Religions > Atheism > Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2005 02:38:17 AM |
| Object: |
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
Oops,
Facts 1, GOP 0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4379422.stm
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2109 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
04 Dec 2005 10:17:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022...@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 05:58:14 -0800, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1133359094.249494.114730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie)
==============
The aborted baby does not suffer depression because the aborted baby is
dead via murder.
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal
=========
When God says that something is illegal, man's saying that it is legal
is irrelevant.
Wrong. Why should I be subject to the dictates of a religion that I do
not follow. What your deity claims has no relevance on anyone that
does not follow your beliefs. However, the laws of the government that
a person lives under are always relevent no matter what religion the
person follows.
Yet, you want everyone to think that abortion is good and right because
you think so. Go figure.
Whether or not the abortion is the right thing to do is up to the
pregnant woman, not me. It is her life and her body, so her opinion on
the matter is the one that has the most weight. If the woman thinks
that abortion is good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is
good and right for her. However, if the woman thinks that it is not
good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is wrong for her.
You expect everyone participating in this thread to think that women
having an abortion is a good thing because you think so.
Actually, what you and I think on the matter is not that important. It
is what the pregnant woman thinks, since she is the one that makes the
decision. I certainly think that forcing her to continue an unwanted
pregnancy is immoral, but since morals are opinions and nothing else, I
am not using "morals" as part of my argument and premise. Anti-choice
advocates, however, like to try to use "morals" as if they mattered to
anyone else as part of their argument in order to evoke emotions and
try to take the high ground without any relevant facts.
Alright, if morals are nothing but opinions and, therefore, don't
matter then why do people like you keep claiming such things as
bigotry, war and littering are immoral and their practioners should be
punlished to the fullest extent of the law?
For starters, where have I been talking about things being "moral" or
"immoral" that was not in response to someone else bring up the subject
of morality? And I cannot speak for anyone else.
You've made it clear that you think abortion is moral because the woman
is entitled to make the decision. Anything contrary to that is slavery
and therefore immoral.
Who better than the woman to make the decision? She is not slave, and
it is her body that is pregnant, as well as her life and health that
are at risk and her livelihood that is most likely going to be affected
by the pregnancy.
Despite the fact that her decision effects others around her. A fact
you continue to fail to realize.
Affect, yes, but only indirectly. She is the only one DIRECTLY and
PHYSICALLY affected by her decision about her abortion. That is the
FACT that you continue to fail to realize.
You can be a bigot all you want. However, if you have any sort of
power or provide any sort of services, you cannot act on that bigotry
to anyone's detriment, including exclusion of dealing with them.
No. But if that's how you make your living, you do what you gotta do.
What are you answering "No" to? There was no question asked. I was
addressing your scenario about refusing to rent an apartment to someone
solely because of skin color.
I was agreeing with you. How stupid are you?
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No, you don't have to like it. However, unless you want to pay hefty
fines and still be forced to provide the person an apartment, you
follow the law.
It's my property. The fines are unjustified.
You property is subject to public and published laws. You are offering
a service to the public, specifically temporary housing. Those laws
are to keep bigots from denying people from renting from them for no
reason, and regions that suffer from prejudice from forcing "people of
color" from only living in poorer and more dangerous neighborhoods for
no reason except their skin color. Those laws are to ensure that
anyone with the necessary rent can get any apartment that he, she, or
they choose. And since this is the law, the fine are very much
justified.
The "morality of war" usually goes back to the opinions of people about
the reasons why one group or another went to war in the first place.
People defending against an aggressor, or helping those defenders, are
usually considered to be more "moral" than the aggressors, since the
aggressors are the ones that provoked the war or launched the first
attack.
And people like you tend to think that the agressors and the defenders
are equally immoral because both are committing acts of violence.
Not so. I support people defending themselves however they need to
from bullies and other aggressors. I also disagree with pre-emtive
strikes.
Oh ok. Good thing we have the second amendment then.
Defending oneself does not require a gun. Bare hand and implements of
opportunity will do.
If
morality is relative then why do you people consider violence to be
evil?
Because that is our opinion, often. And violence of the aggressor
hurts people that have done nothing wrong. There is far less problems
for most people with the defender using violence to defend him or
herself from someone that started the fight.
Sometimes. Alot of the time they get arrested for taking the law into
their own hands.
That depends on the situation, more than anything. Was the person
being attacked? Was the person defending someone that was being
attacked? If either of those answers are "yes", then the person was
acting in self-defense, and thus is not likely to be charged with any
legal violation since most areas include laws protecting a person in
cases of self-defense or when acting as a good samaritan.
Littering has a number of other environmental problems, but since it is
illegal, then people that do so should be charged and sentenced.
You're right. A better example would've been running a factory that
blows smoke out of the stats. That's not illegal, but people on the
left like you tend to think it's immoral.
Again, pollution and environmental problems. Long term consequences
that harm many people. And it is illegal for factories to produce
excessive pollutants. What comes out of the stacks and in what
concentrations is very important. In general, white smoke and steam is
far better than grey or black smoke, since grey and black smoke have
far higher concentrations of pollutants. That is why factories are
required to have things like scrubbers in their stacks, and are
required to take proper care of toxic wastes.
Yeah, but it was well known when the Industrial Revolution first
started.
But the environmental and health effects were not well known. Once
they were, that is when people started to complain and act.
The black and gray smoke left tons of soot on all the
buildings, streetlights, trees and other upright structures all the
time. Enviromentalists waited about eighty years before saying that the
smoke stacks were bad for the enviroment saying new technology allowed
them to find out information about the smoke they couldn't have found
out when industrialislm started.
Why is that surprising? Technology advanced considerably in that time.
And without hard evidence and scientific studies to back up their
claims, they had no case. The advances in communication also allowed
them to spread the word faster and farther than would have been
possible otherwise.
As if the soot wasn't a red flag or something.
Actually, it is unlikely that it was.
Of course by that time our entire economy depended on
factories, plants and mills and changing everything would've hindered
people's jobs.
It was necessary when the Industrial Revolution started. That is part
of what drove it. People are not going to shell out big bucks on new
tech if they don't think that their products will sell.
And it's all because of people on the left who hate capitalism anyway.
No. Unlike you, we just care about people and the world, not just
ourselves.
They promoted industrialism during its birth saying it was progressive
and allowed for more prodsucts to be given to more people
Your forgot "and at a lower price". Which it did. Therefore, they
were telling the truth.
and then
almost a century later they pulled a John Kerry flipflop and said it
was evil.
There was no flip-flop, since we are not talking about the same people.
And what they are mainly talking about is related to the actions of
the industrialists and corporations, and the harm they do to others
when those actions are unregulated. It was liberals that have kept the
big corporations from taking advantage of their workers more than they
are now. It is liberals that started the minimum wages laws, mandatory
health care, pensions, 40 hour work weeks, 8 hour work shifts,
environmental protection laws, various product quality laws, work place
safety laws, equal opportunity laws, and many other things that put a
rein on the corporations and keep them from riding roughshod on their
workers.
Who are you to tell me that I, as a landlord, have to let a black guy
live in my tenancy if I don't want to?
I, or rather he, is someone that can go to the police and file a civil
case against you for breaking the law, specifically the "Fair Housing
Act", I believe. The law states that you cannot refuse to sell or rent
property to a person based solely on his skin color, among other
things. Denying him an apartment is illegal if there is one available
and he meets all the other criteria that all tenants have to meet.
