Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
I wonder if you realize that who produce ANTI-MAN MINES would say exactly the same for his "moral right" to kill people
I wish him good luck to make that a legal right.
you can do anyhing you want to make rules anykind you like, just remember none of them has nothing more than your personal ideas and preferences (that you call morla rights) to substain them.
Of course laws are personal ideas and preferences. That is why we only need laws that can become the foundation of our society. The right to live is quite a fundamental law it seems.
I wish him good luck to make that a legal right.
you can do anyhing you want to make rules anykind you like, just remember none of them has nothing more than your personal ideas and preferences (that you call morla rights) to substain them.
Of course laws are personal ideas and preferences. That is why we only need laws that can become the foundation of our society. The right to live is quite a fundamental law it seems.
The right to live is quite a fundamental law it seems.
Maybe my words will use too much rhetoristic style but instead of using "the right to live" it would be more obvious to say"the right to let live"... Indeed, as an own person, there is no riht for myself to live but an absolute need to live otherwise there is no sense at all to think about his own life... However, there is right to let alive someone else (as it can be reversed to other person has the right to let me alive) as the right can begin thanks to the other life.
Maybe my words will use too much rhetoristic style but instead of using "the right to live" it would be more obvious to say"the right to let live"... Indeed, as an own person, there is no riht for myself to live but an absolute need to live otherwise there is no sense at all to think about his own life... However, there is right to let alive someone else (as it can be reversed to other person has the right to let me alive) as the right can begin thanks to the other life.
Yes, that is a better description, but you get the point ;-)
I haven't followed the whole discussion here, but your argumentation a few days ago was something like:
'abortion should be illegal because I know it is wrong'
Yes, I see you haven't followed the discussion here because this was never my argumentation although I did say that I know that it is wrong. Do you know that it's wrong to kill a person? Yes, you do. But this knowledge comes more from your feeling and less from factual information that you just read and said: "Aha, ok, glad that I am aware of that now. Now I won't do it." That same way I know that abortion is wrong as well but this is not my argumentation. I have given also argumentation for that feeling and I won't repeat myself.
Anyway, there has been a whole discussion about rights. I think the whole discussion boils down to: from which moment on is the 'baby' a person and therefore has rights? In the beginning of the pregnancy, this is not the case for me, as the embryo is only a lump of cells. So, at that moment, abortion should, imo, be possible.
When your family member is in a comma, how do you know that he will wake up? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. If you kill him, why wouldn't this be a perfect moment for him to die? It will reduce the medical bill. And what do you really take away from him when he dies? You take his future life. The same happens when you kill an embryo. Let him be and you will see he is a person and not a lump of cells. A lump of cells doesn't develop by its own ability to a human being. An embryo does that. He's asleep but he will wake up. Just let him be. There's his life ahead of him.
Don't get me wrong, however. I don't think abortion should be some kind of ultimate anticonception. But there are a lot of cases in which I think abortion should be possible.
OK, but this should be clearly defined then. It shouldn't be a reason for wishful abortions to be legal.
'abortion should be illegal because I know it is wrong'
Yes, I see you haven't followed the discussion here because this was never my argumentation although I did say that I know that it is wrong. Do you know that it's wrong to kill a person? Yes, you do. But this knowledge comes more from your feeling and less from factual information that you just read and said: "Aha, ok, glad that I am aware of that now. Now I won't do it." That same way I know that abortion is wrong as well but this is not my argumentation. I have given also argumentation for that feeling and I won't repeat myself.
Anyway, there has been a whole discussion about rights. I think the whole discussion boils down to: from which moment on is the 'baby' a person and therefore has rights? In the beginning of the pregnancy, this is not the case for me, as the embryo is only a lump of cells. So, at that moment, abortion should, imo, be possible.
When your family member is in a comma, how do you know that he will wake up? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. If you kill him, why wouldn't this be a perfect moment for him to die? It will reduce the medical bill. And what do you really take away from him when he dies? You take his future life. The same happens when you kill an embryo. Let him be and you will see he is a person and not a lump of cells. A lump of cells doesn't develop by its own ability to a human being. An embryo does that. He's asleep but he will wake up. Just let him be. There's his life ahead of him.
Don't get me wrong, however. I don't think abortion should be some kind of ultimate anticonception. But there are a lot of cases in which I think abortion should be possible.
OK, but this should be clearly defined then. It shouldn't be a reason for wishful abortions to be legal.
I don't think abortion should be some kind of ultimate anticonception.
Well, abortion is never anti-conception as conception has already happened at that point.
Well, abortion is never anti-conception as conception has already happened at that point.
Of course laws are personal ideas and preferences. That is why we only need laws that can become the foundation of our society. The right to live is quite a fundamental law it seems.
not as much as it seems if you look carefully.
We have many examples of laws that harm this right:
-self-defence (allow to kill, when your life is in danger)
-capital sentence (allow to kill as punishment)
-freedom to risk life (nobody forbid to put youself in danger of life)
-calculated life's risks (fe car circulation or alcool commerce, direct causes of a lot of deaths)
and I can go on.
What I want to say?
the only fundamental law we have is the preferences of who makes rules.
are you in a absolut kingdom? the fundamental law is what king thinks or say it is.
are you in a theocracy? What priests says.
In democracy? you know..
not as much as it seems if you look carefully.
We have many examples of laws that harm this right:
-self-defence (allow to kill, when your life is in danger)
-capital sentence (allow to kill as punishment)
-freedom to risk life (nobody forbid to put youself in danger of life)
-calculated life's risks (fe car circulation or alcool commerce, direct causes of a lot of deaths)
and I can go on.
What I want to say?
the only fundamental law we have is the preferences of who makes rules.
are you in a absolut kingdom? the fundamental law is what king thinks or say it is.
are you in a theocracy? What priests says.
In democracy? you know..
Well, I know you take a future life, it's just my opinion that you can't consider it killing if there is not a life yet. Just like it's not really killing if you set off the machines of a person who is in a coma and appears to not wake up anymore. Imo, you can't kill a future person (but ofc someone will come up with a counterexample)
I follow Levitate in the reasoning that you have conflicting rights, namely the right of the mother/the parents to choose their lives like they want to, against the right of the baby to live. And I follow his reasoning when he says that the latter right is more important. Though, I personally think that there's not really a person right after the conception. If you ask me when there will be a person then, it's hard for me to answer. That's why I think an abortion should be possible for a reasonably small amount of time after the conception.
I understand your reasoning when you consider an embryo to be a 'person' right after the conception. It's a fundamental difference in our view of life. So, I think there is no point in argueing about this, because we look different to things at a fundamental unargueable level. Just remember that your way of thinking may seem right to you but not necessarily seems right to other persons.
I follow Levitate in the reasoning that you have conflicting rights, namely the right of the mother/the parents to choose their lives like they want to, against the right of the baby to live. And I follow his reasoning when he says that the latter right is more important. Though, I personally think that there's not really a person right after the conception. If you ask me when there will be a person then, it's hard for me to answer. That's why I think an abortion should be possible for a reasonably small amount of time after the conception.
I understand your reasoning when you consider an embryo to be a 'person' right after the conception. It's a fundamental difference in our view of life. So, I think there is no point in argueing about this, because we look different to things at a fundamental unargueable level. Just remember that your way of thinking may seem right to you but not necessarily seems right to other persons.
not as much as it seems if you look carefully.
We have many examples of laws that harm this right:
-self-defence (allow to kill, when your life is in danger)
-capital sentence (allow to kill as punishment)
-freedom to risk life (nobody forbid to put youself in danger of life)
-calculated life's risks (fe car circulation or alcool commerce, direct causes of a lot of deaths)
Self defense: is always allowed. It is forbidden to threaten somebody's life. This is part of the right to life (mind the difference between the right to live and the right to life). It is called the non-initiation of violence.
