Something good to talk about the Liberal left?

[Seth1968]

1) Dying with dignity legislation.

It doesn't go nearly far enough, but it's going to take more time before the self righteous (religionists) are no longer able to incriminate those that wish to end needless suffering.

2) Legalization of marijuana.

See #1.

Bottom line:

Fuck off with your dogma.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Seth1968
1) Dying with dignity legislation.

It doesn't go nearly far enough, but it's going to take more time before the self righteous (religionists) are no longer able to incriminate those that wish to end needless suffering.

2) Legalization of marijuana.

See #1.

Bottom line:

Fuck off with your dogma.

agreed :thumbsup:

[01RedDX]

.

[Canmorite]

Action on CO2 emissions and renewable energy.

/ducks incoming pies

[Star1995]

I think I read something about them lowering the consent age for anal sex too...

[bjstare]

Carbon tax really grinds my gears. Everyone in the entire country could die (i.e. 0 carbon from canada), and we wouldn't even really affect the global rates. Canada's contribution to carbon emissions amounts to a rounding error, it's insane we're trying to reduce them.

/rant


+1 for OP though. Dying with dignity and legalized MJ are both :thumbsup:

[killramos]

Being no holds barred pro-choice as a party as well as being politically secular are pretty good stances, if the federal conservatives could get on the boat without keeping one foot in the water on those i think they would remove 90% of the public's criticism of them.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by killramos
Being no holds barred pro-choice as a party as well as being politically secular are pretty good stances, if the federal conservatives could get on the boat without keeping one foot in the water on those i think they would remove 90% of the public's criticism of them. This 100%! Lose a few socially conseravtive ideals from a time gone by is all it would take to swing the middle back. They are too afriad of losing the religous right though.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by cjblair
Carbon tax really grinds my gears. Everyone in the entire country could die (i.e. 0 carbon from canada), and we wouldn't even really affect the global rates. Canada's contribution to carbon emissions amounts to a rounding error, it's insane we're trying to reduce them.

/rant

I hear this rant all the time. Then I hear a rant from countries like India that goes something like "if developed countries that can much easier afford to reduce choose no to, why should we?" Telling India to pollute less while not setting an example is like a fat guy teaching you his awesome gym workout.

"Leading from behind" doesn't work.


Originally posted by tirebob
They are too afriad of losing the religous right though.
Where exactly is the religious right gonna go?

[Seth1968]

Decriminalizing assisted suicide and pot just makes sense at all levels. The most fundamental of which is the basic human right for one to be able to choose their own fate without fear of incarceration.

Those that oppose such things often claim that their invisible sky friend gave us the glorious gift of free will, yet, they not only try to prevent that free will, they try to hurt you if you exhibit that gift. It's the epitome of hypocrisy. If you think that statement is true, then in religious terms, these people are not followers of god, but rather followers of the devil.

As far as the carbon tax goes, well, remember Notley going to BC to try and sell the pipeline? If she was truly for the pipeline, then she wouldn't waste millions on advertising lies that a carbon tax would increase Albertan's health and reduce Co2, but rather spent that money on ads explaining why we need pipelines.

[ZenOps]

Better hair.

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by Star1995
I think I read something about them lowering the consent age for anal sex too...


There's a consent age for that??.....err...I mean yeah that yeah....

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Star1995
I think I read something about them lowering the consent age for anal sex too...



Originally posted by EK 2.0



There's a consent age for that??.....err...I mean yeah that yeah....

So Red was right when he mentioned the thread will go to shit :rofl:

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Feruk

Where exactly is the religious right gonna go?

Re-form the Reform Party.

But these are the people that volunteer, go door-knocking, give donations. They can't afford to piss these guys off or they lose their most reliable fundraising group.

But there's more to being socially conservative than just the religious folk. Just look at Kellie Leitch's leadership campaign for that.

[HiTempguy1]

#in4libtardcirclejerk

:rofl:

Clearly a lot of you don't understand the conservative movement with your comments. A majority of conservative voters disagree with what you want. So take your shit elsewhere to some other party :thumbsup:

[Stuart]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
#in4libtardcirclejerk

:rofl:

Clearly a lot of you don't understand the conservative movement with your comments. A majority of conservative voters disagree with what you want. So take your shit elsewhere to some other party :thumbsup:

Isn't that exactly how Trudeau got elected? Might want to rethink things at least a little bit if you want to replace him next election.

[Gestalt]

I thought assisted suicide was legal.

As for weed. :dunno: seems like first world problems.

[revelations]

Thank "god" the religious right is slowly dissolving in Canada, and thankfully has in most developed countries as well - the American south is an exception though.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by revelations
Thank "god" the religious right is slowly dissolving in Canada, and thankfully has in most developed countries as well - the American south is an exception though.

The whole idea of a black and white, left and right position is ludicrous. Life is grey.

The only "thing" that is universal and absolute is mathematics. ALL else is subjective.

BTW Rev, what makes you state that dogma is slowly dissolving in Canada? Granted, I'm seeing it when it comes to the Christian invisible man, but most certainly not when it comes down to the Muslim invisible man.