So once again you're saying that morality is based on legalism.
No, I am not. Morality is based on personal beliefs. Legalism is
based on trying to maintain a peaceful society. If you notice, I never
made a statement about morality in my answer to your scenario. I only
replied with the legal consequences for your denial.
Yeah you keep evading the subject of morality.
That is because you and I have different ideas about what is and is not
moral, which means that any discussion about the subject gets us
nowhere. I know this, even if you seem not to. In fact, I have made
this clear in the paragraph that you just responded to.
I guess
that means slavery was, infact, moral in the nineteenth century.
No, it was not in many people's opinions. That is why they fought
against slavery and helped slaves escape.
This comes from our country's ideal of equality.
So don't go
feeding me this trash about forcing morality on people when you do the
same thing.
Not at all. You are trying to force others to do what you think is
right, and you do not care about their opinions, nor are you willing to
give them any options. I am advocating keeping the options open, so
that the woman that is pregnant can make the decision that she sees as
best for herself in her current situation for herself without any
interference. You are trying to force your morality on others, I let
people make their own decisions according to their own desires and
morals. There is the difference that you cannot see to grasp.
Oh ok. So it's all about the options is it? Because THEIR morals are
the only morals that matter.
With regards to THEIR bodies and what goes on inside of it and is done
to it, yes. Nobody else has the right to force them to continue an
unwanted pregnancy against their wills. Women are not servants or
slaves, despite what you might think.
So people should have total control over their own bodies?
Near enough.
Regardless
of the effects their decisions have on other people?
There are no other people directly involved in her pregnancy.
So if she's married that means she can decide the fate of the whole
family without considering her husband's opinion? Eventhough he helped
make the baby?
Her life, her body, her choice. She is not her husband's slave, to be
forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy because he says so.
If the two disagree about whether or not she should continue her
pregnancy, then who decides, and why? Answer that question, and stop
evading it.
That means wives
can't nag their husbands to loose weight and go on diets when the
husbands are fat just so they don't have to spend money on hospital
bills and suffer from the emotional trauma of the situation when the
husbands have heart attacks. After all, it's the husband's body. All
that stuff the wife has to worry about is irrelevant.
Meaning that the wife wants to have the husband around for a good long
time.
Exactly. And he would be very selfish for not considering her feelings
on the matter. If he has a heart attack, it would be a very emotional
and costly situation even if he survives it.
However, he may not care about it.
Now consider a guy who wants to start a family and the love of his life
crushes his dreams without so much of a second thought.
Then if he can get pregnant himself. Then he can decide the course of
his pregnancy, just as she decided the course of hers. He cannot force
her to continue her pregnancy against her will. She is not his slave.
There is nothing preventing her from nagging him. However, she cannot physically forcing him to
do the things that she is nagging him about.
No, but she can refuse to have sex with him until he fixes the problem.
Her right.
Or she could threaten to divorce him if he doesn't fix the problem.
Again, her right.
Women don't need physicallity to make their husband do something.
And men do not need to physically make their wives do anything either.
Not their EQUAL husbands'.
Their husbands do not own their wives, no matter what you think.
Not anyone's.
Slavery is illegal. You cannot force another to suffer for your
benefit.
Couldn't forcing a husband to work out more when he's out of shape be
considered slavery on part of a wife?
No. Because there is no actual involuntary servitude involved.
There is if he's doing it for any of the reasons I just stated above.
Where is the force involved?
Also, she is not standing over him forcing him to workout, most likely.
You obviously have never been nagged before.
What makes you think that? I did have a mother, after all.
I would think so.
However, you are not showing yourself to be much in the way of
thinking.
No, I'm just not thinking the way you think I should be thinking.
You just don't seem to be thinking at all.
That makes a lot of sense. If you're stoned that is.
You would need to be stoned to accept your opinion that men should make
women their slaves. I see that you are incapable of understanding the
concept of EQUAL partners.
On the contrary. The only one with that problem would be you.
You are the one that thinks that he controls people, not me.
Yeah, funny how I never actually said anything about controling people.
The implication is there all through your statements. You always imply
that the woman should obey the man's opinion about her pregnancy. You
continually imply that the woman should be subservient to the man.
Also, you refuse to answer clearly and unambiguously the question that
I have posted, which implies that you think that she should continue
the pregnancy. If you notice, I never stated which one is for and
which is against the pregnancy continuing.
Even Gaia
understands the concept of how important it is to get the husband's
opinion when making such a decision.
Assuming that there is a husband, and assuming that she wants him to
know. However, the decision remains hers and hers alone, because it is
her body.
If they disagree about the pregnancy and continuing it, who makes the
final decision, the man or the woman, and why? I have already answered
this question with my reasons. I have not seen a clear answer to it
from you.
I have made my position very clear on how the decision should be made
in a society that is truly equal. You dsiagree with that. What does
that say about you?
That I face the reality of the situation, and that I see you trying to
weasel out of an answer. I stated that they DISAGREE! There is a
stalemate in the decision making process. However, the situation of
the two participants is not equal. One is pregnant, and if the
pregnancy continues, she is the one that suffers everything that a
pregnancy does to her. He is not pregnant, and thus does not face
those hardships. They disagree about the pregnancy. There is no
compromise or half-way answer, either she continues the pregnancy or
she aborts it. So who decides and why? You have only 4 possible
answers to the first part of this question, "he decides", "she
decides", "the one wanting the pregnancy to continue decides", and "the
one wanting the abortion decides". The question of "why" can be
anything that you want to write.
Mark Sebree
Perhaps you could explain why you think that you can command women to
do what you want them to do, and force them to suffer because you do
not respect them.
I never have seen you answer this request. Perhaps it is because you
cannot think of a reason that will not show your misogyny even more
than your previous posts have shown it.
You're the only one talking about forcing women to do something.
You are the one that wants to deny women the option of getting an
abortion, and thus forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. I
am just making it clear what your agenda is, as well as its
consequences.
Where do you see an agenda of mine anywhere in this thread?
In what you write, and how it fits with other things that you write to
others. Also, the fact that you refuse to answer simple but telling
questions, and you continue to try to weasel out of answering them.
Why don't you read the paragraphs above.
I did. You still show yourself as one that thinks that a husband and a
wife cannot be equal partners, but rather one must rule over the other
and tell him or her what to do.
I'm the only who is telling how to make things more equal in the
matter. You keep shooting me down when any idiot can see what I'm truly
saying.
And someone that is intelligent can see where the problems are with
what you are saying. The situation is not equal, and therefore the
voices cannot be equal. She is the one that is pregnant, he is not.
Who's voice has precedence in the case of a disagreement? You refuse
to answer that question. All you keep trying to do is state that they
should talk about it, but you fail to address the case of where they
disagree. In fact, you continually refuse to answer that question, or
state why one party should have precedence over the other.
As I stated early on in this
thread, you seem to be very favorable of wives telling husbands what to
do.
That is because you refuse or are unable to see what I am actually
saying. You seem to be very favorable of women not having a voice at
all, and men being able to ruin their lives for no reason.
Your evasion does not answer the question, however.
I haven't evaded anything.
Yes, you have. You have evaded answering the telling question about
the case of where they disagree about the pregnancy and who decides in
that case, and why. You have never given a clear answer to that
question. The only thing that I see you implying is that the man
decides.
