RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 [17] 18 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 5:29:25 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

I thank both you, kittin, and Sinergy, for your answers. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that we see things differently (well, duh, Level).

If my question brought up painful thoughts, kittin, I apologize. We all take hard paths sometimes, trying to do what we see is right, or needed.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 5:43:32 PM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I thank both you, kittin, and Sinergy, for your answers. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that we see things differently (well, duh, Level).

If my question brought up painful thoughts, kittin, I apologize. We all take hard paths sometimes, trying to do what we see is right, or needed.

Thank you, Level, you are always the gentleman, and I will always appreciate your posts. I wish I were able to be as diplomatic as you.

_____________________________

(in reply to Level)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 5:45:24 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

How is citing mortality a point against them?

Because morality is a choice, not something that a random individual, raised outside of society, will show evidence of possessing.

Here, I whole-heartedly disagree. I feel morality is innate- while particulars may be social, many precepts, such as "do not kill others at ranodm", is something that would belong in any advanced society as a matter of evolution. Morals serve to support the general structure of society as approximations of intelligent things to do, as opposed to actual thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Any argument which starts off by claiming to hold some sort of moral high ground is flawed. There really is no difference logically between a person claiming a child's soul will be lost if aborted and the idea that being a suicide bomber will allow somebody 7 virgins in heaven.

When you say "[a]ny arguement", it sounds like you're simply referring to religions- two religions compacted togehet as one, as well. What of arguments that do not find their basis in religion nor the concept of souls?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
If a person feels that getting an abortion is murder, wrong, whatever, I say to that person to not get one.

I see Level already responded to this in a similar manner, so this is something of a repeat. If one feels another crime is wrong- such as murder- why is this fine to regulate?

In skimming your answer to him, it seems you were saying it's okay because the law says so. So, if abortion was made illegal- then it would be morally wrong? Since the law is in question, being formed here- how does such an argument apply? (If this wasn't what you meant, my apologies, I had to skim. Trying to do too much at the same time.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I am uncomfortable about partial birth abortions, since these are generally done after the age a fetus could survive if born. I would love to see some empirical evidence showing that women will be pregnant for 6 months and get an abortion of convenience. I suspect that particular abortion is only used when the mother is in danger or the child will die (anencephaly, for example) anyway.

I wish I could provide you with such evidence. I'm never very well-read on things- not the news or stats, I'm afraid. I study all day the sciences and logic- so I can readily make the argument that abortion can be both immoral and determental to society. However, I can't say for certain that the majority of abortions are out of convinience- I'll have to rely on others for such statistics. However, I also can't prove that murder is often conducted for ill reasons- as I am also not well read on such things- though I'd still make the moral and social arguments against it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

What concerns me is the Religious Right's assault on Roe vs. Wade since it's inception, and their issues which caused Roe vs. Wade to be originally considered a court precedent. Outlawing partial birth abortions is simply the first in a calculated attempt to get rid of Roe vs. Wade.

I'm not sure about this. Some may have such intentions, though I assure you, many are far less concerned with such things. Abortion legitimately sickens many- one need not be well read to know this. You would have a very hard time selling me the point that there aren't a lot of pro-life advocates are out there to reverse a court ruling for a political agenda as opposed to the simple fact that they oppose abortion for the simple disgust of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As I have pointed out before, Roe vs. Wade simply assures doctor patient confidentiality and prevents government interference in medicine. Be careful what you anti-abortionists wish for, you might not enjoy it if you end up getting it.

It strikes me as vulgar- not in emotional sentiment, but obstruction of clarity- to group individuals together as something so plain. Just to say- I just don't feel that one should misconsider this debate as a black and white, "anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion" sort of thing. It sounds polarizing- like you have to be for it, or against it, as opposed to an intelligent and receptive party. (Not meaning to pick on you, at all! It's a common theme and terming that I simply dislike, and this was just an oppurtunity to mention it.)

Back to your point- instead of my side rant- I feel that you take this movement against something that strikes many as morally reprehensible as simply a pawn of a moment in some quest by some cladestine group against a court decision. I have to be honest with you- this seems rather far-fetched. But, ignoring this group, should it exist to some considerable extent, does the group arguing against abortion on ethical grounds lose its reason to do so because others might argue something similar with a more insidenous intent?

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 5:49:08 PM

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
I would ask you the question that went unanswered by Churro: until the baby is actually outside the mother's body, it isn't alive, or a "human being"?