Capital sentence: I'm against it, at all times. Capital sentence is murder by the state. Capital punishment is a violation of the non-initiation of violence.
Freedom to risk life: one cannot be forced to live. One has the right to life, and therefore the right to kill himself whenever he wants to. Suicide is not a crime.
Calculated life's risks: once again, one cannot be forced to live. If people want to live unhealthy, it is their right to do so. They decide for themselves. That is why I'm in favor of total legalization of drugs (from alcohol to heroine).
and I can go on.
Please do (but don't give similar examples like the ones above, I've shown you those are wrong examples).
(edited)
We have many examples of laws that harm this right:
-self-defence (allow to kill, when your life is in danger)
-capital sentence (allow to kill as punishment)
-freedom to risk life (nobody forbid to put youself in danger of life)
-calculated life's risks (fe car circulation or alcool commerce, direct causes of a lot of deaths)
Self defense: is always allowed. It is forbidden to threaten somebody's life. This is part of the right to life (mind the difference between the right to live and the right to life). It is called the non-initiation of violence.
Capital sentence: I'm against it, at all times. Capital sentence is murder by the state. Capital punishment is a violation of the non-initiation of violence.
Freedom to risk life: one cannot be forced to live. One has the right to life, and therefore the right to kill himself whenever he wants to. Suicide is not a crime.
Calculated life's risks: once again, one cannot be forced to live. If people want to live unhealthy, it is their right to do so. They decide for themselves. That is why I'm in favor of total legalization of drugs (from alcohol to heroine).
and I can go on.
Please do (but don't give similar examples like the ones above, I've shown you those are wrong examples).
(edited)
Please do.
the point is that this "fundamental law" is not so fundamental if there are all this exception that show AT LEAST a couple of other "fundamental laws" ..
we can discuss of my examples in details, but the question doesn't change.
This is not a fundamental law, is one as another.
(edited)
the point is that this "fundamental law" is not so fundamental if there are all this exception that show AT LEAST a couple of other "fundamental laws" ..
we can discuss of my examples in details, but the question doesn't change.
This is not a fundamental law, is one as another.
(edited)
You are completely agree with myname with all parts ?
If yes, thus, you don't consider embryo as life before some weeks and you told the contrary many pages before !! If don't agree then you're not completely agree (here i tease like the 8th month pregnancy you did not understand few pages ago)...
If you agree with myname about the last paragraph, i already wrote the same twice in the previous pages and you even did not answer to that
Sasha !!!
(edited)
If yes, thus, you don't consider embryo as life before some weeks and you told the contrary many pages before !! If don't agree then you're not completely agree (here i tease like the 8th month pregnancy you did not understand few pages ago)...
If you agree with myname about the last paragraph, i already wrote the same twice in the previous pages and you even did not answer to that
Sasha !!!
(edited)
the point is that this "fundamental law" is not so fundamental if there are all this exception that show AT LEAST a couple of other "fundamental laws" ..
No, they are the same fundamental laws. If nobody can kill you because you have the right to chose to live or not, then nobody can forbid you to commit suicide. This is all non-initiation of violence.
No, they are the same fundamental laws. If nobody can kill you because you have the right to chose to live or not, then nobody can forbid you to commit suicide. This is all non-initiation of violence.
He agrees with the way Myname describes the situation and the difference of POV's. Obviously.
I knew, i was just teasing him.
(edited)
(edited)
Maybe it got lost in translation but I didn't find as much respect for my POV in your posts as myname was able to show. I also wrote numerous times here that I peacefully accept democratically voted laws on this issue as they exist in modern democracies. Unlike you, I do not support violent protests regardless of the side they support. Still, I retain my right to make peaceful protests and lobby for my POV as I believe it to be right.