Would you convict this man?

@xris,

xris;67048 wrote:

The morning after pill is a pill women use when they did not have safe sex the night before...I would be still interested if faith has formed your opinions? When life becomes valid is a personal view but this view is coloured by others views.

i am told that faith forms our opinions because it is so embedded in the culture, but i honestly believe that faith has not caused mine. in fact my mother questioned hers, and she split from the roman catholic church over the issue of birth control. she developed ovarian cancer back when those pills were experimental and the doctor prescribed them for her as a means of staving off surgery, and when she spoke to the priest he said she was committing a sin by taking them. she never went back to church again, though she insisted if she ever did it would be to the catholic church only.

i rebelled against christianity when i was eleven years old, never finished taking the vows that would have made me a catholic. from there on i read a lot, thought a lot, asked questions and listened a lot, lived a lot of life and made a lot of mistakes. i went on to develop my own philosophy that as far as i know is outside of any established one that i can name. but i am not fond of labels anyway. actually it is still a work in progress.

i have seen the arguments here that atheists can/cannot be moral without believing in a god but i know that people can definitely form and adhere to a sometimes even stricter code of morals without having a religion to dictate one to them. most of the people i knew in america were either agnostics or atheists and they were not beasts or animals, they were good, thinking people. i also have found that people who sincerely believe they are atheists are not in fact always atheists-they just reject the conventional concept of god.

to form an opinion on the morning after pill, that would be difficult. i think i would have to study more about it and see exactly how it works-it seems harmless enough but at first glance it does not seem logical to think that it is any different from having an abortion. maybe there is some time period when the sperm and egg are uniting and forming the new life and the morning after is before that occurs. it isnt a simple enough question that i could answer without doing some research.

@salima,

Sorry to press you Salima but its the principle.Once you have decided that an embryo is in fact a human and deserves the same rights you have defined your position.How far back you go in the conception of that human is not to be questioned.A small spec of life or the realisation it is human should not dissuade you from your view.
I think personally there is a point when we must consider it as of equal importance as the mother and i can be persuaded what that point may be,i wont be so adamant as to say it is ten weeks or even fifteen.

@Bonaventurian,

Strikes me as odd how Christians moan about arbortion anyway, seeing as it's use is condoned in the Bible.

God's OK On Abortion
"And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." (Numbers 5:27-28)

Comment
This nonsensical ritual, prescribed by God, to a woman suspected of infidelity, must undergo the drinking of a vile concoction made of bitter water and dust from the floor of a tabernacle. A priest calls a curse upon the woman's head to insure that if she has acted in adultery the drinking of the liquid will cause her to have a miscarriage. If she comes out clean, then she shall conceive.

Regardless of how ridiculous this procedure seems, any person who believes every word of the Bible must come to terms with the realization that the quoted God here sometimes authorizes abortion.
(also see Num. 5:1-25)

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

I also think it's a bit simple to say that the holocaust was something enshrined in the German legal system - it was a politcal expediency taken by a country at war and largely carried out in secret (an extreme example of the tortures and murders that have often been overlooked in times of crisis). There wasn't really anything so official as "laws" governing whether Jews, Gypsies, Soviet POWs, political prisoners or Homosexuals could still be killed or not, and a strict application of Germany's written laws at the time might well have seen people punished for killing Jews. Of course, these minorities were so effectively scapegoated and demonised by institutions and individuals at the time that many Europeans simply didn't care about their rights anyway.

But it's a misnomer to say "it was legal to kill Jews" - it happened in a shadowy netherworld combining hidden parts of both government and organised crime.

As for the honour killings that sometimes take place without censure within Sharia Law, I think they have more in common with the rabidity of some pro-lifers than the apparent callousness that results from being pro-choice - in that they are essentially motivated by a fear of women and the potential power they could possess if left to make choices free from religiously condoned patriarchal oppression.

The murder of George Tiller was an honour killing - and should be looked on with the same mix of amused dismissal at the folksiness of religious freaks (the poor deluded fools), and horror at the barbarity of their crimes (for which he will thankfully do hard time).