I've proven that you are in favor of denying
men a say in their own family,
Not at all. They can have a say, but since they are not the ones that
are pregnant, they do not have the final say. They cannot force the
woman to either continue her pregnancy or to abort it against her will.
which is the same thing that you accuse
me of doing.
Actually, I am accusing you of trying to force women to continue
pregnancies against their wills by making them subservient to men and
their opinions. And by reading between the lines of what you say and
how you say it, you have given a number of people the impression that
you are misogynic and chauvinistic. You only have yourself to blame
for that.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
[snip as not having been addressed for several posts]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 03:33:38 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022...@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 05:58:14 -0800, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1133359094.249494.114730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie)
==============
The aborted baby does not suffer depression because the aborted baby is
dead via murder.
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal
=========
When God says that something is illegal, man's saying that it is legal
is irrelevant.
Wrong. Why should I be subject to the dictates of a religion that I do
not follow. What your deity claims has no relevance on anyone that
does not follow your beliefs. However, the laws of the government that
a person lives under are always relevent no matter what religion the
person follows.
Yet, you want everyone to think that abortion is good and right because
you think so. Go figure.
Whether or not the abortion is the right thing to do is up to the
pregnant woman, not me. It is her life and her body, so her opinion on
the matter is the one that has the most weight. If the woman thinks
that abortion is good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is
good and right for her. However, if the woman thinks that it is not
good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is wrong for her.
You expect everyone participating in this thread to think that women
having an abortion is a good thing because you think so.
Actually, what you and I think on the matter is not that important. It
is what the pregnant woman thinks, since she is the one that makes the
decision. I certainly think that forcing her to continue an unwanted
pregnancy is immoral, but since morals are opinions and nothing else, I
am not using "morals" as part of my argument and premise. Anti-choice
advocates, however, like to try to use "morals" as if they mattered to
anyone else as part of their argument in order to evoke emotions and
try to take the high ground without any relevant facts.
Alright, if morals are nothing but opinions and, therefore, don't
matter then why do people like you keep claiming such things as
bigotry, war and littering are immoral and their practioners should be
punlished to the fullest extent of the law?
For starters, where have I been talking about things being "moral" or
"immoral" that was not in response to someone else bring up the subject
of morality? And I cannot speak for anyone else.
You've made it clear that you think abortion is moral because the woman
is entitled to make the decision. Anything contrary to that is slavery
and therefore immoral.
Who better than the woman to make the decision? She is not slave, and
it is her body that is pregnant, as well as her life and health that
are at risk and her livelihood that is most likely going to be affected
by the pregnancy.
Despite the fact that her decision effects others around her. A fact
you continue to fail to realize.
Affect, yes, but only indirectly. She is the only one DIRECTLY and
PHYSICALLY affected by her decision about her abortion. That is the
FACT that you continue to fail to realize.
You can be a bigot all you want. However, if you have any sort of
power or provide any sort of services, you cannot act on that bigotry
to anyone's detriment, including exclusion of dealing with them.
No. But if that's how you make your living, you do what you gotta do.
What are you answering "No" to? There was no question asked. I was
addressing your scenario about refusing to rent an apartment to someone
solely because of skin color.
I was agreeing with you. How stupid are you?
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No, you don't have to like it. However, unless you want to pay hefty
fines and still be forced to provide the person an apartment, you
follow the law.
It's my property. The fines are unjustified.
You property is subject to public and published laws. You are offering
a service to the public, specifically temporary housing. Those laws
are to keep bigots from denying people from renting from them for no
reason, and regions that suffer from prejudice from forcing "people of
color" from only living in poorer and more dangerous neighborhoods for
no reason except their skin color. Those laws are to ensure that
anyone with the necessary rent can get any apartment that he, she, or
they choose. And since this is the law, the fine are very much
justified.
The "morality of war" usually goes back to the opinions of people about
the reasons why one group or another went to war in the first place.
People defending against an aggressor, or helping those defenders, are
usually considered to be more "moral" than the aggressors, since the
aggressors are the ones that provoked the war or launched the first
attack.
And people like you tend to think that the agressors and the defenders
are equally immoral because both are committing acts of violence.
Not so. I support people defending themselves however they need to
from bullies and other aggressors. I also disagree with pre-emtive
strikes.
Oh ok. Good thing we have the second amendment then.
Defending oneself does not require a gun. Bare hand and implements of
opportunity will do.
<snap>
Begging your pardon, but that is not necessarily true. You are
assuming that victim, or intended victim, is young and strong enough to
fight off the attacker with his/her bare hands or whatever he/she can
grab in the midst of the attack (the "implements of opportunity").
There are folks - disabled, aged, those weakened by disease - who don't
and will not be able to defend themselves in such a situation with
their bare hands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 08:50:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
[snip]
The "morality of war" usually goes back to the opinions of people about
the reasons why one group or another went to war in the first place.
People defending against an aggressor, or helping those defenders, are
usually considered to be more "moral" than the aggressors, since the
aggressors are the ones that provoked the war or launched the first
attack.
And people like you tend to think that the agressors and the defenders
are equally immoral because both are committing acts of violence.
Not so. I support people defending themselves however they need to
from bullies and other aggressors. I also disagree with pre-emtive
strikes.
Oh ok. Good thing we have the second amendment then.
Defending oneself does not require a gun. Bare hand and implements of
opportunity will do.
<snap>
Begging your pardon, but that is not necessarily true. You are
assuming that victim, or intended victim, is young and strong enough to
fight off the attacker with his/her bare hands or whatever he/she can
grab in the midst of the attack (the "implements of opportunity").
There are folks - disabled, aged, those weakened by disease - who don't
and will not be able to defend themselves in such a situation with
their bare hands.
Admittedly. However, they can also try yelling, very, very loudly.
You are trying to change the specific situation to the general one.
You are also still trying to avoid answering the question that is
actually pertinent to the thread that has been placed before you
clearly and unambiguously, with an explanation of your reasons.
Therefore, here is the question again.
You have stated that the man and the woman should decide together about
the course of her pregnancy. I have no problem with this. However,
what about the case where they disagree? Who should decide then, and
why? Waiting for them to reach a concensus is not an option, since any
abortion is time critical, as is pre-natal care. To the first part of
the question, there are only four possible answers: he decides, she
decides, the one wanting an abortion decides, the one wanting the
pregnancy to continue decides. The question of "why?" can take as much
room as you need, and can be any reason you want.
Why are you avoiding answering this pertinent question clearly and
unambiguously?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 08:46:51 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
[snip]
The "morality of war" usually goes back to the opinions of people about
the reasons why one group or another went to war in the first place.
People defending against an aggressor, or helping those defenders, are
usually considered to be more "moral" than the aggressors, since the
aggressors are the ones that provoked the war or launched the first
attack.
And people like you tend to think that the agressors and the defenders
are equally immoral because both are committing acts of violence.
Not so. I support people defending themselves however they need to
from bullies and other aggressors. I also disagree with pre-emtive
strikes.
Oh ok. Good thing we have the second amendment then.
Defending oneself does not require a gun. Bare hand and implements of
opportunity will do.
<snap>
Begging your pardon, but that is not necessarily true. You are
assuming that victim, or intended victim, is young and strong enough to
fight off the attacker with his/her bare hands or whatever he/she can
grab in the midst of the attack (the "implements of opportunity").
There are folks - disabled, aged, those weakened by disease - who don't
and will not be able to defend themselves in such a situation with
their bare hands.
