Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on July 26, 2004, 03:09:13 PM
-
I am a loser who can't figure out a condom shirt! (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:store.yahoo.com/ppfastore/ihadabt.html)
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/ppfastore_1802_395853)
I am pro abortion, I personaly feel it is wrong, and anyone who uses it as birth control is utter scum. But I do not feel confortable pushing my morals on others.
Still this is the most tasteless thing I have seen in a LONG time...
Might as well were a shirt saying "I am a selfish *******"
-
I posted this earlier. That item is now gone from their web site. It was probably a hack.
ra
-
I just found it again browsing their site, I do not thing it is a hack.
Still, I have no respect for Planet parent hood, and not just because of this.
-
Evewrytime I see or hear the abortion debate it reminds me of what George Carlin once said.
A Clean version would be..
"Did you ever notice these anti abortionists are all people you wouldnt want to have sex with in the first place"
By and large its been my experiance that this statement holds true
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am pro abortion, I personaly feel it is wrong,
huh?
care to rephrase that? LOL
I think I know what your saying though.
I do not beleive anyone shoiuld have the right to impose their moral beleifs on anyone else.
If you do not beleive in abortion, if you think its wrong. Then dont have one.
Plus this really isnt an arguement for men anyway. Its up to the women.
In the end they have to make the decision one way or the other. and live with it one way or the other.
Men have no say in the matter. One way or the other.
-
and the back of the shirt states
"and I didn't even have to use a coat hanger"
or
"no stinking stretch marks for me!"
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK Men have no say in the matter. One way or the other.
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?
-
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?
I think that the man should be able to release him self from the responibilty, This should be a 2 way street.
If the women can get an abortion with out the mans approval, I think the man should be able to sign away responibilty "before" the baby is born and only have to cover medical costs for the pregnancy
-
I don't think the shirt is evil in any way, It may be in bad taste, but for t-shirts, that is nothin strange
-
Originally posted by Trell
I don't think the shirt is evil in any way, It may be in bad taste, but for t-shirts, that is nothin strange
so somthing like this is ok as well?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/210_1090880863_idiots.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I do not beleive anyone shoiuld have the right to impose their moral beleifs on anyone else.
Really? Do you believe that it's morally wrong to murder someone? If so, would you impose that moral belief on anyone?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so somthing like this is ok as well?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/210_1090880863_idiots.jpg)
On a shirt?
Yes I dont care what you write on it, Have at it, Enjoy
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Really? Do you believe that it's morally wrong to murder someone? If so, would you impose that moral belief on anyone?
What i believe is moraly wrong is not the point, I believe abortion is morlaly wrong. And it sickens me to see think of it happening.
But i also believe that it is still the right of the women to do so.
this is where there will allways be a wall between our beliefs.
I believe that the rights of the child start after the child is born, and that while the child is still instide the women. we should not impose our beliefs and force the women into slavery. The women should not be made a slave to keep us happy
It is still her body untill the child is born.
-
I never liked seeing stuff like this...and I stopped debating about it about six months ago. Some of you know my reasons...
Woulda been her birthday about a week ago...
-
My caption for the back of the shirt: "And you probably paid for it."
It's just funny to think of someone watching someone in that shirt walking towards them on the street and getting more and more PO'd as it gets closer...closer...and then, as they turn around to point at the retreating sinner in righteous judgementalism: the clincher!
:D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Really? Do you believe that it's morally wrong to murder someone? If so, would you impose that moral belief on anyone?
Well the other guy didn't answer this well, so let me take a crack at it. ;)
I think the morals of "A shouldn't directly hurt B" where A and B are humans should be enforced by law. Some might argue that such morals actually do not depend on the existence of the supernatural, i.e. God...I have trouble with that idea--it sorta works at the societal level but doesn't work at the individual level. But I also have trouble with the idea of the religious right imposing a lot of victimless crime laws (e.g. prohibition...somewhat religiously based I think), but my "minimal morals in law" statement above I think works. Murder of course falls into that category, as does theft...but not alchohol or drugs or prostitution, for example.
