Unworthy of Life

Luchito said:
We are to make lots of mistakes, that is true, but we can't make our mistakes a model for others. Abortion as a "solution" is the worst example given to others.
Click to expand...

I am sure I could think of worse examples, like for instance the example that wasting one's life in a prestigious, pointless little office job in a crummy city is something to aspire to. Anyway, while it may be true that abortion is a bad example given to others because it makes them careless, I would say that abortion is beneficial overall. Maybe people should just learn to think for themselves so that the rest of us don't have to worry about setting any bad examples.
 
Luchito said:
Propaganda that women have the right to kill the life they carry in their wombs.

You have no idea why that court case was settled in those years. Again, review the whole scenario. You will find that women's rights have nothing to do with that court case.
Click to expand...

I don't know why. Why do so many people think that ignorance somehow makes people less rational? it needn't. Anyway, that is not propaganda as far as a know. It might come in the form of propaganda, but I honestly think that it is better for abortion to be legal, so that the population doesn't get too large and unwanted babies don't die horrible deaths and women's lives aren't ruined by said babies.

Why was the court case settled? I'm not saying that women's rights had anything to do with it. I don't care if they did. I care about results. Did you think that I thought it was about women's rights? I actually hadn't speculated about the reasoning behind it at all.
 
Luchito said:
You are suggesting for them to "evade the consequences" at the cost of killing a life.

Sure you are in the right path....sure... right.
Click to expand...

I try to stay on the objectively right path, as a libertarian. However, the best I can do is make estimations sometimes, which leaves me at risk of straying from said path. I don't think that ending a life is a cost if that life has never been self aware and nobody wants it around, unless you mean financial cost of course. Otherwise, ending life is probably quite a cost.
 
social compliance & the over reach of moral authority
...
season 1 :)
act 1
thou shalt do as i say because
act 2
thou shalt do as i say because because
act 3
what ever act 1 was
applies twice as much because i said it does

act 4
huh ? did someone say something ?

act 5
best examples are always best as long as you can tell others what to do


to those young women trying to think about their values around abortion
imagine that it is a life or death issue & you must defend yourself at all costs
even if that means lethal force against the attacker

that's the reality
men have no business in the debate of what YOU choose & there is no right or wrong answer
only what is best for you at the time
your taking on a risk
a risk men never have to face
 
RainbowSingularity said:
social compliance & the over reach of moral authority
...
season 1 :)
act 1
thou shalt do as i say because
act 2
thou shalt do as i say because because
act 3
what ever act 1 was
applies twice as much because i said it does

act 4
huh ? did someone say something ?

act 5
best examples are always best as long as you can tell others what to do
Click to expand...

Lol Rainbow I think you are pretty much just being a bully now.
 
What may be problematic is if the state allows only 1 child per family and all other pregnancies must be aborted or surrendered to the state. This was China' s policy for awhile, because they have a terrible overpopulation problem.

One-child policy
The one-child policy (Chinese: 一孩政策) was a population planning initiative in China implemented between 1980 and 2015 to curb the country's growth by restricting many families to a single child. It had wide-ranging social, cultural, and economic effects. Its efficacy in reducing birth rates and defensibility from a human rights perspective have been subjects of controversy.
Click to expand...
China's family planning policies began to be shaped by fears of overpopulation in the 1970s, and officials raised the age of marriage and called for fewer and more broadly spaced births. A one-child limit was imposed in 1980 by a group of politicians including Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, and Li Xiannian.
Click to expand...
The policy was modified beginning in the mid-1980s to allow rural parents a second child if the first was a daughter. It also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities. In 2015, the government replaced the policy with a two-child limit, and in 2021, the limit was removed
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
 
Holly-May Leslie said:
I try to stay on the objectively right path, as a libertarian. However, the best I can do is make estimations sometimes, which leaves me at risk of straying from said path. I don't think that ending a life is a cost if that life has never been self aware and nobody wants it around, unless you mean financial cost of course. Otherwise, ending life is probably quite a cost.
Click to expand...
Well, if the case is about making estimations, then those must start right before having sex without protection, it saves a lots of further consequences.
 
billvon said:
It must start in any case, since no birth control is 100%.
Click to expand...
IMO, if the State flat out forbids abortion and forces you to bring every pregnancy to term, the State becomes responsible for all costs of bringing the fetus to term and for all expenses incurred after the child is born. If the State leaves no choice, the State becomes responsible for the consequences.
 