Admittedly. However, they can also try yelling, very, very loudly.
You are trying to change the specific situation to the general one.
Not at all. I was responding to your statement "Defending oneself does
not require a gun. Bare hand and implements of opportunity will do."
That is a general statement, and one with which I disagree, for the
reasons I stated.
You are also still trying to avoid answering the question that is
actually pertinent to the thread that has been placed before you
clearly and unambiguously, with an explanation of your reasons.
Therefore, here is the question again.
I expect that you are asking "the question" of another person, since
you have not - until now, I suppose - asked "the question" of me. I
can't reasonably be accused of avoiding something that I haven't been,
well, avoiding.
You have stated that the man and the woman should decide together about
the course of her pregnancy.
While I agree that this seems like a reasonable approach, it isn't
something I've stated. Now I'm certain that you have mistaken me for
someone else.
I have no problem with this. However,
what about the case where they disagree? Who should decide then, and
why? Waiting for them to reach a concensus is not an option, since any
abortion is time critical, as is pre-natal care. To the first part of
the question, there are only four possible answers: he decides, she
decides, the one wanting an abortion decides, the one wanting the
pregnancy to continue decides. The question of "why?" can take as much
room as you need, and can be any reason you want.
Why are you avoiding answering this pertinent question clearly and
unambiguously?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 01:37:48 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022...@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 05:58:14 -0800, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1133359094.249494.114730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie)
==============
The aborted baby does not suffer depression because the aborted baby is
dead via murder.
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal
=========
When God says that something is illegal, man's saying that it is legal
is irrelevant.
Wrong. Why should I be subject to the dictates of a religion that I do
not follow. What your deity claims has no relevance on anyone that
does not follow your beliefs. However, the laws of the government that
a person lives under are always relevent no matter what religion the
person follows.
Yet, you want everyone to think that abortion is good and right because
you think so. Go figure.
Whether or not the abortion is the right thing to do is up to the
pregnant woman, not me. It is her life and her body, so her opinion on
the matter is the one that has the most weight. If the woman thinks
that abortion is good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is
good and right for her. However, if the woman thinks that it is not
good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is wrong for her.
You expect everyone participating in this thread to think that women
having an abortion is a good thing because you think so.
Actually, what you and I think on the matter is not that important. It
is what the pregnant woman thinks, since she is the one that makes the
decision. I certainly think that forcing her to continue an unwanted
pregnancy is immoral, but since morals are opinions and nothing else, I
am not using "morals" as part of my argument and premise. Anti-choice
advocates, however, like to try to use "morals" as if they mattered to
anyone else as part of their argument in order to evoke emotions and
try to take the high ground without any relevant facts.
Alright, if morals are nothing but opinions and, therefore, don't
matter then why do people like you keep claiming such things as
bigotry, war and littering are immoral and their practioners should be
punlished to the fullest extent of the law?
For starters, where have I been talking about things being "moral" or
"immoral" that was not in response to someone else bring up the subject
of morality? And I cannot speak for anyone else.
You've made it clear that you think abortion is moral because the woman
is entitled to make the decision. Anything contrary to that is slavery
and therefore immoral.
Who better than the woman to make the decision? She is not slave, and
it is her body that is pregnant, as well as her life and health that
are at risk and her livelihood that is most likely going to be affected
by the pregnancy.
Despite the fact that her decision effects others around her. A fact
you continue to fail to realize.
Affect, yes, but only indirectly. She is the only one DIRECTLY and
PHYSICALLY affected by her decision about her abortion. That is the
FACT that you continue to fail to realize.
There is no "direct" or "indirect" about it. Either someone is affected
or they're not. The consequneces of her choice affect all those
involved. Since the husband participated in the conception that makes
him envolved. Just like the wife participates in the husband getting
fat by buying and cooking the food that he eats. If she can make him
exercise and loose that extra weight because she wants him healthy and
long living, then he should be able to make her have the baby if he
wants to have a family. That's the equality principle. The concept is
based on checks and balances.
And you can give me this junk that you don't believe EITHER spouse
should be allowed or able to make the other do anything, but I don't
buy it. You have not made any direct response to my accusations that
you believe that a woman control a man other than you believe both
spouses should be equal (which, if you're like any other guy, you only
say that so women will sleep with you). When I've asked you how you
think that equality can be practiced (i.e. if you're married and you
have those three different bank accounts you mentioned, who decides how
much of ya'll's respective incomes goes into each account, flip a
coin?) you refuse to answer and the accuse me of slavery.
You can be a bigot all you want. However, if you have any sort of
power or provide any sort of services, you cannot act on that bigotry
to anyone's detriment, including exclusion of dealing with them.
No. But if that's how you make your living, you do what you gotta do.
What are you answering "No" to? There was no question asked. I was
addressing your scenario about refusing to rent an apartment to someone
solely because of skin color.
I was agreeing with you. How stupid are you?
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No, you don't have to like it. However, unless you want to pay hefty
fines and still be forced to provide the person an apartment, you
follow the law.
It's my property. The fines are unjustified.
You property is subject to public and published laws. You are offering
a service to the public, specifically temporary housing. Those laws
are to keep bigots from denying people from renting from them for no
reason, and regions that suffer from prejudice from forcing "people of
color" from only living in poorer and more dangerous neighborhoods for
no reason except their skin color. Those laws are to ensure that
anyone with the necessary rent can get any apartment that he, she, or
they choose. And since this is the law, the fine are very much
justified.
In a free country, I should be able to offer my services to whom ever I
choose. If I don't want to offer them to someone for whatever reason
then that's my choice.
Now tell me how you can support forcing the equality garbage on someone
in regards to housing, but not in regards to their own family (and yes
that is exactly what you're doing, forcing a moral mentallity on me
that I don't aggree with which is the same thing you've accused me of
doing)?
The "morality of war" usually goes back to the opinions of people about
the reasons why one group or another went to war in the first place.
People defending against an aggressor, or helping those defenders, are
usually considered to be more "moral" than the aggressors, since the
aggressors are the ones that provoked the war or launched the first
attack.
And people like you tend to think that the agressors and the defenders
are equally immoral because both are committing acts of violence.
Not so. I support people defending themselves however they need to
from bullies and other aggressors. I also disagree with pre-emtive
strikes.
Oh ok. Good thing we have the second amendment then.
Defending oneself does not require a gun. Bare hand and implements of
opportunity will do.
And if there is a burglar going through your house and it's too dark to
see what he's carrying when go into the room to confront him, it's nice
to know you have you're gun just incase you need it. You never know
what a burglar might have after all.
If
morality is relative then why do you people consider violence to be
evil?
Because that is our opinion, often. And violence of the aggressor
hurts people that have done nothing wrong. There is far less problems
for most people with the defender using violence to defend him or
herself from someone that started the fight.
Sometimes. Alot of the time they get arrested for taking the law into
their own hands.
That depends on the situation, more than anything. Was the person
being attacked? Was the person defending someone that was being
attacked? If either of those answers are "yes", then the person was
acting in self-defense, and thus is not likely to be charged with any
legal violation since most areas include laws protecting a person in
cases of self-defense or when acting as a good samaritan.
And if you're in a 7-11 and the guy is holding a gun to the cashier
demanding money, you can take out your gun and shoot the ***** so he
won't be tempted to shoot the cashier anyway so as not to leave any
witnesses behind. However, breaking up a robbery is considered
vigilantism in some states and punishable by stiff penalties.