I must protest. I did answer that question. See:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152623
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152629
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152648
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152661
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152667

The answer, in fact, was this:

-----

I like this from the Canadian Criminal Code:

When child becomes human being
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII::bo-ga:l_IX//en?page=6&isprinting=true
[The URL might require scrolling, but it should be a print version of the correct page]

This is a rights issue, plain and simple.

-----

and then also this part:

-----

You are reading the statute as if ordinary terms and definitions are applicable - and they are not. That is Canada's legal definition of a human being, it's purpose is to answer this type of question:
When does a human being first begin to have rights and standing under the law such that the state might become a party to the protection of said rights and legal standing?

The semantic arguments revolving around the normal definitions of terms is immaterial. Likewise irrelevant would be any discussion as to when a human being might be imbued with a soul or spirit. The law shouldn't care about such things.

The only issue of any legal worth is when does a person begin to have rights.

-----

This is where the conversation breaks down the thread becomes tedious because this was asked and answered and now it is being asked of someone else as if it had not been answered in the first place.

Elsewhere I am sure I have noted that a fetus is most certainly alive (presumably alive anyway) in the womb, and that it is at least a potential human being (again, presuming all things are as they should be).

Level: what you don't like is that I don't care about those two things. I, and the Canadian law I cited concurs with me, think that such considerations are immaterial under the law!

I will repeat a question that I then asked you:
"When is it proper for one person's rights to supersede those of another person?"

You replied:
"One answer is 'when one's life is at stake.'"

Which is nonsense of course. Such a rule would mean that if I knew you were about to be shot there would be a requirement on my part to leap in front of you and take the bullet myself. A simpler scenario might be this: for whatever reason you care to imagine I have to lose the pinkie finger of my left hand in order for you to live, and if I don't sacrifice my littlest finger you will die. Do I have to make the sacrifice? No, I do not.

A pregnant woman is under no obligation to the fetus within her - under the law she currently has the right to destroy that child via abortion.

(in reply to Level)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 5:55:28 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Back to your point- instead of my side rant- I feel that you take this movement against something that strikes many as morally reprehensible as simply a pawn of a moment in some quest by some cladestine group against a court decision. I have to be honest with you- this seems rather far-fetched.

You may feel it far-fetched all you like, it was touched on in American Theocracy and if you like I will search around for my textbooks from Feminist Theory and provide you with other empirical evidence. The groups are far from clandestine. I have posted links already. You could probably use Google easily enough to find others. Read their web sites, view their source materials, make your own choices.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 5:56:12 PM

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I feel morality is innate- while particulars may be social, many precepts, such as "do not kill others at ranodm", is something that would belong in any advanced society as a matter of evolution.

Mr. Science says morals are innate? Why, God, why...???!!!

Yeah, the jury is still out on that one kid...don't hold your breath waiting for the answer either.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:03:08 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I feel morality is innate- while particulars may be social, many precepts, such as "do not kill others at ranodm", is something that would belong in any advanced society as a matter of evolution.

Mr. Science says morals are innate? Why, God, why...???!!!

Yeah, the jury is still out on that one kid...don't hold your breath waiting for the answer either.

You're silly, but condescending at the same time- sort of lose the humor, you know? You have to be mature about things.

In any case, do you honestly feel that a society such as the ones of Earth today could exist with unopposed and rampant murders? Where theft existed at any available instance? Have you ever even been to a university and understood the extent of the Honor Codes they go by? (Not that I'm under any illusion that undergrads are all so honorable in their enactions of such codes.)

While I can sympathize if you have difficulty seeing it, morality- the way it influences our actions- is important to our society. Good luck to your jury finding this.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:06:00 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I feel morality is innate- while particulars may be social, many precepts, such as "do not kill others at ranodm", is something that would belong in any advanced society as a matter of evolution.

Mr. Science says morals are innate? Why, God, why...???!!!

Yeah, the jury is still out on that one kid...don't hold your breath waiting for the answer either.

Jared Diamond in The Third Chimpanzee makes a pretty good argument for morals not being innate to human beings. Chimpanzees tend to form into groups and will wound or kill members of other groups for no reason apart from that other chimpanzee being from some other (or no) group. Human beings since the dawn of time have engaged in similar behaviors.

CuriousLord, if you can provide any scientific or empirical evidence that suggests that morals are innate, I would love to hear it.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:06:30 PM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I feel morality is innate- while particulars may be social, many precepts, such as "do not kill others at ranodm", is something that would belong in any advanced society as a matter of evolution.