[revelations]

I would say that, as a whole, the number of people attending religious services - esp the second-gen immigrants, is falling slowly, but steadily in Canada.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/06/PF_13.06.27_CanadaRelLandscape-04.png

Oddly enough, the The Pacific North West is a very non-religious area as a whole. This movement will spread East with time as more people realize that the bible is irrelevant in their lives.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by Seth1968


The whole idea of a black and white, left and right position is ludicrous. Life is grey.

The only "thing" that is universal and absolute is mathematics. ALL else is subjective.


There is a lot of grey, but if you're going to elicit emotional response you have go to the extreme black or white. It's basically the old adage of 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease.' The reason why the religious right tends to get so much attention is because those on the religious right are far more willing to voice their displeasure and mobilize to fix it.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by revelations
I would say that, as a whole, the number of people attending religious services - esp the second-gen immigrants, is falling slowly, but steadily in Canada.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/06/PF_13.06.27_CanadaRelLandscape-04.png

Oddly enough, the The Pacific North West is a very non-religious area as a whole. This movement will spread East with time as more people realize that the bible is irrelevant in their lives.

Not only irrelevant, but rather ignorant and archaic. BUT, their is a fundamental truth behind the moronic human writings

It's high time that the priority of our education system is based in critical thought, as opposed to positions that can't be empirically proven, or based in bias and propaganda.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Not only irrelevant, but rather ignorant and archaic. BUT, their is a fundamental truth behind the moronic human writings

It's high time that the priority of our education system is based in critical thought, as opposed to positions that can't be empirically proven, or based in bias and propaganda.

Says the anti-vaxxer.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Says the anti-vaxxer.

So simple as you have taken the bait.

[BandW]

I don't dislike liberals or conservatives. I dislike ideologues.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by BandW
I dislike ideologues.

:werd:

If you insist that everything in the world is black and white, you are probably a jerk that has decided that the only correct moral standpoint is your own.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Seth1968


So simple as you have taken the bait.

Keep trying to dig yourself out of that hole.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Feruk
I hear this rant all the time. Then I hear a rant from countries like India that goes something like "if developed countries that can much easier afford to reduce choose no to, why should we?" Telling India to pollute less while not setting an example is like a fat guy teaching you his awesome gym workout.

"Leading from behind" doesn't work.
So how long after we handicap our economy will it take for countries like India to draft and implement a similar plan to ours making us competitive again. The big guys, China Russia, U.S they're all on board so we're not left holding our dicks in the wind? Canada is such a small emitter us taking the lead on this just seems stupid, maybe it helps some people sleep better at night but from virtually all other aspects that aren't ideological it makes very little sense.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Seth1968




The only "thing" that is universal and absolute is mathematics. ALL else is subjective.



Is your statement mathematical?

[HuMz]

Originally posted by revelations
I would say that, as a whole, the number of people attending religious services - esp the second-gen immigrants, is falling slowly, but steadily in Canada.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/06/PF_13.06.27_CanadaRelLandscape-04.png

Oddly enough, the The Pacific North West is a very non-religious area as a whole. This movement will spread East with time as more people realize that the bible is irrelevant in their lives.

Most of the decline in recent time is a result of theological liberal churches. Churches that are theologically conservative are actually growing throughout much of the western world.

[HuMz]

I am also curious why socially Liberal conservatives get to lay claim to the Conservative party, when the Greens, Liberals and NDP are all very socially Liberal. Why do social conservatives need to all of sudden be ignored or leave the party, when it is the only party that has recognized socially conservative principles. After all, what's the whole point of having a Conservative party if you don't feel there is anything socially worth conserving?

I personally think there is room for tolerance of both groups, and that ideas from both sides should be listened to and debated. However, it would seem that if social conservatives bother some social Liberals that much within the Conservative party, they would be better off to join one of the other main parties that they would be fully agreement with on social issues. It would much easier to try and sway those parties (like the Liberals) to fiscal responsibility, then it would be to stay within the Conservative party and try to tell social conservatives to not be socially conservative. Social conservatives are some of the only sub-groups of people who will stand up the a lot of the absurd Marxist social ideals.

[dirtsniffer]

Social conservatism has no place in Canada.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
Social conservatism has no place in Canada.

Why is that?

[A790]

Originally posted by HuMz


Why is that?
Because it results in dumb laws, like abortions and gay marriage being illegal.

[killramos]

I think it would be nice if we could discern the difference between thinking laws should be based on the bible and thinking people need a safe space because words hurt.

:dunno:

[HuMz]

Originally posted by A790

Because it results in dumb laws, like abortions and gay marriage being illegal.

Except it doesn't, that's just the false narrative that Liberals have put forth to try and scare people away from the party, and people are gullible enough to believe it. Harper was a social conservative, in a party that had a fair number of social conservatives who were MP's, and there were no pushes to really change either of those two issues other than to study the scientific case for when life begins.

The Wildrose party is arguably the most socially conservative party in Canada, yet neither or those issues are platform issues, nor can they be changed on a provincial level. However, that didn't stop many socially liberal conservatives from staying away from the Wildrose, and instead voting into power the NDP because they were afraid of the Wildrose. It is that very ignorance to thinking being conservative on social issues is mainly about outlawing gay marriage and stopping abortions that will lead to the NDP to continue their reign if the right doesn't unite.

