What Issue Do You Struggle Most With?

[BwareDWare94 723]

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all, and in a way you could say child support does that, tho perhaps that's not severe enough

 

Personally, I think it should be a crime if you have egregious expenses, are capable of working full time, and don't. Honestly, there's no excuse for laziness. None at all. Especially if you've fathered a child, bought a new car, etc. Get your ass out there and make money. I've never understand why some men refuse to do that. It's not like they have a real, legitimate argument to work as little as some do (and I'm talking about plenty of white men I know, here. This isn't a racial point.).

[Thanatos 2,847]

The intake of oxygen is more what I am referring to. Until a child takes his/her first breath of air, the parents have every right to terminate the pregnancy. I know that my opinion may be harsh, and maybe this comparison isn't fair but; I see a fetus much like a brain-dead individual. When is it okay to "pull the plug"? When does a person cease to exist as a person?

 

The act of breathing does not make it a human being, but it makes it 'real', that is to say the baby is no longer a theoretical life. Until the moment of birth, the child could be born a chimpanzee, there is no way to know until it is born.

 

This is complete bullshit, Duck. Come on, just think this through.

 

No, the child couldn't be born a chimpanzee. S/he will always be born a human if you don't kill it. Always, without exception. We have tech that lets us see into the womb and see that its not a chimpanzee. It's not a theoretical life simply because it's inside the womb. There's nothing theoretical about it. It's still alive.

 

A brain-dead person is completely and totally different than a fetus- the fetus isn't brain-dead. It is simply a human that needs a certain environment to survive. It is self-aware, certainly at some point during the pregnancy, and can feel pain, two things that a brain-dead person cannot.

 

We have to concede that women are not just hear to bear children. While I understand that they are just as responsible for its conception (barring a rape), we cannot honestly, in today's society that preaches equality, tie them down to the child because of a "moral code." We either must agree to let abortion continue or make abandoning a woman and child a severely punished crime. These are out only two options, since some people don't seem to take adoption seriously.

 

They don't have to be tied down to the child for their entire life, just for the 9 months it takes to bring them into the world.

 

Whether or not people take it seriously, adoption- putting a child up for adoption- is a perfectly valid alternative. I'm not advocating that you force someone to raise a child- I am advocating that they must take a child to term unless they will suffer extreme harm from doing so, (in other words, not just the normal harm from actually having the child). This is a human life we're talking about, IMO. If it is a human life, then everything else proceeds logically from there.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Barracuda 629]

I don't see any plausible reason for aborting any child, at any point, unless it's mentally/physically harming the mother.

 

What's the difference between a baby in the womb one day before birth that has downs and a baby that was just born a day ago who develops downs? Why is it okay to kill the former, why would most society be in uproar if we killed the latter? If it has a heartbeat it's a person. People die in the ER everyday, how do we know? Their heart stops beating. Blood stops flowing to other parts of the body, it shuts down. Anywhere from 5-8 weeks is where a fetus develops a heartbeat. After that time, it's considered human in my opinion.

 

 

Less then a month ago, my cousin, Alexis died from an accidental overdose. She was 19 years old, she was smart and she never had a chance to do anything much like aborted children. I think anyone can really make an impact on the world and it's not fair to take that chance away from them. What if Einstein, Edison or the Wright Brothers were just "unwanted." What kind of place would we be living in today?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Barracuda

[Duck Fallas 209]

the difference between brain dead and a child is the child still has potential and in all likelihood would develop past the point of being brain dead.

 

And all that other shit is easy to say....until you have to do it.

I have had to "pull the plug" twice in my life (grandmother and my father). I am not saying that it was easy, but ultimately it was for the best.

 

We can keep debating this forever, but my POV is not going to take with y'all and your POV is not going to take with me.

 

Even though I have no issue with "murder" and never have, I was on the complete opposite side of the fence on this issue when i was younger. I participated in many "life-chain" events and even sat with a woman named Rita Warren as she stood and rallied support to overturn Roe v. Wade on the steps of the US Capitol.