Mr. Science says morals are innate? Why, God, why...???!!!

Yeah, the jury is still out on that one kid...don't hold your breath waiting for the answer either.

You're silly, but condescending at the same time- sort of lose the humor, you know? You have to be mature about things.

In any case, do you honestly feel that a society such as the ones of Earth today could exist with unopposed and rampant murders?

Your contention is that we don't currently HAVE unopposed and rampant murders?

What would you call the failed occupation of Iraq?

quote:

Where theft existed at any available instance? Have you ever even been to a university and understood the extent of the Honor Codes they go by? (Not that I'm under any illusion that undergrads are all so honorable in their enactions of such codes.)

There you go. Disobedient Students are the perfect counter-example to disprove the hypothesis that Obedience to any "Moral Code" is innate.

If it was innate, then we wouldn't HAVE cheating.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:09:16 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Back to your point- instead of my side rant- I feel that you take this movement against something that strikes many as morally reprehensible as simply a pawn of a moment in some quest by some cladestine group against a court decision. I have to be honest with you- this seems rather far-fetched.

You may feel it far-fetched all you like, it was touched on in American Theocracy and if you like I will search around for my textbooks from Feminist Theory and provide you with other empirical evidence. The groups are far from clandestine. I have posted links already. You could probably use Google easily enough to find others. Read their web sites, view their source materials, make your own choices.

If you feel such groups are so common and readily available, would you mind furnishing such links or names that one might research? While I won't insult you by saying I believe you to be mistating the truth, I'm still unsure I have the time to go looking for somethign that I can't be sure is there. I would appreciate such information so that we may discuss these groups further.

Outside of such groups, though.. if one finds abortion to be, for legitimate reasons, in ill nature- should not this one pursue appropriate action? Do you contend that, should there be people trying to misuse anti-abortion laws, we shouldn't even consider having them in the first place?

More simply put, I feel abortion should be considered on honest grounds, without concern for how people might manipulate this. You seem to have an eye on politics- which can be helpful. Nonetheless, I encourage free thought- everyone thinking such things out, instead of being afraid of such thought somehow turning against them. I do not care for politics in this manner- though I'll concede to you that it is important to consider. Still, should one not do what is right out of a concern that someone might try to manipualte it?

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:09:25 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
I would ask you the question that went unanswered by Churro: until the baby is actually outside the mother's body, it isn't alive, or a "human being"?

I must protest. I did answer that question. See:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152623

Posted before I even asked my question. Look out, Kreskin

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152629

This link brings us to a post by me, and one by jenny.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152648

This one just seems to be telling me my argument is immaterial.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152661

A repeat, and a post of mine that led to you:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1146167/mpage_9/key_/tm.htm#1152667

saying "I'll pass on that".

So, yes, I believe, despite my denseness, I have an answer.

The answer, in fact, was this:

-----

I like this from the Canadian Criminal Code:

When child becomes human being
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII::bo-ga:l_IX//en?page=6&isprinting=true
[The URL might require scrolling, but it should be a print version of the correct page]

This is a rights issue, plain and simple.

-----

and then also this part:

-----

You are reading the statute as if ordinary terms and definitions are applicable - and they are not. That is Canada's legal definition of a human being, it's purpose is to answer this type of question:
When does a human being first begin to have rights and standing under the law such that the state might become a party to the protection of said rights and legal standing?

The semantic arguments revolving around the normal definitions of terms is immaterial. Likewise irrelevant would be any discussion as to when a human being might be imbued with a soul or spirit. The law shouldn't care about such things.

The only issue of any legal worth is when does a person begin to have rights.

-----

This is where the conversation breaks down the thread becomes tedious because this was asked and answered and now it is being asked of someone else as if it had not been answered in the first place.

Elsewhere I am sure I have noted that a fetus is most certainly alive (presumably alive anyway) in the womb, and that it is at least a potential human being (again, presuming all things are as they should be).

Level: what you don't like is that I don't care about those two things. I, and the Canadian law I cited concurs with me, think that such considerations are immaterial under the law!

I will repeat a question that I then asked you:
"When is it proper for one person's rights to supersede those of another person?"

You replied:
"One answer is 'when one's life is at stake.'"

Which is nonsense of course.

If you take my statement, and expand it beyond what I intended, then I agree with you.