[A790]

Originally posted by HuMz


Except it doesn't, that's just the false narrative that Liberals have put forth to try and scare people away from the party, and people are gullible enough to believe it. Harper was a social conservative, in a party that had a fair number of social conservatives who were MP's, and there were no pushes to really change either of those two issues other than to study the scientific case for when life begins.

The Wildrose party is arguably the most socially conservative party in Canada, yet neither or those issues are platform issues, nor can they be changed on a provincial level. However, that didn't stop many socially liberal conservatives from staying away from the Wildrose, and instead voting into power the NDP because they were afraid of the Wildrose. It is that very ignorance to thinking being conservative on social issues is mainly about outlawing gay marriage and stopping abortions that will lead to the NDP to continue their reign if the right doesn't unite.
Exactly how long ago did the conservative party adopt a modern position on gay marriage?

What about the conservative stance on marijuana? When, if ever, did that change?

I'm curious, is all.

[duaner]

I hope everyone here realizes that not all who oppose abortion or assisted suicide or gay marriage are religious. Kind of throws the anti-religious arguments out the window.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by A790

Exactly how long ago did the conservative party adopt a modern position on gay marriage?

What about the conservative stance on marijuana? When, if ever, did that change?

I'm curious, is all.

Very recently in terms of official policy, however what some conservatives believe is different from what you claimed. I was responding to your claim that social conservatism results in dumb laws being made. And as evidenced by 2 terms of a party made of varying social conservatives, no laws were put forth or passed to change either of those two issues. The other example I used of the Wildrose can't even address those issues legally.

As for marijuana, they appear to be leaning towards legalization, or at the very least being okay with Trudeau legalizing it. I don't know there official policy but I know much of the ranks are ready ready to embrace regulation for the general population. The objections to marijuana haven't ever really been a moral issue, they've been a medical and scientific issue. There are objections in the medical community because of the detrimental effect it has on the developing brain.

[J-hop]

The goal of any party is to stay in power. The opposition from the public the conservatives would have had to deal with to reverse the legalization of gay marriage would have meant they would have most likely caused a reaction vote in the next election. Even in 2006 a huge number of Canadians no longer supported the unscientific, archaic view that gay marriage should be banned. They knew this.

The absolute worst thing you can do is refuse to change your views in light of new evidence that goes against your theories/beliefs. That kind of is the definition of conservatism. You believe that you can get things mostly right the first time and only minor changes will be needed in the future. There is no place for that in an enlightened society IMO

[revelations]

Originally posted by duaner
I hope everyone here realizes that not all who oppose abortion or assisted suicide or gay marriage are religious. Kind of throws the anti-religious arguments out the window.

On what basis do they form their opposition then? Generic pro life?

[J-hop]

Interesting. I think it is pretty fair to say if you took two groups of people you would have a higher chance of finding a person who was anti abortion in the religious group vs the secular group.

I think you can also rule out the idea that someone who is anti abortion is more likely to become religious as religion is rarely chosen. So I think statistically speaking it is fair to say religion causes people to be anti abortion at a higher rate.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by revelations


On what basis do they form their opposition then? Generic pro life?

On the basis that it is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human. One version of the philosophical argument is as follows:
P1: It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being without proper justification.
P2: Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being without proper justification.
C: Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

I know it may be shocking since liberalism has done a good job of painting it entirely into a religious issue that's settled. However, even some atheists have caught on and are involved in pro-life activism. They recognize that the pro-life position is more logically coherent. Some of the worst arguments and cognitive dissonance falls on the pro-choice side.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop
Interesting. I think it is pretty fair to say if you took two groups of people you would have a higher chance of finding a person who was anti abortion in the religious group vs the secular group.

I think you can also rule out the idea that someone who is anti abortion is more likely to become religious as religion is rarely chosen. So I think statistically speaking it is fair to say religion causes people to be anti abortion at a higher rate.

Noone has made the claim that religious people aren't more likely to be prolife, so I'm not sure what your arguing against.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HuMz


Noone has made the claim that religious people aren't more likely to be prolife, so I'm not sure what your arguing against.

Duaner was commenting that not all religious people are pro-life which is true but not really the point.

Edit: well I guess his point was that religion isn't the driving factor which I would argue is debatable in many cases

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop


Duaner was commenting that not all religious people are pro-life which is true but not really the point.

Edit: well I guess his point was that religion isn't the driving factor which I would argue is debatable in many cases

No his point had nothing to do with religion being the driving factor. It was too address the bad argument that one must be religious to hold those views.

[duaner]

Originally posted by revelations


On what basis do they form their opposition then? Generic pro life?
Science and reason.

[revelations]

Originally posted by duaner

Science and reason.

Ok, how does science and reason deny a terminal/incurable, mentally aware and suffering person, the right to die?

[duaner]

My point is that there are those in this thread that believe religion in general and Christianity in particular are irrational and make-believe. They then are implying that things such as abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are believed to be wrong only by such religious persons.

It's a simple way of equating such beliefs with irrationality, enabling one to dismiss those beliefs without even addressing anything, without even bothering to look into just what it is behind such beliefs.

