Which do you prefer, to punish the guilty or to reduce the rate of immorality?

a reply to: beezzer

But sadly beezzer, to make it a punishment base on moral standing, it means to target women alone, men are excluded because they do not have uterus.

See the point?

Interesting right.

I see it as a sex issue and the legislation of women body parts.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: beezzer

But sadly beezzer, to make it a punishment base on moral standing, it means to target women alone, men are excluded because they do not have uterus.

See the point?

Interesting right.

I see it as a sex issue and the legislation of women body parts.

I see it as a human rights issue, because the unborn baby is a human, isn't it?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

But feel free to have the opinion that abortion is illegal.

Thanks, I will.

Last month, gay marriage was illegal. That was the law.

Was the law correct?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

But feel free to have the opinion that abortion is illegal.

Thanks, I will.

Last month, gay marriage was illegal. That was the law.

Was the law correct?

That's the beauty of the American legal system. If you don't like a law, start a grass roots movement, get people involved, get the popular vote on your side and CHANGE it, damnit!

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: beezzer

But sadly beezzer, to make it a punishment base on moral standing, it means to target women alone, men are excluded because they do not have uterus.

See the point?

Interesting right.

I see it as a sex issue and the legislation of women body parts.

I see it as a human rights issue, because the unborn baby is a human, isn't it?

A human egg, sperm, fetus, zygote or an embryo are, in fact, human. Very good Beezer!

But non of those human things are equal to a person. Only "persons" who are born are entitled to civil rights. However, no person has the right to usurp the sovereign body of another.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

I'm just trying to get you to expand on your point. Why do you think it is society's responsibility to punish the wrongdoers? Because it has always been that way?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

I'm just trying to get you to expand on your point. Why do you think it is society's responsibility to punish the wrongdoers? Because it has always been that way?

One could go back as far as the cradle of civilization to find that "society" has often had the responsibility of punishing those that don't abide by "society's" rules. My hyptothetical question to you would be, who then if not society is to punish those who break from the established moral fabric of that society? Karmic Justice isn't always so kind.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let he who caste the first stone....I think trying to legislate morality is useless....and I am my brother's keeper....another persons poison is another persons candy....who decides what is moral?

Reduce imorality...DEFINATELY

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: beezzer

But sadly beezzer, to make it a punishment base on moral standing, it means to target women alone, men are excluded because they do not have uterus.

See the point?

Interesting right.

I see it as a sex issue and the legislation of women body parts.

I see it as a human rights issue, because the unborn baby is a human, isn't it?

A human egg, sperm, fetus, zygote or an embryo are, in fact, human. Very good Beezer!

But non of those human things are equal to a person. Only "persons" who are born are entitled to civil rights. However, no person has the right to usurp the sovereign body of another.

Quoted for later.

Because, while the "law" does currently state that a person has to be born first, once that has been challenged sufficiently, the bolded words may be interesting to come back to.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

I'm just trying to get you to expand on your point. Why do you think it is society's responsibility to punish the wrongdoers? Because it has always been that way?

Why give carte blanche to individuals who wish to infringe upon the rights of others?

a reply to: beezzer

However, no person has the right to usurp the sovereign body of another.

Because, while the "law" does currently state that a person has to be born first, once that has been challenged sufficiently, the bolded words may be interesting to come back to.

Why? Is that your goal, to usurp autonomy from a woman and force to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Do you think someone should be forced to provide blood or bone marrow? A piece of their liver or a kidney?

a reply to: windword

By your definition, no.

But it's a good thing I'm not bound by your definitions, isn't it?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

By your definition, no.

But it's a good thing I'm not bound by your definitions, isn't it?

[By] my definition of what?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

By your definition, no.

But it's a good thing I'm not bound by your definitions, isn't it?

[By] my definition of what?

Your definition of an unborn child is that it is not human, a person, an individual.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Well that's why I authored the thread. What if punishing the guilty isn't something that we should be doing at all? What about instead of punishing the guilty, we worry about helping the victims and trying to educate people not to do these things in the future?

It seems to me that punishing the guilty is just an appeal to tradition fallacy.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

I'm just trying to get you to expand on your point. Why do you think it is society's responsibility to punish the wrongdoers? Because it has always been that way?

Why give carte blanche to individuals who wish to infringe upon the rights of others?

Because it may reduce the rate of these actions occurring. Isn't that what we want? For these things to NOT happen? So if this is a method that is proven to reduce the amount of times people do these things, then why not at LEAST consider it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

I'm just trying to get you to expand on your point. Why do you think it is society's responsibility to punish the wrongdoers? Because it has always been that way?

Why give carte blanche to individuals who wish to infringe upon the rights of others?

Because it may reduce the rate of these actions occurring. Isn't that what we want? For these things to NOT happen? So if this is a method that is proven to reduce the amount of times people do these things, then why not at LEAST consider it?

So if we don't make murder illegal, it would reduce the amount of murders?

a reply to: beezzer

Is a fetus beezzer it doesn't achieve the human factor until born is before that just a human fetus, in a womb, a female womb no male, or any other means, in in vitro is an embryo.

So only women will be target for having a womb a uterus, part of the woman make over, its a female issue, no matter what society and moral believes wants it to be.

a reply to: beezzer

Well not necessarily. I've been saying since the beginning of the thread that it has to be shown through proper scientific research that such a thing is the case. We can't just say, "Hey I think making murder legal will reduce the murder rate." Then just make murder legal. I want there to be ACTUAL scientific evidence to back it up first. So if it doesn't hold that making murder legal reduces the murder rate than I wouldn't advocate making it legal.