Littering has a number of other environmental problems, but since it is
illegal, then people that do so should be charged and sentenced.
You're right. A better example would've been running a factory that
blows smoke out of the stats. That's not illegal, but people on the
left like you tend to think it's immoral.
Again, pollution and environmental problems. Long term consequences
that harm many people. And it is illegal for factories to produce
excessive pollutants. What comes out of the stacks and in what
concentrations is very important. In general, white smoke and steam is
far better than grey or black smoke, since grey and black smoke have
far higher concentrations of pollutants. That is why factories are
required to have things like scrubbers in their stacks, and are
required to take proper care of toxic wastes.
Yeah, but it was well known when the Industrial Revolution first
started.
But the environmental and health effects were not well known. Once
they were, that is when people started to complain and act.
What part of "red flag" do you not understand? Do you not know that the
soot was an indication that there was alot of the smoke in the sky
above? Enough, in some cases, to actually block the view of the sun?
Enough, in some cases, to cause health problems the symptoms of which
were cronic coughing and wheezing year round instead of just during
allergy season?
I mean grow up, man. This technology was hazardous and the progressive
left forced society to put up with it using the benefits it caused,
which were smaller in number than the hazards, as an excuse.
The black and gray smoke left tons of soot on all the
buildings, streetlights, trees and other upright structures all the
time. Enviromentalists waited about eighty years before saying that the
smoke stacks were bad for the enviroment saying new technology allowed
them to find out information about the smoke they couldn't have found
out when industrialislm started.
Why is that surprising? Technology advanced considerably in that time.
And without hard evidence and scientific studies to back up their
claims, they had no case. The advances in communication also allowed
them to spread the word faster and farther than would have been
possible otherwise.
Say it with me now, "NO VIEW OF THE SUN!" "CRONIC COUGHING AND WHEEZING
YEAR ROUND!" All that started when industrialism started. Just put two
and two together. What more do you need?
As if the soot wasn't a red flag or something.
Actually, it is unlikely that it was.
It was to alot of people. But when those people brought it up for
discussion, they were dismissed by everyone else as old fogies who were
just afraid of change. So nobody listened to them.
Of course by that time our entire economy depended on
factories, plants and mills and changing everything would've hindered
people's jobs.
It was necessary when the Industrial Revolution started. That is part
of what drove it. People are not going to shell out big bucks on new
tech if they don't think that their products will sell.
No it wasn't. There were ranches and farms in the rural areas and mom
and pop stores and offices and practices in the towns. There was no
economical reason, whatsoever, to industrialize.
And it's all because of people on the left who hate capitalism anyway.
No. Unlike you, we just care about people and the world, not just
ourselves.
Bunk. You people forced industrialism on society, knowing full well of
the hazards and potential problems it might bring, in order to gain
power over people. If machines do the same job men do and better then
men don't get jobs. If men can't get jobs, they become dependent on
those in power for the bare necessities and thus we have welfare (or at
this particular time, the precursor to welfare). If they become
dependent on you for the bare necessities, then they will do whatever
you want them to to get them.
And, ofcourse, the financial benefits the new machine brings to the
company is enough to make any big cheese want to use it. And then when
unemployment starts rising who did the lefties in the unions blame, but
the company owners themselves. The guys that are bamboozled by the very
people the unions were working for. Very clever. Con someone and then
make him a scapegoat. Nice.
And this continues to this very day. Everytime technology advances.
They promoted industrialism during its birth saying it was progressive
and allowed for more prodsucts to be given to more people
Your forgot "and at a lower price". Which it did. Therefore, they
were telling the truth.
No they weren't. As I just explained above, they didn't care about the
people.
and then
almost a century later they pulled a John Kerry flipflop and said it
was evil.
There was no flip-flop, since we are not talking about the same people.
No, not in the literal sense. The original people that brought
industiralism were all dead by then. But they're successors were no
different than they were.
And what they are mainly talking about is related to the actions of
the industrialists and corporations, and the harm they do to others
when those actions are unregulated.
Which is why the creators of industrialism didn't come up with any
regulations at the very beginning. Anybody with any common sense knows
that you just don't let people have free reign over something they know
nothing about. That's part of what worried those old fogies I mentioned
above.
It was liberals that have kept the big corporations from taking advantage of their workers more than they are now.
What do you mean "now"? In some areas you can't even fire a guy or dock
his pay without running it by the unions first.
It is liberals that started the minimum wages laws
Ah yes minimum wage. The payment a minor recieves when he's not an
adult yet and still just starting out in the work place. In otherwords
a payed apprentiship, which is not why apprentiships exist. They exist
to teach the youngen a trade and how to survive in the work place.
Minimum wage is just more money out of the company's budget.
, mandatory health care, pensions,
Which is costly, but hey it's only money.
40 hour work weeks, 8 hour work shifts,
Which causes a decrease in production, but hey what do you care, right?
environmental protection laws,
Which do nothing but hinder the production process.
various product quality laws,
Which were never necessary to begin with. If someone gives you a bad
product, then next time take your business to his competitor. That'll
encourage him to make the quality of his products better.
work place safety laws,
Which also hinders the production process because the worker can't do
what's necessary to get the product made.
equal opportunity laws,
Telling an owner how to run his own business, which is a PRIVATE
business by the way, by forcing him to hire workers he doesn't want to
hire. And don't give me this junk about "color" either because equal
opprotunity also applies to workers who may have been criminals in the
past giving the owner no reason to trust him.
and many other things that put a rein on the corporations and keep them from riding roughshod on their workers.
While the the left-leaning, mafia run unions use the workers as patsies
to usurp the power the corporations use to ride "roughshod" on people
and keeping it for themselves. And the poor workers have to depend on
those mobsters to obtain their bare necessities, giving ownership of
their lives to them.
Who are you to tell me that I, as a landlord, have to let a black guy
live in my tenancy if I don't want to?
I, or rather he, is someone that can go to the police and file a civil
case against you for breaking the law, specifically the "Fair Housing
Act", I believe. The law states that you cannot refuse to sell or rent
property to a person based solely on his skin color, among other
things. Denying him an apartment is illegal if there is one available
and he meets all the other criteria that all tenants have to meet.
So once again you're saying that morality is based on legalism.
No, I am not. Morality is based on personal beliefs. Legalism is
based on trying to maintain a peaceful society. If you notice, I never
made a statement about morality in my answer to your scenario. I only
replied with the legal consequences for your denial.
Yeah you keep evading the subject of morality.
That is because you and I have different ideas about what is and is not
moral,
Yeah no kidding. I wonder why that is.
which means that any discussion about the subject gets us nowhere. I know this, even if you seem > not to. In fact, I have made this clear in the paragraph that you just responded to.
I guess
that means slavery was, infact, moral in the nineteenth century.
No, it was not in many people's opinions. That is why they fought
against slavery and helped slaves escape.
This comes from our country's ideal of equality.
So don't go
feeding me this trash about forcing morality on people when you do the
same thing.
Not at all. You are trying to force others to do what you think is
right, and you do not care about their opinions, nor are you willing to
give them any options. I am advocating keeping the options open, so
that the woman that is pregnant can make the decision that she sees as
best for herself in her current situation for herself without any
interference. You are trying to force your morality on others, I let
people make their own decisions according to their own desires and
morals. There is the difference that you cannot see to grasp.