But because there are those who don't believe in any religion that hold those views as well, it means that they have reasons other than religious ones, ones that Christians often hold as well. So such views cannot be so easily dismissed.

It's a very poor assumption that all arguments against abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. Being more familiar with the abortion debate, I know that the vast majority of arguments against it have nothing to do with religion at all.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by killramos
Being no holds barred pro-choice as a party as well as being politically secular are pretty good stances, if the federal conservatives could get on the boat without keeping one foot in the water on those i think they would remove 90% of the public's criticism of them.

Thank you. Unfortunately they can't and with immigration, ironically they won't any time soon.


Originally posted by duaner
It's a very poor assumption that all arguments against abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. Being more familiar with the abortion debate, I know that the vast majority of arguments against it have nothing to do with religion at all.

I think there are plenty logical arguments against recreational drug, abortion, and dying with dignity. But religion is being used to discredit these views because religious shout the loudest, in the most irrational ways and that's what media likes.

That said, I think religions should learn from the current Pope. It's time to moderate the view on these and turn religion as a philosophy then absolute rule to live by.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by duaner
Being more familiar with the abortion debate, I know that the vast majority of arguments against it have nothing to do with religion at all.

Yep, anyone I know who is against such things aren't religious, they just realize the morality of the situation.

Liberals have an amazing ability to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify their positions as the righteous ones when it comes down to marginalizing or outright killing others.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by HuMz


On the basis that it is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human. One version of the philosophical argument is as follows:
P1: It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being without proper justification.
P2: Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being without proper justification.
C: Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

I know it may be shocking since liberalism has done a good job of painting it entirely into a religious issue that's settled. However, even some atheists have caught on and are involved in pro-life activism. They recognize that the pro-life position is more logically coherent. Some of the worst arguments and cognitive dissonance falls on the pro-choice side.

I think if you have unprotected consenual sex, knocked up and have an abortion it is wrong.

I think any other cases, it's not.

But I'm not going out of my way to take away someone else's right that wants it because it doesn't hurt me in anyway.

My position is, you can do whatever you want as long as your action doesn't harm others. Abortion only potentially hurt yourself but having a kid when you are not ready to provide for it also hurt everyone involved. So it's just a coin flip IMO.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Xtrema


I think if you have unprotected consenual sex, knocked up and have an abortion it is wrong.

I think any other cases, it's not.

But I'm not going out of my way to take away someone else's right that wants it because it doesn't hurt me in anyway.

My position is, you can do whatever you want as long as your action doesn't harm others. Abortion only potentially hurt yourself but having a kid when you are not ready to provide for it also hurt everyone involved. So it's just a coin flip IMO.

Does killing an unborn human not cause harm to it?

[BandW]

Originally posted by HuMz


On the basis that it is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human. One version of the philosophical argument is as follows:
P1: It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being without proper justification.
P2: Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being without proper justification.
C: Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

I know it may be shocking since liberalism has done a good job of painting it entirely into a religious issue that's settled. However, even some atheists have caught on and are involved in pro-life activism. They recognize that the pro-life position is more logically coherent. Some of the worst arguments and cognitive dissonance falls on the pro-choice side.

Is Plan B unethical?

[J-hop]

Originally posted by BandW


Is Plan B unethical?

Is an early term rape victim abortion unethical?


Almost impossible to come to a consensus on these issues.

I think xtrema is right in that the pro-life side doesn't seem to have any publicity of its rational supporters. It's always the psychopaths wth the posters or the crazy baptists.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by BandW


Is Plan B unethical?

Plan B doesn't fall under the anti-abortion reasoning I outlined because it isn't a form of elective abortion and it does not kill an innocent human.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HuMz


Plan B doesn't fall under the anti-abortion reasoning I outlined because it isn't a form of elective abortion and it does not kill an innocent human.

You have to first define at what point you consider the fetus a human. It appears you've drawn and objectively arbitrary line.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by HuMz


Does killing an unborn human not cause harm to it?

When I say others, I meant people who are unrelated to the matter.

Say if my theoretical sister wants to have an abortion, I won't say no. I will only go thru the pros and con and potential psychological issue to go thru one. But ultimately, the choice is hers.

End of the day, I will not impose my judgement on others, it's not my place.

If you want to smoke pot, smoke pot. But if you DUI on pot, I wish there will be consequences.

If you want to smoke tobacco, smoke tobacco. As long as it's not indoor.

If you want to drink, drink. My stance on DUI stands.

I'm more of libertarian, do whatever you want as long as you can take on the consequences of your action.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop


Is an early term rape victim abortion unethical?


Almost impossible to come to a consensus on these issues.

I think xtrema is right in that the pro-life side doesn't seem to have any publicity of its rational supporters. It's always the psychopaths wth the posters or the crazy baptists.

That's in large part because people refuse to debate the issue, and won't allow a reasonable discussion. It's much easier to dismiss it as a religious issue like many on here would rather do. People have become so intolerant of the issue, that a teacher simply drawing an analogy in an ethics class was enough to trigger a student and get him fired.

The pro-life groups across this country are getting younger and growing fast. The march for life protest has become one of the largest protests in the nation. The problem is that far too many people have isolated themselves in a bubble of group think. Only receiving information that supports their worldview. Much of what much of our culture believes is a direct result of the media, and you will rarely see a reasonable intelligent person articulating a anti-abortion cause on a mainstream outlet.

