-12-10 at 06:54 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #82
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by ds4159 View Post
    If you, as a pro-lifer, consider abortion murder, then it IS black-and-white to you and you do not consider it a "personal view". To them it amounts to saying that pedophiles should have the right to sleep with children. There are a number of people who do think pedophilia is a right, but to most it is ridiculous because they see pedophilia as wrong, without any grey area. It is the same with abortion to a pro-lifer. There is no grey area, abortion is wrong, the same as murder and should be illegal. Just like most people, at this time anyway, think that sleeping with 12 year-old, whether or not they want to, is wrong and amounts to rape and should therefore be illegal.
    You are incorrect. As is evident by the number of people personally against abortion that are still yet pro-choice politically, especially in the sense that it shouldn't be federally regulated. I have many friends and family who are adamant that abortion is not an option for them, that is wrong *for them*, but that others should be allowed to make that decision for themselves as well as they have. Because it is NOT black and white. Not by any stretch of the imagination. They believe abortion is WRONG - for them, but understand that others may not hold their same views.


    @ Tucker: Pro-choicers cannot, in any way, force their views on pro-lifers. No one can force someone to accept abortion as being "okay". No one can force someone else to HAVE an abortion. However, pro-lifers most certainly CAN force their 'morals' on pro-choicers by way of NOT allowing them to have medical procedures they deem necessary. It really doesn't go both ways.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 01-12-10 at 06:55 PM.

  3. #83
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    01-12-10 @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10

    Re: Why are you here?

    That is why I said IF you as a pro-lifer consider abortion murder. If you don't and you just think it is a bad choice or immoral or people should control themselves before they get pregnant, then you may feel differently. For people who feel very strongly that it is murder than it is very black-and-white.

  4. #84
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by ds4159 View Post
    That is why I said IF you as a pro-lifer consider abortion murder. If you don't and you just think it is a bad choice or immoral or people should control themselves before they get pregnant, then you may feel differently. For people who feel very strongly that it is murder than it is very black-and-white.
    Real quick, one can't feel strongly that something is murder because something is or isn't murder based solely on it's legal status.

    What someone can feel strongly about is whether or not something should be considered murder or not.

    Pro-lifers who think abortion should be illegal automatically think it should be murder. It is a black and white issue in such cases, too.

    I mention this because getting past the emotional rhetoric is important for advancing the discussion in any meaningful way.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #85
    Borg Commander roderic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Thailand
    Last Seen
    04-18-12 @ 10:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    879

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    If you think abortion is murder - which pro-lifers do - then why would you not want to "regulate" murder?

    I've never really understood the assertion that personal views of abortion don't have to be expressed in one's political views of the same issue. Unless you are an anarchist or something.
    "Regulate" is what most pro-choicers want, impose conditions and criteria for which it is acceptable or not.
    Don't you mean forbid, i.e. make it unlawful and punishable with very severe penalties? "Murder" is not something to regulate, one does not want it to happen at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Because some people are able to realize that the issue is not black and white, and their OPINION - while completely valid to them - shouldn't be forced on everyone else. And that other adults should be allowed to decide their own views on the same issue, just as they have. They understand that while what they believe is right for them, it isn't necessarily right for everyone else.
    I agree, but for a lot of people it is more than an "opinion", it's a conviction they feel morally obliged to act upon.
    The use of the term "murder" indicates that it is not a mere opinion which tolerates other views. It implies that the fetus is a person and that the killing is unlawful in a moral sense - it does not invite disagreement nor compromise.