 

There two things that separate the me now and the me then:

 

1. I no longer believe in god in any way shape and form.

 

2. I am no longer ashamed to admit that I don't hold human life in very high regard.

 

I assure you that if those two factors change, I will likely quickly jump to the other side of the fence on this issue. But until that happens; I fully support abortion in whatever phase of the pregnancy and I think that it is an issue that should stay between the couple who have to make the decision.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I have had to "pull the plug" twice in my life (grandmother and my father). I am not saying that it was easy, but ultimately it was for the best.

 

We can keep debating this forever, but my POV is not going to take with y'all and your POV is not going to take with me.

 

Even though I have no issue with "murder" and never have, I was on the complete opposite side of the fence on this issue when i was younger. I participated in many "life-chain" events and even sat with a woman named Rita Warren as she stood and rallied support to overturn Roe v. Wade on the steps of the US Capitol.

 

There two things that separate the me now and the me then:

 

1. I no longer believe in god in any way shape and form.

 

2. I am no longer ashamed to admit that I don't hold human life in very high regard.

 

I assure you that if those two factors change, I will likely quickly jump to the other side of the fence on this issue. But until that happens; I fully support abortion in whatever phase of the pregnancy and I think that it is an issue that should stay between the couple who have to make the decision.

 

Your logic would be okay with partial-birth abortion, then.

 

I don't see why believing in god would change anything. Sure, people who believe in God are more likely to be pro-life, but the logic works regardless.

 

I just think you're making an arbitrary distinction that doesn't hold water. There is no difference between a child who is 30 seconds from leaving the womb, and a child who left the womb thirty seconds ago, except for where they are located. Why can a parent not kill a child they don't want three months after its born? The child doesn't remember anything. You can even do it with less pain than an abortion gives to a child inside the womb, easily. It's more humane. So why the arbitrary distinction? That's always been the problem to me.

 

Unless you can show it's not a human life, then you err on the side of caution. If a couple wishes to kill their 1-month-old, society steps in. They don't have the right to kill their infant. Neither should they have the right to kill a child within the womb, unless the mother's life, or possibly her mental well-being, is in serious danger. But simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced for nine months? Sure it's a serious inconvenience, but its a small price to pay for an innocent life. If they don't want it after its born, we suggest putting the child up for adoption. But just because it's inside the womb, we suggest murdering it. I simply do not see the difference.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Vin+ 3,121]

adoption- putting a child up for adoption- is a perfectly valid alternative. I'm not advocating that you force someone to raise a child- I am advocating that they must take a child to term unless they will suffer extreme harm from doing so, (in other words, not just the normal harm from actually having the child). This is a human life we're talking about, IMO. If it is a human life, then everything else proceeds logically from there.

[Duck Fallas 209]

Your logic would be okay with partial-birth abortion, then.

 

I don't see why believing in god would change anything. Sure, people who believe in God are more likely to be pro-life, but the logic works regardless.

 

I just think you're making an arbitrary distinction that doesn't hold water. There is no difference between a child who is 30 seconds from leaving the womb, and a child who left the womb thirty seconds ago, except for where they are located. Why can a parent not kill a child they don't want three months after its born? The child doesn't remember anything. You can even do it with less pain than an abortion gives to a child inside the womb, easily. It's more humane. So why the arbitrary distinction? That's always been the problem to me.

 

Unless you can show it's not a human life, then you err on the side of caution. If a couple wishes to kill their 1-month-old, society steps in. They don't have the right to kill their infant. Neither should they have the right to kill a child within the womb, unless the mother's life, or possibly her mental well-being, is in serious danger. But simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced for nine months? Sure it's a serious inconvenience, but its a small price to pay for an innocent life. If they don't want it after its born, we suggest putting the child up for adoption. But just because it's inside the womb, we suggest murdering it. I simply do not see the difference.

The reason that a parent cannot kill a child 3 months after it is born is quite simple. It is MURDER, and murder is against the law. Abortion is not.

 

You cannot murder what has not lived, and as the law sits now, a child in the womb is not alive and i agree with the law.

[oochymp 2,393]

The reason that a parent cannot kill a child 3 months after it is born is quite simple. It is MURDER, and murder is against the law. Abortion is not.

 

You cannot murder what has not lived, and as the law sits now, a child in the womb is not alive and i agree with the law.

in most states late-term abortions are illegal (Roe v. Wade allows for banning abortions after viability with a health of the mother exception) so by your logic that's wrong as well because it's illegal, but it is prior to birth

 

it's wrong because it's against the law, so why is it against the law? circular reasoning at its finest

Edited April 12, 2012 by oochymp

[Thanatos 2,847]

The reason that a parent cannot kill a child 3 months after it is born is quite simple. It is MURDER, and murder is against the law. Abortion is not.

 

You cannot murder what has not lived, and as the law sits now, a child in the womb is not alive and i agree with the law.

 

So your moral views change with the law of the United States? I'm not quite sure you realize what would happen were I to take your view to its logical conclusion.

 

Allow me to elaborate on it. By your logic, as stated- since the law says its okay to kill children in the womb, therefore it is morally justified to kill children in the womb- then the Germans who were in Germany when Hitler took over, not only could have, but indeed should have, *morally*, turned over the Jews to the Nazis, since the law told them that was the "right" thing to do.

 

Or if the law eventually says, here in the US, that one can kill children who are under the age of one year, then that too would be morally justified merely because it is the law of the land.

 

I really don't think you believe that. So you need to clarify what the difference is. There IS a higher standard than the law of the land. There are things that are wrong, period, regardless of where they are performed. There are also things that may be wrong in some places, and perfectly fine in others. But if a fetus is a human being, then *no matter what* the law might say, it is morally wrong to kill them.

 

You can't use the law of the land as a justification for a *moral* action, merely *because* it is the law of the land. There has to be another reason, otherwise you justify things simply because the person in power, a flawed, mortal human, just like you and me, except s/he happens to be in charge, says that it is morally permissible. You are, in effect, allowing whoever leads your country to dictate your morals. A very disturbing proposition indeed.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Using the US Government as your moral compass probably isn't the smartest idea.

 

The government breaks it's own laws to enforce them.

[Duck Fallas 209]

Honestly, I never really thought about it that way, but I guess that I do, in a way allow the law of the land to dictate my morals:

 

1. I don't ever speed since it is against the law.

 

2. I have never done drugs in my life because they are against the law.

 

3. I never beat my wife because it is against the law.

 

4. I don't drive my car without insurance because, in my state, it is against the law.

 

5. I don't commit murder because it is against the law. (though I have no issue with taking a person's life)

 

6. I have never robbed a bank because it is against the law.

 

7. I have never raped a woman because it is against the law.

 

8. I have my children enrolled in school because the law says I have to have them enrolled.

 

9. I buy everything I own because to steal is against the law.

 

10. I respect other religious beliefs because to discriminate against religion is against the law.

 

When it comes down to it, the law is the ONLY thing that stops me from committing any of these acts, even though I have zero personal qualms with them. (Number 7 being the sole exception. Rapists should be fried in the public square)

 

If allowing the law to dictate how I live my life makes me in some way "weird" so fucking be it. I am a very happy and secure individual.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Duck Fallas

[Barracuda 629]

So if beating your wife, killing people and stealing weren't against the law you would do it just to do it? Come on man...

 

We as humans instinctively know between right and wrong. They shouldn't have to be written down. You and I both know beating your wife, killing someone or taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong, if it's written down as law or not.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Honestly, I never really thought about it that way, but I guess that I do, in a way allow the law of the land to dictate my morals:

 

1. I don't ever speed since it is against the law.

 

2. I have never done drugs in my life because they are against the law.

 

3. I never beat my wife because it is against the law.

 

4. I don't drive my car without insurance because, in my state, it is against the law.

 

5. I don't commit murder because it is against the law. (though I have no issue with taking a person's life)

 

6. I have never robbed a bank because it is against the law.

 

7. I have never raped a woman because it is against the law.

 

8. I have my children enrolled in school because the law says I have to have them enrolled.

 

9. I buy everything I own because to steal is against the law.

 

10. I respect other religious beliefs because to discriminate against religion is against the law.

 

When it comes down to it, the law is the ONLY thing that stops me from committing any of these acts, even though I have zero personal qualms with them. (Number 7 being the sole exception. Rapists should be fried in the public square)

 

If allowing the law to dictate how I live my life makes me in some way "weird" so fucking be it. I am a very happy and secure individual.

 

So.

 

If you were in Germany in 1941, and the law said to hand over the Jews to the Nazis... you would do it?

 

Like Cuda said, Come on, man. We know there are certain things that are wrong as human beings, regardless of what gov't tells us.

[Duck Fallas 209]

So if beating your wife, killing people and stealing weren't against the law you would do it just to do it? Come on man...

 

We as humans instinctively know between right and wrong. They shouldn't have to be written down. You and I both know beating your wife, killing someone or taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong, if it's written down as law or not.

Explain to me what makes those acts "wrong"? Looking back through history, even back into biblical times, murder and spousal abuse were often condoned, even encouraged. It wasn't until the 10 commandments came about that these things were all of a sudden taboo.

 

What is the difference between taking a life during a war and taking the life of someone whom I feel (justified or not) poses a threat? The government (or Bible)condones one and not the other? How is that any better than my take on not doing it because the law says I can't?

 

I wouldn't beat my wife or kill anyone because I am not a violent person. That does not mean that I have any moral objection.

 

@Thanatos19:

 

If it were 1941 and I was in Germany and the law said to turn over all Jewish people to the state? There is really no good way to answer that question without me sounding like I approved of Hitler and his methods (believe me, i don't even slightly think it was okay) so I won't answer that.

[Barracuda 629]

Explain to me what makes those acts "wrong"? Looking back through history, even back into biblical times, murder and spousal abuse were often condoned, even encouraged. It wasn't until the 10 commandments came about that these things were all of a sudden taboo.

 

What is the difference between taking a life during a war and taking the life of someone whom I feel (justified or not) poses a threat? The government (or Bible)condones one and not the other? How is that any better than my take on not doing it because the law says I can't?

 

I wouldn't beat my wife or kill anyone because I am not a violent person. That does not mean that I have any moral objection.

 

@Thanatos19:

 

If it were 1941 and I was in Germany and the law said to turn over all Jewish people to the state? There is really no good way to answer that question without me sounding like I approved of Hitler and his methods (believe me, i don't even slightly think it was okay) so I won't answer that.

 

What makes those acts wrong or right is what you believe they are. Do you truly believe that woman beating and killing, for whatever reason, should be encouraged? I sure hope not.

 

And I wasn't speaking of taking a life when someone poses a threat, self defense is fine as long as that's all it was. If killing someone isn't against the law would you go around killing people? You said no to that earlier in the thread somewhere but why? Why wouldn't you do that? Simply because they didn't give you a reason? Your mind tells you it's not right, it's wrong to just kill someone without reason. You're not gonna beat your wife for nothing. That's what I'm talking about. That little thought of reason. That's what separates us from everything else. It has nothing to do with being a violent person, a violent person on death row could tell you that what they did was wrong.

[Thanatos 2,847]

@Thanatos19:

 

If it were 1941 and I was in Germany and the law said to turn over all Jewish people to the state? There is really no good way to answer that question without me sounding like I approved of Hitler and his methods (believe me, i don't even slightly think it was okay) so I won't answer that.

 

That's exactly the point. How can you say that what Hitler did was wrong if you believe that the law dictates morality?

 

If you let government tell you what is moral, then you would allow a tyrant to take over without doing a thing about it.

 

I mean, America was founded on disobeying what the government told them to do, because we thought they had overstepped their bounds. Governments are made up of people just like you and me. It makes no more sense to let me tell you what your morals should be, than it does to let the law tell you what your morals should be. By your definition, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.

 

The Dred Scott decision was perfectly fine, because it was law. Slavery was perfectly fine, until it was repealed, because it was law. If people thought like you apparently do, we'd just sit back and let government do whatever they wanted to do with us, because hey, if the government says its law, then it's morally correct.

 

What's the difference between letting government tell you what is right and what is wrong, and letting a religion tell you what is right and what is wrong? You should decide your own morals for yourself, not merely because the person in charge said it's all right. Your logic would support essentially every tyrant in the history of the world because what they said was the law.

 

Just because the government passes something does not make it morally okay.

 

If the government passed a law tomorrow that amended the definition of murder to exclude infants less than one year of age, it would still be murder, and it would still be wrong, to kill an infant under one-year-old. You would have to argue it was perfectly fine to do so, since that was now the law of the land.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Duck Fallas 209]

The law tells me what I can and cannot do, but I decide whether or not I think something is moral. I guess my previous posts contradict that, but that was really the point I was trying to make.

 

Personally, I think this country NEEDS a dictator for a decade or so, someone to get us the fuck out of the world's business and get shit done here at home.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The law tells me what I can and cannot do, but I decide whether or not I think something is moral. I guess my previous posts contradict that, but that was really the point I was trying to make.

 

Personally, I think this country NEEDS a dictator for a decade or so, someone to get us the fuck out of the world's business and get shit done here at home.

 

Okay, well then, you just negated your own reason for supporting abortion, which was: the law says its okay.

 

So if you don't think the law tells you what is and is not moral, then why do you believe abortion is okay?

[Duck Fallas 209]

Okay, well then, you just negated your own reason for supporting abortion, which was: the law says its okay.

 

So if you don't think the law tells you what is and is not moral, then why do you believe abortion is okay?

I fully admit that I basically negated everything I said previously.

 

I feel that abortion is OK because I don't think that anyone should bring an unwanted child into the world. And nobody has the right to tell anyone that they shouldn't have sex if they don't want to risk pregnancy. I am a father and I LOVE my kids, but I still have not a single issue with abortion.

 

I don't look at it as "killing a baby", which makes it that much easier to dismiss.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I fully admit that I basically negated everything I said previously.

 

I feel that abortion is OK because I don't think that anyone should bring an unwanted child into the world. And nobody has the right to tell anyone that they shouldn't have sex if they don't want to risk pregnancy. I am a father and I LOVE my kids, but I still have not a single issue with abortion.

 

I don't look at it as "killing a baby", which makes it that much easier to dismiss.

 

I generally agree with you, but I call bullshit right there. People could, you know, use BC and protection and practically take away the possibility of pregnancy.

[Duck Fallas 209]

I generally agree with you, but I call bullshit right there. People could, you know, use BC and protection and practically take away the possibility of pregnancy.

I agree, but what right do any of us have to tell a couple that they have to use protection?

 

I will concede that it kind of silly to use abortion as means of birth control.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I agree, but what right do any of us have to tell a couple that they have to use protection?

 

I will concede that it kind of silly to use abortion as means of birth control.

 

Personally, while condoms aren't perfect when it comes to protecting against STDs and STIs, at least they're more effective that no protection at all. Considering the vast amount of different sexually transmitted ailments, you'd think there'd be some consideration of telling people to use condoms a little more vehemently than they do right now.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't look at it as "killing a baby", which makes it that much easier to dismiss.

 

Earlier you gave this as the reason why you didn't look at it as "killing a baby":

The reason that a parent cannot kill a child 3 months after it is born is quite simple. It is MURDER, and murder is against the law. Abortion is not.

 

You cannot murder what has not lived, and as the law sits now, a child in the womb is not alive and i agree with the law.

 

Okay, but now you've reversed/clarified positions on this one, (a good thing, I think your earlier position led to some horrific consequences), but by so doing you removed the reasoning that allowed you to say killing a child inside the womb isn't murder- because the law said it wasn't- and killing one outside the womb is- because the law said it was.

 

So... what now? I ask the same question- Why is it murder to kill a 1-month old and not murder to kill an infant within the womb? What is the difference between a child who is about to be delivered and a child who was just delivered? What makes one a human and the other not a human? Their mere location?

 

I feel that abortion is OK because I don't think that anyone should bring an unwanted child into the world.

 

And again, you are making that decision for the child, that he'd rather be dead than never be in the world in the first place. Ask any child who faced a hard upbringing, and I bet you the vast majority will say that they're glad they at least got to live, and they don't wish their parents aborted them.

 

Not to mention, the child may be unwanted by its own parents, sure, but others who are unable to have children of their own, whether at all, or just they are no longer able to have kids for one reason or another, may want them. You're willing to just let them all be killed because their biological parents don't want them?

 

The way to prevent unwanted children is with birth control, NOT with abortion. Once the child is in the womb, at the very least after it has a heartbeat, then killing it should not be an option.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Thanatos19