This topic is here to discuss when you think killing is appropriate. (Awful topic idea... but...)
(Edit: Here are some example questions you can choose to answer. You may leave some out, change some of them, or add your own.)
-Do you believe in random killing? How about sacrifices? Does this include only animals, humans, or both? (Edit: How about crickets/roaches, flies, ants, spiders, mosquitoes, gnats, etc?)
-Do you believe in abortions? (If so, to what limit?)
-Do you believe in killing people who do treason? (How about depending on if it was trying to hurt the Gov't or not?) Think about Edward Snowden, except, I don't think he meant to actually hurt the Gov't?
-Do you believe in killing false prophets? (Not sure if I should put this bullet here, but going to ask, anyway.)
-Do you believe in killing people who are a threat to mankind? (Even if they haven't killed anyone, yet?)
-Do you believe in killing people ahead of time when they are about to die anyway? (So that they won't have to live with the pain of whatever the are dying from.)
-If you died, how would you like to be dealt with? (Ex: Burial via coffin, mausoleum, cremation? ; Perhaps given to science?)
-Where would you want your assets to go to? (Government, charity, loved ones, etc?)
Hm, I don't know if/when killing should be something done personally (out of love or hate), and when clinical action (with a view to outcomes) should be done. I err on the side of personal relations, where love may prevail over false ideology. Then again, that's how I make my all my moral decisions: Love over ideology.
-I don't think people should be killed because of love or hate. (Depending on situation.)
-I feel that for clinical action, it should primarily be up to the victim when possible.
I forgot to add two more questions:
-Should a person trying to commit suicide be restrained to keep themselves from doing so? (They may have anxiety/depression/other mental disorders/illnesses.)
-If someone asked for you to kill them, should you? (Even if serious?)
by "clinical," I meant stuff like targeted assassinations that weren't carried out for personal reasons.
-Do you believe in random killing? How about sacrifices? Does this include only animals, humans, or both?
No on random killing. Sacrifice is okay if everyone is consenting (in cultures where humans were sacrificed it was not uncommon for the sacrificed individual to take it on with glory).
-Do you believe in abortions? (If so, to what limit?)
Yes, in many cases. After the start of the third trimester it is dangerous though and you kind of had 6 months to do something about it anyways.
-Do you believe in killing people who do treason? (How about depending on if it was trying to hurt the Gov't or not?) Think about Edward Snowden, except, I don't think he meant to actually hurt the Gov't?
I don't agree with capital punishment at all so no.
-Do you believe in killing false prophets? (Not sure if I should put this bullet here, but going to ask, anyway.)
I don't agree with capital punishment.
-Do you believe in killing people who are a threat to mankind? (Even if they haven't killed anyone, yet?)
I don't agree with capital punishment and such a term is very subjective. In my opinion killing them should be a last ditch effort, and that should be after they caused a hella lot of trouble. What would be better is stopping them in their tracks, but this is not always possible.
-Do you believe in killing people ahead of time when they are about to die anyway? (So that they won't have to live with the pain of whatever the are dying from.)
Yes if they choose to do it. If they say yes, then let them die.
Thanks. I probably should say that there is this show called The Following... There's a character named Joe Carroll who tries to get a large group of people to believe that by killing people, you are giving them a precious gift... The characters who do the killing usually tell their victims "No redemption without blood." ; Any smart person wouldn't fall for something like that. (I mean, even if it is a precious gift, that doesn't mean you should kill them.)
-Do you believe in random killing? How about sacrifices? Does this include only animals, humans, or both?
NO, all random Killing are immoral to me
-Do you believe in abortions? (If so, to what limit?)
Yes, but it is not like abortion is a good thing, in medicine, there is not good thing, there is just the lesser evil. if you wan to limit abortion, then start child benefits, mainly for low-income, with day-care centers for young-mothers, if they have no reason to abort, they won't abort. yeah that cost, may even cost increase in taxes...
-Do you believe in killing people who do treason? (How about depending on if it was trying to hurt the Gov't or not?) Think about Edward Snowden, except, I don't think he meant to actually hurt the Gov't?
I don't believe in death penalty, beside, you can't undo a mistake, with a new mistake.
-Do you believe in killing false prophets? (Not sure if I should put this bullet here, but going to ask, anyway.)
no, after
-Do you believe in killing people who are a threat to mankind? (Even if they haven't killed anyone, yet?)
what are you talking about.. I don't agree with capital punishment. those guy need t be reeducated or kept away form society, maybe, but we should give them the right to chance. for the best
-Do you believe in killing people ahead of time when they are about to die anyway? (So that they won't have to live with the pain of whatever the are dying from.)
yes, if they do not want to suffer and they want a peacefull, let them be,
Raymond Gravel knew he would die, he was in terminal phase, he was only scared to suffer.
Quote-Do you believe in random killing? How about sacrifices? Does this include only animals, humans, or both?
...That's a loaded question if I've ever heard one. I don't think killing is ever "random" - things tend to happen for reasons, even if those reasons happen to be petty.
Quote-Do you believe in abortions? (If so, to what limit?)
Oh, that's a touchy subject. I believe that they're unnecessary, but that the ideal replacement - adoption - is so broken and corrupt in the US that the argument of "mercy killing" may in fact be a strong one. Personally, I think the whole "prolife/prochoice" thing is bullshit. Pro-life peeps are often also pro-death penalty and tend to lean more towards war-favoring factions in the political system, so they really can't claim they're "pro life" in my eyes. Pro Choice is equally bullshit. Why? We have a choice. We can choose whether or not to have sex, to have protection on the male, protection on us, the morning after pill, and even adoption. So that claim is a lie as well.
There are two factors that need to be seriously addressed, though. The first is male-side abortion - when a man will just run off and leave the woman to raise the kid herself. I don't think the current child support laws are harsh enough - should the guy just bail, I personally believe that there should be serious consequences, even jail time. We can't just pin everything on us women, and the societal belief that women are in charge of raising kids is still causing issues in that regard, such as courts favoring mothers in divorce cases. Second is adoption. Adoption is, in essence, an option that makes both sides happy. Those who don't want to kill the kid get to have the kid life. Those who don't want to raise the kid don't have to. The problem with adoption is the horrible nightmare that is the foster care system. That needs to be reformed and overhauled. Once that happens, and once we start forcing men to take responsibility for their action, I see this being an easy solution to what should for all purposes be a non-issue. Don't want to raise a kid? Fine. Give it to someone who wants to, but can't. Like a gay couple.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people who do treason? (How about depending on if it was trying to hurt the Gov't or not?) Think about Edward Snowden, except, I don't think he meant to actually hurt the Gov't?
To kill traitors? Oh hell yes. Edward Snowden? Oh hell no. He's not a traitor, but rather is a whistle-blower - someone whom called the government out on their blatant abuses of power and outright violation of the Constitution. The man should be a hero, and those in charge of what happened and in the know are the ones guilty of treason. To me, corruption in the federal government, as well as blatant abuses of power, are equivalent to high treason, and people on both sides of the isle need to be made to face the consequences of their actions.
Quote-Do you believe in killing false prophets? (Not sure if I should put this bullet here, but going to ask, anyway.)