[Xtrema]

The problem is that far too many people have isolated themselves in a bubble of group think.

The bubble of church of JC vs the bubble of church of Facebook is one of the same.

Both are preaching to the converted.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop


You have to first define at what point you consider the fetus a human. It appears you've drawn and objectively arbitrary line.

A fetus is always a human. Fetus refers to a stage of development, like a toddler.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HuMz


A fetus is always a human. Fetus refers to a stage of development, like a toddler.

You are correct my fault, but you are still arbitrarily drawing the line. At what point from fertilization to birth do you draw the line?

And how is your line morally superior to someone else's ?

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Xtrema


When I say others, I meant people who are unrelated to the matter.

Say if my theoretical sister wants to have an abortion, I won't say no. I will only go thru the pros and con and potential psychological issue to go thru one. But ultimately, the choice is hers.

End of the day, I will not impose my judgement on others, it's not my place.

If you want to smoke pot, smoke pot. But if you DUI on pot, I wish there will be consequences.

If you want to smoke tobacco, smoke tobacco. As long as it's not indoor.

If you want to drink, drink. My stance on DUI stands.

I'm more of libertarian, do whatever you want as long as you can take on the consequences of your action.

I'm a little confused, you said "My position is, you can do whatever you want as long as your action doesn't harm others". Then said the "others" refers to people who are unrelated to the matter. I'm not following how you are applying this standard of harm to others and whether they are related or not.

None of those examples you listed involve the deliberate killing of a human. Would that be okay as long as they are willing to take on the consequences of their action?

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop


You are correct my fault, but you are still arbitrarily drawing the line. At what point from fertilization to birth do you draw the line?

And how is your line morally superior to someone else's ?

I follow the scientific evidence, a new human is created at conception.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HuMz


I follow the scientific evidence, a new human is created at contraception.

Contraception is a method to prevent pregnancy :)

Kidding I know what you meant. So then yes you do view planB as immoral. Plan B creates an inhospitable environment for the fertilized egg therefore killing it (a human by your definition).

[dirtsniffer]

Aaaand the thread has gone to shit.

If conception has occurred and plan b is used does that not 'kill a human'?

The way I see it a person has a right to determine what happens to their body, including being pregnant. If they wish to terminate a pregnancy that is their choice. If the fetus can survive outside the womb that is entirely up to circumstance.

Also anyone who opposes gay marriage should be encouraged to perform a legally assisted suicide.

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by HuMz


I follow the scientific evidence, a new human is created at conception.

You don't believe in science. You believe the earth is 10000 years old.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[HuMz]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer


You don't believe in science. You believe the earth is 10000 years old.

I do not, however even if I did, how would that discredit what I've said?

[dirtsniffer]

No, what you said is wrong because there is no definitive point when a fetus is considered to be a human. It's certainly not at conception.

How can you deeply believe in some parts of the Bible but not others?

[blindsight]

.

[Seth1968]

I'm intolerant of anyone that inhibits one's ability to choose for themselves. It just so happens, that most of the time, it's religionists who do just that.

[ZenOps]

I'm pretty sure that humans evolved from slime.

But...

There may have been alien DNA intervention at some point in time so that we grew an unusual want to own shiny heavy things, and produce methane.

And...

God may have elevated humans above all other creatures because she got bored one day and wanted to see how long it would take for Armageddon to happen.


I tend to like the alien theory because most religions usually involves the human race destroying itself, eventually. I also do not discount the idea that evolution god and aliens all had a part to play in human development. If you mix black paint (evolution) and white paint (religion) does it explode? or do you simply get grey paint?

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Three basic reasons that abortion is legal

1) No human has the right over another human to sustain their life. For instance, if a person needed daily blood transfusions from a relative to live for the rest of their life, the donor may refuse and they would die. Just as a mother may choose to no longer support a fetus, even if you believe it is a human life.

2) If you don't believe in abortions, the great thing is you have the choice and right not pursue it. However, forcing your beliefs on others (religious, or otherwise) is something that doesn't fit with Canadian values.

3) Finally, regardless of what you believe or how you want to argue it. People out there will pursue getting abortions, and if it isn't offered through the public heath care system, they will pursue it via other means. Either black market, or abortion tourism, or the good old wire hanger/fall down a flight of stairs. It is something that needs to be provided, if only to ensure that people who are going to go through with it don't injure themselves.

1) There is equivocation happening with your use of the word sustain. In that you are conflating the term sustain with keeping someone alive vs direct action to kill, or not be alive. When someone is on life support, being sustained; the decision can be made to pull them off when the inevitable ends of death is recognized. Prior to that point there is duty to try and sustain them back to well-being. Not only that, but to be more specific parents have the duty to provide the necessities of the life to their children. However, elective abortion is not the same as withholding support, it directly goes in and deliberately ends the life, either through chemical means or dismembering and extracting. The two are not the same.

2) Everyone has choices and I'm pro-choice on many issues. Having the choice to do something doesn't entail the moral nature of that choice, and some choices are wrong; such as killing other innocent humans. I think most people would agree with my first premise, they've just been able to accept abortion because they have assumed the unborn to be something other than human. I'm not forcing your beliefs anymore than your forcing your beliefs on me. By virtue of this conversation neither of us are neutral, and we are both prescribing a moral viewpoint to others.

3) I would fully agree with you that outlawing abortion will probably lead to some woman having underground abortions. However, I don't buy the justification that because it may be done even if there is a law, that there shouldn't be a law in the first place. We outlaw all kinds of things and yet people still go ahead and commit those crimes. I don't see how it follows that we should then remove the law to begin with.

If the the unborn is a human being, than killing them to benefit others is morally wrong. Conversely, if the unborn aren't human, than killing them as a result of abortion is no morally worse than having a tooth pulled.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HuMz


I do not, however even if I did, how would that discredit what I've said?

Believing the earth is 10,000 years old demonstrates irrational thought, blatant disregard for the literal mountains of evidence and generally psychotic behavaiour as everything and everyone around you would have to be viewed as a grand deception.

While holding that view might not discredit specific things you say it would however call into question your thought process and general state of mind.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
No, what you said is wrong because there is no definitive point when a fetus is considered to be a human. It's certainly not at conception.

How can you deeply believe in some parts of the Bible but not others?

I'll quote from a few leading embryology textbooks, Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology", "human development begins at fertilization when a male sperm unites with a female ovum to form a single cell-a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

From T.W.Sadlers "Langman's Embryology", "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote".

The science of embryology affirms that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.

What the bible says is irrelevant to this discussion, I'm not sure why your bringing religion into this, another red-herring maybe?

[J-hop]

So why then do you think Plan B is ok? Your arguments don't seem to be internally consistent.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I'm intolerant of anyone that inhibits one's ability to choose for themselves. It just so happens, that most of the time, it's religionists who do just that. Soooo... You are intolerant of someones ability to choose religion for themselves? There are many people who were never raised religious that come to it of their own accord and now happen to become better people than they were before "finding god".

With your rationale in this regard, you must be intolerant of yourself...

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop


Believing the earth is 10,000 years old demonstrates irrational thought, blatant disregard for the literal mountains of evidence and generally psychotic behavaiour as everything and everyone around you would have to be viewed as a grand deception.

While holding that view might not discredit specific things you say it would however call into question your thought process and general state of mind.

While believing that the earth is 10,000 years old may be irrational on the question of the age of the earth, it is irrelevant to other issues. While you are correct that it may lead others to view what they have to say through a skeptical lens, it doesn't mean that their argument can automatically be dismissed.

Dirtsniffer didn't bring it up as a means to question the validity of my argument, he brought it up as a means to sidetrack, discredit or dismiss it. That is a logical fallacy and irrational. If he thinks my position is that irrational, he should be able to articulate such, instead of becoming irrational himself.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by tirebob
Soooo... You are intolerant of someones ability to choose religion for themselves? There are many people who were never raised religious that come to it of their own accord and now happen to become better people than they were before "finding god".



What?

That's not at all what I said. Hell, that's the opposite of what I said in my previous post, and in my original post.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by J-hop
So why then do you think Plan B is ok? Your arguments don't seem to be internally consistent.

They are completely consistent, however I'm not completely familiar with plan B. I was under the assumption that it prevents fertilization such as other forms of contraception. There does however appear to be pushback with it being just about preventing fertilization. If it can be shown to kill an embryo than I would have to include it in my argument as a form of elective abortion.

[A790]

Originally posted by HuMz

1) There is equivocation happening with your use of the word sustain. In that you are conflating the term sustain with keeping someone alive vs direct action to kill, or not be alive. When someone is on life support, being sustained; the decision can be made to pull them off when the inevitable ends of death is recognized. Prior to that point there is duty to try and sustain them back to well-being. Not only that, but to be more specific parents have the duty to provide the necessities of the life to their children. However, elective abortion is not the same as withholding support, it directly goes in and deliberately crushes and dismembers a living breathing human with tongs, ending its life. The two are not the same.

If the the unborn is a human being, than killing them to benefit others is morally wrong. Conversely, if the unborn aren't human, than killing them as a result of abortion is no morally worse than having a tooth pulled.
I find it interesting that you're discussing late-term abortions using emotionally-charged language. What about early-term abortions that involve swallowing a pill and then flushing the uterine lining/zygote/etc.?

Given that it is accepted that a fetus doesn't actually reach consciousness until 17 weeks, your definition of a fertilized egg/mass of cells being a human immediately after conception is difficult to accept.

And this is why the debate rages on.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HuMz


They are completely consistent, however I'm not completely familiar with plan B. I was under the assumption that it prevents fertilization such as other forms of contraception. There does however appear to be pushback with it being just about preventing fertilization. If it can be shown to kill an embryo than I would have to include it in my argument as a form of elective abortion.

Plan B can work one of three ways.

It will prevent an egg from being released from the ovaries.

If the egg has already been released it can prevent fertilization

If the egg is already fertilized it will prevent it from attaching to the uterus.

So it doesn't kill directly, but it will let the 'human' die since it can work after the point of conception. Unless now the point of conception is pretty fluid as well. Is it when the sperm and egg meet or is it only after the fertilized egg successfully attaches itself to the uterus?