Oh ok. So it's all about the options is it? Because THEIR morals are
the only morals that matter.
With regards to THEIR bodies and what goes on inside of it and is done
to it, yes. Nobody else has the right to force them to continue an
unwanted pregnancy against their wills. Women are not servants or
slaves, despite what you might think.
So people should have total control over their own bodies?
Near enough.
Regardless
of the effects their decisions have on other people?
There are no other people directly involved in her pregnancy.
So if she's married that means she can decide the fate of the whole
family without considering her husband's opinion? Eventhough he helped
make the baby?
Her life, her body, her choice. She is not her husband's slave, to be
forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy because he says so.
So you can just go ahead and give her soul power over how the family is
done, how big it is etc. to her.
If the two disagree about whether or not she should continue her
pregnancy, then who decides, and why? Answer that question, and stop
evading it.
I asked you that same question about the three bank accounts thing and
you never answered that. I guess all decisions on the marriage should
be made by the flip of a coin to you.
That means wives
can't nag their husbands to loose weight and go on diets when the
husbands are fat just so they don't have to spend money on hospital
bills and suffer from the emotional trauma of the situation when the
husbands have heart attacks. After all, it's the husband's body. All
that stuff the wife has to worry about is irrelevant.
Meaning that the wife wants to have the husband around for a good long
time.
Exactly. And he would be very selfish for not considering her feelings
on the matter. If he has a heart attack, it would be a very emotional
and costly situation even if he survives it.
However, he may not care about it.
Oh she'll find a way to make him care. If not physically than another
way.
Now consider a guy who wants to start a family and the love of his life
crushes his dreams without so much of a second thought.
Then if he can get pregnant himself. Then he can decide the course of
his pregnancy, just as she decided the course of hers. He cannot force
her to continue her pregnancy against her will. She is not his slave.
There is nothing preventing her from nagging him. However, she cannot physically forcing him to
do the things that she is nagging him about.
No, but she can refuse to have sex with him until he fixes the problem.
Her right.
Or she could threaten to divorce him if he doesn't fix the problem.
Again, her right.
And again using that to make him do what he doesn't want to do is
forced servitude. Who's the slave now?
Women don't need physicallity to make their husband do something.
And men do not need to physically make their wives do anything either.
No. They can just stop supporting them and leave them to pay the bills.
Not their EQUAL husbands'.
Their husbands do not own their wives, no matter what you think.
Not anyone's.
Slavery is illegal. You cannot force another to suffer for your
benefit.
Couldn't forcing a husband to work out more when he's out of shape be
considered slavery on part of a wife?
No. Because there is no actual involuntary servitude involved.
There is if he's doing it for any of the reasons I just stated above.
Where is the force involved?
Like I said above, women don't need physical force to make a man do
anything. Haven't you been paying attention.
Also, she is not standing over him forcing him to workout, most likely.
You obviously have never been nagged before.
What makes you think that? I did have a mother, after all.
Then you would know that the nagging would consist of standing over
someone's shoulder and yelling at him to do it.
I would think so.
However, you are not showing yourself to be much in the way of
thinking.
No, I'm just not thinking the way you think I should be thinking.
You just don't seem to be thinking at all.
That makes a lot of sense. If you're stoned that is.
You would need to be stoned to accept your opinion that men should make
women their slaves. I see that you are incapable of understanding the
concept of EQUAL partners.
On the contrary. The only one with that problem would be you.
You are the one that thinks that he controls people, not me.
Yeah, funny how I never actually said anything about controling people.
The implication is there all through your statements. You always imply
that the woman should obey the man's opinion about her pregnancy. You
continually imply that the woman should be subservient to the man.
Also, you refuse to answer clearly and unambiguously the question that
I have posted, which implies that you think that she should continue
the pregnancy. If you notice, I never stated which one is for and
which is against the pregnancy continuing.
You're an idiot. Not only have I stated who I think should make
decisions and how they should be made in an equal society, but I've
also been much to tactless and honest in my posts to require you to
read between the lines. Because there haven't been any lines at all.
You, on the otherhand, have been lying about your beliefs while hiding
behind femenist inuendo trying to put words in my mouth to make me out
to be the oppressor when I've proven numerous times that you are the
one that's doing the oppressing. And I even managed to prove you to be
a supporter of oppression in this very post by not even talking about
abortion at all.
If you had any decency at all you would just come out and admit it. You
don't believe in equality at all you believe in those that traditionaly
have had the power being usurped by those that haven't. Whether it's a
wife usurping the husband or unions usurping the businesses. Act like a
man and be honest for once in your life, or don't waste your time
talking to me.
Even Gaia
understands the concept of how important it is to get the husband's
opinion when making such a decision.
Assuming that there is a husband, and assuming that she wants him to
know. However, the decision remains hers and hers alone, because it is
her body.
If they disagree about the pregnancy and continuing it, who makes the
final decision, the man or the woman, and why? I have already answered
this question with my reasons. I have not seen a clear answer to it
from you.
I have made my position very clear on how the decision should be made
in a society that is truly equal. You dsiagree with that. What does
that say about you?
That I face the reality of the situation, and that I see you trying to
weasel out of an answer. I stated that they DISAGREE! There is a
stalemate in the decision making process. However, the situation of
the two participants is not equal. One is pregnant, and if the
pregnancy continues, she is the one that suffers everything that a
pregnancy does to her. He is not pregnant, and thus does not face
those hardships.
And there you go proving yourself to be the lying idiot that you are.
He may not have the same hardships, but that does not mean that the
pregnancy won't cause him to suffer ANY hardships. But hey, his
hardships don't matter, right? He's just a man, right? Come on admit
it. Where's that honesty? Let's see it.
They disagree about the pregnancy. There is no
compromise or half-way answer, either she continues the pregnancy or
she aborts it. So who decides and why? You have only 4 possible
answers to the first part of this question, "he decides", "she
decides", "the one wanting the pregnancy to continue decides", and "the
one wanting the abortion decides". The question of "why" can be
anything that you want to write.
Mark Sebree
Perhaps you could explain why you think that you can command women to
do what you want them to do, and force them to suffer because you do
not respect them.
I never have seen you answer this request. Perhaps it is because you
cannot think of a reason that will not show your misogyny even more
than your previous posts have shown it.
You're the only one talking about forcing women to do something.
You are the one that wants to deny women the option of getting an
abortion, and thus forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. I
am just making it clear what your agenda is, as well as its
consequences.
Where do you see an agenda of mine anywhere in this thread?
In what you write, and how it fits with other things that you write to
others. Also, the fact that you refuse to answer simple but telling
questions, and you continue to try to weasel out of answering them.
Why don't you read the paragraphs above.
I did. You still show yourself as one that thinks that a husband and a
wife cannot be equal partners, but rather one must rule over the other
and tell him or her what to do.
I'm the only who is telling how to make things more equal in the
matter. You keep shooting me down when any idiot can see what I'm truly
saying.
And someone that is intelligent can see where the problems are with
what you are saying. The situation is not equal, and therefore the
voices cannot be equal. She is the one that is pregnant, he is not.
Who's voice has precedence in the case of a disagreement? You refuse
to answer that question. All you keep trying to do is state that they
should talk about it, but you fail to address the case of where they
disagree. In fact, you continually refuse to answer that question, or
state why one party should have precedence over the other.