Freedom of religion. Not my call as to whether they're true or false.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people who are a threat to mankind? (Even if they haven't killed anyone, yet?)
No. Surprised? Well, you shouldn't be. This question is abusable as hell - after all, I could deem anyone I wanted to be a threat to mankind, and have them killed for it. As for the second part, you shouldn't punish someone if they haven't committed a crime.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people ahead of time when they are about to die anyway? (So that they won't have to live with the pain of whatever the are dying from.)
So, mercy killing and assisted suicide? ...Touchy subject, but... yes. If they don't want to exist, that's their prerogative.
I came into this topic thinking it was about literature (if you've ever heard of To Kill A Mockingbird, you'd understand why).
That aside, I surprisingly agree with most of what role said. I don't particularly have any opinions on treason, though. If your loyalties lie with another country, so be it. Just be prepared to deal with military law if you get caught. It is, after all, largely an issue of military secrecy when it is invoked.
Quote from: Rolina on 08, October, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
Quote-Do you believe in random killing? How about sacrifices? Does this include only animals, humans, or both?
...That's a loaded question if I've ever heard one. I don't think killing is ever "random" - things tend to happen for reasons, even if those reasons happen to be petty.
This mean the reason you kill an animal is for fun or for commercial purpose, but at the very least, it is not an usefull kill, you don't kill to eat, but for fun, because it would be your right to kill an animalk, I always oppose it.
Quote from: Rolina on 08, October, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
Quote-Do you believe in abortions? (If so, to what limit?)
Oh, that's a touchy subject. I believe that they're unnecessary, but that the ideal replacement - adoption - is so broken and corrupt in the US that the argument of "mercy killing" may in fact be a strong one. Personally, I think the whole "prolife/prochoice" thing is bullshit. Pro-life peeps are often also pro-death penalty and tend to lean more towards war-favoring factions in the political system, so they really can't claim they're "pro life" in my eyes. Pro Choice is equally bullshit. Why? We have a choice. We can choose whether or not to have sex, to have protection on the male, protection on us, the morning after pill, and even adoption. So that claim is a lie as well.
There are two factors that need to be seriously addressed, though. The first is male-side abortion - when a man will just run off and leave the woman to raise the kid herself. I don't think the current child support laws are harsh enough - should the guy just bail, I personally believe that there should be serious consequences, even jail time. We can't just pin everything on us women, and the societal belief that women are in charge of raising kids is still causing issues in that regard, such as courts favoring mothers in divorce cases. Second is adoption. Adoption is, in essence, an option that makes both sides happy. Those who don't want to kill the kid get to have the kid life. Those who don't want to raise the kid don't have to. The problem with adoption is the horrible nightmare that is the foster care system. That needs to be reformed and overhauled. Once that happens, and once we start forcing men to take responsibility for their action, I see this being an easy solution to what should for all purposes be a non-issue. Don't want to raise a kid? Fine. Give it to someone who wants to, but can't. Like a gay couple.
While I understand your story on abortion, pro-choice is given the right to a woman to deny what is happening in her body, give her the choice to not be a mother, you can't ask for them to not have sex, woman claim the right to have sex for pleasure only, they reclaim the right to have orgasm, not to only have sex for procreation.
your issus on the man leaving the mother is not related to abortion, direction, it is male not wanting to take their responsibility as fathers and I agree, that is not acceptable, if we have sex with girl, and we have children, we need to accept responsibility, after all, if i don't want children, I should always tell you before the start of the relation, at the risk of breaking it, but it should be clear. A woman have the right to know her companion does not want children, so if she want one, that guy is not good for her...
second lines, how I would approve feotus teleportation of unborn child into willing women, man I would yes anytime, and to large scale adoption program, problems, that come with a state service and cost taxes.. while I am ready to pay them, I don't think all american are ready to pay them, too much, me myself and I
Quote from: Rolina on 08, October, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
Quote-Do you believe in killing people who do treason? (How about depending on if it was trying to hurt the Gov't or not?) Think about Edward Snowden, except, I don't think he meant to actually hurt the Gov't?
To kill traitors? Oh hell yes. Edward Snowden? Oh hell no. He's not a traitor, but rather is a whistle-blower - someone whom called the government out on their blatant abuses of power and outright violation of the Constitution. The man should be a hero, and those in charge of what happened and in the know are the ones guilty of treason. To me, corruption in the federal government, as well as blatant abuses of power, are equivalent to high treason, and people on both sides of the isle need to be made to face the consequences of their actions.
While I agree that Snowden is a hero, I disagree about killing traitors, you will never undo the wrong he has done, even if you kill him, you can't live in the past.
Quote from: Rolina on 08, October, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
Quote-Do you believe in killing false prophets? (Not sure if I should put this bullet here, but going to ask, anyway.)
Freedom of religion. Not my call as to whether they're true or false.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people who are a threat to mankind? (Even if they haven't killed anyone, yet?)
No. Surprised? Well, you shouldn't be. This question is abusable as hell - after all, I could deem anyone I wanted to be a threat to mankind, and have them killed for it. As for the second part, you shouldn't punish someone if they haven't committed a crime.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people ahead of time when they are about to die anyway? (So that they won't have to live with the pain of whatever the are dying from.)
So, mercy killing and assisted suicide? ...Touchy subject, but... yes. If they don't want to exist, that's their prerogative.
[/quote]
I have no objection here, we agree on these, but no for the same reason.
QuoteWhile I agree that Snowden is a hero, I disagree about killing traitors, you will never undo the wrong he has done, even if you kill him, you can't live in the past.
The question is whether you'd undo any future-doing wrong that could happen with others... since if they knew that the consequences of their actions were taken seriously, then...
(And also to eliminate any thoughts from anyone planning a rescue operation if you jailed them or something? Although, I could probably leave this one out.)
And yeah, I look at the Ed as a hero as well... (I know that we all make mistakes, but the fact that he tried to make things fair tells everything, or something like that.) If I was implying otherwise, then I messed up my wording. Meh. Me and my wording...
@threat to mankind: Maybe "attempted murder" is what I meant?
Quote from: Fox on 12, October, 2014, 09:41:01 PM
QuoteWhile I agree that Snowden is a hero, I disagree about killing traitors, you will never undo the wrong he has done, even if you kill him, you can't live in the past.
The question is whether you'd undo any future-doing wrong that could happen with others... since if they knew that the consequences of their actions were taken seriously, then...
(And also to eliminate any thoughts from anyone planning a rescue operation if you jailed them or something? Although, I could probably leave this one out.)
And yeah, I look at the Ed as a hero as well... (I know that we all make mistakes, but the fact that he tried to make things fair tells everything, or something like that.) If I was implying otherwise, then I messed up my wording. Meh. Me and my wording...
@threat to mankind: Maybe "attempted murder" is what I meant?
there is little evidence that the death penalty is effective to prevent murder or crimes, at the very best, it has no effect, when people want to commit a crime, the death penalty will play no factor on the decision, if that the reason you use to justify it, you might as well give up, because it does not work. Not only the death penalty will not stop a crime, but it will prevent you from undoing a judicial mistake, in the case where you judge and killed the wrong person, you've kill a innocent person.
you should always to people a chance to defend themselves. I prefer to see 4 criminal in liberty then a single innocent on the death chair. personally.