[tirebob]

Originally posted by blindsight


Thread started by Seth
Opens with his "go-to" of religious intolerance
Goes to shit

http://images.memes.com/meme/817795



Originally posted by Seth1968
I'm intolerant of anyone that inhibits one's ability to choose for themselves. It just so happens, that most of the time, it's religionists who do just that.



Originally posted by Seth1968


What?

That's not at all what I said. Hell, that's the opposite of what I said in my previous post, and in my original post.

Okay am I guessing you meant that all you were talking about was opposition to abortion when you said "choice". The way the quotes above played out I took it to mean that religion was the choice...

If this is it, my bad... Carry on

[HuMz]

Originally posted by A790

I find it interesting that you're discussing late-term abortions using emotionally-charged language. What about early-term abortions that involve swallowing a pill and then flushing the uterine lining/zygote/etc.?

Given that it is accepted that a fetus doesn't actually reach consciousness until 17 weeks, your definition of a fertilized egg/mass of cells being a human immediately after conception is difficult to accept.

And this is why the debate rages on.

I wasn't I was referring to the standard surgical proceedure of D&E in the second trimester. The pill you refer to has just been released, and if it's hit the market, its only been in the last month or two. I have edited my statement above to include a chemical method above.

I used emotionally charged language because these proceedures are inhumane:

Weeks 4-12
Suction Aspiration

This is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (a hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube.

The vacuum suction, 29 times more intense than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the embryo and placenta into small pieces that are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

At earlier stages of development, suction abortions are performed using a smaller tube with little cervical dilation. This is called "menstrual extraction." If all the fetal remains are not removed, full dilation of the cervix and a scraping out of the womb is necessary to prevent infection.

Dilation and Curettage (D&C)

This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife, or curette, which cuts the embryo into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded. (Note: This abortion method should not be confused with a therapeutic D&C done for other reasons.)

Weeks 13-22
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

This method is used up to 18 weeks' gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The forceps are used to break and twist off the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.

Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection)

This method is used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough amniotic fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes a little over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive, which are then usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by tirebob
Okay am I guessing you meant that all you were talking about was opposition to abortion when you said "choice". The way the quotes above played out I took it to mean that religion was the choice...

If this is it, my bad... Carry on

I didn't specifically say abortion, but my position is simply people should have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies without fear of being a criminal and possibly imprisoned. That would include assisted suicide, taking whatever drug, and of course abortion.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by A790


Given that it is accepted that a fetus doesn't actually reach consciousness until 17 weeks, your definition of a fertilized egg/mass of cells being a human immediately after conception is difficult to accept.

And this is why the debate rages on.

In your view isthe lack of consciousness the justification that allows us to kill the unborn?

Why is my definition difficult to accept, when embryologists have come to the same conclusion?

[tirebob]

Originally posted by HuMz


In your view isthe lack of consciousness the justification that allows us to kill the unborn?

Why is my definition difficult to accept, when embryologists have come to the same conclusion? This argument will never be won or lost because quite simply, what and when you determine something to be a conscious, living being capable of protection by the law is different than what someone else considers to be a blob of cells that does not yet have humanity within it...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by A790

I find it interesting that you're discussing late-term abortions using emotionally-charged language. What about early-term abortions that involve swallowing a pill and then flushing the uterine lining/zygote/etc.?

Given that it is accepted that a fetus doesn't actually reach consciousness until 17 weeks, your definition of a fertilized egg/mass of cells being a human immediately after conception is difficult to accept.

And this is why the debate rages on.

And your definition of consciousness being 17 weeks is for many as well.

I actually find 17 weeks a very reasonable number, but the fact is, that is not what we have for abortion laws. There most certainly IS a need for abortions being available, but nobody on the regressive left will admit that anything less than being able to kill a baby right up until it pops out is ok, so yes, the debate does rage on.

If people like you would engage others on that front, rather than outright "abortions up until birth are fantastic, anyone suggesting otherwise hates women", the argument would have a much more different (albeit still very difficult) tone.

[Seth1968]

If the mother dies, so does the fetus. So does that not mean that the fetus is just a "part" of the mother? Granted, a part with the potential to become a separate human being.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by tirebob
This argument will never be won or lost because quite simply, what and when you determine something to be a conscious, living being capable of protection by the law is different than what someone else considers to be a blob of cells that does not yet have humanity within it...

I think differences of opinion say nothing about the truth of the matter. If someone thinks that it's a blob of cells that isn't human, they are wrong, and that's not just my opinion. I would then question under what justification it isn't as human as the rest of us?

I find it problematic when people like to hold to the UN declaration of human rights, in that we have a right to life in virtue of our humanity. Yet that same standard isn't applied equally to the unborn.

[killramos]

This thread is a special kind of train wreck. I love it.

Is it time for Abortion Jokes yet?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HuMz


I think differences of opinion say nothing about the truth of the matter. If someone thinks that it's a blob of cells that isn't human, they are wrong, and that's not just my opinion. I would then question under what justification it isn't as human as the rest of us?

