Planned Parenthood has a new fashionline....

[narsus]

Well I wouldn't know another way of putting it to be honest, it's just how I feel.

[phookat]

But if we go by that, then you cannot call an axe-murderer immoral.  He's doing what he feels like doing, and you're doing the same...as are all of us.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Eagler
and thus the problem with today's mindset with just about everything ...

newsflash - there is a right and wrong to everything just as there is a day and a night

LOL if memory serves corret that quote is about 500 years old.

But it is true.
What is right or wrong has mostly to do with the  the common way people feel about things.

But get used to it. Mankind through the ages has had a tendancy to become more liberal then conservative.
I suspect that trend will continue for quite some time

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lazs2
ok dred.. I'll make it easier on ya..  certainly men have a lot more to do with preganancy than women do with violent and sexual crimes.. or, crimes in general.   Since women have no understanding of the people who commit crimes we cerrtainly do not want them making decisions on how to deal with em.

lazs

No what we are really talking about is the rights of a woman to decide what happens with or within her own body.
A womans pregnancy has no effect on any mans body.
On his psyche perhaps, particularly when it is known that said woman refuses to have his child.
 But not his body

A man should have no more right to decided what goes on with and  a womans body then a woman does a mans.
 Exept by mutual consent But that is yet another topic entirely
Thus a man should have no vote on the matter

Crime is an entirely different subject altogether.
and I really do not see what one has to do with the other Crime and criminals are something that can effect either or both sexes Thus both have the right to decide on how to deal with said criminals

[midnight Target]

OK... everyone without a uterus.... out of the thread!

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by phookat


I had this discussion with a friend a while back, since he brought up a couple philosophers who were supposedly able to come up with such a thing (forgot the names).  The conclusion we came to was that, in the absense of the supernatural, you can't define morals at the individual level, but you can for the society.  I've forgotten exactly what reasoning was behind that but maybe if I think about it some more I will come up with it.

Again. the "Common way of thinking"

[JB73]

Originally posted by Edbert MOL
There's some flawed logic with that train -of-thought though. Why can a woman decide she is not ready for the responsibility of a child in the first 4 months after conception and release herself from any and all (responsibility) but a man cannot do the same?

most important post in this thread, and shows the true waffling / flip flopping by the left. same situation for 2 different people, and one is "right" and the other is not.

i dare them to take a stance on something, anything, and stick to it for all sides involved.

[narsus]

phookat

An axe-murderer knows what he or she is doing is wrong, everyone does i think it is instinctual even. Unless something is wrong mentally ie. a Jeffery Dolmer.

Here's and example my 20 month old nephew is in the driveway just walking around he goes down to the street and puts just one foot on the road and swings his head aroound and literally grins evilly (first time down to the street btw). He does this contantly with many different things, he does this to test resolve even at that age and knows it is wrong.

[phookat]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Again. the "Common way of thinking"

It might come down to that, but that is not its basis.  Its basis is societal self-preservation.

[phookat]

Originally posted by narsus
An axe-murderer knows what he or she is doing is wrong, everyone does i think it is instinctual even. Unless something is wrong mentally ie. a Jeffery Dolmer.

Disagree.  Certainly for the more grey area things, we have no instinctive feel for it.  Even for the bigger things you won't think it is wrong unless it is taught to you or you observe it in your society.  We have very little instinctive capability, and I would say none at all in the higher brain functions.

[lazs2]

sorry to get back to you spo late dred.. computer ded.

A woman (or a man) has a right to get rid of a cancer in his or her body.   They may even have a right to take a morning after pill but...

At some point... a fetus is a baby.  a human baby... a person.   It may still be inside of it's mother at this point.   It will also be half the father.   Anyone looking a t children and their natural father understands this. soooo...

At some point the fetus is a person who is half the father and half the mother.  

You claim that even at this point... the father has no vote (men in general have no vote) on what should be done.   We are talking about the dispossition of  a human life.  

If you set the prededent that only women can vote on the disposition of these people (unborn people) then it is no great leap to allow only men to vote on the disposition of people who they know intimately, in this case, other men who are criminals... even tho they are moters sons.... women know nothing of what drives them (male criminals).

lazsl