@Death penalty / "give up": While the question should
not have implied that I was choosing a side... I still wonder about it having no effect? (And instead, be a small factor that's not strong enough to sway their decision.) Generally, I would have preferred some sources... (I know there are some examples like the Boston Bombings with the Russian brothers.... but I would have assumed this didn't apply to every person in the world. Or at least, not right away, anyway. ... In thought that even just a few seconds could spare someone's life, then... Well, maybe I'm just fantasizing.. )
Either way, I don't have anything to support mine at the moment, and I'll just "give up" because I feel that this is not a topic I'd want to waste a lot of time with...
So does the average person prefer dying than going to jail?
Is the death penalty cheaper than holding someone in jail for life?
QuoteI prefer to see 4 criminal in liberty then a single innocent on the death chair. personally.
Assuming you're talking about the "worst" type of criminal, it would be pretty sad if the 4 criminals killed the one innocent, and then some... Even worse if they did it through seemingly unending torture, and at the same time creating a public scare...
Not sure what to do with them? Put them on meds, and let them be, I guess.
And then there's the question with how people see others? (For example, the two extremes below... These are best answered as "no.", but the second one might be "on the safe side."...)
- Do most people think others see things in a similar way as themselves if they don't put much thought into it? (Even via something like a subconcious habit?)
- Or do they often feel like the odd ball where no one will ever agree with them?
...but ofcourse, that's going off-topic.
---
Oh, and I never answered my own questions in my first post... but most of those "defensive" strategies are the ones I'd go with. I probably should have said the questions were somewhat rhetorical, and meant to give examples on what to talk about in this topic.
So Darkylighty, let me get this straight - because I'm a woman who uses this magical thing we call LOGIC to say "I have plenty of choices, and I FREAKING USE THEM", that means I don't have a right to talk? Am I not female enough for you that you chose to exclude me from my own gender and talk down to me? To try to explain I have rights that, well, I exorcize all the time, despite what your claims of my "beliefs" may be?
Did I seriously hear you talk down to me about the rights of women? Did I seriously see you point by point try to counter my views on this and all the rest of these things?
RTFP, dood. RTFP. And next time, know who you're replying to. At this rate, I'm going to have to explain to you how lesbians work after you accuse me of being a homophobe.
Also, the whole "living in the past" thing is NOT the point of the death penalty. The penalty is to actually PREVENT the crimes from occurring in the first place. If you don't make do on threats, they have no power. That's why the death penalty exists - killing another will result in society killing you back. Betraying your people will result in your people offing your head. Wrong people, and expect to be wronged back. These are powerful motivators to get people to follow the rule of law. If the punishment for betraying my country was a few years in jail, I'd look for the highest bidder. But it's death - meaning if I get caught, I'm screwed. So I don't do it - it's not worth the risk. Before you condemn stuff, stop and ask yourself why these things exist in the first place.
Also, you know those states where murder will cost you 30 years? For some of the people I've dealt with, that'd be
worth it. The punishment must fit the crime, for two reasons - first to prevent cruelty, but also to encourage prevention.
Finally:
QuoteThis mean the reason you kill an animal is for fun or for commercial purpose, but at the very least, it is not an usefull kill, you don't kill to eat, but for fun, because it would be your right to kill an animalk, I always oppose it.
What the hell are you trying to imply here? If you're making a general statement, do not quote me as though it's a retort. Nobody implied they had a right to kill anything. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the question itself - there's no such thing as "random killing". There is
always a reason.
"There is always a reason" Yep! Even if it's for fun. ; By random killing, I think I meant to say killing people who are probably unwilling to die, and don't deserve it/didn't do anything wrong. ; And that the perpetrator picks a guy they don't know on the same day they kill them... or something. (Probably a reference to a show I watched ~years ago called The Following.)
Don't forget that there could be somewhat legitimate reasons for this as well... For example, low food supply. So you put people's names in a bag, and draw one out...
I would also mention a party game called Mafia, but not sure if it's good enough.
Yeah, pretty sure I'd be against something like that.
Interesting discussion so far, here are my thoughts on what's been discussed.
Quote from: RolinaTo kill traitors? Oh hell yes.
~
No. Surprised? Well, you shouldn't be. This question is abusable as hell - after all, I could deem anyone I wanted to be a threat to mankind, and have them killed for it.
I find these statements rather contradictory. Isn't the former also abusable? Consider the case that a governing body were to take the former to heart. How would we define traitor? Who says who is and who isn't a traitor? What is to stop the government from arbitrarily deeming someone a traitor they just want to get rid of? The same questions are applicable to your latter statement. Heck, you could semantically argue that a traitor and "people who are a threat to mankind" are superficially the same save that one threatens a nation, whereas the other threatens mankind as a whole. The difference is the scale of these people's actions. Under this, shouldn't we apply the same logic to traitors as we do to those who are a threat to mankind?
Quote from: RoleOh, that's a touchy subject. I believe that they're unnecessary, but that the ideal replacement - adoption - is so broken and corrupt in the US that the argument of "mercy killing" may in fact be a strong one. Personally, I think the whole "prolife/prochoice" thing is bullshit. Pro-life peeps are often also pro-death penalty and tend to lean more towards war-favoring factions in the political system, so they really can't claim they're "pro life" in my eyes. Pro Choice is equally bullshit. Why? We have a choice. We can choose whether or not to have sex, to have protection on the male, protection on us, the morning after pill, and even adoption. So that claim is a lie as well.
I agree to a point. The only thing is that you use an ad hominem argument against those who are pro-life, and don't really address their arguments.
As for my own opinions:
Quote-Do you believe in random killing? How about sacrifices? Does this include only animals, humans, or both?
If by random, you mean spontaneously, without proper thought or reflection beforehand, then no. However, I find the random killing of insects perfectly fine. People may think this is hypocritical, but perhaps they should look at this perspective. Given that all things are just as valuable (or unvaluable) as each other in terms of our worth of life, then I would say that what a person or animal thinks is fine to kill and what they think is not fine to kill is determined by their emotional attachment to the other person or animal. So, me being human, and me being me with my own sort of emotional personality, I find killing a fly a fine thing, perhaps even a good thing to do, because I hold no sort of emotional attachment to it. A dog or a cat? I would think it deplorable to kill those animals because I have emotional connections to dogs and cats because I have had, and seen had, them as pets. So even if I see a cat on the street, who I have no interactions with, I still have an emotional connection to that cat by it being similar another cat that I have known and loved.
This sort of logic applies on a person-by-person, animal-by-animal basis. This is why psychotics and sociopaths do not think killing humans is wrong -- because their brain chemistry does not allow for emotional connections in the same way the average human does.
Quote-Do you believe in abortions?
I believe that by having sex, you automatically undertake the responsibility of your actions, and the consequences of those actions. As such, abortions are killing people, and those who 'abort' as it were, are those who are too immature and childish to take responsibility for their actions. Nobody has a right to have sex without the risk of having a baby. The two things are mutual, and society seems to think they should be separated. That isn't to say I'm someone who thinks that sex for pleasure is wrong.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people who do treason?
No, this is as ridiculous as a company killing a person for trying to quit their job, steal company secrets, and then join with another company to destroy the previous. Deplorable? Perhaps. But not something so wrong that a death sentence should be given.