    Quote Originally Posted by ds4159 View Post
    If you, as a pro-lifer, consider abortion murder, then it IS black-and-white to you and you do not consider it a "personal view". To them it amounts to saying that pedophiles should have the right to sleep with children. There are a number of people who do think pedophilia is a right, but to most it is ridiculous because they see pedophilia as wrong, without any grey area. It is the same with abortion to a pro-lifer. There is no grey area, abortion is wrong, the same as murder and should be illegal. Just like most people, at this time anyway, think that sleeping with 12 year-old, whether or not they want to, is wrong and amounts to rape and should therefore be illegal.
    That's an odd comparison, I doubt anybody goes for an abortion to derive pleasure from it.
    "REGRETTABLE NECESSITY, n. An avoidable atrocity. The term is often employed by presidents and prime ministers when announcing bombings of civilian targets and invasions of small countries."
    óChaz Bufe

  6. #86
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by roderic View Post
    That's an odd comparison, I doubt anybody goes for an abortion to derive pleasure from it.
    I dunno...you would be surprised at some of the twisted things people can derive pleasure from. I haven't heard of such, but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #87
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I don't think abortion is murder. In fact, I'm 100% certain it's not murder, since it is legal and murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

    murder - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


    What you mean to say is not "murder". What you really mean is "immorally killing a human". If someone thinks abortion is immorally killing of a human, then they might want to regulate it. Not always though. Some people don't believe in regulating morality.
    ---> A graphic representation of what I literally did upon reading that last sentence.

    You basically just argued that all killing should be legal (at least among those "some people"), since making only immoral killing illegal would be regulating morality.

    In fact, most people who argue against "regulating morality" are not anarchists, but rather libertarians/miniarchists. These people believe those regulations which should exist should only be those which defend people's rights - right to life (murder is thus illegal), right to property (theft is thus illegal), etc.

    In any case, murder is far more objective than "immoral killing". It's basically all killing except for certain specific exceptions, such as self-defense and war. Abortion does not fit any of these exceptions.


    Above I mentioned that some people don't believe in regulating morality. And that's true. But I'm not really one of them. I believe that it's up to a very local region to define the morality that they see fit for that region. I'm talking regions smaller than states. I believe that it is someone's right to live in a region that has an equivalent moral structure to that which they themselves have so long as that morality is agreed upon by the majority of people within that region. A micro-level pure democracy.

    I feel that if a town in Texas wants to ban abortions, and give the death penalty to people who get abortions in that town, so be it.
    I guess I'm sort of with you there. Though it gets progressively harder to enforce these laws as they apply to an increasingly smaller area, since people have more chances then to just go to another town to get their abortions. But I do think that governments get more efficient and are better at representing their people as they cover a smaller area.

    Hell, I think that a town should have the right to outlaw free speech if it's decided by a direct democracy.
    Not so big on this one. The majority shouldn't be able to vote rights away from the minority - and yes, such laws would be at the cost of the minority, since you can't "outlaw free speech", only certain expressions of speech, which in this case the majority wouldn't like. The Bill of Rights was put there for a reason.

    If people in that highly localized region do not like the rules and regs of that region, they should get the **** out of that region.
    For the most part I agree. But consider this: what if, in a free election, the majority in a town decided that nobody was allowed to leave the town? By your standards, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that.

    Conversely, if a local region decides they want to make abortions mandatory for pregnant women in that region who fail to meet a certain set of standards, more power to them. Slaughter the zygotes to their heart's content.
    Also not so big on this one, though I can't really articulate exactly why.

    But I'm of the belief that morality is a product of humanities nature as a social animal. I don't believe in a universal morality, but I do believe that morality is a drive within humans that is a product of evolution. Unfortunately, due to the intelligence of humans, we've overextended our reach with regards to morality to include "outsiders" (humans outside of our own "tribe"). We seek to enforce our morality upon others, and this is done by all sides of the political divide.
    Except that there are universal morals. Killing, for example, with certain exceptions (which, granted, vary place to place), is pretty much universally condemned everywhere. Same with theft. It is also universally agreed that selflessness and altruism are virtues. It's generally agreed that these morals have some evolutionary value in preserving the species, so it makes sense that they are embedded into our psychology.

    That's not to say all morality is universal, though. Or to say that even universal morality should be enforced at the Federal level; even though we all agree on them, it should be up to the state and local level to decide what punishments they deserve.

