Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I just gave personal experience. Do you frequently close your mind to evidence or contradiction of your deeply held belief systems?


No you didn't.

You gave your condemnation.


I've yet to condemn anyone. I've simply been asking the deeper philosophical and scientific basis for a position. You've yet to provide one. Do you find challenges to your belief system uncomfortable?

You asked about my personal experience. I replied truthfully. I have attended abortions and seen them close hand. I'd say that qualifies as personal experience on the subject.
edit on 23-8-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Since when is guilt or innocence considered "science"?


It's not, it's considered a definition.

If you think an unborn child has commited a grievance against the mother, please let's hear what that is.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Since when is guilt or innocence considered "science"?


It's not, it's considered a definition.

If you think an unborn child has commited a grievance against the mother, please let's hear what that is.


Just to step in with a point. If one holds the position that a person has the right to defend one's life, then an abortion to save that life could be considered an act of self defense. Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Just to step in with a point. If one holds the position that a person has the right to defend one's life, then an abortion to save that life could be considered an act of self defense. Just a thought.


I have no problem with abortion to save the mother's life if it has been determined by a doctor that the mother's life is in physical danger....this excludes "distress" or "mental burden" or "financial burden".



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've yet to condemn anyone. I've simply been asking the deeper philosophical and scientific basis for a position. You've yet to provide one. Do you find challenges to your belief system uncomfortable?


Deeper philosophical an scientific basis?

Are you serious?

What the F'n hell does that mean?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Interesting point coming from a socialist/Marxist. So you believe that taking away another person's property rights, or income, or the redistrubution of weath by the state is also wrong or do are you selective in what individual rights you want the state to support or infringe?


I'm not a Marxist thank you.

No one wants to take away your property rights. Socialism is not a state system, it is an economic system.
Wealth is not redistributed by the state, it is simply more evenly distributed because there are no capitalists taking the majority by exploitation of labour. Workers earn the full fruits of their labour.

Using your property to exploit labour is what should not be a right. Under libertarian socialism you can own what you want, but try using it to exploit labour and you won't get very far. If people had the choice to work for you, or work where they own their product and receive the full fruits of their labour, what do you think they would do?

This is why socialism is demonised by those who make their living from exploiting those who own no capital.

edit on 8/23/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've yet to condemn anyone. I've simply been asking the deeper philosophical and scientific basis for a position. You've yet to provide one. Do you find challenges to your belief system uncomfortable?


Deeper philosophical an scientific basis?

Are you serious?

What the F'n hell does that mean?


It means, all I have done was challenge people to think about why they believe the way that they do. You said several times that your opinion was based on science. I just asked, what science?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Interesting point coming from a socialist/Marxist. So you believe that taking away another person's property rights, or income, or the redistrubution of weath by the state is also wrong or do are you selective in what individual rights you want the state to support or infringe?


I'm not a Marxist thank you.

No one wants to take away your property rights.

Using your property to exploit labour is what should not be a right. Under libertarian socialism you can own what you want, but try using it to exploit labour and you won't get very far. If people had the choice to work for you, or work where they own their product and receive the full fruits of their labour, what do you think they would do?

This is why socialism is demonised by those who make their living from exploiting those who own no capital.

edit on 8/23/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Ah, thank you. My point made.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

It means, all I have done was challenge people to think about why they believe the way that they do. You said several times that your opinion was based on science. I just asked, what science?


What is your REAL F-ing experience?

I am not interested in anyone's personal ideology.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I'm not a Marxist thank you.


Ah, thank you. My point made.


Oh yeah - - - throw Marxist into discussion on Abortion.

Good to know your point is made



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Ah, thank you. My point made.


How was your point made lol?

So you think you should have the right to exploit labour?

All I did was point out what would happen if people actually had a choice. None of your rights were taken away.

If capitalism was so much better than socialism, there would no problem teaching both systems correctly in school and allowing people the choice. But that is not the case, socialism is demonised and lied about. People are not given a fair education and allowed the right to decide for themselves what they want. Nope, capitalism is forced upon us because the minority of them are so financially powerful they ultimately control politics and social "rights".

The reality is the state, and the capitalist class, does not want us to have a choice, in anything. We only get to choose what they have already chosen for us.

edit on 8/23/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

It means, all I have done was challenge people to think about why they believe the way that they do. You said several times that your opinion was based on science. I just asked, what science?


What is your REAL F-ing experience?