Quote-Do you believe in killing false prophets?
No. Freedom of religion, for one. The inability to properly deem someone a 'false prophet', for two.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people who are a threat to mankind?
No, but restraining them and/or keeping them from doing what bad they may do is acceptable, the same way one would stop a mentally unstable person from doing wrong.
Quote-Do you believe in killing people ahead of time when they are about to die anyway?
This is a loaded question. How do we know they will die, for certain? If they actually wouldn't have died, then doesn't the person involved become a murderer? This sort of idea is rather silly. It is up to the person to decide whether they want to live or not, just like anyone else who is living now. Now, whether that decision is considered deplorable is another matter.
Quote-If you died, how would you like to be dealt with?
I don't actually care. Burn me if you want. Or chop up my body and leave it to rot. Or give it to cannibals. Or forget about it. Doesn't matter to me. Perhaps leave it to science.
Quote-Where would you want your assets to go to?
If my family wants my assets, then they can have them. Otherwise, I don't care. Maybe give them to fund scientific research or something.
Quote from: Rolina on 14, October, 2014, 08:03:41 PM
So Darkylighty, let me get this straight - because I'm a woman who uses this magical thing we call LOGIC to say "I have plenty of choices, and I FREAKING USE THEM", that means I don't have a right to talk? Am I not female enough for you that you chose to exclude me from my own gender and talk down to me? To try to explain I have rights that, well, I exorcize all the time, despite what your claims of my "beliefs" may be?
I never did judge your feminity, if you say you are female, you are female, only you is capable of deciding what is your gender and what are you belief. If you don't believe in Abortion, then do no abortion, but you have no right to decide for another what she can do with her body, not like abortion is without risk and it is not like someone is for abortions...
So, i am a male, would put me in jail I don't want to have children ? If us male had to bear children, we would have legalise abortion a long time ago.
All women have rights over their individual body, which belong only to themselves. they have the right to decide if they want to be a mother or not. it is that simple. ME, you, and even the president of the US have no say in the matter, we are not them, we should not decide what is better for someone else personnal life.
Who are you to decide that I should not have sex with my girlfriend if we are both willing but not ready for a child, this is our life, not your, you shall take this decision with your boyfriend for your shake. I am rejecting you logic about people should not sex...
Quote from: Rolina on 14, October, 2014, 08:03:41 PM
Did I seriously hear you talk down to me about the rights of women? Did I seriously see you point by point try to counter my views on this and all the rest of these things?
I am disagreeing hoverer your point of view, We can choose whether or not to have sex. that is not for you to decided, you have the right to decided what you do with your own vaginas, but what others girls do with their own vaginas and what I do with my penis is of not concern to you, you being a woman does not make you more legitimate to judge what people do with sexual organ then individual males.
Quote from: Rolina on 14, October, 2014, 08:03:41 PM
RTFP, dood. RTFP. And next time, know who you're replying to. At this rate, I'm going to have to explain to you how lesbians work after you accuse me of being a homophobe.
You being a lesbian is barely a point, you have the right to love anyone body you want, if you want, you get into a polygamous homosexual incestuous mariage by marrying your two sisters and I have no problem with that, it is your life, you love the one you want, you choose who you marry, that is very simple. And I did not accuse of lbeing an homophobe.
I do not know you, but being lesbian, bieng heterosexual or bisexual is not a choice, but accepting it is.
Quote from: Rolina on 14, October, 2014, 08:03:41 PM
Also, the whole "living in the past" thing is NOT the point of the death penalty. The penalty is to actually PREVENT the crimes from occurring in the first place. If you don't make do on threats, they have no power. That's why the death penalty exists - killing another will result in society killing you back. Betraying your people will result in your people offing your head. Wrong people, and expect to be wronged back. These are powerful motivators to get people to follow the rule of law. If the punishment for betraying my country was a few years in jail, I'd look for the highest bidder. But it's death - meaning if I get caught, I'm screwed. So I don't do it - it's not worth the risk. Before you condemn stuff, stop and ask yourself why these things exist in the first place.
Also, you know those states where murder will cost you 30 years? For some of the people I've dealt with, that'd be worth it. The punishment must fit the crime, for two reasons - first to prevent cruelty, but also to encourage prevention.
You cannot repair a mistake with another mistake, death penalty is a mistake in itself, because when the guy is dead, he is gone, if ever we made a mistake and judge the wrong person, that innocent is dead, you cannot give him back his life.
laws by themselves have no effect on crime, and there is no such proof that death penalty is discourageing crime, while prison in life is not.
At some point, all of us made mistakes in our lifes, by giving death penalty, you deny the possibility that the criminal may change and you stick him an evil ticket, 25 years in prison, as in Norway is enough for a life time, and if ever the person is incapable to change, they just keep him in jail for 5 more years. while the goal of death penalty is to punish, we should go towards rehabilitation.
Dealt penalty does not prevent crime, the best way to prevent crime is to encourage education, I would free public education for all until university is a way better way to prevent crime then law and order. like I said, I prefer to see four criminals in liberty, then 1 innocent on the electric chair.
Quote from: Rolina on 14, October, 2014, 08:03:41 PM
QuoteThis mean the reason you kill an animal is for fun or for commercial purpose, but at the very least, it is not an usefull kill, you don't kill to eat, but for fun, because it would be your right to kill an animalk, I always oppose it.
What the hell are you trying to imply here? If you're making a general statement, do not quote me as though it's a retort. Nobody implied they had a right to kill anything. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the question itself - there's no such thing as "random killing". There is always a reason.
[/quote]
i was putting a definition of random killing, and not accusing you of anything.
there is no reason to kill, but abortions is not killing something
if ever the mother were to have an accident or her baby dies in her woob, should we accuse her of homicide ?
just because the woman is pregnant, it does not mean the baby will survive all 9 months in
Doctors in Canada always allow abortion as long it does not place the life of the woman in danger, I believe this is the code we should respect. we have no need for a law on abortions,
All I can say, Darklylight, is that you should learn English better. Right now it is hard to understand what you mean, and it is apparent are misinterpreting some things that Rolina is saying. Until you can reply with coherent English don't think I will debate with you. Nothing against you, but at this point misunderstanding can very easily happen, which results in unnecessary red herrings, and the like.
I will however, say this: You do not understand Rolina's argument, and have misinterpreted what she has said. Also, I have no idea what you are saying either, so perhaps you do understand it and just cannot express your counterargument.
Quote from: Succubus on 18, October, 2014, 10:55:44 AM
Whew, so much tension here. Oh well, allow me to speak briefly about what I have felt about this:
Huh, sure feels tense here. I'm doing the same.
Quote from: Succubus on 18, October, 2014, 10:55:44 AM
If you ask me, I oppose your ideas. Abortion, would it be accidental or with consent, is roughly equal to killing. It is about deliberately removing a baby from the womb of a woman, thus "murdering" the baby. A baby, albeit unborn, still has life and is human. A baby dying in the womb of an unfortunate mother is entirely different from abortion . Still, I will consider consider specific exceptions though (e.g. a sick/frail/weakened woman incapable of giving birth). Ironically, I didn't really care much about laws concerning abortions. It's all up to principles and conscience.
I guess we're not even sure if babies/embryo's have consciousness. I'm not even sure if that's the point for y'all, but it sure is important to me. Altough I think abortion is a personal choice, and should be legal.
Quote from: Menaus on 17, October, 2014, 06:42:46 PM
All I can say, Darklylight, is that you should learn English better. Right now it is hard to understand what you mean, and it is apparent are misinterpreting some things that Rolina is saying. Until you can reply with coherent English don't think I will debate with you. Nothing against you, but at this point misunderstanding can very easily happen, which results in unnecessary red herrings, and the like.
I could actually follow his post quite good, but I agree with you.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 17, October, 2014, 05:15:08 PM
I am disagreeing hoverer your point of view, We can choose whether or not to have sex. that is not for you to decided, you have the right to decided what you do with your own vaginas, but what others girls do with their own vaginas and what I do with my penis is of not concern to you, you being a woman does not make you more legitimate to judge what people do with sexual organ then individual males.
This is getting a bit offtopic.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 17, October, 2014, 05:15:08 PM
You cannot repair a mistake with another mistake, death penalty is a mistake in itself, because when the guy is dead, he is gone, if ever we made a mistake and judge the wrong person, that innocent is dead, you cannot give him back his life.
Well you think death penalty is a mistake. Some people don't. But I agree with you. Fighting fire with fire is not the thing to do I think.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 17, October, 2014, 05:15:08 PM
laws by themselves have no effect on crime, and there is no such proof that death penalty is discourageing crime, while prison in life is not.
Not a direct effect, but possible indirect. And how about all the ideas that fueled the making of these laws? They surely affect crime.
People who think before acting might reconsider and not kill somebody when there is probably punishment when he/she still does it.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 17, October, 2014, 05:15:08 PM
At some point, all of us made mistakes in our lifes, by giving death penalty, you deny the possibility that the criminal may change and you stick him an evil ticket, 25 years in prison, as in Norway is enough for a life time, and if ever the person is incapable to change, they just keep him in jail for 5 more years. while the goal of death penalty is to punish, we should go towards rehabilitation.
I agree.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 17, October, 2014, 05:15:08 PM
Dealt penalty does not prevent crime, the best way to prevent crime is to encourage education, I would free public education for all until university is a way better way to prevent crime then law and order. like I said, I prefer to see four criminals in liberty, then 1 innocent on the electric chair.
Possibly. The government stumbles sometimes or abuses their power and that's when there shouldn't be death penalty.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 17, October, 2014, 05:15:08 PM
there is no reason to kill, but abortions is not killing something
That is something we could discuss. Is preventing an unborn human from living killing?
@Menaus: Yeah, but at least we can give him credit for trying!
@Succubus: I agree that abortion is killing. ; Especially if there's a heart beat.
Quote from: Menaus on 17, October, 2014, 06:42:46 PM
All I can say, Darklylight, is that you should learn English better. Right now it is hard to understand what you mean, and it is apparent are misinterpreting some things that Rolina is saying. Until you can reply with coherent English don't think I will debate with you. Nothing against you, but at this point misunderstanding can very easily happen, which results in unnecessary red herrings, and the like.
I will however, say this: You do not understand Rolina's argument, and have misinterpreted what she has said. Also, I have no idea what you are saying either, so perhaps you do understand it and just cannot express your counterargument.
EDIT : I don't think you are in a good position to say if I did not understand.
her points were easy to understand
1 Prochoice is bullshit since you had the choice to not have sex.
I reject this said logic, people have the right to have use without accepting everything that happen in their bodies.
2 Death Penalty Prevent crimes
I totally reject that affirmation, it is false.
And I say Death is final, when you die, that is it, your are gone. So any innocent judged by this method cannot get his life returned.
What makes me in a bad position? I know English. It is my first language. You often make grammar mistakes in a way that makes what you are saying not completely comprehensible. What is wrong with this position?
Quote from: Menaus on 18, October, 2014, 08:14:34 PM
What makes me in a bad position? I know English. It is my first language. You often make grammar mistakes in a way that makes what you are saying not completely comprehensible. What is wrong with this position?
we call it a natal language, but what ever
Killing is wrong in any given way, but i believe in this "You kill someone with a sword and you will be killed with a sword". So what goes around comes around.
If you fight by swords, you die by swords = This is said by Jesus in the Christian Bible, actually... Not sure which verse it was, or even the exact quoting, so I paraphrase it... I guess.
Killing someone likely makes the most sense under self-defense, so you can steal your opponent's sword and use it on them, maybe. (Assuming they're still attacking after you "stole" their weapon, and you have no other way of defending yourself.)
Luna_blade : well the government is not always evil, sure it can be evil, but that is what happen you don't place counter power or do not limit power. sure we can't have governemental control of education, but in democratic society like ours, this will not happen, another reason why communist need democracy, but this is not on topics.
My argument is simple, abortion is not murder
- the birth is an absolute future, the baby can dies before the birth.
- Abortion is a personnal choice
- people have the right to do what they want with theirs sexual organ.
Sorry FOX: but I oppose strongly stand your grounds laws, just because someone stole from you, does not mean you have to administer your own justice, you should instead get help from the state and proceed to a trials.
@Darkylighty: If you were held a prisoner in someone's home deep in some deserted place away from the public, and the person holding you hostage has already tortured you/doing rated XXX stuff, and proved that they were willing to kill you if you were to escape? What would you do? Let yourself die? And whoever else was held captive/may have escaped as well? ; I dislike the idea of killing as well, but sometimes, there's just no obvious/easy other way, unfortunately...
This is like taking the better of two evils...
Everything else outside of self-defense can easily be controversial in my opinion. (Even if one wants to kill themselves, it could be that their just not in their right mind due to depression.)
Quote- people have the right to do what they want with theirs sexual organ.
So do you think indecent exposure is okay?
Quote from: Fox on 19, October, 2014, 03:52:04 PM
@Darkylighty: If you were held a prisoner in someone's home deep in some deserted place away from the public, and the person holding you hostage has already tortured you/doing rated XXX stuff, and proved that they were willing to kill you if you were to escape? What would you do? Let yourself die? And whoever else was held captive/may have escaped as well? ; I dislike the idea of killing as well, but sometimes, there's just no obvious/easy other way, unfortunately...
This is like taking the better of two evils...
Everything else outside of self-defense can easily be controversial in my opinion. (Even if one wants to kill themselves, it could be that their just not in their right mind due to depression.)
Quote- people have the right to do what they want with theirs sexual organ.
So do you think indecent exposure is okay?
that is a strong and emotionnal situation I have no choice to answer with logic.
of course if the person is behond saving, something we may have no choice to kill, but those situation do not always exist, now you give me a situation where the is only two person, me and him, but in real world there is the leviathan, the state who is there to enforce the law.
I always oppose suicide, we should not let people jump of road and we should give adaquate service so they come back in the society and accept life.
On your last question, yes, public nudity should be legal. it is a sexual organ, not a gun, it won't kill you. Come on, you have nothing to be scared.
@Last question: I thought it was a form of disrespect, but I guess not everyone sees it that way.
And I doubt being scared had anything to do with it... maybe for young children who are not use to such things... but...
Quote from: Menaus on 17, October, 2014, 06:42:46 PM
All I can say, Darklylight, is that you should learn English better. Right now it is hard to understand what you mean, and it is apparent are misinterpreting some things that Rolina is saying. Until you can reply with coherent English don't think I will debate with you. Nothing against you, but at this point misunderstanding can very easily happen, which results in unnecessary red herrings, and the like.
I will however, say this: You do not understand Rolina's argument, and have misinterpreted what she has said. Also, I have no idea what you are saying either, so perhaps you do understand it and just cannot express your counterargument.
I didn't even realize this was gonna be a place for arguing. I figured we'd come here, make our views, and acknowledge and accept the views of others without the need for trying to rip them apart. The fact that it happened to me I find baffling, and just discourages me from bothering to do more threads like this.
Quote
her points were easy to understand
1 Prochoice is bullshit since you had the choice to not have sex.
I reject this said logic, people have the right to have use without accepting everything that happen in their bodies.
2 Death Penalty Prevent crimes
I totally reject that affirmation, it is false.
And I say Death is final, when you die, that is it, your are gone. So any innocent judged by this method cannot get his life returned.
READ.
THE.
FREAKING.
POST.That is, in fact,
not my argument. It is a gross, if not blatant, screwing and perverting of what I said and how I view things. You took a glance, ignored the meaning and logic behind it, and dismissed me and my argument without bothering to find out what it actually was. RTFP, and do not EVER presume to tell a woman what her rights are, or tell her how she's supposed to think or what she's supposed to believe, or hell, what she has a right to do or not do. That is not, in fact, your call.
Rolina; I am a bit discouraged. The first I read was pro-choice is bullshit, I am pro-choice, I am defending my position. PRO-CHOICE is not bullshit, it is simple logic.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 12, October, 2014, 04:58:07 PM
While I understand your story on abortion, pro-choice is giving the right to a woman to deny what is happening in her body, give her the choice to not be a mother, you can't ask for them to not have sex, woman claim the right to have sex for pleasure only, they reclaim the right to have orgasm, not to only have sex for procreation.
This is what I wrote, this is far from lecturing you on the right of woman, but simply explaining the logic of pro-choice
and yet you are interpret mines as telling how you should think...
I know what are your argument and your logic and I rejected it, because I do not find it acceptable.
I don't know where you read that I am telling what you should think or what you do with your body.
Besides the right of a woman are no different then the right of a man, your body, your right to choose, if we male where the one having to bear children, you would know, abortion would legal since long time and there would be next to no debate.
Quote from: Rolina on 19, October, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
ro Choice is equally bullshit. Why? We have a choice. We can choose whether or not to have sex, to have protection on the male, protection on us, the morning after pill, and even adoption.
there is no reason we should not allowed to have sex for fun, it is our bodies.
Abortion is personnal and pro-choice is the only logic, I am defending it.
Sure, people can use protection to not have sex, but how can anyone say that people who don't want babies have to use condom ? not your body, not your choice.
beside you know, protection can fail, it is not perfect, there is nothing perfect, you are imperfect, I am imperfect, the president of the united state is not perfect and the wealthiest man alive is imperfect...
I cannot accept that said logic, not your body, not your choice. All women have the right to abort.
it is not because the protection fails or they did not use it, that they should be forced to give birth. Their bodies, their right to choose.
Plus : banning abortion will not stop abortion, it will just stop safe abortions.
but I am certain you already read that somewhere, this is pro-choice logic.
Quote from: Rolina on 19, October, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
Also, the whole "living in the past" thing is NOT the point of the death penalty. The penalty is to actually PREVENT the crimes from occurring in the first place. If you don't make do on threats, they have no power. That's why the death penalty exists - killing another will result in society killing you back. Betraying your people will result in your people offing your head. Wrong people, and expect to be wronged back. These are powerful motivators to get people to follow the rule of law. If the punishment for betraying my country was a few years in jail, I'd look for the highest bidder. But it's death - meaning if I get caught, I'm screwed. So I don't do it - it's not worth the risk. Before you condemn stuff, stop and ask yourself why these things exist in the first place.
I view that as eye for eye, tooth for tooth, tell me, if I am convicted of murder and they kill me, will my victim ever return to live ? no, they will not. that is logic, once someone dies, there is no coming back to life.
death penalty play little role when discourageing a crime, if someone hate another so much or is extrem need of money, they will take the risk or will not even think about the consequence of law.
Death penalty is not the rule of law,
I have good reason to reject logic and the conclusion
Very few people are evil killing or stealing for fun, we need to act on the cause of crimes, If i have no reason to commit it, I won't do it.
Finally, there is historical proof about judicial mistake, innocent being killed for the crimes of another, I suppose that is a just some errors, some colateral damage...
Conclusion, Death penalty should be abolished. we have no need for it. Canada has done it and Canada does not have more crimes then US. Many state in the US did the same thing.
READ
THE
EFFING
POST
Not once did I say that recreational sex is no good. Not once did I imply that the MAGICAL MIRACLE OF BIRTH CONTROL is not an option. In fact, I BLATANTLY STATED THE OPPOSITE - WE HAVE TONS OF MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILABLE TO US, AND DAMMIT I'M SURE AS HELL GOING TO USE THEM!
How the hell is your reading comprehension so absolutely horrible that you don't get this? Are you just not aware of what a birth control pill is? A condom? Diaphram? Spermicide? The MORNING FREAKING AFTER PILL (Scientifically proven to work ~5 days after sex!)? And of course, Adoption?
Stop spinning my words into your fail and freaking READ MY POSTS, YOU FOOL.
[spoiler]And yes. Caps this time means I'm yelling at him, guys.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Rolina on 20, October, 2014, 12:07:58 AM
Not once did I say that recreational sex is no good. Not once did I imply that the MAGICAL MIRACLE OF BIRTH CONTROL is not an option. [/spoiler]
In fact, I BLATANTLY STATED THE OPPOSITE - WE HAVE TONS OF MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILABLE TO US, AND DAMMIT I'M SURE AS HELL GOING TO USE THEM!
How the hell is your reading comprehension so absolutely horrible that you don't get this? Are you just not aware of what a birth control pill is? A condom? Diaphram? Spermicide? The MORNING FREAKING AFTER PILL (Scientifically proven to work ~5 days after sex!)? And of course, Adoption?.
Yes, we have many way of controlling birth, but because we have multiple means of controlling, that does not abortion should be illegal, netheir that adoption is currently a good alternative. we are talking about the right of a woman to accept or deny the possibility of giving birth.
Yeah you have the right to use any contraception method you want, after all your body not mine.
but you have also the right to not use any contraception at all. And no matter if a woman use contraception or not, abortion is still a personnal choice, it has many consequence and it those consequence the woman will have to accept.
Pro-choice is very simple, my body, my right to choose and I am very sorry about the little thing in the womb not being born, but that said, his birth was just one possibility of the future, as I stated in previous post, the baby can die inside the mother womb, his birth is not forced.
If people want to use abortion as a mean of contraception, which is not good, well it is still their choice and their body to destroy, but keep in mind, it is not like someone on earth will wake up in the morning and came up with the goal of doing the most abortions.