    I like to point out to pro-choicers who claim that pro-lifers are enforcing their morality that the pro-choice movement is essentially doing the same by forcing pro-lifers to live in a region that has legalized something they find abhorrently immoral. Pro-choicers are enforcing their morality (that is is better to live in such a region) upon the pro-lifers.
    I agree... sort of. They are enforcing their view that abortion is not (or, rather, should not be) murder onto the population; usually, this means enforcing their view that the fetus is not a person. But I'm not sure whether to categorize that as a moral view. It's more of a... semantic view. I think the same thing of gay marriage: it is a semantic, not moral, issue.

    So, I've come to the conclusion that no matter what, somebody's going to be forcing another person to acquiesce to their moral code, regardless of what the decision is.

    I find this to be immoral, yet unavoidable.

    But it can be minimized. To do that, we need only keep such social issues to the most local of levels. It creates the option for people of all stripes to live within the same country without having to compromise their morals.

    Unfortunately, there will always exist people on both sides that wish to force their morality down everyone else's throats. They will not be content to keep things localized. They are, in fact, the majority. They just differ on which morality they want to shove down everyone's throats.

    But the fact that people are inherently inclined to be domineering over others, especially those they disagree with, doesn't change my principles on the matter.
    That's an interesting perspective. There are parts of it I agree with, others not, but mostly I'm not exactly sure what to make of it.


    But what I think the poll was asking was this: if your locality (town or whatever) was voting on whether or not abortion should be legal, how would you vote?

  8. #88
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Because some people are able to realize that the issue is not black and white, and their OPINION - while completely valid to them - shouldn't be forced on everyone else. And that other adults should be allowed to decide their own views on the same issue, just as they have. They understand that while what they believe is right for them, it isn't necessarily right for everyone else.
    I'm not sure you read my post right. If you have the opinion that a fetus is a person, and you have the opinion that killing people (except for certain exceptions) should be illegal, then you think that killing a fetus should be illegal. Where's the break in that logic?

    And if you think that it should be legal because thinking that a fetus is a person is just someone's opinion... well, what if, in my opinion, a black person isn't a person? Or a woman isn't a person? Telling me I can't kill women or black people is forcing your opinion on me.

    And pro-choicers want to force their opinion on everyone else too - that the fetus is not a person. The government can't take no stance on this; either abortion is murder, and the pro-lifers are right, or it is not, and the pro-choicers are right. So you can't really take this issue out of the government, as so many pro-choicers argue for.

  9. #89
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor View Post
    My views on abortion have not changed at all.

    I am against it but do not believe it's my place to tell others whether they should or should not have one. If a person were to ask me my opinion about it, I would tell them.

    I do NOT believe in late term abortion - I believe in PREVENTION by way of education and in the case of an already existing pregnancy; putting a child up for adoption.

    I do believe it's a very personal choice and one that I am not prepared to force my beliefs onto someone else.
    Yeah. What she said.

    Ditto dat. (Sure saved me a lotta typing. )

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  10. #90
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Why are you here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    I'm not sure you read my post right. If you have the opinion that a fetus is a person, and you have the opinion that killing people (except for certain exceptions) should be illegal, then you think that killing a fetus should be illegal. Where's the break in that logic?

    And if you think that it should be legal because thinking that a fetus is a person is just someone's opinion... well, what if, in my opinion, a black person isn't a person? Or a woman isn't a person? Telling me I can't kill women or black people is forcing your opinion on me.
    When you can show that black people or women don't have a functioning and attached cerebral cortex, then you can use that slippery slope. And, I'd agree with you that they wouldn't be worth protection.

    And pro-choicers want to force their opinion on everyone else too - that the fetus is not a person. The government can't take no stance on this; either abortion is murder, and the pro-lifers are right, or it is not, and the pro-choicers are right. So you can't really take this issue out of the government, as so many pro-choicers argue for.
    Not at all. I do not wish to force my opinion on anyone. You're perfectly free to think a fetus, or a cockroach, or a potato, or a gnat, or a cow are ALL persons. I'm not going to stop you, nor am I trying to. Just don't try and stop me from killing roaches in my house, or swatting flies, or eating meat and it's all good.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •