In jurisdictions (countries, counties etc.) where prostitution and drugs are well regulated (as opposed to prohibited), the problems and violence and crime associated with these behaviors are by definition and in fact minimized.
We never learn. Denial of peace(ful pursuit) does not and cannot secure peace; it can only create strife and violence and crime. Prohibition in the 20’s created violence and crime and underwrote the rise of gangsters, prohibition in the 00’s creates violence and crime and underwrites terrorism. We reap what we sow; but that is another thread.
Who cares if we can snatch a baby out after a month and a half and make it live via intensive care? Much like keeping an elderly person alive towards the end of their life to benefit the people living (see Schiavo, Terri), bringing a person into the world just because we can’t isn’t a good idea.
How do you feel about suicide, particularly assisted suicide?
So, your passion for liberty is as enthusiastic when it relates to illegal drugs? How do you react to all the other restrictions on your liberty? (Can’t jaywalk, can’t breach a contract, can’t steal from your neighbor, etc., etc.) How do you stand it?
Let’s keep putting them in the same sentences with perjurers (that’s a word, right?) and thieves!!!
Laws should exist when people are harmed by the (mis)deeds of others. Jaywalking is superfluous.
I’m not sure I understand the question…do you mean, where do I belong in terms of being extremist? If this is what you mean, then I feel I am extremist in my own personal view of abortion & ethics, but in terms of legalities, I am pro-life, but not a pro-life extremist.
But I’m not sure what the composition of the board has to do with it? Help me out, here.
These are dangerous questions, because we could take this thread into all kinds of different directions! But I can assure you that I am pro-life on all these issues. If a baby is naturally premature, and cannot exist without heroic measures, I do not necessarily think one needs to go to those measures to keep it alive. By this, however, I mean machines that keep the baby breathing, and its heart pumping. As in the Terri Schiavo example, however, I do not consider food and water, no matter what the delivery method needs to be, to be a heroic measure. My point was just that “viability,” considering modern medicine, might not be the right criteria to base abortion law on, that’s all.
I think ethically it is completely wrong for a doctor to aid a person in suicide. That being said, I’m not sure it should be illegal.
I think I actually mentioned this before. I think war is a reality of life that, while we might not like it, is justified and necessary in certain cases. Of course, care must be taken to spare the innocent (civilians). In most cases, I would consider the only justification of war to be the protection of civilians from immediate threat. Then again, when I consider that war stopped the Nazis, I think, well, maybe there are other times when it is right to step in and help those in need.
Those were two relatively independent clauses. I was telling you to consider the makeup of the board when you say that you’ve really been listening to what the arguments are. I’d assume that this board leans left.
I wasn’t asking where you were as in relation to an extremist, just where you were on the pro life/pro choice spectrum
Yes, they are some slippery questions. I think I read before that we’d like a definition that isn’t dependent upon the restrictions of medicine. No matter how advanced medicine gets, we’d like to have a definition that’s not contingent upon it.
I think it’s important to make that distinction. I don’t think abortion is right either and it should be a last line of defense, if you will, but I don’t see why someone shouldn’t have the right to do such a thing.
Some could argue that Nazis wouldn’t have even existed if it weren’t for World War I. The way I see it, there’s no need for war. We’re supposed to be better than that. Perhaps that’s why our administrations go to war is because we’re supposed to be “higher” or “more refined” than our opponent. By that rationale, we’re doing them a favor by killing them?
I would say, yes, this board definitely leans left. I find that most internet message boards that are not specifically conservative tend to lean left. This is interesting to me, since the population at large is split pretty much 50/50. Must have to do with the demographic of internet users.
Not at all. I admitted that the separate existence of the fetus is arguable by the plain fact that it is argued. I myself have no trouble seeing the fetus as part of the mother’s body until birth or perhaps shortly before, leaving her with full control over its destiny.
Arguments about how advancing medical technology can support the existence of the fetus at earlier and earlier stages have no merit in my opinion, because by the time these technologies come into play, the fetus has been separated from the mother’s body entirely and abortion is a moot point anyway. I am not aware of technologies that keep fetuses alive, separate from the mother’s body’s support, but still within her womb.
Now, of course, I’m being deliberately naive here. I know full well that the medical technology argument is meant to address the issue of when a developing fetus achieves full personhood with rights. If it is when it can survive outside the womb, and medical technology can push that date back, is it any less of a human having reached that stage of development in the womb?
IMO, it really doesn’t matter whether the fetus is a human or not. While it can be a terrible thought that one human being lives completely under the control of another, it doesn’t change the fact that a developing baby is almost completely subject to the whim of the mother. You can pass all the laws you want, conjure up all the hells you wish, but that fact will not change. And above morality, technology and all else, laws should be based on facts.
Oh, I’m sorry, did you actually think I didn’t know what you were talking about, or that I had never once taken it into consideration when I made the statement you quoted? I’ll try not to let my intelligence be insulted. Why don’t you tell us, oh sharp one.
Yes but being arrested for possession does not in any way restrict your right to your own body. The crime is not what you do to your body. Being stoned in and of itself is not the crime, I believe. If it were, then someone who eats a hash brownie that someone gave to them without saying what it was could be prosecuted for a crime. I don’t think that happens.
Only on the pocket book, not the body. Again, I don’t think the laws in general say that you are not allowed to put 20-30 different penises in your body each night if that’s what floats your boat, only that your purse can not wind up the fatter for it.
I’m afraid it’s your own comparisons that are missing the mark.
I agree with you on these two points. But, I think Stratocaster’s point (and correct me, Stratocaster, if I am putting the wrong words in your mouth) is that our liberty is restricted in all kinds of ways all the time, by all kinds of laws. Even here in the US, with a Constitution that gaurantees liberty. We accept these restrictions, because we have to in order to have a society that works together, and this is the only way to achieve that. Even with that being said, there are restrictions on liberty that many many people object to, but still have to live with because the folks we have elected to office have decreed it be so.
I understand your point, but this thread is about what the situation should be, not how it already is, so that’s irrelevant. The point I was making that , while Stratocaster is right when he/she points out there are restrictions, he/she should not assume that it’s a given that everyone is A-OK with those restictions, and only feel abortion restriction is wrong.
But not our liberty to our own bodies, which is the misleading point Stratocaster is trying to make. At most, laws about drugs and prostitution affect the use of our bodies in indirect ways. They don’t arrest you for being intoxicated (except where your intoxication becomes a public nuisance or danger). they arrest you for traficking in the paraphernalia of getting stoned. If you can find a way to be be stoned without being involved in that supply chain, or avoid having it found, no one will arrest you for being stoned in your home. Prostitution laws do not restrict you from being a slut, only from being a slut for commercial purposes. You can say all you want that these laws deny you control over your own body, but at best it’s indirectly.
Anti-choice laws directly restrict a woman’s control over her own body, so the comparison is not applicable. The state is essentially siezing the woman’s womb through some warped version of eminent domain and forcing her to bear a child unless she is willing to become a criminal. Again, if it is wrong for the state to decide against the mother’s will that a child not be born, it is wrong for them to decide that it must be.
Again, how is that substantially different from the control a mother has over her toddler (and I mean only so far as you seem to assign an important distinction to this power).
Sorry for the snarkiness. But your original post did suggest an incredulity that I was amused by. So shoot me.
Not an expert, but I believe this is wrong, at least in many jurisdictions. You can’t possess, and it’s wrong to partake as well.
Nobody’s suggesting it does. But intention is a factor in crime.
No, sorry. The law places a restriction on what one can do with one’s body if the law says you can’t rent it out for another’s sexual gratification. That is by definition a restriction. There’s something you want to do with your body–sell it for sex–that the law says you cannot. If you want a different example, the law says you can’t use your body to commit an act of pedophilia. I can’t use my body to batter you, unprovoked. I am restricted from doing so, period.
Come on, now. No one will arrest you for murder either, if you’re never caught.
Prostitution laws say you cannot use your body as a vehicle for selling sex. Period. No matter how much you’d like to use your body thusly, you’re not allowed. What in the world is indirect about this?
Yes, you got it exactly right. I’m reacting to the notion that a restriction on a woman’s body, by itself, is a de facto immoral act. I’m pointing out that there are many restrictions on what we can do with our bodies that many would not consider immoral restrictions. Pointing out that prohibiting abortions restricts a woman’s choices re: her body is not sufficient reason to overturn this prohibition by itself unless you want to overturn all such restrictions.
