I am interested in a substantive debate.
I do not care if I win or lose.
Will you join?
Please explain how, in reference to my claim that a human-being-to-be, nearly inches away from breathing his own air, is prescribed a different set of rights than the born human being just inches away from the vagina, umbilical cord still attached.
And then go on to explain, now that you have clearly established your position, why "Murder is murder unless it's not," for this scenario.
And to answer your statement that there are "No Exceptions," I agree. However, this is existential to the debate, ie, it does not apply. In fact, assume I agree with you on that statement that there are no exceptions (which I do), and proceed to make your point about the debate at hand.
Lastly, to clarify, I can set aside instances where RIGHTS of an individual are violated. IE, the baby is threatening the life of the mother. I believe that is a valid argument about who has the first right to life.
But to murder for the sake of convenience is a totally different debate of which actually matters. We can talk about and debate both separately and arrive at worthwhile conclusions, versus enshrining into law the act of murder regardless of the circumstances.
IE - if I argue data collection for marketing purposes to solicit your business is ethically different than data collection about you for the government to dispense as they see fit, would you suggest we not have the debate between the differences altogether if there's a questionable moral difference between the use of both?
Baseless conjecture akin to a Community Agitator, sidestepping the debate regarding the difference between natural rights and politically-enforced privileges, and how morality intersects into both.
Then again, we are on the 'Toon Forum where 95% of posters' purpose is to get off on conjecture and hate-filled gibberish, versus actually engaging in an intellectual dialogue.
Question, Limrc -- Setting aside the debatable question of terminating a pregnancy due to high risk of death to the mother, is a human being under an inch or two of skin and membrane ethically inferior to a human being an inch or two outside of the vagina?
Yes or no?
Moon4kat -- let's think a little deeper here.
Tell me what the difference is between the following scenarios:
-Voluntarily supporting a human being with my money, and
-Being forced at the barrel of a gun to support a human being with my money.
Is there an ethical difference, yes or no?
If yes, then you understand the difference between charity and government handouts, and hopefully partially why someone would object to pro-baby-in-the-womb murder and still not support political gift-giving (using my tax dollars) to irresponsible people.
If no, you are lost.
I can only speak for myself.
I am all about protecting the natural rights of all human beings.
I am NOT about protecting the arbitrary, political privileges of a specific class, ethnicity, or group of people.
My argument against abortion is simple.
Is a fetus a human being? Or a human-that-will-eventually-be?
Since it shares all the functions as a out-of-the-womb human being, certainly it must have rights, correct?
If a human being, or human-to-be, has natural rights like you and me, why is a baby in the womb subject to murder at a whim -- with the exception of a risk of death to the mother -- when we are protected by laws and police from out-of-the-womb murder?
There is an ethical inconsistency in the pro-baby under a few flaps of skin murder argument, and unfortunately, folks like Al refuse to acknowledge and understand the differences between natural rights and arbitrary political privileges bestowed upon a select group of the State.
A is A. Murder is murder.
And I am an atheist.
You get paid what you negotiate, and what you are worth.
I work 2 sales jobs and know my worth is directly proportional to what I produce.
The same goes for anyone in any profession, male or female.
Employers will always want to pay you lower than what you want to be paid. That's the whole point of negotiation. And more importantly, proving you are worth more pay.
If they don't pay you enough? Take your talent elsewhere.
And stop whining.
Kaiser Sose is Big Brother?!?
Schooling is overrated. Education isn't.
This country was built on the backs of hard workers with a 10th grade education and a lot of guts.
Who in their right mind would loan tens of thousands of dollars to a kid with little-to-no long-term record of positive financial history, without collateral, for an intangible object, like a low ROI degree like psychology or sociology?
Only the Goober'mint.
The number one move to reduce or stop tuition inflation would be to cut the free-flow of government money. Schools would immediately re-tool their finances and cut the fat.
Second would be to allow the free-market in to fill the void.
We used to have an extensive guild and apprentice system in place to teach the young.
So many professions are taught "on-the-job," mentee and mentor. Plumbing, computer programming, sales, and all sorts of vocational work.
This argument for government recognition for your spiritual commitment has been co-opted by a complacent media who thinks the government should be the arbiter and God over all things personal and private.
Every Christian should yell blasphemy at the concept of having a license to ordain their spiritual covenant between them and God.
Regardless, marriage isn't a Christian thing. It's a person-to-person-of-whatever-belief thing. Let them decide. Or, let the churches decide who is eligible for their standard of marriage.
Why the f*** does Government have to be involved in EVERYTHING?
226 IN CHATTANOOGA,TN WHIT THE BLOOD GANG
by Carlos Hess
Why should the government have any involvement in marriage -- of any kind -- to begin with?