Write4U said:
IMO, if the State flat out forbids abortion and forces you to bring every pregnancy to term, the State becomes responsible for all costs of bringing the fetus to term and for all expenses incurred after the child is born. If the State leaves no choice, the State becomes responsible for the consequences.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! Texas will outlaw abortion then stick you with all the costs. And if you don't pay them, they will throw you in jail.

It's nice to be the king.
 
Luchito said:
Well, if the case is about making estimations, then those must start right before having sex without protection, it saves a lots of further consequences.
Click to expand...

Access to the Amnesty International report can be found here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AMR45/5032/2021/en/

A staggering two girls aged between 10 and 14 give birth every day in Paraguay, a report by Amnesty International has revealed.

In a report titled: They are girls, not mothers, the non-government organisation said that between 2019 and 2020, at least 1000 girls aged under 14 gave birth, with 12,000 births from teenagers between 15 and 19.

Family members were found to be the biggest perpetrators of sexual violence, with more than 80 per cent of cases taking place in the family.

“In the majority of cases, the perpetrator is the victim’s stepfather, father, grandfather, neighbour or uncle,” the report stated.

“This is someone who is meant to be a person of trust or reference who has unrestrictive access to the child.”

Paraguay’s draconian abortion laws also meant girls and women who need access to abortion are unable to receive it. The act is largely banned, unless the woman, girl or adolescent develops complications which put her life at danger. This means rape, unwanted pregnancy or a lack of economic viability are all unqualified reasons why someone could seek out an abortion.

The result of this means girls aged between 10 to 19 are over-represented in maternal deaths, accounting for one in 10 fatalities in Paraguay. Amnesty also report girls and teenagers in this age group represent 13 per cent of deaths from unsafe abortions, which also happens to be the leading cause of maternal deaths globally.
[https://www.news.com.au/world/south.../news-story/de291bdcac80dadc73ac4e30ec766dea]
​

Guess those children should have asked their rapists to wear condoms, huh?

Right to life my arse!
 
billvon said:
Nonsense! Texas will outlaw abortion then stick you with all the costs. And if you don't pay them, they will throw you in jail.
It's nice to be the king.
Click to expand...

George Carlin was so right.

Warning crude language
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
What may be problematic is if the state allows only 1 child per family and all other pregnancies must be aborted or surrendered to the state. This was China' s policy for awhile, because they have a terrible overpopulation problem.
Click to expand...

both, india & china have poor history's with over population
Africa too
matched with under resourcing
but only china did something about it

hard to lay any blame on chinas door step when they are the only country who made a rule
i think the biggest thorn in their side would be lack of contraceptive medication distribution & combined sex education for children moving into sexual experimentation

yet both china AND india have thousands of years of history of using manual labour as a profit vehicle in a hard labour world
more workers = more profit = more better quality of life for everyone
and more security

not talking about you write4u
unfortunately a lot of ignorant people claim to think they have a valid opinion
but they lack such a vast amount of knowledge

india has issues with old world culture domination which will prevent contraceptives & science
china has its own ancient medicines & issues but is considerably more modern by its collective force of government & the peoples will

there is no use to have all things available to everyone if all things cost money & there is not an income for all people

& here we arrive at your point

investment security into a life
investing in the childs health & schooling
investing in contraceptives & medical services for women & girls

regardless of it being defined as socialism or capitalism
the leaders govern at the will of the people

both have their short comings

it is in this reality that it is complete insane irony that such western privilege & wealth would deny a women the right over her own body
it is morally outrageous
 
Sanctity of Life?"