As I stated early on in this
thread, you seem to be very favorable of wives telling husbands what to
do.
That is because you refuse or are unable to see what I am actually
saying. You seem to be very favorable of women not having a voice at
all, and men being able to ruin their lives for no reason.
Your evasion does not answer the question, however.
I haven't evaded anything.
Yes, you have. You have evaded answering the telling question about
the case of where they disagree about the pregnancy and who decides in
that case, and why. You have never given a clear answer to that
question. The only thing that I see you implying is that the man
decides.
I've proven that you are in favor of denying
men a say in their own family,
Not at all. They can have a say, but since they are not the ones that
are pregnant, they do not have the final say. They cannot force the
woman to either continue her pregnancy or to abort it against her will.
which is the same thing that you accuse
me of doing.
Actually, I am accusing you of trying to force women to continue
pregnancies against their wills by making them subservient to men and
their opinions. And by reading between the lines of what you say and
how you say it, you have given a number of people the impression that
you are misogynic and chauvinistic. You only have yourself to blame
for that.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
[snip as not having been addressed for several posts]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 02:09:11 PM |
|
|
said:
<...>
There is no "direct" or "indirect" about it. Either someone is affected
or they're not. The consequneces of her choice affect all those
involved. Since the husband participated in the conception that makes
him envolved.
Even if he didn't, he's involved.
...Just like the wife participates in the husband getting
fat by buying and cooking the food that he eats. If she can make him
exercise and loose that extra weight because she wants him healthy and
long living, then he should be able to make her have the baby if he
wants to have a family. That's the equality principle. The concept is
based on checks and balances.
And you can give me this junk that you don't believe EITHER spouse
should be allowed or able to make the other do anything, but I don't
buy it. You have not made any direct response to my accusations that
you believe that a woman control a man other than you believe both
spouses should be equal (which, if you're like any other guy, you only
say that so women will sleep with you). When I've asked you how you
think that equality can be practiced (i.e. if you're married and you
have those three different bank accounts you mentioned, who decides how
much of ya'll's respective incomes goes into each account, flip a
coin?) you refuse to answer and the accuse me of slavery.
For all the talk about what should be the case, the fact is that in
any given human society (or part of society if it is multicultural)
there are norms of behavior including how conflicts are resolved in a
marriage. In some societies adherence to the norms is more strictly
enforced by social pressure and/or legal requirements. And there are
"workarounds" by which the husband or wife often gets what they want
without the other being the wiser. Abortions included. "Oh, what a
tragedy has befallen us, dear husband. I had a miscarriage while at my
aunt's house."
If you are going to marry in a society which does not have norms that
spell out how family size is to be decided, and enforces them, or if
you do not agree with the norms, you better talk it through before
getting married.
In the US and all or most developed countries, if you want it to be
that your wife cannot get an abortion without your permission, you are
free to try to find a woman who agrees. But you better make sure she
knows what you will do if she agrees at first, but changes her mind.
And even then, she just might go visit her aunt, one day.
And if you want other couples to follow the same rule, you have a
*lot* of work ahead of you.
<...>
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 02:42:40 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu said:
<...>
There is no "direct" or "indirect" about it. Either someone is affected
or they're not. The consequences of her choice affect all those
involved. Since the husband participated in the conception that makes
him involved.
Even if he didn't, he's involved.
...Just like the wife participates in the husband getting
fat by buying and cooking the food that he eats. If she can make him
exercise and loose that extra weight because she wants him healthy and
long living, then he should be able to make her have the baby if he
wants to have a family. That's the equality principle. The concept is
based on checks and balances.
And you can give me this junk that you don't believe EITHER spouse
should be allowed or able to make the other do anything, but I don't
buy it. You have not made any direct response to my accusations that
you believe that a woman control a man other than you believe both
spouses should be equal (which, if you're like any other guy, you only
say that so women will sleep with you). When I've asked you how you
think that equality can be practiced (i.e. if you're married and you
have those three different bank accounts you mentioned, who decides how
much of ya'll's respective incomes goes into each account, flip a
coin?) you refuse to answer and the accuse me of slavery.
For all the talk about what should be the case, the fact is that in
any given human society (or part of society if it is multicultural)
there are norms of behavior including how conflicts are resolved in a
marriage. In some societies adherence to the norms is more strictly
enforced by social pressure and/or legal requirements. And there are
"workarounds" by which the husband or wife often gets what they want
without the other being the wiser. Abortions included. "Oh, what a
tragedy has befallen us, dear husband. I had a miscarriage while at my
aunt's house."
If you are going to marry in a society which does not have norms that
spell out how family size is to be decided, and enforces them, or if
you do not agree with the norms, you better talk it through before
getting married.
In the US and all or most developed countries, if you want it to be
that your wife cannot get an abortion without your permission, you are
free to try to find a woman who agrees.
Consultation and agreement is the rule for all important decisions
within a marriage. How can you imagine otherwise?
But you better make sure she
knows what you will do if she agrees at first, but changes her mind.
And even then, she just might go visit her aunt, one day.
I cannot imagine a woman who loved her husband taking even the dog to
the vet to be terminated without her husband's consultation and
agreement. Imaging killing the family pet and then pretending the dog
got run over!
Now imagine the marriage where a woman would kill the couple's unborn
child and pretend it was an accident. You are scripting the deathbed
confession, and the tearful catharsis on a psychiatrist couch.
And if you want other couples to follow the same rule, you have a
*lot* of work ahead of you.
Normal couples already follow the rule of consultation and agreement.
A marriage that did not follow that rule would be hell on roller
skates.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
05 Dec 2005 03:13:46 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> said:
Jim07D5 wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu said:
<...>
There is no "direct" or "indirect" about it. Either someone is affected
or they're not. The consequences of her choice affect all those
involved. Since the husband participated in the conception that makes
him involved.
Even if he didn't, he's involved.
...Just like the wife participates in the husband getting
fat by buying and cooking the food that he eats. If she can make him
exercise and loose that extra weight because she wants him healthy and
long living, then he should be able to make her have the baby if he
wants to have a family. That's the equality principle. The concept is
based on checks and balances.
And you can give me this junk that you don't believe EITHER spouse
should be allowed or able to make the other do anything, but I don't
buy it. You have not made any direct response to my accusations that
you believe that a woman control a man other than you believe both
spouses should be equal (which, if you're like any other guy, you only
say that so women will sleep with you). When I've asked you how you
think that equality can be practiced (i.e. if you're married and you
have those three different bank accounts you mentioned, who decides how
much of ya'll's respective incomes goes into each account, flip a
coin?) you refuse to answer and the accuse me of slavery.
For all the talk about what should be the case, the fact is that in
any given human society (or part of society if it is multicultural)
there are norms of behavior including how conflicts are resolved in a
marriage. In some societies adherence to the norms is more strictly
enforced by social pressure and/or legal requirements. And there are
"workarounds" by which the husband or wife often gets what they want
without the other being the wiser. Abortions included. "Oh, what a
tragedy has befallen us, dear husband. I had a miscarriage while at my
aunt's house."
If you are going to marry in a society which does not have norms that
spell out how family size is to be decided, and enforces them, or if
you do not agree with the norms, you better talk it through before
getting married.
In the US and all or most developed countries, if you want it to be
that your wife cannot get an abortion without your permission, you are
free to try to find a woman who agrees.
Consultation and agreement is the rule for all important decisions
within a marriage. How can you imagine otherwise?
Who says I do? Shouldn't any couple who has sex, agree on their
expectations and responsibilities, for the results?
But you better make sure she
knows what you will do if she agrees at first, but changes her mind.
And even then, she just might go visit her aunt, one day.
I cannot imagine a woman who loved her husband taking even the dog to
the vet to be terminated without her husband's consultation and
agreement. Imaging killing the family pet and then pretending the dog
got run over!
Perhaps in a world full of ideal couples. I can imagine the wife of a
wife-beater; who in denial about the dog's having a terminal, painful
disease, taking this as the least immoral path.
Now imagine the marriage where a woman would kill the couple's unborn
child and pretend it was an accident. You are scripting the deathbed
confession, and the tearful catharsis on a psychiatrist couch.
Which might be the burden she accepts in order to delay her deathbed.
Although in many cultures, it is not the psychiatrist, it is her women
friends, who will provide psychological support.
And if you want other couples to follow the same rule, you have a
*lot* of work ahead of you.
Normal couples already follow the rule of consultation and agreement.
A marriage that did not follow that rule would be hell on roller
skates.
I think you mean "Modern Western couples in a healthy relationship..."
And in most cultures, there are norms about what requires
consultation; what is the wife's and what is the husband's bailiwick.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
04 Dec 2005 04:50:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rc022...@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 05:58:14 -0800, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1133359094.249494.114730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie)
==============
The aborted baby does not suffer depression because the aborted baby is
dead via murder.
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal
=========
When God says that something is illegal, man's saying that it is legal
is irrelevant.
Wrong. Why should I be subject to the dictates of a religion that I do
not follow. What your deity claims has no relevance on anyone that
does not follow your beliefs. However, the laws of the government that
a person lives under are always relevent no matter what religion the
person follows.
Yet, you want everyone to think that abortion is good and right because
you think so. Go figure.
Whether or not the abortion is the right thing to do is up to the
pregnant woman, not me. It is her life and her body, so her opinion on
the matter is the one that has the most weight. If the woman thinks
that abortion is good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is
good and right for her. However, if the woman thinks that it is not
good and right for her for this pregnancy, then it is wrong for her.
You expect everyone participating in this thread to think that women
having an abortion is a good thing because you think so.
Actually, what you and I think on the matter is not that important. It
is what the pregnant woman thinks, since she is the one that makes the
decision. I certainly think that forcing her to continue an unwanted
pregnancy is immoral, but since morals are opinions and nothing else, I
am not using "morals" as part of my argument and premise. Anti-choice
advocates, however, like to try to use "morals" as if they mattered to
anyone else as part of their argument in order to evoke emotions and
try to take the high ground without any relevant facts.
Alright, if morals are nothing but opinions and, therefore, don't
matter then why do people like you keep claiming such things as
bigotry, war and littering are immoral and their practioners should be
punlished to the fullest extent of the law?
For starters, where have I been talking about things being "moral" or
"immoral" that was not in response to someone else bring up the subject
of morality? And I cannot speak for anyone else.
You've made it clear that you think abortion is moral because the woman
is entitled to make the decision. Anything contrary to that is slavery
and therefore immoral.
Who better than the woman to make the decision? She is not slave, and
it is her body that is pregnant, as well as her life and health that
are at risk and her livelihood that is most likely going to be affected
by the pregnancy.
You can be a bigot all you want. However, if you have any sort of
power or provide any sort of services, you cannot act on that bigotry
to anyone's detriment, including exclusion of dealing with them.
No. But if that's how you make your living, you do what you gotta do.
What are you answering "No" to? There was no question asked. I was
addressing your scenario about refusing to rent an apartment to someone
solely because of skin color.
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No, you don't have to like it. However, unless you want to pay hefty
fines and still be forced to provide the person an apartment, you
follow the law.
The "morality of war" usually goes back to the opinions of people about
the reasons why one group or another went to war in the first place.
People defending against an aggressor, or helping those defenders, are
usually considered to be more "moral" than the aggressors, since the
aggressors are the ones that provoked the war or launched the first
attack.
And people like you tend to think that the agressors and the defenders
are equally immoral because both are committing acts of violence.
Not so. I support people defending themselves however they need to
from bullies and other aggressors. I also disagree with pre-emtive
strikes.
If
morality is relative then why do you people consider violence to be
evil?
Because that is our opinion, often. And violence of the aggressor
hurts people that have done nothing wrong. There is far less problems
for most people with the defender using violence to defend him or
herself from someone that started the fight.
Littering has a number of other environmental problems, but since it is
illegal, then people that do so should be charged and sentenced.
You're right. A better example would've been running a factory that
blows smoke out of the stats. That's not illegal, but people on the
left like you tend to think it's immoral.
Again, pollution and environmental problems. Long term consequences
that harm many people. And it is illegal for factories to produce
excessive pollutants. What comes out of the stacks and in what
concentrations is very important. In general, white smoke and steam is
far better than grey or black smoke, since grey and black smoke have
far higher concentrations of pollutants. That is why factories are
required to have things like scrubbers in their stacks, and are
required to take proper care of toxic wastes.
Who are you to tell me that I, as a landlord, have to let a black guy
live in my tenancy if I don't want to?
I, or rather he, is someone that can go to the police and file a civil
case against you for breaking the law, specifically the "Fair Housing
Act", I believe. The law states that you cannot refuse to sell or rent
property to a person based solely on his skin color, among other
things. Denying him an apartment is illegal if there is one available
and he meets all the other criteria that all tenants have to meet.
So once again you're saying that morality is based on legalism.
No, I am not. Morality is based on personal beliefs. Legalism is
based on trying to maintain a peaceful society. If you notice, I never
made a statement about morality in my answer to your scenario. I only
replied with the legal consequences for your denial.
I guess
that means slavery was, infact, moral in the nineteenth century.
No, it was not in many people's opinions. That is why they fought
against slavery and helped slaves escape.
This comes from our country's ideal of equality.
So don't go
feeding me this trash about forcing morality on people when you do the
same thing.
Not at all. You are trying to force others to do what you think is
right, and you do not care about their opinions, nor are you willing to
give them any options. I am advocating keeping the options open, so
that the woman that is pregnant can make the decision that she sees as
best for herself in her current situation for herself without any
interference. You are trying to force your morality on others, I let
people make their own decisions according to their own desires and
morals. There is the difference that you cannot see to grasp.
Oh ok. So it's all about the options is it? Because THEIR morals are
the only morals that matter.
With regards to THEIR bodies and what goes on inside of it and is done
to it, yes. Nobody else has the right to force them to continue an
unwanted pregnancy against their wills. Women are not servants or
slaves, despite what you might think.
So people should have total control over their own bodies?
Near enough.
Regardless
of the effects their decisions have on other people?
There are no other people directly involved in her pregnancy.
That means wives
can't nag their husbands to loose weight and go on diets when the
husbands are fat just so they don't have to spend money on hospital
bills and suffer from the emotional trauma of the situation when the
husbands have heart attacks. After all, it's the husband's body. All
that stuff the wife has to worry about is irrelevant.
Meaning that the wife wants to have the husband around for a good long
time. There is nothing preventing her from nagging him. However, she
cannot physically forcing him to do the things that she is nagging him
about.
Not their EQUAL husbands'.
Their husbands do not own their wives, no matter what you think.
Not anyone's.
Slavery is illegal. | |