A pregnant woman is under no obligation to the fetus within her - under the law she currently has the right to destroy that child via abortion.

Yes, she certainly does. *emphasis added*

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:09:33 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

In any case, do you honestly feel that a society such as the ones of Earth today could exist with unopposed and rampant murders? Where theft existed at any available instance? Have you ever even been to a university and understood the extent of the Honor Codes they go by? (Not that I'm under any illusion that undergrads are all so honorable in their enactions of such codes.)

Interesting theory.

On the other hand, a group of people survives better as a group than an individual. So the society learns that killing and stealing from members of one's own group has negative outcomes for the group, whereas no such negative outcomes are shown by beating up or killing members of some other group.

It is easier to posit morality as a learned behavior than an innate behavior. Feel free to provide empirical evidence to the contrary.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:16:40 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

If you feel such groups are so common and readily available, would you mind furnishing such links or names that one might research?

You already have two; American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips and The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond.

I have posted 3 or 4 or more on this thread already, if you did not read them the first time and are too lazy to go back and review them, I dont see much point in reposting them.

Here is one I believe another poster posted a page or two back.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/3/gr010301.html

Enjoy your research!

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:17:00 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Your contention is that we don't currently HAVE unopposed and rampant murders?

What would you call the failed occupation of Iraq?

Blah. "Failed"? Another black and white label. It is what it is- simplifying it is just damaging to the thought process. If you say "failed", well, you assume it's all for nothing. If you say "succeeded", well, you assume it all went as planned. Instead, might you consider a mixed bag? Not that I care to debate Iraq here- though I am rather impressed you found a way to bring it up in this thread. While I understand Iraq is a subject you're interested in, please, debate it in appropriate areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Where theft existed at any available instance? Have you ever even been to a university and understood the extent of the Honor Codes they go by? (Not that I'm under any illusion that undergrads are all so honorable in their enactions of such codes.)

There you go. Disobedient Students are the perfect counter-example to disprove the hypothesis that Obedience to any "Moral Code" is innate.

If it was innate, then we wouldn't HAVE cheating.

I hate to sound elitist, but more intelligent groups don't have such rampant cheating. In many of my classes, the professors release us, for a week or so, with an exam. The exam bars use for any outside source of information, or discussion with peers. Nonetheless, many seem to come in with heads hung low in disappointment with self, failing some such exams.

Nonetheless, a cheater wouldn't prove morals not to be inniate- rather, they would prove morals not to be omnipotent in all cases- a point that is by no means shocking.

(in reply to farglebargle)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:26:09 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

On the other hand, a group of people survives better as a group than an individual. So the society learns that killing and stealing from members of one's own group has negative outcomes for the group, whereas no such negative outcomes are shown by beating up or killing members of some other group.

It is easier to posit morality as a learned behavior than an innate behavior. Feel free to provide empirical evidence to the contrary.

It seems that you're contesting "learned behavior" versus "innate behavior"? If so, I believe you understand that I was talking about being inniate to society- not to individuals. Society, itself, is often a learning process for individuals. Morality can be a learning process for an individual, sure. Still, my point was that it is inniate to society.

Another reason for such a theory is that one can readily understand why he doesn't want one of his neighbors to be able to kill the other. It brings up fear for his own survival. While that specific neighbor may not desire to kill him- how can he be sure? Further, what of that guy at work that is always pissed at him? Such a fellow would be in favor of killers being punished- such as by murder charges- to help make sure that neither they nor their loved ones are killed by people.

Of course, this all hinges on two assumptions: intelligence (the ability of a being to reason this out) and the will to survive. I would like to note I am speaking of a surficiently intelligent society and of one compromised of individuals who wish to live. I feel that most societies will be comprised of such individuals as survivial is often difficult- I would be hardpressed to come up with a free-standing society, in this world, as we know it, that can live despite not wanting to.

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:27:31 PM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Your contention is that we don't currently HAVE unopposed and rampant murders?

What would you call the failed occupation of Iraq?

Blah. "Failed"? Another black and white label.

FAILED. Learn to accept reality. Here are the guideline I'm using to make my judgement.

"My answer is bring 'em on." —President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003 (

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." –Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" —President Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, March 25, 2004

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003

"British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." –President Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." --Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "Vanity Fair" interview, May 28, 2003

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." –National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and the Bush administration's case for war, Sept. 8, 2002

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003

"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties

SO, based on the Administrations OWN QUOTED RATIONAL FOR INVASION AND OCCUPATION, we have failed.

quote:

Nonetheless, a cheater wouldn't prove morals not to be inniate- rather, they would prove morals not to be omnipotent in all cases- a point that is by no means shocking.