On the question of abortion, it depends entirely on what you consider a human. If the fetus is a human, the all those "get your laws off my body" arguments hold no water. So, is the fetus human? A sperm or egg individually, definitely not. One sperm in an egg, probably not. Head crowned and about to come out, definitely yes. Steps in between, I don't know.
-
Oh I am in total agreement that that logic is flawed.
Unfortunately It happens to be the truth.
I've often asked the same question as you
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?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Really? Do you believe that it's morally wrong to murder someone? If so, would you impose that moral belief on anyone?
A wise man once said
"There is no true right or wrong really.
It is only a common way of thinking that makes it so"
Your talking apples and oranges.
But if your referring to the "killing" of an unborn fetus as murder I'm sorry but I do not follow that train of thought.
Even if it is possible that said fetus could live outside the womb there is no guarantee that makes it so.
Thus according to my beliefs a person isnt truly alive until they are born and actually living outside the womb. Then it isnt just a possability but is fact. then it isnt just living but is a life.
Everyones life is measured not from conception but from the time your borne to the time you die.
Thats just my feelings on it.
And yes my feelings would be that Peterson killed one person not two
The fetus was a potential life not an actual one. If we were to jail everyone for killing potential life every male in the world would be in jail for masturbating
Would I tell a woman to have or not have an abortion? Never. That is not for me to decide one way or the other
That is up to her, her individual beliefs and her conscience, and what she can live with these things and these decisions are hers and hers alone. And not for me, you or any court to decide.
And certainly not any church which is where most of this anti abortion rhetoric comes from thus trying to force religious beliefs on others which is clearly wrong (according to common way of thinking)
My own take on abortion is somewhat neutral.
That is choice. Though admittedly I if forced into that position I personally would be less inclined to condone abortion after the second trimester as the likelihood of viable life outside the womb on its own though not guaranteed increases significantly.
-
Wow I could never say that better then you did DREDIOCK
-
Drediock, you said you wouldn't impose your morals on anyone. I asked you a simple question. I'll ask it again. Do you believe it is immoral to commit murder? If so, would you impose that belief on on someone else? I believe you would impose your morals on everyone. It's all a matter of degree and what you happen to agree with. Tell me I'm wrong?
-
(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
Originally posted by DREDIOCK Evewrytime I see or hear the abortion debate it reminds me of what George Carlin once said. A Clean version would be.. "Did you ever notice these anti abortionists are all people you wouldnt want to have sex with in the first place" By and large its been my experiance that this statement holds true
[/URL]
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Drediock, you said you wouldn't impose your morals on anyone. I asked you a simple question. I'll ask it again. Do you believe it is immoral to commit murder? If so, would you impose that belief on on someone else? I believe you would impose your morals on everyone. It's all a matter of degree and what you happen to agree with. Tell me I'm wrong?
You're assuming that everyone agrees that abortion is murder.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Drediock, you said you wouldn't impose your morals on anyone. I asked you a simple question. I'll ask it again. Do you believe it is immoral to commit murder? If so, would you impose that belief on on someone else? I believe you would impose your morals on everyone. It's all a matter of degree and what you happen to agree with. Tell me I'm wrong?
Tell me your definition of murder and I will be glad to give an adequate responce.
Nice hook. good bait.
I just aint biting :D
-
Better yet, let's define morals. IMO your morals are your sense of right and wrong. If you believe that something is absolutely wrong, like murder for example, you will expect everyone within your society to share this particular belief and most will be willing to "impose" that belief on those without these morals.
If I truly don't believe that murder is immoral why shouldn't I be allowed to commit it without suffering the imposition of your sense of morality?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Tell me your definition of murder and I will be glad to give an adequate responce.
Even John Kerry beleives life begins at conception.
If you take somones life who is not threatening you ect. it is murder.
ERGO if you kill a defensless fetus in the womb for no other reason that is in "inconvenient" to you...you commit murder.
These pro choice people think its a womans right to choose to kill a baby with a hearbeat why does it stop there. Shouldnt a woman have the choice...or as they say right not to have to raise a bunch of brats for another 18 years?
-
so dred... you don't believe that men should have the rright to vote on certain things?