Well what about my previous post:

If the mother dies, so does the fetus. So does that not mean that the fetus is just a "part" of the mother? Granted, a part with the potential to become a separate human being.

[dubhead]

I would say that I don't agree with abortion and would never advocate it myself... I certainly don't agree with those who would use it as a modern convienence... However I feel empathy for anyone who feels they need to make such a terrible deaciaion and am not going to fight against their right to make that choice.

Now at the end of the day abortion is likely small fish if you look at the only real way to truly save the environment is to get rid of a few billion meat bags. One day we will have to leave our morals at the door when we reach the point where the only way to save our race is to purge a large portion of it.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by dubhead
I would say that I don't agree with abortion and would never advocate it myself... I certainly don't agree with those who would use it as a modern convienence... However I feel empathy for anyone who feels they need to make such a terrible deaciaion and am not going to fight against their right to make that choice.

Now at the end of the day abortion is likely small fish if you look at the only real way to truly save the environment is to get rid of a few billion meat bags. One day we will have to leave our morals at the door when we reach the point where the only way to save our race is to purge a large portion of it. We could theoretically downgrade our (meaning every 1st world nation) lifestyles to the point that billions of people are sustainable......I know I know, you mean realistically, but I like to dream lol

[JRSC00LUDE]

This is fun. Said no one.

[A790]

Originally posted by HuMz
In your view isthe lack of consciousness the justification that allows us to kill the unborn?
One of many.


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
If people like you would engage others on that front, rather than outright "abortions up until birth are fantastic, anyone suggesting otherwise hates women", the argument would have a much more different (albeit still very difficult) tone.
:rofl: And we were getting along so well.

It's interesting that you make the assumption that I find abortions "up until birth" as fantastic, especially considering I haven't even shared my perspective on abortion.

This is exactly why I don't engage people as you suggest. When all you're going to do is put words in my mouth, what is the point?

This "regressive leftist" knows when his time is wasted.

[01RedDX]

.

[duaner]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
HuMz and duaner, the dynamic duo, stalking beyond and waiting to pounce on any topic that challenges their dogmatic set of beliefs.
It's like you haven't even read the discussion. It started with bashing religion and we jumped in to show some of the errors in reasoning. Look at my first post; you'll notice I made a simple statement to correct some false assumptions, nothing more.


Originally posted by 01RedDX
What's really sad is people like them truly believe that unborn children matter more than real, live breathing ones.
What proof do you have? Have "people like [us]" said this? Have we said this?


Originally posted by 01RedDX
Have you ever seen them pop up in any child abuse threads or where children are killed due to neglect or not getting medical care because their stupid religious parents believed god would save them? Me neither. How about all the actual children dying in Syria, Yemen, Africa? Not a peep.
I'm not on here that much. I haven't noticed any threads about abused children or children dying in other countries. Even if I had, there is a good chance I would agree with many of the points being made, so there would be little reason to join in the discussion. Unless of course you only like discussions where everyone agrees with each other.

So I usually jump in when there are erroneous statements being made, either regarding Christian belief--everyone has the right to defend what they believe or correct errors of others regarding those beliefs--or regarding ethical issues such as abortion.


Originally posted by 01RedDX
But mention abortion and poof! there they are. This is the lowest depth of delusion, when one clearly loves the unborn more than real, actual children, because they're guided by dogma and nothing else.
This is problematic for a few reasons:

1) You presume that the unborn are not "real, actual children".
2) You presume that we're "guided by dogma and nothing else," which clearly isn't the case. And you would know that if you bothered to read the discussion.
3) You assume that our silence on one issue means we don't care about the children that are born. But I assure you that we will be consistent in defending the right to life for both the born and the unborn.


Originally posted by 01RedDX Hell, these people even scream bloody murder when we let a few refugee children into our country. How can you take them seriously....
Who has done this? Are you just making a hasty generalization about some vague group you call "these people"?

I find it ironic that your first post in this thread was rather good and I agree with most of it.

[duaner]

Originally posted by A790

I find it interesting that you're discussing late-term abortions using emotionally-charged language. What about early-term abortions that involve swallowing a pill and then flushing the uterine lining/zygote/etc.?

Given that it is accepted that a fetus doesn't actually reach consciousness until 17 weeks, your definition of a fertilized egg/mass of cells being a human immediately after conception is difficult to accept.

And this is why the debate rages on.
No, the debate rages on because the use of things such as heart beat and consciousness for determining when life begins are completely arbitrary.

The irony is that if a single-cell organism was found on Mars, scientists, and presumably most on here, would be so excited that life was found on another planet (and likely use it as some sort of argument against religious belief). Yet, when we have something that is in a state of continual growth from the moment of conception, it somehow isn't life until some arbitrary point. How does that make sense?

Not to mention, if we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we should end up being able to kill anyone who loses consciousness. If adding consciousness is what makes a fetus human, then losing consciousness would make someone no longer human.

There are all sorts of problems when life is defined by some arbitrary point in which some ability is gained by the fetus. This is why what something is, is defined by the substance that it is. A zygote is of human DNA, its own unique DNA at that, and that never changes throughout its entire development. We say it is fully human because it is of the same stuff that all humans are made of. That it is in different stages of development is irrelevant as to whether or not it is human.