AH: What is your Stance on These Social Issues.

Sindri · 10-01-2012 06:04PM

blatantrereg wrote: »

Your logic is fine but you're refusing to look at it from the point of view being expressed to you.

A woman who kills a baby the day after it is born is a monster - inhuman. A woman who aborts the day before her baby is born is liberated and expressing her right to choose.

Don't dismiss that as hyperbole or whatever. If you say it's ok to abort at a time when the baby could have already being born, then this is the point of view you are defending.

Strawman.

MagicSean · 10-01-2012 06:06PM

Sindri wrote: »

Strawman.

Do you even know what that means?

Suryavarman · 10-01-2012 06:07PM

Sindri wrote: »

Yes they are if the law says she may not have an abortion after a certain time. The only reason she should not would be on medical advice.

If she is given plenty of time to have an abortion then it is her own fault to leave it so late that she is prohibited from having it.

And it is asking quite a bit to say to a woman that she is an incompetent fool because she is pregnant.

She is an incompetent fool if she leaves it to the last minute when there is a good chance that the foetus could survive outside the womb.

Sindri · 10-01-2012 06:12PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Do you even know what that means?

Do you?

Suryavarman wrote: »

If she is given plenty of time to have an abortion then it is her own fault to leave it so late that she is prohibited from having it.

She is an incompetent fool if she leaves it to the last minute when there is a good chance that the foetus could survive outside the womb.

It is not her own fault. Either way you phrase it that could lead to someone being forced to have a child. Lawmakers have to take these things into consideration.

Incompetent how? What are you insinuating. That she should always be wearing a helmet and armbands in case it rains or what?

Al Capwned · 10-01-2012 06:15PM

robman60 wrote: »

1. Religion: Religion is a curse, and the cause of so many wars, arguments etc.

2. Freedom of Speech: Yes there should - might be no harm if people actually say what they think, rather than saying what people want to hear

3. Censorship: Do you believe there should be any censorship of the internet or other media? No

4. Prostitution: Do you think prostitution should be legal? No

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Yes, and yes

6. Abortion: Do you think abortion should be legal? Yes it should be legal

7. Stem-cell research: Yes

8. Euthanasia: Yes, but in cases where death is relatively imminent only

9. Capital Punishment: No - defo against this

10. Marijuana: . Medicinal purposes only, for example, in cases of people who suffer from MS.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Illegal - and burn the cnuts that sell it

.

philologos · 10-01-2012 06:21PM

On second thoughts, is the OP trying to roll each and every topic that engulfs AH into chaos into one? :pac:

blatantrereg · 10-01-2012 06:23PM

Sindri wrote: »

Strawman.

It's not a strawman. A strawman would be saying you support killing babies the day after they're born too. [you don't - right?

]

I'll put it another way:
What's the difference between a baby that was born at 8 months (for example) and a foetus that is 8 months along in the cycle? The way I see it, they are the same in every sense, except one is still in the womb, and one is outside it.
What about eight and a half months? Babies born after 37 weeks aren't even classed as premature.
I really think you have to draw the line somewhere. I dont accept that as long as they're still inside the mother they have no right as an entity in themselves.

Sindri · 10-01-2012 06:30PM

blatantrereg wrote: »

It's not a strawman. A strawman would be saying you support killing babies the day after they're born too. [you don't - right? ]

I'll put it another way:
What's the difference between a baby that was born at 8 months (for example) and a foetus that is 8 months along in the cycle? The way I see it, they are the same in every sense, except one is still in the womb, and one is outside it.
What about eight and a half months? Babies born after 37 weeks aren't even classed as premature.
I really think you have to draw the line somewhere. I dont accept that as long as they're still inside the mother they have no right as an entity in themselves.

The woman who is pregnant and will give birth to them will be the one looking after them, unless she decides for adoption. Now if she doesn't/didn't want the child and opted for an abortion only to be told she was not allowed by law, that means the law and the state would be enforcing a law which forced a woman to have a child she did not want.

10-01-2012 06:32PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Nobody is forcing the woman to have a child. I'm just saying that if the woman doesn't want to have a child she shouldn't be an incompetent fool about it and she should have the abortion before the foetus is viable.

hard when abortion is illegal her for a woman to make competent decisions .

blatantrereg · 10-01-2012 06:41PM

Sindri wrote: »

The woman who is pregnant and will give birth to them will be the one looking after them, unless she decides for adoption. Now if she doesn't/didn't want the child and opted for an abortion only to be told she was not allowed by law, that means the law and the state would be enforcing a law which forced a woman to have a child she did not want.

That's really not what I was talking about. I strongly support the legalisation of abortion. Late term abortion is a different matter though - and that's what I'm talking about above.

Anyway I'm just reiterating the same point in slightly different ways - and at least one other poster has already been doing the same thing.

mikom · 10-01-2012 06:42PM

bluewolf wrote: »

1. Religion:

2. Freedom of Speech:

3. Censorship:

4. Prostitution:

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption:

6. Abortion:

7. Stem-cell research:

8. Euthanasia:

9. Capital Punishment:

10. Marijuana:

11. Other widely-illegal drugs:

Which one is playing in goals?