Quote from: Rolina on 20, October, 2014, 12:07:58 AM
Pro Choice is equally bullshit. Why? We have a choice. We can choose whether or not to have sex, to have protection on the male, protection on us, the morning after pill, and even adoption.
I simply interpret this has,
1 we made a choice to have sex
2 we can make a choice to have birth control
3 woman saying they should have right to abort made bad choice, because they could have made another and better choice before,
conclusion: so pro-choice is bullshit.
If the 3rd line is not truth, then your premisses do not support your conclusion of pro-choice being bullshit.
pro-choice is
1 the feotus is not a person
2 I have the right to decide how I live my life
3 This happen in my body
conclusion, I have the right to have an abortion.
An sorry but remplacing abortion with adoption, this is a very bad idea and a very bad conclusion.
Quote from: Darkylighty on 20, October, 2014, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: Rolina on 20, October, 2014, 12:07:58 AM
Not once did I say that recreational sex is no good. Not once did I imply that the MAGICAL MIRACLE OF BIRTH CONTROL is not an option. [/spoiler]
In fact, I BLATANTLY STATED THE OPPOSITE - WE HAVE TONS OF MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILABLE TO US, AND DAMMIT I'M SURE AS HELL GOING TO USE THEM!
How the hell is your reading comprehension so absolutely horrible that you don't get this? Are you just not aware of what a birth control pill is? A condom? Diaphram? Spermicide? The MORNING FREAKING AFTER PILL (Scientifically proven to work ~5 days after sex!)? And of course, Adoption?.
Yes, we have many way of controlling birth, but because we have multiple means of controlling, that does not abortion should be illegal, netheir that adoption is currently a good alternative. we are talking about the right of a woman to accept or deny the possibility of giving birth.
Yeah you have the right to use any contraception method you want, after all your body not mine.
but you have also the right to not use any contraception at all. And no matter if a woman use contraception or not, abortion is still a personnal choice, it has many consequence and it those consequence the woman will have to accept.
Pro-choice is very simple, my body, my right to choose and I am very sorry about the little thing in the womb not being born, but that said, his birth was just one possibility of the future, as I stated in previous post, the baby can die inside the mother womb, his birth is not forced.
If people want to use abortion as a mean of contraception, which is not good, well it is still their choice and their body to destroy, but keep in mind, it is not like someone on earth will wake up in the morning and came up with the goal of doing the most abortions.
Quote from: Rolina on 20, October, 2014, 12:07:58 AM
Pro Choice is equally bullshit. Why? We have a choice. We can choose whether or not to have sex, to have protection on the male, protection on us, the morning after pill, and even adoption.
I simply interpret this has,
1 we made a choice to have sex
2 we can make a choice to have birth control
3 woman saying they should have right to abort made bad choice, because they could have made another and better choice before,
conclusion: so pro-choice is bullshit.
If the 3rd line is not truth, then your premisses do not support your conclusion of pro-choice being bullshit.
pro-choice is
1 the feotus is not a person
2 I have the right to decide how I live my life
3 This happen in my body
conclusion, I have the right to have an abortion.
An sorry but remplacing abortion with adoption, this is a very bad idea and a very bad conclusion.
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that we have plenty of choices afterwards. You continually insist that abortion is the only option after the fact, despite the fact that, like, three others minimum exist. And you also refuse to acknowledge the fact I don't like the "Pro-life" arguement either. And you refuse to acknowledge that I dislike that men can just bail whenever the hell they want, and aren't being pressured like women are in this situation.
You have your own ideas, and anything that doesn't match your views exactly you dismiss and lecture people about their approach, cherrypicking phrases completely out of context to justify your bullshit.
Quote from: Rolina on 08, October, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that we have plenty of choices afterwards. You continually insist that abortion is the only option after the fact, despite the fact that, like, three others minimum exist. And you also refuse to acknowledge the fact I don't like the "Pro-life" argument either. And you refuse to acknowledge that I dislike that men can just bail whenever the hell they want, and aren't being pressured like women are in this situation.
You have your own ideas, and anything that doesn't match your views exactly you dismiss and lecture people about their approach, cherrypicking phrases completely out of context to justify your bullshit.
I just lost my own message when writing this argument.
but now you are just putting word in my mouth, because you probably forgot some logic or somethings I have already wrote.
1 I never said Abortion is the only option. I said women have the right to choose to not give birth, meanwhile you think woman should give birth so they can choose adoption instead of abortion. because the only way to do an abortion, it force birth, adoption is not a solution to remplace abortion, yeah better birth control, but then again if abortion are bad, why is birth control good, they are doing the same thing, a woman use them to not give birth.
let me remind you that birth is a painfull process, study show that when simulated, men are unable to support the pain.
I can't accept an argument that would say women should endure pain, because they cause always give their child in adoption...
if that was not in your post, you can see why adoption cannot be a remplacement or a choice can make instead of abortion, because adoption include birth. but the choice of abortion is to not give birth.
2 I read it, but I always though that argument as nonsense because pro-life often support death penalty, it means their conclusion on abortion being murders is false... what kind of argument is that ?
3 I already answer your stance on men quitting their wife because they do not want to accept their responsibilities. Actions I believe are bad. that is why women have the right to go to a court and get a pension for their child, because a man must take their responsibilities of father, at least in Quebec.
let face it, being pro-choice is logic.
1 the birth is not absolute, just because you are pregnant, does not mean you will carry your child to term.
2 The foetus cannot survive alone, outside its mother womb.
3 the foetus is not a person, it is a person in formation, but it is not formed and not an human
4 women have the right to decide own they wish to live their lives.
5 women have the exclusive control of their body
6 women have the right to choose between all means of contraception, or not, they can also choose to go with no contraception, no protection and live with consequences of their action.
7 women have the right to choose abortion and live with the consequences of their actions
No, you're shoving your ideals down others throats.
Anti-both is my logic. COMPROMISE is my logic. I'd go into it, but you'd dismiss me and my views because they're not good enough for you. You have your view about how women should be, and the very women whom you're dealing with you can't be bothered with listening to as you have shown. I called you out on your bullshit, and you dismissed it by claiming I'm putting words in your mouth, when after stating that I believe in the modern science of birth control you told me that abstinence isn't the answer.
My stance is that we're not barbaric savages anymore. We have a scientific alternative, and dammit we should use it. We can make everyone happy in this if you guys would just open your minds for a tiny second here.
God, people on both sides of this piss me off so much...
You don't get it. Adoption is not an alternative to Abortion, because you force birth. you do not understand pro-choice.
Let's say I am woman, for the shake of this argumentation, I have a foetus in my womb, how can put it for abortion, without having me giving birth to the child, there is no way to do without forcing me to bear it, you say you oppose both pro-life and pro-choice, but your logic is just another pro-life.
Maybe if you have a way to save the live of an unborn child without forcing me to give it birth, that would perfect, but so far, these solution do not exist. except fecondation in vitro,
it is the life of the unborn child we oppose, we oppose the process of giving birth itself.
but let's admit many woman would love to put their child on adoption, since they would only abort if they lack money, how is a system going to be organised ?