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66989 wrote:

I agree that the worst of the smut needs to go, but I am all for proper sexual education. I think William misunderstood what I was trying to say. The reason why children learn about their sexuality from porn and the media is due to parents keeping their sexuality behind closed doors. I think we need to remove the sexual taboo that the greater society holds in order to properly educate about sexuality.

In all due respect, NO, William did not misunderstand what you said or are saying now. You cant address this subject in one of two sentence sound bites. If you want to communicate as to what William thinks address William and I will tell you and it won't be in one or two sentence sound bites. I have seen society and it sucks. I want to let it teach my children about sex. If you want to address William, address the almighty ACLU as it is defending NAMBLA: That's society. Thanks to society's version of sexuality, we have a disease that has killed over 25 million people and infected some 30 million more. Now in my deepest thoughts this might just be natures way of "cleaning house". I can only imagine as to what life would have been like had it not been for "society's" views on sexuality. We have got some pretty sick puppies sitting on the benches of our court. Roe v Wade was not "of the people" it was ramroded through the courts and the people had virtually no say in the matter. Has it been left up to the people by popular vote, it would have never become law. Not in any stretch of the imagination.

William

@William,

William;67066 wrote:

In all due respect, NO, William did not misunderstand what you said or are saying now. You cant address this subject in one of two sentence sound bites. If you want to communicate as to what William thinks address William and I will tell you and it won't be in one or two sentence sound bites. I have seen society and it sucks. I want to let it teach my children about sex. If you want to address William, address the almighty ACLU as it is defending NAMBLA: That's society. Thanks to society's version of sexuality, we have a disease that has killed over 25 million people and infected some 30 million more. Now in my deepest thoughts this might just be natures way of "cleaning house". I can only imagine as to what life would have been like had it not been for "society's" views on sexuality. We have got some pretty sick puppies sitting on the benches of our court. Roe v Wade was not "of the people" it was ramroded through the courts and the people had virtually no say in the matter. Has it been left up to the people by popular vote, it would have never become law. Not in any stretch of the imagination.

William

Wouldnt sex health education be the answer to help reduce the numbers in stds etc?
What is the age of consent for boys in the US btw? And what age is NAMBLA trying to get it reduced to?

@William,

William;67066 wrote:

In all due respect, NO, William did not misunderstand what you said or are saying now. You cant address this subject in one of two sentence sound bites. If you want to communicate as to what William thinks address William and I will tell you and it won't be in one or two sentence sound bites. I have seen society and it sucks. I want to let it teach my children about sex. If you want to address William, address the almighty ACLU as it is defending NAMBLA: That's society. Thanks to society's version of sexuality, we have a disease that has killed over 25 million people and infected some 30 million more. Now in my deepest thoughts this might just be natures way of "cleaning house". I can only imagine as to what life would have been like had it not been for "society's" views on sexuality. We have got some pretty sick puppies sitting on the benches of our court. Roe v Wade was not "of the people" it was ramroded through the courts and the people had virtually no say in the matter. Has it been left up to the people by popular vote, it would have never become law. Not in any stretch of the imagination.

William

There are some sick cardinals sitting on their popish thrones condemning thousands to death in Africa because of their fundamentalist view of contraception.Its not sex that kills,just like food poisoning is not the fault of eating.

@Caroline,

Caroline;67069 wrote:

Wouldnt sex health education be the answer to help reduce the number in stds etc?

As a bit of support for this view - the only sex ed given to students in Texas is that of abstinance only (so they are not taught about the physical biology of sex or how to use contraception or the transmission and effects of various veneral diseases - all a Texas educator can say in the subject withotu breaking the law is that people should not have sex until they are ready).

This is nice advice, and should be part of a student's sex education. Heck, I think it should be the priority of educators to tell students that sex is a risky business that can ruin your life - as part of a balanced and comprehensive primer as to what it's all about.

But making that the sole message of sex ed simply does not work. Can you guess which US state has a higher rate of teenage pregnancy than any of the others?