Suryavarman · 10-01-2012 06:43PM

Sindri wrote: »

It is not her own fault. Either way you phrase it that could lead to someone being forced to have a child. Lawmakers have to take these things into consideration.

It's not her fault that she had an opportunity to have an abortion for months but decided to leave it till the last minute?

Incompetent how? What are you insinuating. That she should always be wearing a helmet and armbands in case it rains or what?

I'm saying she is incompetent if she can't make a decision on the matter within a couple of months.

Everleigh Ashy Radial wrote: »

hard when abortion is illegal her for a woman to make competent decisions .

If you had paid any attention to the argument you would know that we are discussing when the cut off point for having an abortion should be if it was legal.

Suryavarman · 10-01-2012 06:45PM

mikom wrote: »

Which one is playing in goals?

Looks like religion is on goal. Capital punishment and marijuana up front could be a lethal combination.

Rothmans · 10-01-2012 06:48PM

Sindri wrote: »

The woman who is pregnant and will give birth to them will be the one looking after them, unless she decides for adoption. Now if she doesn't/didn't want the child and opted for an abortion only to be told she was not allowed by law, that means the law and the state would be enforcing a law which forced a woman to have a child she did not want.

Not really forcing her to have a child she does not want. She has the ultimate choice on whether to engage in conceiving the child or not. If she chooses to conceive the child, and subsequently changes her mind on what she has done, that can hardly be anyone else's fault, least of all the child that has been conceived.
If the state caused her to be impregnated, then it would be forcing her to have the child, otherwise you're argument makes no rational sense.

10-01-2012 06:48PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's not her fault that she had an opportunity to have an abortion for months but decided to leave it till the last minute?

I'm saying she is incompetent if she can't make a decision on the matter within a couple of months.

If you had paid any attention to the argument you would know that we are discussing when the cut off point for having an abortion should be if it was legal.

haha my point (though i thought it quite obvious )arguing a woman is incompetent when having a late termination in a country where it is illegal is just beyond dumb.just replying in tone of your argument

plus there are loads of factors which determine late abortions incompentancy on the womans part i wouls strongly suggest would be way down the list.

Sindri · 10-01-2012 06:56PM

Rothmans wrote: »

Not really forcing her to have a child she does not want. She has the ultimate choice on whether to engage in conceiving the child or not. If she chooses to conceive the child, and subsequently changes her mind on what she has done, that can hardly be anyone else's fault, least of all the child that has been conceived.
If the state caused her to be impregnated, then it would be forcing her to have the child, otherwise you're argument makes no rational sense.

No your argument takes for granted that she wanted to conceive in the first place. And if she changes her mind, or her circumstances change, and she could not support nor did she wish to put her body through pregnancy then is it your right right to tell her she has to?

Is it your right?

Because that is what you are saying.

And it would be the government forcing her as they legislate the law and if the law was forcing her...2+2=4.

starviewadams · 10-01-2012 07:01PM

Religion: Believe in it if you want,but should have absolutely nothing to do with the state.

2. Freedom of Speech: Yes.

3. Censorship: No

4. Prostitution:On street?no.As a regulated industry with proper healthcare and immigration checks on sex workers?yes

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Yes,definitely.

6. Abortion: Do you think abortion should be legal? Yes,definitely should be legal up to a certain amount of weeks of pregnancy.

7. Stem-cell research: Yes.

8. Euthanasia: Yes,for terminally ill if they choose.

9. Capital Punishment: No,wrong for a state to kill someone for killing someone else.

10. Marijuana: Legalise away.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Should be legal.Would reduce crime,and improve general health and social exclusion for addicts.

Sindri · 10-01-2012 07:02PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's not her fault that she had an opportunity to have an abortion for months but decided to leave it till the last minute?

I'm saying she is incompetent if she can't make a decision on the matter within a couple of months.

If you had paid any attention to the argument you would know that we are discussing when the cut off point for having an abortion should be if it was legal.

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

10-01-2012 07:11PM

mikom wrote: »

Which one is playing in goals?

I'm tired and don't get it

re: current discussion, of course the cut off point should be before viability. Why would you want to kill a viable fetus

Sindri · 10-01-2012 07:14PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm tired and don't get it

re: current discussion, of course the cut off point should be before viability. Why would you want to kill a viable fetus

It's not whether you want to or not it's whether a woman should have the right to.

10-01-2012 07:17PM

Sindri wrote: »

It's not whether you want to or not it's whether a woman should have the right to.

she shouldn't, no
make up your mind before then or deal with it

Sindri · 10-01-2012 07:23PM

bluewolf wrote: »

she shouldn't, no
make up your mind before then or deal with it

But do you see the moral implications of that argument.

It basically tell a woman that she must go through childbirth.

Stinicker · 10-01-2012 07:24PM

1. Religion: There should be full separation of church and state, end all religious control of Education and tax their earnings.

2. Freedom of Speech: I fully support freedom of speech no matter how wrong the arquement is, I will still support a persons right to say it.

3. Censorship: I am against all manner of censorship except with regard to illegal material.

4. Prostitution: Prostitution should be fully legalised giving the same tax benefits to sex workers as a normal job, tax their earnings and those of the brothel keepers. Ensure mandatory STD testing for the sex workers and protect them and their clients.

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: Yes to Marriage. Yes to Adoption by female Homosexuals but not by male Homosexuals. Children ideally should be brought up in a loving caring mothering environment and this role is naturally fulfilled by women wheras men have a different role to play in rearing children. Two gay men should not be allowed to adopt or raise children.

6. Abortion: It should be available to women whose life is threatened by pregnancy otherwise not.

7. Stem-cell research: I am totally in favour of it.

8. Euthanasia: Yes it should be allowed but strictly regulated so that only terminally ill patients can legally kill themselves.

9. Capital Punishment: Yes we should have the death penalty by hanging. There is some people who can never be rehabilitated and whose crimes are just so abhorrent that nothing less than the gallows is fit for their crimes.

10. Marijuana: It should be strictly regulated and controlled and available for those who benefit from its medicinal purposes. Recreational use and possession of a small personal supply should be decriminalized but allow for seizures of it. Taking young lads to court and convicting them of "Drug Possession" is a disgrace and ruins future employment opportunity in many other countries.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Continued prohibition fighting the supplier and not the end user. Drug Gangs and smugglers should be executed if caught importing large amounts of illicit drugs.

Benny_Cake · 10-01-2012 07:27PM

Sindri wrote: »

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

When I replied to this thread earlier I said that I was against abortion in general. Now I accept that there are a lot of people who sincerely differ with me on that and I can understand that. None of us has all the answers. But as far as I can see you are the only person who has argued that abortion should be available right up to the moment of birth. Now leave aside the issue of whether a woman is competent or not. To abort a fetus who might be 8 months in development is little short of butchery. Even the UK, which has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, restricts it to 24 weeks. So it isn't a question of the competency of the women, it's a question of the human rights of a child, who if born at the same time, would have a good chance of living.

MagicSean · 10-01-2012 07:28PM

Sindri wrote: »

She is incompetent then to have a child?

That is ridiculous.

It's none of your business whether she makes the decision whenever. It may be your opinion but the laws of a country can't take into account your opinion that a woman is incompetent for making a decision after a certain period of time.

If you are truly saying that a woman is incompetent if she decides to have an abortion after a certain period of time and that we should legislate for this, then there is no point in arguing with you further.

And I would take umbrage with the fact that you feel women are incompetent when they take the time to decide upon a decision none of them come to lightly.

If she has the child and then physically abuses it and murders it is it none of our business then? At what stage does it become society's business? Is it not until she expels the child from her body that it becomes a person with legal rights or does it become a person during it's time in the womb

10-01-2012 07:28PM

Sindri wrote: »

But do you see the moral implications of that argument.

It basically tell a woman that she must go through childbirth.

Eh no it doesn't. She has plenty of time to not have sex, use protection, take the morning after pill, have an early term abortion. If she doesn't do all that, it's her decision to go through childbirth.

PeterIanStaker · 10-01-2012 07:29PM

1. Religion: Has no place in schools or the Constitution, a fully secular state please & thank you.

2. Freedom of Speech: - yes

3. Censorship: - No

4. Prostitution: Legalise and tax it

5. Same-sex marriage/adoption: - Yes, gay rights are human rights.

6. Abortion: - Should be legal and on demand.

7. Stem-cell research: Yes

8. Euthanasia: Yes, in favour.

9. Capital Punishment: Unsure (would seriously like to see Bertie etc hung)

10. Marijuana: - Lealise & tax the sh!t out of it.

11. Other widely-illegal drugs: Efforts should be made to rehab drug users and educate users about dangers, but if people want to use them, let 'em off.

Sindri · 10-01-2012 07:42PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh no it doesn't. She has plenty of time to not have sex, use protection, take the morning after pill, have an early term abortion. If she doesn't do all that, it's her decision to go through childbirth.

Yeah she has plenty of time but that doesn't mean she has to.

I don't particularly like the idea, but the alternative is what I have already stated.

10-01-2012 07:44PM

Sindri wrote: »

Yeah she has plenty of time but that doesn't mean she has to.

I don't particularly like the idea, but the alternative is what I have already stated.

Nobody said she has to but if she doesn't want to have a child then that's kind of how it works
beyond that point it's avoiding personal responsibility and killing an actual little person

Sindri · 10-01-2012 07:44PM

MagicSean wrote: »

If she has the child and then physically abuses it and murders it is it none of our business then? At what stage does it become society's business? Is it not until she expels the child from her body that it becomes a person with legal rights or does it become a person during it's time in the womb

I don't understand what you're getting at. This is supreme hyperbolic rubbish. It is not a person until it is born. The right of the (living) woman takes precedent over the right of an unborn child whose life depends upon the already aforementioned (living) woman.

AH: What is your Stance on These Social Issues.

Comments