Women have the right to make a choice, if they want to do an alternative to abortion they can, but if you really want to reduce the number of abortion, you should look for the cause and expend porverty fighting program
I don't know where you believe adoption is an alternative to abortion..
adoption is an emotionnal subject too, you endure 9 month of pregnancy, plus hours of pain to give your child away... this is a joke.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/10/20/adoption-universal-alternative-abortion-matter-anti-choicers-say/
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/adoption_vs_abortion.html
I would parental aid from the government a better solution then this.
I don't understand either argument, Darky. I find both to be archaic and barbaric in their stances, and completely ignorant of advancements in science and technology. Your continued refusal to acknowledge my main point, being BIRTH CONTROL, is proof enough of my views on the barbarism both sides have.
You don't care about logic. You don't care about women's rights, or you'd understand my right to my own opinions and desire for compromise. You only care about winning or losing.
what the hell can I win in this ?
I give up, you will never understand, I tried my best, but it seem you are completly closed from any pro-choice logic
Pro-choice is simple, your body belong to you, do what you want.
I fail to see how abortion are barbaric... today these are a lot safer, and birth are safer too, but they are still painfull, while abortion can be done very soon, like 6 week after impregnation. with next to no damage.
Don't tell me you know right of woman more then me, I simply refer myself to the canadian constitution, which declare the rights of all man and woman valid in Canada, and I believe abortion is a right recognized in a lot of countries,, so ho please,
I think I should give up, I won't succeed in making you understand
Quote from: Rolina on 19, October, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
Quote from: Menaus on 17, October, 2014, 06:42:46 PM
All I can say, Darklylight, is that you should learn English better. Right now it is hard to understand what you mean, and it is apparent are misinterpreting some things that Rolina is saying. Until you can reply with coherent English don't think I will debate with you. Nothing against you, but at this point misunderstanding can very easily happen, which results in unnecessary red herrings, and the like.
I will however, say this: You do not understand Rolina's argument, and have misinterpreted what she has said. Also, I have no idea what you are saying either, so perhaps you do understand it and just cannot express your counterargument.
I didn't even realize this was gonna be a place for arguing. I figured we'd come here, make our views, and acknowledge and accept the views of others without the need for trying to rip them apart. The fact that it happened to me I find baffling, and just discourages me from bothering to do more threads like this.
Well, I'm sorry if I offended you. I suppose this post
was asking for just opinions, and not really debate. I think that makes this topic less interesting. Things should be discussed to come to new interesting conclusions. But I suppose that these forums aren't mature enough for such a socratic debate.
In any case, I would ignore him. There isn't really any reason to discuss anything with him if he wont reasonably discuss it with you. Just makes people angry, and that makes me sad. :(
Quote from: Menaus on 21, October, 2014, 08:08:22 PM
Quote from: Rolina on 19, October, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
Quote from: Menaus on 17, October, 2014, 06:42:46 PM
All I can say, Darklylight, is that you should learn English better. Right now it is hard to understand what you mean, and it is apparent are misinterpreting some things that Rolina is saying. Until you can reply with coherent English don't think I will debate with you. Nothing against you, but at this point misunderstanding can very easily happen, which results in unnecessary red herrings, and the like.
I will however, say this: You do not understand Rolina's argument, and have misinterpreted what she has said. Also, I have no idea what you are saying either, so perhaps you do understand it and just cannot express your counterargument.
I didn't even realize this was gonna be a place for arguing. I figured we'd come here, make our views, and acknowledge and accept the views of others without the need for trying to rip them apart. The fact that it happened to me I find baffling, and just discourages me from bothering to do more threads like this.
Well, I'm sorry if I offended you. I suppose this post was asking for just opinions, and not really debate. I think that makes this topic less interesting. Things should be discussed to come to new interesting conclusions. But I suppose that these forums aren't mature enough for such a socratic debate.
In any case, I would ignore him. There isn't really any reason to discuss anything with him if he wont reasonably discuss it with you. Just makes people angry, and that makes me sad. :(
My was clear since the beginning, abortion is not murder and is not barbaric,
and this is the debate forum, not the opinion collection.
Actually, once there's life, it is murder... The hard part is knowing when the unborn child has life... (Ex: If you feel the baby kicking, you can be sure it's alive.)
[/topic]
Not an opinion collection? Well! By all means, move this topic somewhere where it can count as an "opinion collection"...! I'm guessing it'll still have debates, though.
Quote from: Fox on 21, October, 2014, 10:06:45 PM
Actually, once there's life, it is murder... The hard part is knowing when the unborn child has life... (Ex: If you feel the baby kicking, you can be sure it's alive.)
[/topic]
Not an opinion collection? Well! By all means, move this topic somewhere where it can count as an "opinion collection"...! I'm guessing it'll still have debates, though.
Heum, Fox, In Canada, there is no law regulating abortion, but such an abortion would be very dangerous for the woman. After 22 week, which is just before the end of the second semesters, very few doctor will give an abortion.
I believe we should let medics and doctors do their jobs, and beside, there is very few abortion in third semester
The hardest part is more knowing when the unborn develop a conscience...
I see the heat is on in this topic and since someone was so kind as to bring the topic to my attention, implying that I was ignoring it while ignoring the fact I have a life of my own and only RECENTLY came back and have had practically no time to read over everything, this was long overdue.
Now I see this topic has kinda exploded and I see a bit of it has leaked into the c-box. Normally I'd go guns blazing BUT I am late to this party so I'm only going to say this once. If this leaks out of this topic again...I see even a MENTION of it elsewhere, or if things explode like they did earlier, I'm locking this down and everyone involved is getting a warning.
Eh, I'm just dropping. It's not worth the effort - if after all that he's still not listening, then no amount of explaining it will do anything. I'mma do something more fun instead - see you in the entertainment forums.
What exactly would you be achieving even if he did come to a point of understanding?
But yeah, Kain's back to save the day! (Although, at the current moment, I would prefer the offending posts to be removed then for this topic to be locked, but it's not like this topic is super-important or anything.)
And now for some role-play to bring back the positive side of things... and to re-define what "To Kill a Something" could also mean...
:Isaac: You know, there's one thing that's good about being a silent protagonist! You just simply can't get in trouble! Well, maybe you can, but not because you said something wrong!
:Garet: ...
:Isaac: Looks like you're learning, Garet!
...a conversation/topic killer!
Quote from: Fox on 24, October, 2014, 09:59:57 PM
:Isaac: You know, there's one thing that's good about being a silent protagonist! You just simply can't get in trouble! Well, maybe you can, but not because you said something wrong!
:Garet: ...
:Isaac: Looks like you're learning, Garet!
...a conversation/topic killer!
That is true.
How about all the monsters/animals that Isaac & Co. slaughter, presuming they kill them?
I guess one has to break the eggs to eat an omelet.
Quote from: Luna_blade on 25, October, 2014, 05:29:21 AM
Quote from: Fox on 24, October, 2014, 09:59:57 PM
:Isaac: You know, there's one thing that's good about being a silent protagonist! You just simply can't get in trouble! Well, maybe you can, but not because you said something wrong!
:Garet: ...
:Isaac: Looks like you're learning, Garet!
...a conversation/topic killer!
That is true.
How about all the monsters/animals that Isaac & Co. slaughter, presuming they kill them?
I guess one has to break the eggs to eat an omelet.
that is why we have games, not a single animal die in real life there, no problem.