So, it's an evolved trait, except when it isn't?

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:38:47 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

If you feel such groups are so common and readily available, would you mind furnishing such links or names that one might research?

You already have two; American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips and The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond.

I have posted 3 or 4 or more on this thread already, if you did not read them the first time and are too lazy to go back and review them, I dont see much point in reposting them.

Let's try to avoid being insulting here, now shall we? There's nothing wrong with not having read back to everyone one of your posts in this thread, hoping that you may've mentioned this to someone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Here is one I believe another poster posted a page or two back.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/3/gr010301.html

I skimmed this one just now.. it looks to be someone who might claim there to be such groups? (I didn''t see the actual claim, but they're for abortion, so I can only assume..) In any case, I asked to see such groups- not conspiracy theory about them. My point being, if you tell me UFO's exist, I want to see a UFO- not someone who writes about UFO conspiracy.

I just checked up American Theocracy.. ditto on it.. it's also a conspiracy theory. Googling the other one.. it's.. an evolution book? The Third Chimpanzee, right? None of the reviews I have seen seem to mention it.. and I'm not really up to go get the book and read the entire thing to look for something you're claiming might be there.. just to be honest..

Well, in any case. My points remain:
-Whether or not such a group exists, many people are arguing against abortion in earnest, not for some crazy political agenda.
-If such a group exists, I'd like to see a link to it- not to a conspiracy theory about it. I can assure you, large groups of people are also sure of many even sillier things.

(In other words, such groups are a moot point- one shouldn't not do something he believes in just because someone else wants it for a more devious purpose. Still, you haven't even provided examples of such moot groups. While evidence wouldn't change anything in this debate, I am curious as to seeing them, as such would be a curious thing to study.)

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/21/2007 6:40:54 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

farglebargle- I love debate, and I really think you should have a chance to earnestly debate anything such as this that might interest you. Even on the CM boards here, it's fine. I'm not trying to abridge your right to speech- but I simply won't debate Iraq with you on this thread. There are other things in this world to consider, and this just isn't the place for it.

(in reply to farglebargle)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/22/2007 12:27:16 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It seems that you're contesting "learned behavior" versus "innate behavior"? If so, I believe you understand that I was talking about being inniate to society- not to individuals. Society, itself, is often a learning process for individuals. Morality can be a learning process for an individual, sure. Still, my point was that it is inniate to society.

Yes and no.

When you have multiple societies interacting, their behavior towards other societies tends to mimic the behavior of individuals. Europeans vs. native Americans. Sunni vs. Shia, Germans vs. Jews. I can go on.

Additionally, when one looks at modern societies it is fairly obvious that the social veneer of morality which allows people to interact with each other in the society is fairly thin. During the 1991 riot, the fabric of society held in place by police and fire disintegrated and people reverted to basic self-preservation and anarchistic rampaging.

My point is that morality is a societal construct inculcated into the individual, and does not exist as some native state human characteristic. People choose what moral structure to frame their worldview in and what actions to do or not do.

Many religions posit their belief systems around some basic precept, like man is good, man is evil, man is flawed, whatever. I am simply saying that there is no evidence to suggest that any of these are 100% true. People tend to be whatever their society thinks they should be.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to CuriousLord)

RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion - 7/22/2007 12:59:23 PM

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

So, to me, it sounds like you're.. saying morals can exist, but you don't think they'd be necessarily as they are today?

My friend, I said morals are inniate- but not morals, specifically as we have them. Nor am I saying that they are absolutely powerful- self-presevation can overcome them in instances, or even regularly, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

I feel that you may be mistaking my statement as something more specific, then commenting on how that specific instance isn't global, to which, of course, I agree. This is to say, I am not saying that every society in existence will eventually use the word "please" in requests, as might be considered morally polite in America. For starters, that's an English word. Next of all, it's our modern moral code, or part of it.. and modern morals are one hell of a long shot from being fully developed.

However, my point is that society will evolve to make increasingly specific guidelines and generalizations to govern appropriate interaction, or "morals". Such morals will likely include the value of things, such as life, that members of such a society may empathize with. Therfore, such a surficiently developed society may come to abhore things such as abortion.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 [17] 18 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 [17] 18 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.164