Sanctity of life
In religion and ethics, the inviolability of life, or sanctity of life, is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life that are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated. This can be applied to both animals and humans or micro-organisms; for instance, in religions that practice Ahimsa, both are seen as holy and worthy of life. The value is inherent: Life is created in the womb (or artificial environment to mimic womb).
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life

Yes, and humans get to judge the degrees of sanctity that may be assigned to life

Life is Sacred?

Sacred
"Sanctity" redirects here.
Sacred describes something that is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity;[1] is considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspires awe or reverence among believers. The property is often ascribed to objects (a "sacred artifact" that is venerated and blessed), or places ("sacred ground").
Click to expand...
French sociologist Émile Durkheim considered the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden."[2]: 47  In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represents the interests of the group, especially unity, which are embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involve mundane individual concerns.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred

What are we, a secular Democracy or a Theocracy?
 
Write4U said:
What are we, a secular Democracy or a Theocracy?
Click to expand...
Theocracy? republicans as conservatives define the church as the highest power
all presidents must swear on a bible & go to a special baptism
"conservative" judges define themself as agents of the word of the bible through their interpretation
laid out in laws
democrats = modern Christianity & secular
republican = conservative Christianity & conventional Christianity(settler style liberal law conservative morals)

Democratic Theocracy
 
RainbowSingularity said:
Theocracy? republicans as conservatives define the church as the highest power
all presidents must swear on a bible & go to a special baptism
"conservative" judges define themself as agents of the word of the bible through their interpretation
laid out in laws
democrats = modern Christianity & secular
republican = conservative Christianity & conventional Christianity(settler style liberal law conservative morals)

Democratic Theocracy
Click to expand...
OK, what do we do with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Establishment Clause" that commands the "Separation of Church and State"?
 
Write4U said:
OK, what do we do with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Establishment Clause" that commands the "Separation of Church and State"?
Click to expand...

who wrote it:rolleyes:
(a boys club seeking to build an empire out of a common dream)
what did they write it forB-)
(to gain & ratify their own power with various sales points like seeking the will of the disaffected)
what does it achieve :cool:
(an ability to remove power away from the church holding legal authority over the military)

the separation of church & state in the USA is probably more about dividing power away from the church to allow a different power system's outside the church
(note clubs & organizations which also hold more power than churches or states[there is nothing insidious about groups organizations or clubs holding more power than the church or state, it is a natural social construct of liberal social free will to democratically self define, however a lot of the conditioning of people has defined polar extremes of the moral value of those groups based on ignorant inept application of terms & meanings ])
the state operates as a church based on its self definition of express terms
it is inherently christian
that is neither good nor bad
because the real question should be
is the state empathic & accountable to the needs of its citizens which give it the authority & power & income that it uses relys on and demands of all others including its citizens.

my personal leaning is for a secular state which empowers all non abusive religions to be equally self representing

i don't think churches should be given power
they do not owe any accountability to the citizens like the state in theory has demands to comply with.

too much rainbow ?

you dont need to re-invent the wheel if you want to build a hover craft
you have to invent a hover craft
 
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity said:
an ability to remove power away from the church holding legal authority over the military
Click to expand...
IMO, this clause is designed to protect both governing systems, in accordance with the freedom of religion.

Note that the Church used to be the exclusive governing system in most countries and still is in some.
But in modern secular societies that respect the freedom of all belief systems, this presents a dilemma.

It does not mean the establishment of Religion as the governing power, nor does it mean that the State has the right to restrict the practice of religion.
It is a two-way street, designed to act as a true separation of Church and State.

But of course, it has become corrupted by the Church, which has infiltrated the State and seeks to reestablish religion as governing law. Woe to atheists.

Point of interest. The official creed of the old Inquisition was;
The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit").
Click to expand...
And it was the Church that decided what was evil and what was piety. As they still do in Muslim theocracies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top