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Better yet, let's define morals. IMO your morals are your sense of right and wrong. If you believe that something is absolutely wrong, like murder for example, you will expect everyone within your society to share this particular belief and most will be willing to "impose" that belief on those without these morals.
If I truly don't believe that murder is immoral why shouldn't I be allowed to commit it without suffering the imposition of your sense of morality?
Again, "Common way of thinking"
Thats what makes it right or wrong.
It is in fact the common way of thinking the world over that the cold blooded murder of a living breathing person is wrong.
So in that context yes murder is wrong.
And while I beleive a fetus to be "living"
It isnt a "life" untill it has exited the womb.
Impose my morals? Well the saying goes absolute power currupts absolutley so to say that I might impost my moral values. Perhaps I will. I wont know untill I reach that level of power but I promise,I will see to it that you will be the first to know:D
Hopefully I will still have the wisdom to know that you deal with different groups of people in different ways and as fairly as possible.
And I will remember that imposing one set standard of values/beleifs on everyone has never historically worked people will tend to live according to their own beleifs, their own values.
In the case of abortion for example for those that do not beleive in abortion will not be forced to have one.
And those who want one can have one without having to resort to sneaking to some back street hidaway with unsanitary conditions.
-
LMAO a politician is probably the worst possible example anyone can use for his/her opinion on almost anything. And THAT particular politician....
Well I dont think I have to go to far into that
Im sure tomorrow depending on what group he is talking to his views will be entirely different.
BTW Im not Kerry. and I dont believe life begins at conception. I dont even consider it to be a living thing at conception. little more then a chemical reaction going on at that point that could potentially "evolve" yes evolve into life.(another bad word for the kooky "right" but that is another debate entirely)
And if you are going to take it to conception then why not take it back farther? think of how many lives you destroyed the last time you whacked your weinie.:rolleyes:
Ever see sperm cells under a microscope? Can you deny that they are alive?
But you forget I do not view as an unborn fetus as a life until it is living outside the womb. Anything else is potential life.
But the whole debate is pointless really. Abortion isnt going anywhere in any truly significant way anytime soon. Abortion and anti abortion is not the "common way of thinking" either way. And right now too many people want that right not to let it happen. Until that changes legalized abortion will be around.
And I think its going to be around for a long long LONG time.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Even John Kerry beleives life begins at conception.
If you take somones life who is not threatening you ect. it is murder.
ERGO if you kill a defensless fetus in the womb for no other reason that is in "inconvenient" to you...you commit murder.
These pro choice people think its a womans right to choose to kill a baby with a hearbeat why does it stop there. Shouldnt a woman have the choice...or as they say right not to have to raise a bunch of brats for another 18 years?
:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so dred... you don't believe that men should have the rright to vote on certain things?
lazs
On this issue in particular. No I dont.
Be it right or wrong
Men simply do not have a say in it one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Shouldnt a woman have the choice...or as they say right not to have to raise a bunch of brats for another 18 years?
Many parts of the country including here in the Northeast they do.
Unwanted children can be dropped off at the local police station. No questions asked.
-
so dred... conversly... you would agree that women should have no right to vote on things that do not concern them like... crime?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so dred... conversly... you would agree that women should have no right to vote on things that do not concern them like... crime?
lazs
Either you have been up all night. or you just woke up LOL
Have a couple cups of coffee and rethink that question:)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
A wise man once said
"There is no true right or wrong really.
It is only a common way of thinking that makes it so"
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
-
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
So whos right or wrong do we folow?
the religous right? the arab right? buddest right? maybe what the gays think is right,
Nothin is ever as clear cut as black and white.
You ask a diverse groupe of people what they think are right and wrong and you will have a large number of different answers. Finding common morals is allmost inpossible
-
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
-
Originally posted by Trell
So whos right or wrong do we folow?
the religous right? the arab right? buddest right? maybe what the gays think is right,
Nothin is ever as clear cut as black and white.
You ask a diverse groupe of people what they think are right and wrong and you will have a large number of different answers. Finding common morals is allmost inpossible
I disagree. Many of the same morals/ethics are found in the Bible, Torrah, and Koran.
