TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Laws enforce a standard of conduct for those with or without morality, shared or otherwise. Simply put, morality cannot be imposed on anyone that doesn't share the same belief system. Laws are imposed on everyone, regardless. You're skipping an important part, which is why I asked you to define the "why" in terms of the "why not". The reason laws exist is because certain things have been deemed to be "wrong", which is a moral statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I didn't know a mass of tissue could be a male or female!!! http://twitchy.com/2015/07/30/its-another-boy-4th-planned-parenthood-video-released-and-they-just-keep-getting-worse-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 You're skipping an important part, which is why I asked you to define the "why" in terms of the "why not". The reason laws exist is because certain things have been deemed to be "wrong", which is a moral statement. I have no desire to review Philosophy and Ethics 101. Laws exist for many reasons, all of which have to do with imposing limits on behavior, not morals. Are some behaviors governed by morals? Absolutely. Are some behaviors governed by things other than moral beliefs? Yes to that, too. If people need laws to govern their morality, we are worse off than I suspect. Good luck in your quest to have the world and everything in it packaged in neat little packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I have no desire to review Philosophy and Ethics 101. Laws exist for many reasons, all of which have to do with imposing limits on behavior, not morals. Are some behaviors governed by morals? Absolutely. Are some behaviors governed by things other than moral beliefs? Yes to that, too. If people need laws to govern their morality, we are worse off than I suspect. Good luck in your quest to have the world and everything in it packaged in neat little packages. You're one of the more obtuse posters I've encountered here. Your argument can be boiled down to "laws because laws". Why do we impose limits on behavior through an encoded set of directives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Unseemly to say the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Altering the abortive process to procure specimens for financial procurement is a violation of federal law. This isn't up for debate. Planned Parenthood director is on tape confirming several times process can be altered to meet client needs. This is illegal. Not hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Unseemly to say the least I love how PP keeps insisting they're not doing something wrong. Of all the issues I tend to have with anything progressive, one of the biggest will always be that they never, ever, ever have the common sense -- or even the nutsack -- to admit when they're wrong. From Anthony Weiner to Barry Obama to Planned Parenthood...no one is ever wrong about anything. They're just not properly understood. I'm starting to think PP is about to get aborted, stem by stem, in one of the more obscure cases of irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I love how PP keeps insisting they're not doing something wrong. Of all the issues I tend to have with anything progressive, one of the biggest will always be that they never, ever, ever have the common sense -- or even the nutsack -- to admit when they're wrong. From Anthony Weiner to Barry Obama to Planned Parenthood...no one is ever wrong about anything. They're just not properly understood. I'm starting to think PP is about to get aborted, stem by stem, in one of the more obscure cases of irony. And now the angry "we can't let them take away a woman's right to choose!!" and "here's my heartwarming story of how PP saved my life despite evil conservatives" posts have started on Facebook. Poor Cecil will be all but forgotten by this time next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 And now the angry "we can't let them take away a woman's right to choose!!" and "here's my heartwarming story of how PP saved my life despite evil conservatives" posts have started on Facebook. Poor Cecil will be all but forgotten by this time next week. Twitter is just as bad, if not worse. This progressive wonderbot explains it all. Read her tweets and shake her head because she IS the progressive left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 This is CNN: The videos are a hoax. No. Really. A hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 This is CNN: The videos are a hoax. No. Really. A hoax. Errol Louis is the host of "Inside City Hall," a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. He's just an opinion writer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 So, lost in all the Trump stuff is the fact that Huckabee wants to issue Social Security numbers to zygotes. He believes that a fertilized egg should get citizenship statues. That's looney! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 You're one of the more obtuse posters I've encountered here. Your argument can be boiled down to "laws because laws". Why do we impose limits on behavior through an encoded set of directives? And you simply love to keep peeling onions. I get that it's important for you to "win the internet" but as I stated earlier, I have no desire to revisit college philosophy. There is nothing obtuse about my stance here. We impose limits on behavior because behavior is what constitutes an act. I can have immoral thoughts all day long with impunity from those laws. Please tell me what laws prevent immoral behavior? When you can do that, I might be persuaded that morality can be legislated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 RUBEN NAVARRETTE: Grossed Out: I Don’t Know If I’m Pro-Choice After Planned Parenthood VideosFor the last 30 years, I’ve supported abortion rights. This year may be different. “It’s jarring to see doctors acting as negotiators as they dicker over the price of a fetal liver, heart, or brain, and then talk about how they meticulously go to the trouble of not crushing the most valuable body parts. This practice is perfectly legal, and for some people, it is just a business. With millions of abortions each year in America, business is good.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) And you simply love to keep peeling onions. I get that it's important for you to "win the internet" but as I stated earlier, I have no desire to revisit college philosophy. There is nothing obtuse about my stance here. We impose limits on behavior because behavior is what constitutes an act. I can have immoral thoughts all day long with impunity from those laws. Please tell me what laws prevent immoral behavior? When you can do that, I might be persuaded that morality can be legislated. Okay, so why do we impose limits on some behavior and not others? There's no laws against how much I can donate to charity, but there's laws that say I can't steal or murder. Why? Laws can't inherently prevent immoral behavior, but they provide deterrents as well as punishments on those who don't tow the moral line of the government. Edited August 12, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 No I didn't read all 18 pages. At some point there needs to be a compromise on this issue and here is my take based on a little thing called common sense. To determine when a life begins we should look at how we determine when a life has ended. What's the first thing you check for when you suspect someone has died? A heartbeat. Life begins with a beating heart and ends when it no longer beats. So it's simple really. Abortions should be legal up until the point the heart starts to beat. That's 4 weeks in most cases. After that there needs to be a legit risk to the health and well being for either the mother or child before it is even considered. One month from the time you have an unwanted sexual encounter, an "accident" or whatever the case may be, is plenty of time to decide that a baby is not right for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) No I didn't read all 18 pages. At some point there needs to be a compromise on this issue and here is my take based on a little thing called common sense. To determine when a life begins we should look at how we determine when a life has ended. What's the first thing you check for when you suspect someone has died? A heartbeat. Life begins with a beating heart and ends when it no longer beats. So it's simple really. Abortions should be legal up until the point the heart starts to beat. That's 4 weeks in most cases. After that there needs to be a legit risk to the health and well being for either the mother or child before it is even considered. One month from the time you have an unwanted sexual encounter, an "accident" or whatever the case may be, is plenty of time to decide that a baby is not right for you. You know, personally speaking that is my own view. Once the baby has a heartbeat my wife and I could no longer consider an abortion. But, there are many people who get pregnant and don't even know they are pregnant until months later. Politically speaking, this is not a viable alternative. I mean, I agree with you on the substance but it's an absolute nonstarter for the American public. However, as technology improves we are seeing that babies can survive outside of the womb at 22 weeks according to papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Grant it, it's at 25% the survival rate, but the baby deserves a chance to live. So if they can survive at 22 weeks, they most likely can survive at 20 weeks. Again, as technology improves the number of weeks where they can survive outside of the womb will only go lower. You can't win this argument with faith, it's not a winning argument with the American public. But you can win it with science. For the life of me, I don't see how any decent human being that isn't overly ideological can come to the conclusion to kill a baby that is able to survive outside of the womb, simply because the woman NOW decided after 5 months she no longer wants it. For me as of right now, that number is 20 weeks. At some point, the babies rights to survive trumps the woman's right to choose to terminate it. Edited August 12, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 At some point, the babies rights to survive trumps the woman's right to choose to terminate it. And all of that trumps a federal agency's need to dissect and profit from those terminations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 And all of that trumps a federal agency's need to dissect and profit from those terminations. I assume you're using the gatorman definition of federal agency here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 And all of that trumps a federal agency's need to dissect and profit from those terminations. Which government agency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts