| Author | Message | ||
     Spike |
Can you clarify the difference between greedy profit and honest profit? | ||
| Doug_s |
Don't you find that a bit hypocritical? not even the tiniest bit. i believe those that are already here - i.e.: human beings - have the right to decide what is best to do to with their own bodies. i do not believe the government has the right to meddle in other's personal affairs... doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
Could you spell out what medical changes occur while sliding through the birth canal that turn the killable fetus into the unkillable baby? Is there a halfway point where it's only ok to injure them but not kill them? If they're not babies until they're born, can we pull them out at 8 months and beat them to death with hammers? no i cannot. can you? since no one can, imo, i am more than willing to live w/the compromises set forth in roe vs wade. it seems reasonable... if roe vs wade said it was ok to pull fetuses out of the womb at 8 months and beat them w/hammers, i might take issue w/it... doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
Can you clarify the difference between greedy profit and honest profit? not always. can you? do you think it doesn't exist? or it does exist, but america should attempt to do nothing about it, because it is not easily defined? doug s. | ||
| Hootowl |
"have the right to decide what is best to do to with their own bodies" That "choice" is murder. Couching it in a freedom argument is a despicable lie. | ||
| Doug_s |
you know, there is something a lot of folks do not realize. or they never give it much thought. a lot of folks talk about "freedom & justice." it is enshrined in our constitution, and is referred to in our pledge of allegiance. but most folks never take the time to consider it is a balancing act - one is achieved at the expense of the other. if we had complete freedom, murder would be legal. how civilized a society is depends on how well it can balance competing issues. just something to consider.... ymmv, doug s. | ||
| Spike |
Of course I can't, because no magic medical transformation takes place during birth. The thing that comes out of a woman during birth is the same thing that was in the woman before birth. That thing either has a right to live or it does not. The precedent set forth in Roe v Wade is not a compromise, it is a contradiction. Supporting abortion while opposing killing babies is a moral double-standard. | ||
| Doug_s |
"have the right to decide what is best to do to with their own bodies" That "choice" is murder. Couching it in a freedom argument is a despicable lie. you cannot murder a fetus. it is a physical impossibility. it isn't that calling abortion murder is a lie, it's simply denying reality. wanting something to be so, does not make it so. you may believe it's wrong - that's fine, i have no problem w/that. don't have one, then. i do have a problem w/you trying to force your personal beliefs on others, when there is no basis for it legally, factually, or otherwise. if enough people feel the way you do, then maybe a constitutional amendment will be passed so fetuses will be granted all the same rights as people. under roe vs wade, (and under other laws), fetuses do have some rights. yust not as many as people... doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
Of course I can't, because no magic medical transformation takes place during birth. The thing that comes out of a woman during birth is the same thing that was in the woman before birth. That thing either has a right to live or it does not. The precedent set forth in Roe v Wade is not a compromise, it is a contradiction. Supporting abortion while opposing killing babies is a moral double-standard. that's your opinion. your opinion does not make it fact. i happen to disagree that supporting abortion while opposing killing babies is a moral double-standard. i happen to believe that supporting the fetus over the wishes of the mother is a moral double standard. but, i believe it is up to each individual to make their own decision, and not to impose it on others. doug s. | ||
| Spike |
You can't because there is no difference. Profit cannot be greedy nor honest. Profit is simply the measure of value or desirability in a given transaction. | ||
| Hootowl |
"you cannot murder a fetus. it is a physical impossibility." " i do have a problem w/you trying to force your personal beliefs on others, when there is no basis for it legally" You are dead wrong. If you injure a pregnant woman and her baby dies, you can be charged with murder. Whether the baby is aborted or murdered appears to depend entirely on two factors: Whether the baby is wanted by the mother, and whether a doctor does the murdering. If you're OK with that, then you have a twisted view of morality. | ||
| Spike |
I don't think you're reading your own posts. Either that, or you don't understand the concept of a contradiction. It looks something like this: A:Killing the thing in a mother's womb is not wrong B:Killing the thing outside a mother's womb is wrong C:The thing outside a mother's womb is the same as the thing inside a mother's womb If A and B are true, then C cannot be true. If A and C are true, then B cannot be true. If B and C are true, then A cannot be true. You are currently holding to all three premises at once. That is a contradiction. In order to hold both A and B with logical consistency you need to disprove C. | ||
| Spike |
You're not very good at this. You haven't constructed an argument yet. I might as well respond with "you cannot murder a baby, it is a physical impossibility." Do you see the problem with this form of debate? | ||
| Hootowl |
http://wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid =81869 google "man charged with murdering unborn" There's a plethora of examples to choose from. A women who drinks or does drugs while pregnant can be charged with child endangerment. So it would appear that a fetus, or a yet-to-be-born baby has full legal protections as a human being under the law. Except of course if its mother doesn't want it and hires a "doctor" to murder it. Then the baby is not a human being, and can be exposed to the mother's "choice" to murder it. | ||
| Doug_s |
i may not be wery good, spike, but you are worse. your premise "c" is one that i believe others think is true. not me. a fetus is not a baby. and, while the law is unsettled, and it depends on where you live, you can be charged with fetal homicide in some jurisdictions, but this is to protect the mother. of course, anti-choice folks want to stretch this beyond its intent. and of course, hoot, all anti-choice people think pro-choice folks have twisted morality. yust as all pro-choice folks think you guys are the twisted ones. tell me something i didn't know. all the more reason for govt to stay out of folk's personal biz... and, spike, if you don't know what greed is, well, you should either get out more, or yust stay inside. doug s. | ||
| Reindog |
Aye, caramba! | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Happy friday!!! Drink beer, ride your Buell, get chicks phone numbers. | ||
| Hootowl |
You have revealed yourself to be a moral relativist. Since the nature of right and wrong elude you, further debate is pointless. | ||
| Spike |
I *love* those laws. They reveal the twisted logic of our depraved society. Suppose a woman is pregnant and doesn't want the thing in her womb. A doctor can crush the skull of the thing inside her and kill it with the full support of the law. Suppose a woman is pregnant and wants the thing in her womb. A drunk driver who hits her with his car and crushes the skull of the thing inside her and kills it will be guilty of murder under the current law. However, suppose the woman doesn't want the thing in her womb and is on her way to the abortion clinic, and the drunk driver who crushes the skull of the thing inside her is actually the doctor who is also on his way to the abortion clinic. Is he guilty of murder or not? | ||
| Hootowl |
I think the Earth would "vanish in a puff of logic" were that ever to happen. | ||
| Doug_s |
You have revealed yourself to be a moral relativist. Since the nature of right and wrong elude you, further debate is pointless. well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...  there isn't a person on the planet who isn't a moral relativist. see my prior post about "freedom & justice". doug s. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Roe V. Wade was a judicial fiat that created a "right" that never existed, and that would *never* have passed the hurdles needed for your "constitutional ammendment" (2/3 majority and state ratification). At best, about 50% of the population believes abortion should be legal. So by your very stated criteria, you should be *against* abortion. Of course you are trolling though... so you aren't looking for insight, you are looking for entertainment. Trolling on the internet is slightly more entertaining than watching a sitcom rerun. Whee. :/ On the other hand, words may have meaning, and there may be implications resulting from saying things. If so, you better hope there is no God. Or hope that if there is a God, there is no judgement. Or if there is judgement, that there is an unprecedented and scandalous level of mercy... just for the asking. If you get there, I have some good news for you.  (Message edited by reepicheep on August 06, 2010) | ||
| Spike |
You've moved from contradiction to delusion. When I asked you to define the difference between a baby and a fetus you answered with:
Since you believe premise C cannot be disproved by anyone, you must hold to it, or face contradiction again.
I never said I didn't know what greed was. I said profit could not be greedy nor honest. You've failed to prove otherwise. Suppose you have some items for sale and I'm willing to buy them for $1 each. Now suppose I'm willing to buy them for $1,000 each. Now suppose I'm willing to buy them for $1,000,000 each. Which sale contains 'greedy' profit? The answer is that none of them contain greedy profit. As long as we both agree on the terms of the sale, the sale is honest. The amount of profit only demonstrates the value of the transaction, not any quantity of greed or honesty. If your posts here represent your capacity for critical thought it's no wonder why you're a socialist. | ||
| Spike |
Oh. Right. Except for all the people who are moral absolutists. Man, it really seems like you're not even part of this discussion. Weren't you just lecturing me on the differences between opinions and facts? Did you forget that already? Do you not hold to it anymore? Do you think your own opinions count as facts? | ||
| Hootowl |
Spike, you're attempting to explain color to a blind man. The dichotomy of his perceptions will never register because he has no moral grounding. Right and wrong don't exist in his world. | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
This turned into an abortion thread while I was out riding? | ||
| Doug_s |
sorry, spike, you cannot now change what you asked me, and what i answered. you did not ask me to define the difference between a baby and a fetus. that is easy. a baby has been born, a fetus has not been. what you asked me was: "Could you spell out what medical changes occur while sliding through the birth canal that turn the killable fetus into the unkillable baby?" that's not as easy to answer. i disagree that a woman's right to privacy does not extend to her own body. to the contrary, to impinge upon that right is where a constitutional amendment would be required. while i believe in a supreme being, i certainly do not believe it is anything remotely akin to having the characteristics that are given it by any traditional organized religion. if there is a god that really is "watching over us" then what a sick f**k it must be, and i want no part of it. personally, i am quite comfortable in my own skin, and am comfortable to face whatever exists on "the other side", knowing full and well that i am an ok good moral person. greedy profit is really so simple - if you intentionally screw someone, knowing you are doing harm, when you don't have to, but you do it anyway, for more personal gain, then it's greedy profit. jeez.... re: my capacity for critical though, well, another instance of the pot calling the kettle black. i actually received pm from someone saying exactly the same thing about you guys: "Just wanted to commend you on trying to educate these right winged conservative idiots. It just amazes me that there are people out there that believe the nonsense shit that they do. They need to look in the mirror and realize they are what is wrong with America. They are the reason we don't progress as a country." one person's trash is another's treasure. one man's floor is another's ceiling. doug s. | ||
| Hootowl |
Yes, back on track. Palin won't accept the nomination. She's a smart lady (despite how she is portrayed in the press) and knows she carries too much baggage to be a viable candidate in a presidential election. She'll defer to someone who can actually win. Huckabee is not electable either. Every single person who raised their hand when asked if they believed evolution was just a theory and not any more or less believable than Creation is also unelectable. We need a true conservative candidate who is not a religious zealot who calls him or herself a conservative. Nothing wrong with being religious, but when it is the center of your platform, perhaps public office is not for you, at least, not in this country. Our founders believed in God, and believed God had a place in the public square. God was not the center of their political world however. The Christian Right believes it should be, and I most heartily disagree with them. If conservatives allow the radicals to determine the agenda, as the democrats have, we will never regain a majority, and if the fringe is allowed sway after a majority is achieved, that majority will disappear, just as it is disappearing for the democrats. | ||
| Doug_s |
why is it that all anti-choice moralists "know" that anyone who is pro choice has no moral grounding. damn right i know the difference between right and wrong. and i get annoyed when ignorant a**holes are so sure they are the ones w/all the answers when they are clueless. why is it right to personally invade the privacy of a woman and tell her she cannot have an abortion? if you value the fetus over the living woman, i say you have no moral grounding. in any event your morality (or lack thereof) is relative, not absolute. even if you disagree. the FACT is you are placing a value judgment that says it is more important to invade the personal priwacy of the woman to protect what might become a future life. do you know that 2/3 of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions- is dog a murderer? should birth control be banned because it's murder? should jacking off be banned because it's murder? damn! all those sperms! coulda been future humans! but, i give up. you guys know it all, y'all are gonna go to heaven even tho you would rather protect the unborn, and don't give a sh*t about those already living, cuz once we're here, it's freedom baby! i'm getting what i can, f**k everyone who's struggling! while i, poor soul that wants to help those awreddy here, am gonna be burning in hell for eternity. shucks! i will leave you all alone, now, continue playing happily in your "clubhouse"... doug s., oh lord, save us from your followers... | ||
| Spike |
The questions are the same. If the thing becomes something different on the other side of the birth canal, something must happen to it. If you say that no one can say what happens to it, you are saying that it didn't change. You also have to deal with Obama's stance on 'botched' abortions where the thing is fully delivered through the birth canal but still can be killed.
Suppose I have a surgical procedure to install another person inside my body. Can I kill that person?
So you believe there is a God, but that God is either blind or a 'sick f**k'? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? Has it occurred to you that God may have different motives than you do?
When does someone 'have to' engage in trade? If both parties agree to the terms of the sale, who decides that one of them is screwed, intentionally or not? By definition, is not *every* transaction done for personal gain? If I sell you 10 items for 10 units of currency, isn't it because I personally value the 10 units of currency more than I personally value the 10 items, and I intend to gain the thing I value more? If I buy 10 items from you for 10 units of currency, isn't it because I personally value the 10 items more than I personally value 10 units of currency, and I intend to gain the thing I value more? I'm seeking personal gain in both transactions, even though they are directly inverted. How is either one greedy? |