Right and wrong are clear in just about every situation I can think of... Im not sure why some people see so much grey in everything. I think its because they choose to see it in an attempt to justify their own behavior.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I disagree. Many of the same morals/ethics are found in the Bible, Torrah, and Koran.
And yet there are differences, especially when considering eastern religions as well. For example, western faiths seem to place great importance in the rightness of conversion or the spreading of their faith...while eastern faiths are very much the opposite.
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Right and wrong are clear in just about every situation I can think of... Im not sure why some people see so much grey in everything. I think its because they choose to see it in an attempt to justify their own behavior.
Perhaps, but as a secualr state I think that anything beyond "A shouldn't hurt B" should not be enforced by law. Once you get into religiously-defined right or wrong, you extend the government's power too far. Religion says "no sex before marriage"...should we enforce that one by law?
-
ding ding
Saurdaukar hit the nail on the head.
I am not religious at all, don't believe in religion nor god. People bend, twist and turn ideas so it makes them seem right. This goes for pretty much everyone right, left, non-religious or religious. People cater things to there beliefs and morals, it is the way it has always been and wont be changing at all.
So everyone save your selves the grieve and stop beating the same horse over and over, peoples view point will "rarely" change.
-
Here are a couple more examples. "Thou shall not kill." OK what about soldiers, then? Would you call them immoral?
How about "Turn the other cheek"? If terrorists attack the WTC, we should do nothing? Hey terrorists, here's the Sears Tower, try that one for size!
Point is, morals are not absolute. Moral codes are different between cultures and even between individuals. And between planets too, if there is intelligent life outside Earth.
Fortunately, in the US at least we live in a secular country which respects those differences, and separates church from state.
-
Originally posted by narsus
I am not religious at all, don't believe in religion nor god.
Maybe you can answer this one. I ask this as a question, not a challenge. What is the basis for morality in the absence of the supernatural and the afterlife? Answer for both societal morality and individual morality.
-
Baptists say don't drink. Catholics say drink. Who's right? Who's wrong? What's the absolute morally correct answer?
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/375_1090948359_abortionshirt.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I disagree. Many of the same morals/ethics are found in the Bible, Torrah, and Koran.
Right and wrong are clear in just about every situation I can think of... Im not sure why some people see so much grey in everything. I think its because they choose to see it in an attempt to justify their own behavior.
You missed the part about asking a large divirse grouple of people.
I really dont care what the what is found in the bible and other books, they are just books to Me.
morality is about what the people think is right or wrong, not what a book or a paster in a church preach.
just from this board we have different opions on what is moral and what is immoral.. on what is right and what is wrong.
-
Simply put phookat.
I personally don't like seeing other's in pain so to speak or unhappy. If someone has a problem I help the best I can. Murder, rape, assault cause people pain. I don't fight...I have never been in one talked my way out of close ones. I try my best not to hurt people physically or emotionally, if I do for instance say something that has offended someone I apologize and not bring it up again, etc. I am easy going and things usually don't bother me much. I have plenty of friends and no enemy's I live my life well I think, not because of what a book tells me or the law just what I feel I think I should do.
I think I should be responsible for my own actions, if I smack into the back of someones car I will pay for the damage and hospital expenses.
If I get a girl pregnant, I will support the child to the best of my ability...(I do not want children of my own to be honest). But I would still support the child I take as many precautions as possible to insure this situation doesn't occur. If it does I will take responsibility.
I like guns for recreation and the skill to use one, I know I will never use one in anger....nuff said.
I also am not a big fan of large government, I don't need politicians telling me how to think or what I should do. I do just fine on my own.
Sorry about the broken response I am at work and quite BZ.
-
Originally posted by narsus
Simply put phookat.
I feel the same way as you do for the most part, but this doesn't answer the question. In the absence of the supernatural, is there any basis for defining "right" and "wrong", as anything different from what I feel like doing or what I don't?
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.
-
Well I wouldn't know another way of putting it to be honest, it's just how I feel.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
OK... everyone without a uterus.... out of the thread!
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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