@Bonaventurian,

Yes I agree with Dave in that abstinence does not work at all.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66989 wrote:

I agree that the worst of the smut needs to go, but I am all for proper sexual education.... The reason why children learn about their sexuality from porn and the media is due to parents keeping their sexuality behind closed doors. I think we need to remove the sexual taboo that the greater society holds in order to properly educate about sexuality.

I'm really glad this was brought back up. Because as I look at this conversation and where's its gone & going I can't help but wonder at how cultural and religious views on sexuality have demonized it by attempting to repress and control it. What's more, the more we try to channel and repress the discovery and expression of a natural drive, the more we fixate ourselves on it subconsciously - or, at least I see it to be so. In any case...

If we want to look at unwanted and undesired pregnancies then we're not talking about something that's arisen with Hugh Hefner; this has been a consequence of human interaction for millions of years. So you can't blame unwanted pregnancies on the media or pornography, nor can you blame feminists, big bird, homosexuals, Al Gore or Roe-vs-Wade.

If you want to properly address how we might better address too many unwanted babies (and thus, abortions), we need to look at it in a 'practical' light. Education, encouragement of abstinence and contraception are our bests defenses.

@Caroline,

Caroline;67069 wrote:

Wouldnt sex health education be the answer to help reduce the numbers in stds etc?
What is the age of consent for boys in the US btw? And what age is NAMBLA trying to get it reduced to?

18. What do you mean "reduced" to. It has nothing to do with that. I has to do with our autonomous "civil liberties" that is defined by this sick society that maintains any body can do any damn thing they want to. To put it ever so bluntly. I love liberty. But what some perceive as their "liberty" make me want to throw up. Thst's why I so ofter refer to the "public domain". The public domain, in all respects should be in all cases "child friendly". To hell with "it takes a village" when the village is as screwed up as this one. That's why NAMBLA is trying to bring their sick philosophy into the "public domain" and make it legal. NAMBLA is not addressing "age", they are only stressing the "consent" of the minor, no matter how old he is. Sorry, for the rant. I will maintain what occurs in ones private domain should remain private. Bringing those public is what has truly screwed up that village.

William

@xris,

xris;67058 wrote:

Sorry to press you Salima but its the principle.Once you have decided that an embryo is in fact a human and deserves the same rights you have defined your position.How far back you go in the conception of that human is not to be questioned.A small spec of life or the realisation it is human should not dissuade you from your view.
I think personally there is a point when we must consider it as of equal importance as the mother and i can be persuaded what that point may be,i wont be so adamant as to say it is ten weeks or even fifteen.

to me there is no question which is of more value, the foetus or the mother. whether or not abortion is moral or not would have to be decided on an individual case basis as i see it. i am glad i dont have to do that. deciding for myself is enough.

then again, not apart from the issue of morality but rather as an outcome of our decision, we would have to decide what laws to implement. if we choose to make abortion illegal or legal, is it totally one or the other or will certain conditions limit the decision? here again, the foetus is helpless and the mother is not and i believe laws should first be considered as a means of protecting the helpless. but that is only the tip of the iceberg-there are ever so many more things to consider.

how do we put value on a life? would you say a retarded person is of less value than a brain surgeon? some people would, some would not. but i would be happy to discuss this further with you off the forum, because this is too much getting into my personal beliefs. if you want to discuss this through email, pm me and i will send you my email address.

@Bonaventurian,

quote by William, ".........ACLU as it is defending NAMBLA..." Im confused William, you dont support NAMBLA but you do the ACLU?

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

Yes I agree, the public domain should be made child friendly, we have a responsibilty to protect them but also to educate them with the correct information when the time is right.
But the Curley won 382 million dollars and so they should have won, NAMBLA promotes sexual deviation against minors, NAMBLA publications were found to be owned by the murders' and the web-site explains how to groom, avoid detection, I can hardly blame the way the parents feel.

@Bonaventurian,

Well the ACLU was only defending NAMBLA's freedom of speech and freedom not to be accused of a crime perpetrated by people who happened to support NAMBLA - but whom NAMBLA claimed to have no sympathy for.

When asked what they thought of NAMBLA's proposals for sex between men and male minors the ACLU claimed they had no idea of why NAMBLA wanted to promote such a thing. They were not defending NAMBLA's ideas - just the right of NAMBLA to express them.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA "may extol conduct which is currently illegal", there was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape".[33] The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members, some of whom were active in the group's leadership.

The targets of the wrongful death suits were Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, Arnold Schoen and David Thorstad, a co-founder of NAMBLA and well-known writer. The Curleys alleged that Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, who were convicted of the rape and murder of their ten-year-old son Jeffrey, were NAMBLA members.

In April 2005, the wrongful death cases was still being considered by a Massachusetts federal court, with the American Civil Liberties Union assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.[30] The American Civil Liberties Union makes it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives. "We've never taken a position that sexual-consent laws are beyond the state's power to legislate," John Reinstein, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 1997. "I've never been able to fathom their position." (Boston Globe, October 9, 1997). The plaintiffs dropped their lawsuit in April 2008, after a judge ruled that a key witness was not competent to testify.[34]

It seems to me that the Curleys - understandably upset at the rape and murder of their son, were trying to kill two birds with one stone by sugesting NAMBLA take some responsibility for the crime. All the ACLU did was point out that this was rubbish - as it clearly is. Blaming NAMBLA was just sensationalist opportunism by the upset parents of a murdered child.

It's the same sort of thing as the parents of suicides trying to blame Dungeons and Dragons, or Judas Priest - rather than accepting that sometimes bad things happen irrespective of whatever art or philosophy tends to be a hobby of the perpetrators.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66989 wrote:

I agree that the worst of the smut needs to go, but I am all for proper sexual education. I think William misunderstood what I was trying to say. The reason why children learn about their sexuality from porn and the media is due to parents keeping their sexuality behind closed doors. I think we need to remove the sexual taboo that the greater society holds in order to properly educate about sexuality.

That is exactly what NAMBLA is saying. This is a no brainer. If a "minority" engages in a lifestyle that "kills" itself and innocents, then that lifestyle at the very lease must be sequestered from the "greater majority" or the "public domain". Let them engage all they want to but don't infect others. Eventually, the lifestyle will cease to exist. If we find a cure to it, which is probably likely, then God help us. Oh, I forgot, there is no God. Sorry. That explains it then. Now, you watch, my post will be entirely disregarded because I mentioned the word "God"; as I will be regarded a "religious fanatic". Typical.

William

@Bonaventurian,

Come on heavily promoting sex with children is a bit different to blaming Judas Priests lyrics played backwords for a suicide and attempted suicide.

@Bonaventurian,

Dave,

"John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA "may extol conduct which is currently illegal",

Now do you see what I mean.

William

@Bonaventurian,

There's freedom of speech and there's what's deemed to be harmful to children and NAMBLA are, i wouldnt represent them in a million years but i would Judas Priest.

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

Hundreds of members of the ACLU have resigned over cases like NAMBLA.

@William,

William;67106 wrote:

Dave,

"John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA "may extol conduct which is currently illegal",

Now do you see what I mean.

William

A statement of truth?

Any implication that he supports the idea that what is currently illegal should be made legal can only be made in the light of his comment that he "cannot fathom their position", making it clear, as the article states, that the ACLU does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives.

@Bonaventurian,

Caroline,

"There's freedom of speech and there's what's deemed to be harmful to children and NAMBLA are, i wouldnt represent them in a million years........."

The statement you just made is identical to the mindset of the majority when abortions were "deemed" legal. The exact same sentiments. Now do you see these hearings appearing in the public domain "were the people are". Remember "of the people, by the people and for the people". You can't make decisions concerning all the people if all the people haven't a clue as to what is going on. Our judicial system is a prime illustration of intelligence gone insane.

William

@Bonaventurian,

And there was a moral panic amongst many when they stopped burning witches.

Just because one putatively "progressive" (madly so in the case of NAMBLA) movement is widely agreed upon to be distasteful it doesn't mean that the abortion debate need necessarily be tarred with the same brush.

I mean, do note that NAMBLA remain a tiny proportion of people widely regarded as nutbags, the fact that the ACLU did their job in defending freedom of speech need not be taken as some sign that they are becoming acceptable.

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know