I am not interested in anyone's personal ideology.


I've been at abortions. I've performed them. How more real does that get?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Ah, thank you. My point made.


How was your point made lol?

So you think you should have the right to exploit labour?

All I did was point out what would happen if people actually had a choice. None of your rights were taken away.

If capitalism was so much better than socialism, there would no problem teaching both systems correctly in school and allowing people the choice. But that is not the case, socialism is demonised and lied about. People are not given a fair education and allowed the right to decide for themselves what they want. Nope, capitalism is forced upon us because the minority of them are so financially powerful they ultimately control politics and social "rights".

The reality is the state, and the capitalist class, does not want us to have a choice, in anything. We only get to choose what they have already chosen for us.

edit on 8/23/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Workers, right here, right now can pool their resources and form any company they wish. It's a free market. Many of the capitalists started out as workers. There are choices. What stops them?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've been at abortions. I've performed them. How more real does that get?


I don't care about abortions. What do you really know about life?

What do you really know about the reality of people dealing with every day life?

Apparently - - - NOTHING.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Workers, right here, right now can pool their resources and form any company they wish. It's a free market. Many of the capitalists started out as workers. There are choices. What stops them?


Oh God! Seriously - how old are you?

My niece is Navy - - - and she makes no real sense at all. She is so indoctrinated - - - its scary.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've been at abortions. I've performed them. How more real does that get?


I don't care about abortions. What do you really know about life?

What do you really know about the reality of people dealing with every day life?

Apparently - - - NOTHING.


I know just as much as you. Perhaps more. Have you held the hand of the dying, over and over? I have? Worry about how to make ends meet? I have. Lose a loved one? I have. Save a life? I have--several. Fail and lose a life? I have--more than I wish to count. I know a lot about life, but what has that have to do with the discussion?

People arrive at a moral stance based on life's experiences. You have, so has Beezzer. That is well and good, but it is not science. You two both have a belief system that is exactly that--a belief. No more, no less.

You keep avoiding the fundimental question. What made your grandson, whom you love, human when another child at the same stage of development is not?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Workers, right here, right now can pool their resources and form any company they wish. It's a free market. Many of the capitalists started out as workers. There are choices. What stops them?


Oh God! Seriously - how old are you?

My niece is Navy - - - and she makes no real sense at all. She is so indoctrinated - - - its scary.


45. How old are you? It has nothing to do with indoctrination--and that is just a dismissive excuse--it has to do with questioning the reason why people think the way they do.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Since when is guilt or innocence considered "science"?


It's not, it's considered a definition.

If you think an unborn child has commited a grievance against the mother, please let's hear what that is.


It's a philosophical definition, not a scientific definition. Saying that once a human is in the life cycle, you shouldn't ever kill them, is not a true statement in our society - agreed? There are times when we justify it as necessary, or acceptable. We DID justify abortion in Roe v Wade, when it was decided that it was a woman's right not to carry a child in HER body to full term. That was a philosophical decision, whether you agreed with it or not. Just like it's a philosophical decision to decide it's okay to kill a guilty person.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Since when is guilt or innocence considered "science"?


It's not, it's considered a definition.

If you think an unborn child has commited a grievance against the mother, please let's hear what that is.


It's a philosophical definition, not a scientific definition. Saying that once a human is in the life cycle, you shouldn't ever kill them, is not a true statement in our society - agreed? There are times when we justify it as necessary, or acceptable. We DID justify abortion in Roe v Wade, when it was decided that it was a woman's right not to carry a child in HER body to full term. That was a philosophical decision, whether you agreed with it or not. Just like it's a philosophical decision to decide it's okay to kill a guilty person.



And that is an excellent point. It is philosophy and it begs the important question in that, if we can justify the killing of a person in one instance, where do we draw the lines for another? Should I be able to euthanize my downs syndrome 13 year old, for example?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've been at abortions. I've performed them. How more real does that get?


I don't care about abortions. What do you really know about life?

What do you really know about the reality of people dealing with every day life?

Apparently - - - NOTHING.


What does that have to do with anything at all regarding...anything? You asked what his personal experience was. He answered that he has both attended and performed them. But now "you don't care about abortions"? Why the hell are you in this thread, then?

You have not provided an answer to any question put to you in this thread. You come back with non sequiturs or full-out deflections...like the above.

It's pretty amazing to watch, actually.

/TOA





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join